Sitting of 7 November 1995

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

    Education Authorities (Budgets)
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much more money would be available for schools if every education authority had a 95 per cent. delegated budget. [40039]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): In 1995–96, some £650 million more would be in schools' budgets if every LEA were delegating 95 per cent. of its potential schools budget.
    Mr. Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, however much we spent on schools, members of the shadow Cabinet would still send their children to grant-maintained or private schools, while promoting policies that deprive working-class children and their families throughout the country of the same choice and opportunity?
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should know by now that the Secretary of State is in charge of Government policy, not Opposition attitudes or policies. He must ask questions that enable the right hon. Lady to explain her policies to the House.
    Mr. Evans: Will my right hon. Friend tell me, then, whether the leader of our party would send his child to the London Oratory school while telling all the kids in Islington to get stuffed?
    Madam Speaker: I do my best.
    Mrs. Shephard: So does my hon. Friend.
    Unlike some Opposition Front Benchers, Conservative Members believe that grant-maintained schools provide diversity, choice and excellence. The point of my hon. Friend's question is that the money available for grant-maintained schools is not top sliced, so schools have the flexibility to handle all the resources to which they are entitled. It is that independence that makes them such a success, and so popular with parents—including those on the Opposition Front Bench.
    Mr. O'Hara: Is not the truth behind the question that the real problem with education at present is central Government underfunding? Robbing Peter to pay Paul by diverting money from LEA budgets to delegated budgets would do nothing to stop those problems, but it would
    714
    undermine core services such as those that deal with special educational needs—to which the Government pay cynical lip service—and advisory services, which are very important if the Government are serious about raising standards in schools.
    Mrs. Shephard: I wonder whether I might gently point out to the hon. Gentleman that he is missing the point. He needs to understand that, if the total amount available to schools is top sliced by LEAs before budgets are set—which happens in many LEAs—schools receive less money. That is what the Labour party's policy fails to address.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the policy of bringing grant-maintained schools within the ambit of local authorities would take away their independence and their drive for excellence in teaching? That is why that policy must be resisted strongly by the Conservative party and the Government.
    Mrs. Shephard: As the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has often pointed out, grant-maintained schools are state schools, but they receive 100 per cent. of their budgets rather than a percentage—however it is calculated—from LEAs. That gives them greater flexibility, and more independence to enable them to run their own affairs. That is what they prize, and what gives them quality.

    School Funding
    Mr. Robert Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations she has received from local education authorities concerning the funding levels for schools in 1996–97. [40040]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Robin Squire): Funding for schools is currently under consideration in the public expenditure survey. We have received a number of representations on levels of funding for 1996–97.
    Mr. Ainsworth: The whole country knows that last year the Minister's policies deprived schools of £500 million, and led to the sacking of thousands of teachers. Does he intend to restore that money? If not, why not, and if so, why on earth was the action taken in the first place? Are we not in the same position? The Tory Government are cynically looking to cobble together a policy on a matter of public concern immediately before a general election.
    Mr. Squire: As the House knows, I cannot comment on the detail of the public expenditure round for 1996–97; the hon. Gentleman and the House will have to be a little more patient and await its outcome. The hon. Gentleman has a short memory. I am pleased that, under this Government, we have significantly increased funding for education. Despite its fine words, when it was in power the Labour party cut education funding in real terms. Although the current year's settlement was tight, it was manageable, as has been shown by the fact that many local authorities have managed to fund in full the pay and price increases arising.
    Mr. Viggers: Does my hon. Friend agree that for education establishments with a degree of independence—for example, St. Vincent college in my

    715
    constituency, of which I happen to be chairman and which in the past two years has found funds for a splendid new library and refectory—hands-on management is good for facilities, for morale generally and for education standards?
    Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend is right and I hope that the thrust of his point will be accepted on both sides of the Chamber because the success of local management of schools, of devolved budgets—we have already heard the advantages of grant-maintained schools—and the setting free of further education institutions has transformed those establishments and enabled them to achieve better value for money than under the previous system.
    Mr. Don Foster: Will the Minister confirm that local authority associations have advised the Secretary of State for Education and Employment that, even before inflation and the future teachers' pay award is met, a £1.3 billion increase in local authority budgets is required to enable education provision to remain at a standstill? Will he confirm that, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer announces a budget increase of less than £1.3 billion, there will be real cuts in the education service?
    Mr. Squire: I suppose that was a nice try, but the hon. Gentleman must understand that it is unrealistic to expect full uprating, year in, year out, for full pay and prices for organisations such as local authorities, which spend hundreds of millions of pounds a year. We expect them and other organisations to make efficiency savings, and we did so this year. If he is saying, in so many words, that he expects full uprating year in, year out for all these things, he is saying that there is no scope for efficiency savings, and that is why his party promises to tax much more.
    Sir Alan Haselhurst: Does my hon. Friend accept that there may be pressure next year on primary schools, especially where reserves have been used properly in the last year, and that growing concern exists about the discrepancy, which has arisen since the introduction of the national curriculum, between funding per pupil in the last year at primary school and funding in the first year at secondary school? Will he bear those points in mind in the forthcoming settlement?
    Mr. Squire: I will certainly bear my hon. Friend's points in mind and I emphasise that the attention that the Select Committee on Education paid to this point was reciprocated by the Government.
    Mr. Spearing: Does the Minister agree that salaries for teachers constitute about 60 to 65 per cent. of local authority education expenditure? If the Government persist in the injustice of not funding the increase that was agreed this year, and if there is no scope for efficiency savings—and there will not be, since authorities have suffered cuts in previous years—will not the Government fail to provide the means for the ends that they specify? Will he name a single Conservative-controlled authority that did not complain about the injustice of funding this year?
    Mr. Squire: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, if I cannot comment yet on the outcome of the 1996–97 settlement, it follows that I can comment even less on the outcome of the independent standing review body for teachers, beyond observing that, as in all past years, it will
    716
    reach its conclusions in the knowledge of the settlement that has been announced. As for representations, without some notice obviously I cannot confirm to him what the comments of individual local education authorities have been.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Has my hon. Friend received any representations from Cheshire county council about the resources allocated to the education authority under the standard spending assessment, with particular reference to the fact that the area cost adjustment does not adequately reflect the costs incurred by my county? That view is shared across all the political parties in the county. Will my hon. Friend respond positively to my inquiry?
    Mr. Squire: I can confirm that representations have been received. I can also confirm—it would be ungallant not to—that my hon. Friend has been indefatigable in pursuing this point with me in correspondence. I am sure that he will be pleased to hear that recently my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration announced a full-scale review of the operation of the area cost adjustment and its impact within the standard spending assessment.
    Ms Estelle Morris: Does the Minister realise how complacent those answers must seem to parents whose children are already in classes of over 40? As the Government are so keen on league tables, is not the Minister ashamed that his education cuts have put Britain at the bottom of the education spending league? Can he explain how he suddenly managed to find millions of pounds for assisted places and nursery voucher paperwork when he could not raise an extra penny for what parents really want—reduced class sizes?
    Mr. Squire: The House will note that, not for the first time, Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen are taking their cue from the National Union of Teachers. The hon. Lady could not be more wrong. The independent inspectorate, Ofsted, has confirmed that standards are rising at all ages. That is what parents want. They want to know that their children have the chance of a better education than they might otherwise have enjoyed. That is happening under this Government, as independent reports suggest. As the hon. Lady is aware, and as we have said many times, education receives the highest priority from the Government.

    Spoken English
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans the Government have to improve the standards of spoken English in schools. [40041]
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard": I attach a great deal of importance to spoken English, on which I recently made an announcement.
    Mr. Butler: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I welcome the inclusion of a standard mark for spoken English in GCSE certificates in future. Does she accept that the English language, both written and spoken, is our greatest national heritage and that the ability to communicate, which is demonstrated occasionally even in the Chamber, is the most important tool for our young people in an increasingly competitive world?
    Mrs. Shephard: Yes. It is obviously important that young people and adults should be able to express

    717
    themselves clearly and comprehensibly and that they should be able to demonstrate that they can do so. As my hon. Friend points out, employers have complained that job applicants cannot always communicate clearly. That must be put right and the work of the new campaign group, and all the other measures that we have put in place, will help towards that end.
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: How does it improve the standards of spoken English to impose on a county such as Warwickshire the financial crisis that it now faces in education? It faces the prospect of closing its nursery schools and of classes of over 40. Is that a record of which the Secretary of State is proud? What does she intend to do to improve the prospects of the children of Warwickshire?
    Mrs. Shephard: The short answer is probably to elect a Conservative council. That was a nice try from the hon. Gentleman. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has just said, and as the chief inspector has consistently reported, there is no clear correlation between class size and quality and rising standards. I accept that very large classes are difficult to handle, but the inspector consistently provides contrary advice. The findings at Hackney Downs school, which I am minded to close and on which I am consulting, are interesting. Spending there is exactly two and a half times the national average per pupil and the pupil-teacher ratio is 8:1. I wonder what lessons the hon. Gentleman draws from that.
    Mr. Peter Griffiths: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if improvements in the standards of spoken English are to be achieved, that will require an effort much wider than just from our schools? If the presenters of children's television programmes were to set an example to our young people—such as used to be set by Auntie Muriel—would not that be one step in the right direction?
    Mrs. Shephard: I am not sure that even I can remember Auntie Muriel, although I am sure I should, but my hon. Friend's point is well made. Effort across the community is clearly necessary. That is the point of the work of the group that will be campaigning for better standards. Representatives from business, the media, trade unions, sport and education have already been signed up.

    Education Funding (Northumberland)
    Mr. Beith: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent representations she has received about education funding in Northumberland. [40042]
    Mr. Robin Squire: On behalf of my right hon. Friend, I had a useful meeting with a delegation from Northumberland on 30 October to discuss education funding. We have also received a number of other representations.
    Mr. Beith: Did the Minister understand from those representations the effect of standard spending assessments, the capping limit, the teachers' pay settlement and the problems of running an education service in a scattered rural area? Did he realise the desperate state to which those have reduced parents, governors and councillors of all parties, as they look to
    718
    the hon. Gentleman to fight for an improvement in the funding for education in Northumberland after the Budget?
    Mr. Squire: I confirm that some of the points mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman were raised at the meeting. I made the point then, and I repeat it now, that the one element within the standard spending assessment that is at a higher value than our research would indicate it merits is that for sparsity. That will be of particular benefit to a constituency such as the right hon. Gentleman's. I note that Northumberland, notwithstanding the difficulty of the settlement to which I previously referred, managed to increase its education spending this year.

    Teachers (Maintained Sector)
    Mr. Jamieson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many extra teachers could be provided in the maintained sector by an input of £100 million. [40043]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Cheryl Gillan): The cost of employing the average teacher is about £25,000. That means £100 million would pay for about 4,000 extra teachers.
    Mr. Jamieson: Is the Minister aware that parents are now beginning to realise that £100 million would provide another 4,000 teaching posts in LEA and grant-maintained schools? Is she further aware that parents are contrasting the approach of the Prime Minister, who put £100 million into extra places in private schools, with the approach of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who has said that he would use that money to reduce class sizes in maintained schools?
    Mrs. Gillan: The abolition of the assisted places scheme would not save £100 million as most of that money would be needed to pay for the children's education in state schools. If we spent £100 million in primary schools, it would reduce the average class size by only half a pupil.
    Mr. Pawsey: Will my hon. Friend disregard the politics of envy from Opposition Members? Is she aware that about 750,000 of the nation's children are educated in grant-maintained schools and under the assisted places scheme? Is she further aware that one of those children happens to be the son of the leader of the Labour party?
    Mrs. Gillan: I am aware of that fact. I hope that the parents of children on the assisted places scheme will note the Labour party's policy on that scheme. I remind the House of what my right hon. Friend said about class sizes. In Hackney Downs, the pupil-teacher ratio is 8:1 and the annual expenditure per pupil for the financial year 1995–96 is two and a half times that in GM schools. It is the quality of teaching that is important, not class sizes.
    Mr. Blunkett: Will the Minister tell the nation whether she thinks that it is a good idea for 60,000 pupils to be assisted to escape from what the Deputy Prime Minister described as inadequate inner-city schools or whether, instead, 2 million infant children should be allowed to be educated in classes of no more than 30 so that they can learn to read, write and add up without suffering from the

    719
    cuts inflicted by the Government—cuts that the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), when replying to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), confirmed will once again be inflicted through reductions in revenue support grant and in other services if the Government go ahead with their Budget proposals, as outlined to the press, on 28 November?
    Mrs. Gillan: It goes without saying that the assisted places scheme represents very good value for money. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, when Labour was last in power, there were twice as many pupils in primary classes of more than 35. Perhaps he should listen to voices such as those of Mr. Pollard of the Fabian Society, who has criticised the Leader of the Opposition for his policy to abolish assisted places.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: How much of the £100 million does my hon. Friend the Minister believe would get through to the schools to enable them to employ teachers? I cite the example of the Labour and Liberal Democrat-controlled Kent county council, which received a 2.1 per cent. increase in funding this year but nevertheless increased funding to Kent schools by only 1 per cent.
    Mrs. Gillan: I hear what my hon. Friend says, and pupils, governors and teachers outside will do so too. We shall be doubling the assisted places scheme over time and there will, of course, be new money going into the scheme as well as the savings to the LEAs involved.

    Unemployment
    Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people who are currently unemployed have been unemployed since April 1992. [40044]
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The latest available figures show that the number of people unemployed for three years and over is falling. It stands at 337,622.
    Mr. David Shaw: This one is GMB sponsored.
    Madam Speaker: Order. I have heard enough of the hon. Gentleman. I shall deal with him on the next occasion. I want no parrot-fashion talk here. He will resume his seat; otherwise, I shall use the Standing Order against him.
    Mrs. Prentice: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
    Does the Secretary of State feel no shame that more than 330,000 people have been and remain unemployed during the lifetime of this Government? Is she aware that another 8.5 million people have become unemployed twice in that time? Is not it time that the Secretary of State began to do something about long-term unemployment and insecurity at work, instead of continuing with the self-congratulatory tone that is a shameful characteristic of Conservative government?
    Mrs. Shephard: I am rather surprised that the hon. Lady does not express her delight about the fact that unemployment in her constituency has come down by 8 per cent. in the past year—what a pity. Clearly, I accept that unemployment, and especially long-term unemployment, is an extremely demoralising experience. Thankfully, the unemployed are not a static mass. Most people leave unemployment very quickly—half of them
    720
    do so within three months, two thirds within six months and 80 per cent. within a year. However, it is clearly important to continue to push the trend downwards. We are committed to reducing long-term unemployment. We have a wide range of programmes to help the long-term unemployed and many have successful outcomes.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the participation rate in the United Kingdom is very much higher than in almost any other European country? Will she also confirm that unemployment is very much lower in this country than in Spain, which follows the policies proposed the Opposition?
    Mrs. Shephard: Yes, I can confirm that in the United Kingdom the proportion of people of working age in employment is, at 68 per cent., very much higher than the EC average of 60 per cent. That is partly because of the pursuit by some of our European partners of mistaken policies embraced by the Labour party, such as a national minimum wage, which causes unemployment. Any fool knows that, as the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) once memorably said.
    Mr. Meacher: Was it not the Prime Minister who, in a speech on 7 April 1992 entitled "Ten Tory Truths for a Glorious Future", urged people to vote Conservative on Thursday and the recovery will continue on Friday? How does the right hon. Lady explain that, despite all the programmes to which she has just referred, more than a third of a million people have been continuously unemployed every day since the election? That is an increase of 128,000 since April 1992. Is not that yet another Tory broken promise? Far from producing a recovery, the Prime Minister has brought about the most massive increase in job insecurity since the war.
    Mrs. Shephard: I welcome the hon. Member to the Dispatch Box. I am not quite sure in what role he appears—it does not seem evident to his hon. Friends—but his smiling demeanour is always a pleasure. I am surprised that, on his first appearance in his new role, he did not join me in welcoming the news that unemployment has fallen for 24 consecutive months and is now at its lowest point for four and a half years. I am sure that he will put that right next time.
    Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what comparisons she has made between the United Kingdom's record on reducing unemployment and that of other major EU countries. [40135]
    The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): The United Kingdom is the only major European Union country in which unemployment is lower than it was three years ago.
    Mr. Bellingham: Will my hon. Friend confirm that in the country as a whole, and, indeed, in my constituency, unemployment has fallen dramatically over the past two years? Does not that compare favourably with France and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) pointed out, Spain, where unemployment runs at 22 per cent., but where youth unemployment, largely because of the minimum wage, stands at almost 40 per cent? When unemployment was going up, the Labour party complained and whined, but will my hon.

    721
    Friend explain why, now that it is coming down, the Labour party is still complaining, whining, whingeing, and running Britain down?
    Mr. Forth: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. He is at least more gracious than Labour Members to welcome the fall in unemployment in his constituency, which, as he points out, has been substantial not only over the past year but over the past several years. That is in contrast to Labour Members who—again my hon. Friend is right—persistently ignore the fall in unemployment, because, I suspect, they are embarrassed by it politically. The real truth is that our record of performance on unemployment—long-term unemployment, youth unemployment or unemployment among men or women—is better than that in most other European Union countries. That speaks volumes for our labour market policies and the strength of our economy.
    Mr. Grocott: Instead of comparing unemployment rates in Britain and other countries of Europe, would not it be much more illuminating to compare unemployment rates under this Tory Government with those under Labour Governments of the 1960s and 1970s? Does the Minister recall, as I do, the job opportunities for school leavers in the 1960s and 1970s and the abundance of apprenticeships? In order to be precise about the extent of Tory failure, will he answer the following question? How many more years would it be necessary for present policies to continue for unemployment to fall to its level under Labour?
    Mr. Forth: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman asked that question because in 1979—I pick the date more or less at random—UK unemployment was just below the average in the then European Community. Unemployment in this country today is substantially lower than the European Union average. I accept that the figure is higher now for the rest of Europe and for this country than it was in 1979. That says a lot about the difficulties of the global trading economy, but this country has sustained its record of keeping our unemployment rate below the European rate and has performed better on unemployment than our European partners.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Will my hon. Friend confirm that unemployment in Leicestershire has been falling in the past two years? Is it not a fact that, not only in Spain but in Belgium, Italy, Germany and Portugal, unemployment is increasing? What impact would a minimum wage have in this country?
    Mr. Forth: I am sure that my hon. Friend's constituents not only appreciate the fact that unemployment is falling but understand that our social chapter opt-out has given us protection against the high-cost regime which prevails in so much of the continental mainland and which, sadly, makes so many of our competitors and partners less competitive than we are. That is understood much more by my hon. Friend's constituents than it ever seems to be by the Opposition.
    Mr. Janner: The Government do recognise that the current unemployment figures are open to question, to put it mildly, and have asked someone called David Steel to report to them by the end of January on the way in which unemployment figures are produced and on whether the method can be improved. As the Government have seen fit to attempt to abolish the Select Committee on
    722
    Employment at the end of February or on 1 March, may we at least have a guarantee that the report will be out and available to the House, as promised, by the end of January?
    Mr. Forth: I am surprised, given the hon. and learned Gentleman's position on the Select Committee on Employment, that he is attempting to peddle the sad old story about the inaccuracy of the unemployment figures. He should know as well as I do—he obviously does not—that all the different measures of unemployment, including those internationally accepted by the International Labour Organisation and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, well demonstrate that the level of unemployment is what it is, that it is on a downward trend and that it compares favourably with the level in any of the countries that are our partners and competitors. Until the hon. and learned Gentleman accepts that fact, we shall not get much further.
    Mr. Day: Will my hon. Friend take note that, whenever the unemployment figures come down, the Labour party questions the method by which they are calculated? Has he noticed that, when unemployment rises, Labour Members say that the figures are accurate? They cannot have it both ways. Can they not accept that this Government's policies are working?
    Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; what he describes appears to be the case. Opposition Members must sort out in their own minds what they accept in terms of a measurement of unemployment—the internationally accepted figures to which I referred a moment ago or something else. They would be much better advised to welcome the success we have enjoyed in recent years in bringing unemployment down, although, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, we are by no means satisfied by the level. We have many innovative programmes in place to try to help people, especially those who suffer from long-term unemployment. These are working and will continue to work.

    Craft Apprenticeships
    Mr. Touhig: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many craft apprenticeships were offered in the United Kingdom in the last year. [40045]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. James Paice): Information on the number of craft apprenticeships offered during the year is not collected.
    Mr. Touhig: Craft apprenticeships were once the core of British industry. In 1965, British industry offered 125,000 craft apprenticeships; they have now all but disappeared. The result is a skills shortage which is harming our economic recovery. Will the Under-Secretary explain why Britain is experiencing a massive decline in skills training? Will he comment on an article in the Industrial Relations Journal which says that the Government have become increasingly less helpful in supporting craft apprenticeships and that Tory Governments are concerned about craft apprenticeships because they associate them with the craft unions? Is this

    723
    another example of Tory right-wing dogma harming British industry and threatening the skills of our work force?
    Mr. Paice: I am afraid that it is a clear example of the hon. Gentleman not having done his homework properly. The fact is that he asked how many craft apprenticeships were offered. Those statistics are not and, to the best of my knowledge, never have been collected. If the hon. Gentleman had asked how many people were on craft apprenticeships at any particular time, I would have told him. The most recent labour force survey, in spring this year, showed that 191,000 people declared themselves to be on apprenticeships and that, of those people, 101,000 were on craft apprenticeships. The labour force survey is the means by which the measurements are collected, and it has been for many years.
    Mr. James Hill: Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the decline in the building industry could be put down to bad workmanship resulting from the lack of a thoroughgoing apprenticeship scheme? Such an apprentice scheme was the backbone of the building industry at one time. Is there any way in which we can encourage more apprenticeships in the building industry?
    Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend will be aware that the building industry is the only remaining industry with a compulsory levy and a statutory training board, and apprenticeships are still offered in all aspects of the construction industry. The real problem is not the absence of apprenticeships but the trend towards more subcontract work throughout the industry. That matter is now being addressed by the construction industry training board as it reviews its training programmes.
    Mr. Byers: The Minister failed to refer to the Government's modern apprenticeship scheme in relation to craft apprenticeships. Was that because of the widespread failure to recruit due to weaknesses in the scheme, with only 4,000 places being filled nationally? Does the Minister acknowledge that training and enterprise councils have had their budgets cut by some £200 million this year? How will a combination of a lack of apprenticeships and training budget cuts give our people the skills they need to get them back into work and to bring prosperity back to this country?
    Mr. Paice: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Opposition Front Bench. His appointment perhaps accounts for the vast number of questions that he constantly tables on these issues, despite the fact that virtually all the information that he requests is available in the Library.
    I did not refer to modern apprenticeships, because nobody asked me about them. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman asked me about the scheme, because it did not go unnoticed that he tabled a question yesterday about the number of modern apprenticeship starts. The hon. Gentleman failed to point out that the figure of 4,000 starts was for the first month of the scheme—it had only just started. There is absolutely no evidence to substantiate his totally unjustified challenge, and the reality is that a vast number of employers are keen to take on employees. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the Government hope to get about 30,000 starts in the current year. That statement is already on the public record, and I am happy to reaffirm it to the hon. Gentleman.
    724
    As for cuts for TECs, the hon. Gentleman needs to do his homework better. There have been no cuts in the budgets for modern apprenticeships and youth training.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that any decline in craft apprenticeships and training occurred during the years when the smokestack and labour-intensive industries were phased out and when the Labour party, in collusion with the unions, forced the wages of apprentices to levels that made their employment no longer viable?
    Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend is quite right. Most reasonable people agree that the wages of people who are learning should be commensurate to their status, but that, as they develop and improve—[Interruption.] On the subject of learning, I am pleased to welcome the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), as he might learn something. The right hon. Gentleman said that any fool knows that a minimum wage will cause a shake-out, and that is precisely the problem to which my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) is referring. If there is a minimum wage which applies to everybody regardless of skill levels, how does one address the need for differentials for those people who have been through apprenticeships? The Opposition have failed year in, year out to answer that question about their minimum wage proposals.

    Economic Regeneration, Wolverhampton
    Mr. Purchase: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what contribution her Department is able to make to economic regeneration in the travel-to-work area containing British Steel Tubes Division, Wolverhampton. [40046]
    Mr. Paice: This Department makes a major contribution through the activities of the Employment Service and Wolverhampton training and enterprise council, which has formed a task force with other bodies to help those who are made redundant by British Steel.
    Mr. Purchase: That is welcome, but does the Minister not understand that, by Christmas, 1,000 more people in Wolverhampton will lose their jobs at British Steel, Manders Paints and Edge Shoes, with all that that means to those workers and their families? Does he think that it would be meaningful to make a special contribution to the local partnership that we have formed so that we can investigate fully, question and, if necessary, fight those closures and so that we can help those workers who may well be displaced at the end of this particular debacle?
    Mr. Paice: I am sure that everybody understands the sadness of people who lose their jobs. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern, which he has explained on a number of occasions in the House. It is not for me or the Government to question the commercial judgment of the businesses which employed those people. We have to recognise that the redundancies take place against a background of falling unemployment in the hon. Gentleman's constituency: it has fallen by almost 1,000 in the past year. He will be aware that Wolverhampton has succeeded in the first round of the single regeneration budget in obtaining an extra £16.5 million to be spent in

    725
    the area. Of course, there are other businesses taking on new staff. The hon. Gentleman should recognise the good things that are happening, not just the bad things.
    Mr. Budgen: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the sympathetic way in which he deals with this sad situation. Will he point out that, in the past two years, Wolverhampton has enjoyed a considerable increase in prosperity, particularly in the metal bashing industry, which has enjoyed an enormous increase in exports directly as a result of the depreciation of the currency which followed the events of September 1992?
    Mr. Paice: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his words. I can count on him always to introduce the European dimension into any question. I am pleased to hear what he has to say about Wolverhampton.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Unemployment (European Union)
    Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the implications of the level of unemployment in the EU. [40127]
    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I have been asked to reply.
    I can confirm that employment and unemployment in the European Union will be on the agenda for the next European Council in Madrid in December.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend insist that the Council gives urgent attention to the forgotten army of 18.5 million unemployed in the European Union, a total which has soared by 5 million in the past three years? In particular, could he tell our friends in France, who are at present creating extra unemployment on top of a 12 per cent. total by setting artificial exchange rates, that they could learn a great deal from Britain, which escaped from the exchange rate mechanism and the social chapter and has found that unemployment has been falling ever since?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a most valuable contribution, particularly when he points out that this Government will not accept the social chapter, and neither will we impose the overheads of a minimum wage on the competitive manufacturing base that we have here today. The whole House can welcome the fact that unemployment in this country is down by 713,400 since December 1992.
    Mr. Hutton: On the subject of unemployment within the European Union, does the Deputy Prime Minister recognise it as a fact that, since 1979, the United Kingdom has had the third highest unemployment rate within the European Union? When will he drop the damaging dogma of his party and start to work with our European partners to tackle the scandal and the waste of almost 20 million people unemployed in Europe?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: It is very convenient for the hon. Gentleman to choose 1979, when we had to start the process of undoing the stranglehold that the trade unions had on the British economy, of privatising the industries that are now leading the British recovery across
    726
    the world and of creating in this country the enterprise centre of Europe, all in the teeth of Labour party opposition.

    Engagements
    Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 November. [40128]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is travelling to New Zealand to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting.
    Mr. Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most significant vote last night was that passed by 587 votes to two, which bans paid advocacy, which was the recommendation of the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life and went further than the Nolan committee, and contrasts sharply with the sheer stench of trade union-sponsored humbug on the Opposition Benches?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right in pointing out the justification for the determination of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to set up the Nolan committee so that the House would have an opportunity to deal with the matter of restoring public confidence in the House. It was my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister who ensured that such matters were thoroughly and comprehensively considered. The work was carried out by an independent committee. As a result, the House was able to pass by an overwhelming majority the far-reaching change to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention.
    Mr. Prescott: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that he and the Prime Minister were completely out of step with public opinion in wanting to keep the outside earnings of Members of Parliament secret? Does he share my sense of outrage that some Conservative Members are already making it clear that they will not observe the decision of the House? Will he make it clear that that would be totally unacceptable to him and the Prime Minister?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman raises a most important question for the House. I can say unreservedly on behalf of the Prime Minister and myself, since he asked me specifically, that both of us believe that it is right for all right hon. and hon. Members to enter into the spirit of the letter of the decisions taken yesterday evening. That was the will of the House. As to what the House should determine to do in the event of any right hon. and hon. Member not making such a decision, that is properly a matter for the House of Commons.
    Mr. Prescott: In view of his reply, will the right hon. Gentleman now ask the Prime Minister to reconsider his rejection of Labour's proposal to refer the funding of political parties to the Nolan committee? Is it not time that the Prime Minister came clean on where his party gets his money, or has the Tory party got something else to hide?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: Of course, we all know that the Opposition want to pass the cost of party politics

    727
    on to the taxpayer. They want one-track Members of Parliament with no outside interests and who are totally beholden to the party Whips, with all the draconian centralisation of power that that would represent. That would be a wholly alien development in the constitutional history of this country.
    Mr. Prescott: Why cannot the public know where the Tory party gets its money? Who has paid for a knighthood? Who has bought a peerage? And which foreign business men have bankrolled the party, fleeing the country? I ask him again, what has his party got to hide?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is up to the sort of sleazy politics characteristic of the Labour party. The fact of the matter is that his party has sold out hook, line and sinker to the trade unions—it always has. He is the first person to complain that he has to ring up trade union leaders to ask their permission before he takes a simple decision on behalf of the Labour party.
    Mr. Peter Griffiths: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, however hon. Members may have voted in the Divisions last night, those who seek to gain party advantage from the issue simply demean the institution that they claim to honour?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right, but he characterises the Labour party in too generous terms. It is undermining the credibility of this House by constantly criticising the performance of a tiny number of right hon. and hon. Members. The fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of people who come into this House are motivated by the highest standards of public service.
    Mr. Beith: Now that the House has made an important decision, with the votes of hon. Members in all parties, on the conduct of Members of Parliament, would the Deputy Prime Minister move the agenda on to the other things that would make Parliament more relevant to the lives of people, such as electoral reform—because that would make far more difference to the lives of people than even the decisions we made last night—or will he do as the Prime Minister did last night and attach his cause to the side which in the end will lose?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Member may see that as moving the agenda on; I would regard it as moving it back into a wholly unacceptable dark age.

    Social Chapter
    Sir Ralph Howell: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to rewrite the social chapter of the EU. [40129]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister rejected a new social chapter at Maastricht because it would have reduced competitiveness and destroyed jobs. The Government will not accept it, or anything like it, at next year's intergovernmental conference.
    Sir Ralph Howell: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. In view of the fact that the social chapter has few friends in the House except on the Labour Front Bench, would it not be constructive for the Government
    728
    to produce a more acceptable alternative social chapter? Will my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister urge the Government to make the Right to Work Bill the cornerstone of that new social chapter to eliminate involuntary unemployment and save £5 billion per annum in this country alone?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend brings a particular expertise to this subject and there is a great deal to which we should listen in what he has to say. I know that he will welcome the introduction of the earnings top-up scheme, which is designed to help people move into and stay in work without the burden of a minimum wage, and he also will look forward to the introduction next year of the jobseeker's allowance.
    Mr. Keith Hill: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, in the absence of the social chapter, Britain has the longest working hours, the fewest holidays, the poorest pensions, the lowest wages and the highest levels of job insecurity of all the leading nations of Europe? Which of those facts does the right hon. Gentleman deny, and do they not explain why the British people are longing for a Labour Government with our promise to bring in the social chapter?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: What the hon. Gentleman does not recognise is that Britain has one of the fastest falling levels of unemployment and one of the fastest growing economies in Europe. What he threatens by his proposals is that the flood of inward investment coming here, not only from north America and Asia but from Europe itself, would come to a halt if Labour threw away the competitive advantages that our economy possesses.

    Engagements
    Mr. Alexander: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 November. [40130]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Alexander: Does my right hon. Friend recollect that tomorrow the new Gas Act is likely to receive Royal Assent? I remind him that, by opening the market to competition, new entrants are likely to come in and that standing charges in that industry are likely to be a thing of the past in a couple of year's time. As standing charges are widely resented by the elderly and those on fixed incomes, will he urge British Gas and the other utilities to start abolishing those charges now, before competition and a change in the law oblige them to do so?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right in drawing the attention of the House to the fact that the privatisation programme, and that includes British Gas, has, of course, been a triumph for British consumers. The fact is that competition has cut prices for gas consumers; standing charges are down by 29 per cent. since privatisation; gas prices are down by over 20 per cent. since privatisation; and the legislation to which my hon. Friend referred has already led to the possibility of experiments in the south-west. I read in this week's newspapers that perhaps another 10 to 15 per cent.

    729
    will come off the prices to the domestic consumer as a result of that enhanced competition. What that all stands for is that the Conservative Government, by privatising these industries, have not only created world-class companies but served the consumer in a way that nationalisation could never have begun to do.
    Mrs. Roche: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 November. [40131]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Roche: Given that, in the United States of America, it is illegal for foreign nationals to make donations to political parties, why do the Government not introduce the same legislation here? Are the Deputy Prime Minister and the whole of the Conservative Government frightened to let the British people see how the modern Conservative party is funded?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I know of no restriction in this country that says that foreign nationals who are members of trade unions cannot give money to trade unions, which is then directed to the Labour party.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if investment is to thrive, costs must be kept down
    730
    and business taxes kept low? Does he therefore agree that it would be a disaster for investment, and therefore for our prospects for growth and employment in the future, if the Labour party were able to implement its plans to allow local authorities to fix their own business rates?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The Labour party in power has always put up costs, prices and taxes. Whether it is a national Labour Government or local Labour government, the same process is at work. In either case, it would be a disaster for Britain's investment potential.
    Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 November. [40133]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Jones: Will the Deputy Prime Minister ask the Prime Minister when he returns what is the precise role of the Deputy Prime Minister? It seems to be costing £40,000 a month for the Deputy Prime Minister to answer even fewer questions than his right hon. Friend.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: Just the other day, people were complaining because I had brought £1 billion of Siemens investment to the north-east. I think that I am cheap at the price.

Madam Speaker's Statement
3.31 pm
Madam Speaker: I have a short statement to make.
The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) recently made serious allegations against parliamentary colleagues. He later withdrew the accusation made yesterday against the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge). I asked him to provide written details of his earlier charge against the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) and he has now done so. I have studied what he says with care, and I have asked the Serjeant at Arms to look into the aspect that concerns the use of stationery. Whatever the outcome of that inquiry, I do not believe that any of the facts laid before me sustain the charge of corruption in the use of parliamentary facilities.
Free speech is one of this House's most treasured possessions. For that reason, it must be used responsibly and not abused.
The hon. Member for Dover should take careful note of that in future. I would prefer his co-operation in this matter than to be compelled to any more drastic course of action.

Points of Order
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Some hon. Members have drawn a distinction between statute law as such and complying with resolutions of the House. Are the resolutions passed last night to be implemented and honoured? Is it not the case that, if a resolution of the House is passed, it has all the authority of the House of Commons and there can therefore be no excuse whatever for any hon. Member to argue that, because it is not statute law, it has no bearing on him or her?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is asking me hypothetical questions at this stage. It remains to be seen how we begin to implement the resolutions that we accepted last night.

BILLS PRESENTED
  METRICATION (REMOVAL OF PENALTIES)
  Sir Roger Moate presented a Bill to amend the Weights and Measures Act 1985 so as to remove any criminal penalty upon persons using imperial measures unless it is proved that such use was intended for fraudulent purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 192.]
  FAMILY HOMES AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE (No.2)
  Mrs. Diana Maddock, supported by Mr. A. J. Beith, Ms Liz Lynne, Mr. David Rendel, Mr. Archy Kirkwood, Mr. Chris Davies, Mrs. Ray Michie, Mr. Charles Kennedy, Mr. David Chidgey and Mr. James Wallace, presented a Bill to make provision, in relation to cases where a dwelling-house is, has been, or was intended to be, the home of two or more persons, as to their respective rights of occupation; to make provision for preventing the molestation of one person by another; to enable a court to include in certain orders under the Children Act 1989 provision relating to the occupation of a dwelling-house; to make provision for the transfer of tenancies between spouses and persons who have lived together as husband and wife; to apply section 17 of the Married Women's Property Act 1882 to persons who live together as husband and wife; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 193]

  Patients Rights
  3.33 pm
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to give patients certain rights in their dealings with general practitioners.
  My Bill would extend the patients charter to give patients certain rights in their dealings with general practitioners. Those rights would include a requirement for GPs in a practice of four or more, where a doctor-patient relationship has broken down, first, to offer a patient a second chance to stay in that practice by counselling that patient and issuing a warning that that behaviour will not be tolerated in the case of bad behaviour or, secondly, to offer the patient the right to visit another doctor in the same practice. Thirdly, if no other GP in the practice is willing to take the patient, the patients charter should include a requirement that patients be given reasons in writing stating why they are being removed from a GP's list.
  This is not a doctor-bashing Bill. I have the greatest respect for our GP service and I recognise the dedication, skill and professionalism of our doctors. However, I believe that there is an injustice against patients and I am sure that, if good will and tolerance were shown by all sides, that injustice might be rectified.
  Self-evidently, a good doctor-patient relationship must be based on mutual trust and respect. At present, GPs have the right to request that any patient be removed from their list, and that doctor is under no obligation to say why.
  The consequences of such actions can be very far-reaching indeed. For example, if the patient belonged to a large practice, losing his and his family's right to be registered with their nearest GPs might be extremely inconvenient and might involve lengthy travelling, which obviously incurs extra costs.
  I have a constituent who was struck off—she believes, for contacting her doctor at 8 o'clock at night to ask him to attend a fairly sick five-year-old. The doctor refused, but the child was admitted to hospital the same evening. The mother and the family were struck off, and now she must travel three miles with her youngest children to the next practice. Her youngest child needs to visit a doctor regularly, and that low-income family has been penalised by a doctor who, I believe, knew that he was wrong not to visit the child and covered his action by striking the whole family off his list.
  I know that that is not the usual practice, but that family was never told why it had been struck off. Surely a much better outcome would have been for other doctors in the same practice to take on responsibility for that family.
  Another consequence of being struck off a doctor's list without being given a reason is the great hurt that is felt by many people when they are.
  Another constituent told me that she rarely visited a doctor, but that when she did on one occasion, the receptionist mistook her for someone else and a few words were exchanged. Realising the mistake, my constituent drew attention to it—fairly calmly, she claims—and made an appointment to visit her doctor, only to receive a letter two days later, telling her that she had been struck off. She told me that at first she felt anger
  734
  at the injustice and then she experienced a loss of confidence and a feeling of humiliation. She said that she would be very reluctant to visit a doctor again, however ill she felt.
  Another constituent, a very brave 86-year-old, Mrs. Marion Greenwood, a pensioner, was struck off her doctor's list when she was ill. Her daughter, who lives with her, called the GP out when her mother became ill. The GP was angry because it was in the evening and was quite cross with the old lady. Mrs. Greenwood was admitted to hospital a couple of days later in a critical condition. While in hospital, she received a letter from her GP, telling her that she was being struck off and that she should find another doctor. I could go on reciting case after case, but time will not allow.
  Obviously, there are instances when GPs have a legitimate right to say, "I personally cannot treat this patient any more." The following reasons were outlined in the advice given by the General Medical Services Committee last year as acceptable reasons for striking patients off a register.
  A patient may be struck off if there is violent or threatening behaviour towards a doctor and his family, but even then, the GMSC believes that GPs should use their clinical judgment to determine whether a patient's violent behaviour results from his or her medical condition, and that if the patient is mentally ill, consideration should be given to the condition of that patient.
  Other reasons for striking off might be a complete breakdown of the doctor-patient relationship, such as might occur if scurrilous, unfounded allegations were made against a doctor, or prescription fraud or the persistent breaking of appointments, which did not improve after a warning. However, the advice from the GMSC is not firm enough and weighs heavily in the doctor's favour.
  There is growing support for my view. The Association of Health Councils in England and Wales is concerned that patients may be removed from lists simply for making a complaint. One woman told me that she was suffering from a back injury and took her son along to the doctor's receptionist. She could not sit down because of her injury. She was told that she might have to wait and the receptionist asked her to sit down. The woman said that she could not and would prefer to stand. Three days later she received a letter striking her off the doctor's list. I saw the letter and the only indication of why she had been struck off was the sentence that stated:
  "We hope when you find a new GP there will be comfortable chairs in his waiting room."
  That is clearly another exceptional case, but it is unacceptable and exposes the inadequacy of the existing legislation. The woman was struck off the list for something trivial.
  There is a growing perception that clients are being removed from GPs' lists because their treatment is too costly. The advent of the internal market and GP fundholding has fuelled that perception. Unfortunately, information on the number of patients being removed from lists at the request of doctors has been available from the Department of Health only since 1992–93. In that year, the total for England was more than 78,000. Those figures do not differentiate between GP fundholders and non-fundholders, so there is no hard and fast evidence.

  735
  However, there is anecdotal evidence that GP fundholders do not want patients whose care is too costly. The Association of Health Councils in England and Wales has expressed concern. Yesterday we learnt that a doctor in Wales intended to strike eight children off his list to increase his practice income by £2,000. Clearly, that has to stop. It is simply not good enough for the Department of Health to talk about unacceptable behaviour. We are entitled to ask what the Department will do about it.
  Patients trust doctors less because of the introduction of GP fundholding. They are now, almost daily, made aware of the cost of treatment. Where once a clinical decision was given and accepted, there now lurks a suspicion that a treatment might be advised against owing to the cost. The vital ingredient of trust between patient and doctor is being seriously undermined, which is one reason why it is essential to end GP fundholding.
  If implemented, the Bill, which contains moderate measures, could provide the first step towards restoring the trust between patients and their GPs, and I commend it to the House.
  3.43 pm
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I have considerable sympathy with much of what the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) has said. I do not wish to call a Division, but I want to raise one valid point.
  Our procedure in the House confuses people outside. It is always a pity to excite expectations that one can never fulfil. There is a problem in allowing ten-minute Bills to be introduced within 18 hours of the Prorogation of Parliament. There is no chance of the hon. Lady's Bill, however worthy, passing on to the statute book. It is important for us to put down a marker on the subject.
  I hope that the powers that be—the appropriate Committee—will consider whether or not it would be sensible to stop the ten-minute Bill procedure a few weeks before the Prorogation of Parliament, perhaps providing a half-hour Adjournment debate on a Wednesday morning for the purpose. The hon. Lady's speech would have been ideally suited for such a debate.
  736
  I shall not oppose the hon. Lady's leave to bring in her Bill now, but it is a pity that the procedure of the House is allowed to operate in this way.
  Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mrs. Ann Clwyd, Mr. Harry Barnes, Mr. Eddie Loyden, Ms Jean Corston, Mr. Neil Gerrard, Mr. Alan Simpson, Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe, Mrs. Audrey Wise, Mr. John Gunnell, Mr. Dennis Skinner and Mr. Malcolm Chisholm.

  PATIENTS RIGHTS
  Mrs. Alice Mahon accordingly presented a Bill to give patients certain rights in their dealings with general practitioners: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 194.]
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you know, it is a long-standing convention that an hon. Member who opposes a ten-minute Bill is supposed to follow his voice with his vote. I did not hear anyone shout "No".
  What is more, the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Sir P. Cormack) said that it would be a good idea to get rid of ten-minute Bills so close to the end of the Session. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Back Benchers have lost opportunities to speak on various issues on a number of occasions in recent years. The ten-minute Bill provides hon. Members with an ideal opportunity to advance propositions, although they may not become law. I hope that you will not give consideration to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, or pass it on.
  I should also like to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, your view of an hon. Member who opposes a ten-minute Bill while making it abundantly clear that he has no interest in voting against it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I refer the hon. Gentleman to page 464 of "Erskine May", on which all will be revealed. It explains that an hon. Member may speak against a ten-minute Bill, but need not voice a "No" when the Question is put.

Orders of the Day

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Before I call the Minister, I must make an announcement. Madam Speaker has accepted a manuscript amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), of which copies are available in the Vote Office and the Division Lobbies.

Clause 2

  BASIS ON WHICH COMPENSATION IS TO BE CALCULATED
  Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 11, at end insert
  ("or otherwise determined in accordance with the Scheme")
  3.47 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 2.
  Mr. Maclean: Lords amendment No. 1 makes it clear beyond doubt that the scheme may provide for awards in fatal cases to include, in addition to the fixed-tariff award, additional amounts calculated in accordance with the scheme. That will allow payment to be made for such other elements as reasonable funeral expenses, loss of dependency and loss of parental support. Those elements are not fixed or specified, so provision could not be made for them under subsection (2)(d) as it originally stood. They will be calculated by reference to the circumstances of the case, rather than on the basis of the fixed tariff. The amendment simply ensures that such payments can properly be made.
  Let me now deal with Lords amendment No. 2. On introduction, clause 3(1)(c) enabled provision to be included in the scheme in regard to repayment of compensation for breach of conditions subject to which an award was made. However, the scheme also needs to include provision for repayment in other circumstances, such as when the applicant receives compensation from other sources in respect of the same criminal injury, and when that other compensation was not taken into account when the award was made from our scheme. That simply replicates the situation under the present scheme, and is intended to prevent the applicant from receiving compensation twice for the same injury. As originally drafted, the Bill would not have allowed a provision to be included in the scheme providing for such recovery; it accordingly needed to be amended to permit recovery in those wider circumstances.
  Mr. Alun Michael: I am particularly grateful to the Minister for accepting Lords amendment No. 1, which we pursued in the House. It makes the position clear beyond doubt in allowing awards in fatal cases to include funeral expenses and expenses incurred by loss of dependency and loss of parental support.
  738
  Will the Minister clarify the way in which the power conferred by Lords amendment No. 2 will be exercised? I understand the intention of the amendment, which is to ensure that money can be reclaimed.
  I was hoping that the Minister would answer my question, but I apologise for interrupting the conversation that is taking place on the Government Front Bench.
  It is obviously right to deal with cases in which there has been an oversight or a lack of information at the time when an award was made, so that no deduction has been made for the availability of compensation elsewhere; but the provision could also be used in "blanket" ways, and inappropriate amounts could be deducted. Will the Minister therefore clarify how the retrospective power that is given under the amendment will be used in practice? Will the ways in which it is to be used be specified in the scheme, to be published shortly in its final form?
  Mr. Maclean: No retrospection is intended. In the present scheme, no one is compensated twice: that is a normal rule of government, the law and insurance law in particular. We never intended that, under the new tariff scheme, someone could receive double compensation. All the amendment does is clarify the law and ensure that the same rule as operated by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board is carried forward into the tariff scheme. In practice, it will operate in exactly the same way as at present.
  No blanket retrospection is applied—I do not know how that could apply. We should bear it in mind that, even moving as quickly as possible, it takes some time to process awards. The board and those operating the tariff scheme will want to receive full information on the means and situation of the victim and on any other income, expenses or money that he acquires. If they find that someone is receiving a full insurance pay-out, or, properly, that the criminal has been ordered to pay compensation to the victim and there is a compensation order against the criminal, so that the victim has received money from the criminal offender, they will reduce the award or not pay it. We are not, however, applying the provision retrospectively to take money back from people who have been properly paid. It merely continues the normal system.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to.

Clause 5

  APPEALS
  Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 3, line 42, at end insert
  ("except so far as the provision relates to functions of persons mentioned in subsection (3)(d)(ii)")
  Mr. Maclean: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 4 and 5.
  Mr. Maclean: The first two amendments have the simple aim of ensuring that claims officers or staff appointed by the scheme manager can act as presenting officers at appeals in addition to their more normal job of determining claims.

  739
  As to the third amendment, clause 5(9) was added to the Bill in Standing Committee to make it clear beyond doubt that the scheme may include provision for adjudicators to reduce awards when they consider that an appeal is frivolous or vexatious. That minor, technical amendment to delete the words "under this section" was necessary as appeals are not determined under the Bill, but are determined in accordance with the provisions of the scheme that is to be made under the powers conferred by clause 1. I commend the amendments to the House.
  Mr. Michael: I have one query for the Minister, which he may have clarified in his statement. He has been extremely helpful, for which I am grateful to him, in providing information about the intentions of amendments that he expected to come from the Lords. In a letter to me, he refers to the amendments to clause 5, saying that they would allow claims officers to act as presenting officers at appeals in addition to their main role in determining appeals. That leads to confusion, but it may simply be a misprint—their main role is in determining claims rather than appeals. If that is the case, I am happy to support the Minister in seeking to pass the amendment.
  Mr. Maclean: It certainly sounds like a misprint. Claims officers determine claims, not appeals and they may then present the information to the appeals panel, which will determine the appeal.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 4 and 5 agreed to.

Clause 8

  ANNUITIES
  Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 6, line 11, at end insert—
  ("(3) In this section "the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme" means—

  (a) the scheme established by arrangements made under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995; or

  (b) arrangements made by the Secretary of State for compensation for criminal injuries and in operation at any time before the commencement of that scheme.")

  Mr. Maclean: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must inform the House that this amendment involves privilege.
  Mr. Maclean: The amendment fulfils a promise made in the Standing Committee to extend the benefits of structured settlements so that they are available under the new tariff scheme to applicants under the current common law damages scheme or any other previous version of it, whose claims have not yet been settled. The necessary complementary amendment to the 1990 scheme to permit payment of compensation by the purchase of annuities will, as we also promised, be made administratively as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent. This is an excellent amendment, which I commend to the House.
  Mr. Michael: We support the objective of the amendment. The Minister says that people whose claims have not been dealt with will have the opportunity of structured settlements and the tax arrangements that are allowed for under the Bill. What will the cut-off date be? Will the ability to deal with claims by structured settlement date from the time when the Bill began its passage through the House and the declaration of the Government's intentions, from the date on which Royal Assent is signified or from a future date when the Government or Home Secretary implement that aspect of the Bill? I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is important to be clear on those points. I hope that he will give the earliest possible date, so that the advantages of the new scheme will have the widest possible application.
  On the Order Paper today there is a written question tabled by the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans), who sometimes asks questions that are regarded as convenient to Ministers. The hon. Gentleman asks whether structured settlements will be offered under the current criminal injuries compensation scheme. If any new information is to be provided to the hon. Gentleman, will the Minister share that information with us?
  I ask that question because it is quite common for members of the press to have information about written parliamentary answers long before hon. Members. I am sure that the Minister will agree that it would be courteous to give the House as much information as possible in view of the fact that that question—coincidentally, I am sure—has been tabled on the day of this debate.
  Mr. Maclean: I am not aware that I have any extra information to present to the House. I was not aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) had coincidentally decided to ask a question, which might correspond with an urgent need that I had to present information. I shall be advised on it and I hope that I shall be able to confirm whether that is the case. We intend to have structured settlements. We think that they are a good idea. If any new information needs to be presented, I shall do so.
  Mr. Michael: As I understand it, the Minister is answering that written question today, so if I speak slowly, any additional information might wend its way to him. If there is no additional information that is not already available to the House, I would be happy if, at this late stage in the Bill's proceedings, the Minister could confirm that.
  Mr. Maclean: I have no extra information to provide, and nothing new to say on it. I can only conclude that my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield was not fully aware of all the information that we had issued previously when he decided to ask for an update. The update will provide the same information.
  The earliest date of implementation will be Royal Assent. This part of the legislation cannot be retrospective because that would create tremendous anomalies. The question might arise whether, in some cases, the generous settlements that we are making under some aspects of the tariff award should not also be made retrospective. That would be very unfair. We expect the benefits of structured settlements to take effect when the Bill receives Royal Assent.
  Lords amendment agreed to [Special Entry].

New clause

  JURISDICTION OF PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR ADMINISTRATION
  Lords amendment: No. 7, after clause 9, to insert the following new clause—
  ".—(1) In the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, insert after section 11A—
  "The Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme.
  11B.—(1) For the purposes of this Act, administrative functions exercisable by an administrator of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme ("Scheme functions") shall be taken to be administrative functions of a government department to which this Act applies.
  (2) For the purposes of this section, the following are administrators of the Scheme—

  (a) a claims officer appointed under section 3(4)(b) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995;

  (b) a person appointed under section 5(3)(c) of that Act;

  (c) the Scheme manager, as defined by section 1(4) of that Act, and any person assigned by him to exercise functions in relation to the Scheme.

  (3) The principal officer in relation to any complaint made in respect of any action taken in respect of Scheme functions is—

  (a) in the case of action taken by a claims officer, such person as may from time to time be designated by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this paragraph;

  (b) in the case of action taken by a person appointed under section 5(3)(c) of the Act of 1995, the chairman appointed by the Secretary of State under section 5(3)(b) of that Act; or

  (c) in the case of action taken by the Scheme manager or by any other person mentioned in subsection (2)(c) of this section, the Scheme manager.

  (4) The conduct of an investigation under this Act in respect of any action taken in respect of Scheme functions shall not affect—

  (a) any action so taken; or

  (b) any power or duty of any person to take further action with respect to any matters subject to investigation."

  (2) In Schedule 3 to the Act of 1967 (matters not subject to investigation), insert after paragraph 6B—
  "6C. Action taken by any person appointed under section 5(3)(c) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995, so far as that action is taken at the direction, or on the authority (whether express or implied), of any person acting in his capacity as an adjudicator appointed under section 5 of that Act to determine appeals."
  (3) The amendments made by this section do not affect the following provisions of this Act—

  (a) section 3(5)(b);

  (b) section 3(7)(b);

  (c) section 5(4)(b)."

  Mr. Maclean: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  The amendment fulfils undertakings given during earlier Commons stages that we would bring the administrative actions of the administrators of the scheme and those supporting the independent appeals system within the jurisdiction of the parliamentary ombudsman. Although the amendment appears to be long and complicated, it is a simple measure to ensure that the administrative aspects of the new system come within the ken and purview of the ombudsman.
  4 pm
  Mr. Michael: We certainly take pleasure in this amendment because the Opposition pressed the Government strongly to ensure that the administrative functions of the authority and the appeals panel would come within the jurisdiction of the ombudsman. We strongly believe that that is necessary to ensure the proper administration and operation of the various elements of the Bill.
  I should be grateful if the Minister could provide a little clarification on the exclusions contained in the proposed new clause. As he said, the wording is complex but the principle is clear. However, it is possible within complex wording for things easily to slip out of sight.
  There are two elements on which I should like clarification. First, subsection (2) appears to exclude certain actions from investigation. How will that operate? Can we be absolutely certain that nothing will be excluded from the scrutiny of the ombudsman which this House would wish him properly to scrutinise? What will be the precise effect of the proposed new clause on the question of exclusion?
  Secondly, subsection (3) refers to three places in the Bill where, effectively, the actions of officials are defined as not being taken by the Secretary of State or on his behalf. The Minister will recall that we commented on that when the House debated the Bill. We were concerned that the exclusion of actions of officials from being acts taken by or on behalf of the Secretary of State might mean that they were not properly scrutinised by the ombudsman. It appears that those actions are still omitted from the effects of the proposed new clause. Can the Minister reassure me on that point?
  The Minister said that the new clause was a complicated addition to the Bill. We wish to ensure that something that we want scrutinised does not, through an oversight at this stage, drop off the agenda or be considered to be outside the capacity of the ombudsman. I should be grateful for as much clarification of that issue as the Minister can give me.
  Mr. Maclean: We hope that there has been no oversight. The drafting is as accurate as parliamentary draftsmen can make it, but it has some clear aims. Through the drafting of the various subsections, we aim to apply the powers of the ombudsman, in full, to certain aspects of the scheme—the normal areas of government that the ombudsman can examine. What is not included is a decision on the merits of an award. Initially, that is a matter for the scheme officials to decide. It is not for the ombudsman to say, "I think Mrs. Smith should have got £20,000, not £15,000." Decisions on the merits are not for the ombudsman. Subsection (3) of the proposed new clause outlines the exceptions.
  Similarly, as there is an appeals process built in, it is not for the ombudsman to become the appellate authority for people who are disgruntled with the quality of the decision on its merits. There is an appeal body for that. Nor is it the ombudsman's place to question ministerial policy, whether there should be a tariff scheme at all or whether it would be better done another way. We have therefore tried to apply in law the duties of the ombudsman to administrative action by the civil servants running the scheme.

  743
  We have attempted faithfully to make the powers that the ombudsman requires in this instance the same as in every other aspect of government. Administrative action would encompass things such as delays, failure to process the paperwork within a reasonable time or failure to process it at all, not implementing the scheme properly or failing to implement it as laid down. Those are administrative actions. We believe that we have got it right.
  Mr. Michael: I should like a little more clarification. The Minister said that the merits of the case would perhaps lead a claims officer to decide whether an applicant should receive £20,000 rather than £10,000. He seeks to exclude that decision—the way in which a decision is made on the merits of the case—from investigation by the ombudsman. I understand what he is saying, but does he agree that the ways in which such a decision was reached—whether proper information was sought, whether clarification was sought if necessary, and whether the papers were examined properly—are administrative actions, as distinct from the judgment based on them, and would be a proper matter for the ombudsman? Clarification would be helpful.
  Mr. Maclean: What the hon. Gentleman has described is, I suspect and hope, the exact legal position. A judgment on what a person should get is a quasi-judicial decision outwith the purview of the ombudsman. However, if in coming to that conclusion the official did not operate the scheme properly but failed to contact the applicant or check the forms and did not take a medical report as was perhaps required and then made a judgment based on that, it would seem prima facie to be a case of maladministration. That is the type of behaviour that ombudsmen are there to investigate. I hope that that clarifies the position for the hon. Gentleman.
  Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 10

  PARLIAMENTARY CONTROL
  Lords amendment: No. 8, in page 6, line 34, leave out from beginning to ("the") in line 38, and insert—
  ("Before making the Scheme, the Secretary of State shall lay a draft of it before Parliament.
  (1A) The Secretary of State shall not make the Scheme unless the draft has been approved by a resolution of each House.
  (2) Before making any alteration to the Tariff or to any provision of')
  Mr. Maclean: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 9 to 13.
  There is a manuscript amendment to Lords amendment No. 13, to leave out from `(4B)' to end of line 17 and insert
  `Where the Secretary of State is required to lay a statement before Parliament under the provisions of subsection (4A) above, he shall not give effect to the altered provision unless the statement has been approved by a resolution of each House.'.
  Mr. Maclean: These amendments are inter-related and it may be helpful if I deal with them in two sub-groups.
  744
  Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 11 and 13 change significantly the extent of Parliament's control over the scheme. The Bill, on introduction, required the Secretary of State to lay a copy of the tariff and any subsequent alterations to it before Parliament. It also required the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament statements of other 'key provisions' made by the scheme, namely those bearing on quantum.
  Under the amendments, however, the Secretary of State will now be required to lay a draft of the scheme in its entirety before Parliament. The scheme will not be able to start until that draft has been approved by both Houses under the affirmative resolution procedure. Thus specific parliamentary approval will be required for every aspect of the new arrangements before we can kick off.
  Once the new scheme has started, any changes to it, however minor, will also be subject to parliamentary control. Changes to the tariff itself and to the key features of the scheme will require approval by the affirmative resolution procedure, while changes to the more minor, more routine features will be subject to the negative resolution procedure. We think that that strikes the right balance, requiring Parliament positively to approve changes to the more important aspects of the scheme, while leaving Parliament the choice as to whether changes to more minor matters should go through with or without a debate and with or without a vote.
  The amendments make it quite clear where ultimate control over the scheme rests. The Executive will of course still be able to propose changes, but it cannot give them effect without recourse to Parliament.
  Amendment Nos. 10 and 12 will have the effect of requiring more features of the scheme to be subject to parliamentary approval by the affirmative resolution procedure should change be considered necessary or desirable once the scheme has started. Those features relate to the appeals provision of the scheme.
  Amendment No. 10 makes it clear that, before any changes can be made to a provision of the scheme which gives a right of appeal, or which specifies the circumstances in which an appeal is to be dealt with by an oral hearing, parliamentary approval by the affirmative resolution procedure will be necessary. Amendment No. 12 is minor and consequential. Effectively, therefore, any provision of the scheme which touches on eligibility for an appeal or the circumstances in which an oral hearing can be granted is caught.
  More minor provisions relating in the main to more technical or administrative matters can still fall to be changed only by the negative resolution procedure. That will mean of course that if Parliament does not like even minor changes, it will still be able to pray against them and make its dissent known in that way.
  Perhaps it would be sensible at this stage to say a word or two about the Opposition amendment. As I hope that I have explained and will be clear from the Lords amendments to clause 10, the degree of parliamentary control has changed significantly. Before the whole scheme can come into force, Parliament must approve it by affirmative resolution. We are then suggesting that the key features of the scheme, if we wish to change them in future, can by changed only by affirmative resolution. Everything else, all the hundreds of minor and technical things, could still be changed only by negative resolution procedure.

  745
  The Opposition amendment seeks to make every change in future subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I happen to think that that is just a bit over the top. It would not be a good use of Parliament's time to have to approve any change, however uncontentious, technical or minor, by the affirmative procedure.
  I understand the thinking behind what the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth is trying to do. I hope that he will be satisfied, however, that, since we have put in the affirmative resolution procedure before the thing can start, and we are keeping its use for the scheme's key points, the negative procedure will be satisfactory to deal with the other parts of the scheme if we wish to change them in future.
  Mr. Michael: I am grateful to the Minister for seeking to reassure us that he intends to use the negative resolution route only for uncontentious issues. The problem is that the Government have not defined what those uncontentious issues are and have not limited in their definition the areas of activity which could be covered under the negative resolution procedure.
  The Minister has rightly identified and, indeed, expanded on something that we support: those elements which have to go through the affirmative resolution procedure. In particular, we welcome the fact that the amendments bring the most important aspects of the appeals procedure within the key features of the scheme, and therefore require such changes in the appeals procedures to be undertaken through the affirmative resolution procedure rather than the negative resolution procedure.
  The Minister needs to explain, however, how the scheme will operate and how he intends to use the powers. The clause, as it originally stood, referring not to the scheme but to the tariff only, was entirely framed in terms of affirmative resolution. The negative resolution elements were introduced in another place.
  The Minister referred to the issues that could be covered by the negative resolution procedure as "everything else". I think that he will accept that that is rather a portmanteau way of describing the matter. That is why we have tabled an amendment which seeks to bring the whole scheme under the affirmative resolution procedure, which of course is what we sought when the Bill first came before the House and before it went to another place.
  I shall give two examples of issues that would be contentious. Perhaps the Minister will tell us that they would not be dealt with other than through the affirmative resolution process. First, there is the appointment of the scheme manager and, secondly, there is the possible and highly contentious avenue for the Government to pursue of contractorisation of the operation of the criminal injuries compensation scheme. We would like the Minister to reassure us that there is no way in which such issues will be pursued without them coming before the House and another place, which will ensure that the full support of Parliament is given to such a contentious decision.
  4.15 pm
  In that context, we have tabled our amendment. The matters that will have to be dealt with through the affirmative resolution procedure are specified to some
  746
  extent. The issues that are not specified would come under the negative resolution procedure. I have just referred to two matters that are not defined as coming under the affirmative resolution procedure and about which there is, therefore, doubt and concern. We are concerned that in those two matters, the Government may pursue the dogmatic approach adopted elsewhere. That would surely be wrong in relation to such an important aspect of public administration as compensation for victims of the most serious crimes.
  We understand that it is likely that the Minister or the Home Secretary will bring the scheme and the tariff, in their final form, before the House very soon after the Queen's Speech, when Parliament reassembles. In that case, it is extremely important that we should have some assurances from the Minister about the way in which the remaining issues will be dealt with. It is, of course, the case that under the affirmative resolution procedure, although the House is able to have a say before anything is implemented, it cannot amend legislation. The House can only accept or reject it.
  In general, there have been improvements in the scheme. I commend the Minister on one point. He has made the scheme and amended schemes available so that proper debate has been able to take place and discussion has been possible with those who have specialist knowledge. That is welcome and is an improvement on the way in which other legislation has been dealt with. I commend the Minister on being much more open than has been the case on other occasions in terms of allowing proper debate. That may lead him into all sorts of difficulties with the Government, but the Opposition welcome his openness, as do those outside the House who have taken a detailed interest in the matter. It is only right that the Minister's openness in that regard should be acknowledged and praised in the House.
  There are still issues that have to be dealt with and I hope that the Minister can reassure us that there will continue to be improvements to them and consideration of them. Three obvious elements on which I hope he will give us reassurance are how pregnancy following rape is to be dealt with, how age and sex criteria are to be dealt with and whether multiple injuries will be dealt with in the way that the Minister has been urged to adopt.
  During the passage of the Bill, a number of other issues were referred to as matters that would be dealt with under the provisions of the scheme. There is still the question of the qualifications of those who deal with appeals and their ability, as a team, to advise the Government and to be proactive in terms of changes that are needed in the scheme.
  The Minister knows that reassurances were given in debates in another place about the way in which care costs would be dealt with and he has received representations on how care costs can be linked to earning capacity. Again, there are fears that the Government's intentions will not be met. It is possible for a person to be providing care without there being any effect on that person's earning capacity. Although that person may have lost considerable time in which he or she could have been, in theory, earning, that is not the same as having one's earnings capacity affected. The earning capacity remains the same, but the amount of time available for earning has changed, which is a different matter. Linking that issue to earning capacity does not take account of the fact that many carers would not have earning capacity as such. The

  747
  carers might have been parents or spouses not in work and not intending to he in work when called upon to undertake care responsibilities. I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance that these issues will be dealt with in a constructive way and that they will be covered properly when the measure to approve the scheme and the tariff comes before the House early in the next Session.
  The treatment of psychiatric injury remains a matter of concern. The definition contained in the latest draft of the scheme still leaves aspects to be covered, and I know that the Minister has received representations on the issue of railway suicides. There is concern that the way in which that matter is dealt with may result in railway staff being excluded from bringing a psychiatric injury claim, even though they are specifically included in paragraph 9(d) of the scheme.
  The issues dealt with in relation to psychiatric injury include such aspects as loss of earnings. We have stated that damage could be done to those who are not able to claim during the 28 weeks after an injury, and particularly those who are unable to claim sick pay. Others might be disadvantaged due to the level of sick pay being considerably lower than what they would have obtained in employment. These issues must be dealt with by the provisions of the amendment through the affirmative resolution procedure.
  It would be helpful if the Minister could indicate that he is still willing to respond to the serious points which have been made in another place and outside Parliament. The scheme and the tariff that the Minister will bring forward for consideration by this House in the near future must deal fully with all of the issues which have been brought to his attention. The amendment which the Opposition have tabled seeks to make the whole of the scheme subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The devil is in the detail in criminal injury compensation and the detail is in the scheme and the tariff.
  The House must not allow its authority over important elements of detail in the scheme to be diminished. We are concerned that the amendment tabled by the Minister tabled this afternoon contains some indeterminate elements. I have given two examples of issues which could be dealt with by negative resolution, and which could be implemented in advance of the opinion of both Houses of Parliament being obtained.
  Mr. Maclean: First, may I thank the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) for his kindness and courtesy? I am the perfect epitome of the remark, "I am from the Government—I am here to help you", and I am well known for my compassionate and caring approach. It would be fair—and perhaps more honest—to thank my staff, and particularly my private office staff, who have constantly reminded me when another letter to a shadow spokesman is due and that it might be helpful to lay out the main features of the Bill. Without that reminder, the hon. Gentleman would not have been able to thank me for being so helpful.
  I should point out that what is to be done by affirmative resolution is clearly laid down by statute. We will operate the system in future in accordance with the law as set out in the Bill. Clause 10 states that the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament the tariff which he proposes and any alteration that he proposes to make to that tariff.
  748
  Clause 10(4) states that the tariff must be approved by a resolution of the House. Clause 10(2) states that measures to be laid before Parliament include any provision to deal with any additional amount,
  "the circumstances in which compensation may be payable with respect to a criminal injury of a kind for which no provision is made by the Tariff … the calculation of compensation in respect of multiple injuries… compensation payable in respect of children conceived as a result of rape … the circumstances in which an award may be withheld or compensation reduced any limit on compensation imposed by a provision made by virtue of section 2(7)(a)."
  All of those things are specified in the Bill, which we hope will shortly be an Act, and can be altered only be affirmative resolution. In addition, of course, we have the amendments that we are considering today. It is true to say that we are setting some key and important issues on one side. We have responded to concerns expressed in the House, in Committee and in the other place by making all the matters that most worried parliamentary colleagues subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
  We think that we have got the draft scheme about right now. We found it helpful to publish the draft. Following comments from colleagues, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, the Law Society, experts in the other place and others, the draft has been altered. We are almost at the final stage, but we are still listening and willing to hear any representations that we have not yet heard on how we see the tariff scheme operating in practice.
  Following all the consultation and the tweaking that we have done, we think that we have got the tariff scheme about right and as good as it possibly can be. However, it is not set in stone. Medical knowledge improves and changes all the time. Legal knowledge changes. If in future years we become convinced that a change has to be made to a category, type or sub-division of injury or that multiple injuries could be dealt with better—although I am not convinced of that at present—it would be open to us to alter the tariff by affirmative resolution or, if it is a minor matter, by the negative procedure. I hope that I have been able to satisfy the hon. Gentleman on those points.
  Mr. Michael: The Minister spoke rapidly. A phrase which answered my two questions may have flashed by me, but I do not recall him dealing with the appointment of a scheme manager or the possibility of contractorisation, which I hope is unlikely, but must be a possibility with this Government. Could those matters be dealt with other than by affirmative resolution? Will he reassure us on those two points?
  Mr. Maclean: I can only repeat the assurances that I gave in Committee that we had no proposals to do either of those things. I cannot forecast what will happen in the future, but I suspect that the workload of the organisation and the need to get the scheme bedded down mean that the matters to which the hon. Gentleman refers are not a prospect in the immediate future.
  We will be bound by the Act. The appointment of a scheme manager and contractorisation are not covered by clause 10. I do not believe that primary legislation would be necessary to make those changes. Changes to the administration of the scheme would be made by the negative resolution procedure. Neither the affirmative nor negative procedure might be necessary if the relevant sections of the Act have given the Secretary of State the

  749
  authority to make such changes. The matters to which the hon. Gentleman refers are not covered by clause 10, which requires the affirmative resolution procedure.
  Mr. Michael: With the leave of the House. The Minister has confirmed what we believe to be wrong with the state in which we have ended up, even though there is a requirement for affirmative resolution on some matters. As I understand the Minister's reply, the Government would be able to deal with matters such as the appointment of a scheme manager or even contractorisation, which would take criminal injury compensation decisions outside the scope of public servants, without having to return to the House under an affirmative resolution. Indeed, the Minister seemed to go further and suggested that the Government might not need the approval of the House at all. As the Minister gave the strongest assurances earlier in the passage of the Bill through the House that the Government had no intention of going down that road and as it is the clear intention of both Houses that affirmative resolution should be the avenue for the most important aspects of the Bill, it would be entirely wrong for the Government to take criminal injury compensation decisions outside the scope of public servants or appoint a scheme manager without coming back and putting specific resolutions to the House.
  We should be quite clear. The Government have no right to congratulate themselves on the Bill. The Home Secretary acted illegally in trying to introduce the new scheme without any parliamentary scrutiny. That was the Bill's gestation period—the Home Secretary's attempt to avoid the scrutiny of the House. The Government were dragged kicking and screaming into accepting that the scheme should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny by affirmative resolution. When we last debated these issues only the tariff was to be subject to the approval of the House.
  4.30 pm
  I welcome the fact that we have won from the Government the concession that the scheme itself is to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and the scrutiny of the House. That still leaves the victims of violent crime without compensation for loss of income for 28 weeks after the injury. The Minister should recall that, with statutory sick pay at about £52.50 per week, it is
  750
  hardly an adequate recompense for those who are unable to work because of a serious criminal injury. Many people are not entitled to statutory sick pay, including the self-employed, those on a low income and those on short-term contracts. Some people might still be entitled to incapacity benefit, but that is no more generous than statutory sick pay. Others will get income support, which is even less than SSP.
  There is considerable variation. Taking all the factors together, however, it has been calculated that 12 million people—at least half of those in employment—do not receive full pay during the first 28 weeks of sickness and will, therefore, be at risk under the Bill. They will be worse off.
  This remains a scheme that cuts the amount of cash available for the victims of violent crime. The Government have admitted that £700 million is being cut from the cash available during the next five years. That amounts to a theft of £700 million by the Government from the victims who have been damaged most by the nastiest and most brutal of crimes. That is a 40 per cent. drop in expenditure for the Government and many victims will suffer as a result. The Government have made victims pay for their failure to stem the rise of violent crime. Instead of cutting violent crime, the Government have cut the help available to the victims.
  I perceive from the Minister's response that our amendment would not have succeeded in doing what we had hoped, which was to ensure that the Government could not undermine the operation of the scheme without an affirmative resolution from this House.
  Despite the improvements that the legislation makes in the processes and the introduction of a tariff, money for the victims of violent crime will still be cut by £700 million in the next five years. I have some satisfaction, therefore, at our success in persuading the Government to introduce more satisfactory procedures and make the operation of the scheme subject to the parliamentary ombudsman, but I nevertheless regret that the Bill will be detrimental to the victims of crime and the victims of the most violent crimes in particular. That should be at the forefront of our minds as we reach this final stage in the Bill's passage through the Houses of Parliament.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 9 to 13 agreed to.

Statutory Instruments, &c

  INSURANCE
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
  That the draft Insurance Brokers (Registration) Act 1977 (Amendment) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 16th October, be approved.—[Mr. Knapman]
  Question agreed to.

  INTERNATIONAL IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
  That the draft Vienna Document 1994 (Privileges and Immunities) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 16th October, be approved.—[Mr. Knapman.]
  Question agreed to.

  NORTHERN IRELAND
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
  That the draft Financial Provisions (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 17th October, be approved.—[Mr. Knapman.]
  Question agreed to.

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

  REFORM OF THE RICE REGIME
  That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 9532195, and 9379/95, relating to the reform of the rice regime; and supports the Government's efforts to ensure that the proposals when adopted will encourage the competitiveness of rice growing and milling in the European Union after the Uruguay Round, that high quality supplies will reach consumers at reasonable prices and that the regime will be capable of effective enforcement.—[Mr. Knapman.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),

SOCIAL ACTION PROGRAMME 1995–97 AND PROMOTION OF EMPLOYMENT
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 6827/95, the Commission's Medium Term Social Action Programme 1995–97; endorses the Government's view that European Community social policy should focus on helping to tackle unemployment, creating the conditions which encourage the creation of new jobs, and on improving the competitiveness of Community businesses, and should avoid further unnecessary legislation; takes note of European Community Document No. 5663/95, relating to the Employment Conclusions of the Essen European Council; and welcomes the fact that the Heads of Government of the European Community have recognised at successive European Councils the importance of tackling the high levels of structural unemployment in the Community.—[Mr. Knapman.]
Question agreed to.

Select Committees
[Relevant document: The Fourth Special Report of the Employment Committee, Session 1994–95, on the proposed changes to Standing Order No. 130 (H. C. 826).]
4.32 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
That Standing Order No. 130 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended—
(1) with effect from the beginning of the next Session—
(a) by inserting the following item after item 10 in the Table in paragraph (2):
"Public Service/Office of Public Service (but excluding the drafting of bills by the Parliamentary Counsel Office)/11/3"
(b) in item 14 in the said Table, after the word 'Industry' in column 2, by inserting the words `(but excluding the Office of Science and Technology)';
(c) in item 16 in the said Table, by leaving out the words "and Civil Service" in column 1 and, in column 2, the words from "Treasury" in line 65 to "Board" in line 69; and
(d) in paragraph (3) by leaving out the words 'and Civil Service'; and
(2) with effect from Friday 1st March—
(a) by leaving out items 3 and 4 in the Table in paragraph (2) and inserting the following item:
"Education and Employment/Department for Education and Employment/13/4"; and
(b) in paragraph (3) by inserting at the beginning the words "The Education and Employment Committee,".
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I have to announce that Madam Speaker has selected amendment (c), which should be moved at the conclusion of the debate.
Mr. Newton: In moving this motion, I initiate another exciting House of Commons occasion, although I hope not as exciting as the one in which we all took part yesterday.
The motion seeks to adjust the Select Committee structure of the House to match the changes in the machinery of government which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced in July. I was anxious to get these matters resolved quickly because, as the House appreciates, I very much value the work of Select Committees and I wanted to make sure that we had a clear new structure in place before the start of the new Session.
What I propose follows the principle, which is now well established, of one Committee for each major Department, which the House last reaffirmed in June 1992 when it agreed to discontinue the Energy Committee and to set up a new Select Committee to monitor the Department of National Heritage and the Office of Science and Technology.
It might help the House if I digress briefly to make it clear that there has never been any intention on the part of the Government of doing away, as some feared, with the Science and Technology Committee. The Office of Science and Technology still exists in the same form as before the reorganisation; all that has happened to it is that it has migrated from one parent Department to another. The Science and Technology Committee will continue to oversee its activities at its new location.

753
I propose that the changes that I am putting forward to the Select Committee structure should be brought into effect in two stages. The first instalment, which is to take effect next week with the new Session, recognises the expanded role of the Office of Public Service under my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The OPS is now responsible not only for the civil service and the citizens charter but for competitiveness and the deregulation initiative. Those important areas of policy should now, we propose, be scrutinised by a new Public Service Committee, which is established by virtue of paragraph (1)(a) of the motion.
Other Committees, not least the Treasury and Civil Service Committee and the Trade and Industry Committee, obviously have an interest in the competitiveness agenda, but I am sure that the well-tried machinery of the Liaison Committee, so ably presided over by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins), will prevent any overlapping of Committee activity. I should emphasise that the role of the Deregulation Committee, which we established under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, in scrutinising individual deregulation orders as they come forward is not affected by this proposal.
As a consequence of that change, paragraph (1)(c) of the motion renames the Treasury and Civil Service Committee more simply and precisely as the Treasury Committee ant amends its remit so as to remove the references to the responsibilities taken over by the new Public Service Committee. Under paragraph (1)(d), the Treasury Committee will keep the power to appoint a Sub-Committee, but clearly any such Sub-Committee could no longer deal with civil service issues.
Paragraph (1)(b) makes it clear that the remit of the Trade and Industry Committee does not include the Office of Science and Technology, which, as I have said, will continue to be monitored by the Science and Technology Committee.
The second instalment of the changes I propose is to come into operation on 1 March 1996. We propose in paragraph (2)(a) to take account of the disappearance of a separate Employment Department by establishing a new Committee with 13 members, to monitor the full range of functions of the new Department for Education and Employment, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister created to reduce the divisions between academic and vocational education and to strengthen further the links between employers and the educational world of schools, colleges and universities.
Under paragraph (2)(b) of the motion, the new Education and Employment Committee will have the power to appoint a Sub-Committee if it so wishes. The creation of that new Committee, in line with what I must describe as the House' settled policy of matching Committees to Departments, necessarily means that the existing separate Committees on education and on employment need to be wound up, but I propose that that should not happen for nearly four months. The intention is to allow the existing Committees a reasonable period in which to complete the work that they have already started, which I hope they will be able to do. The Employment Committee has expressed concern about the prospects for the unfinished inquiries that it has under way at the moment. The proposal that the Committee should continue until 1 March 1996 seeks to respond to that concern.
Mr. Greville Janner: Will the Leader of the House give way?
Mr. Newton: I will give way, but I had understood that the hon. and learned Gentleman intended to make a speech. If an intervention can substitute for a speech, I would wish to co-operate with him.
Mr. Janner: That is not a basis on which I would wish to ask the Minister any question that I have.
Mr. Newton: I thought that my hopes might have been raised too high.
Mr. Janner: Yes, by at least half an hour.
Mr. Newton: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his usual helpfulness and courtesy. I appreciate the fact that he and his colleagues would have liked the period to be even longer, but I hope—although with little expectation in the light of our exchange, which was intended to be friendly—that they will regard this proposal as a reasonable compromise.
This motion deals with a number of issues, but I think that the only contentious point is over employment. When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced the changes in departmental responsibilities, some concern was expressed that the new arrangements might make it more difficult for the House to deal with employment issues. On Select Committee scrutiny, I hope that the proposals that I have brought before the House today, relating to the four-month period, the size of the Committee and its power to appoint a Sub-Committee, will have gone some way towards allaying those anxieties. As I said, the present Employment Committee will have nearly four months in which to complete the inquiries that it has in hand.
All in all, the motion represents a sensible and balanced solution to the problems that we face in relation to existing Committees, while sticking to what is widely supported: the settled policy of matching Select Committees to Departments.
4.45 pm
Mr. Greville Janner: I am sorry to dash the hopes of the Leader of the House, but it is the view of nine of the 11 members of the Select Committee on Employment that the so-called "compromise" offered by the Government will not enable the Committee to do its work within the time set; nor will it allow the House to monitor properly the work that was previously within the ambit of the Department of Employment.
My amendment (c) is supported by the hon. Members for Norfolk, North (Sir R. Howell), for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson), for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) and for Meriden (Mr. Mills) and by my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham), for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) and for Dudley, West (Mr. Pearson). It will not have escaped the attention of the Leader of the House that it has all-party support.
I am sorry that the Government have seen fit to try to make the Employment Committee vanish at the last breath of this Session. They have no doubt done so in the expectant hope that the payroll vote will be rolled out if necessary in order to put forward a proposition that is

755
neither in the interests of Parliament nor in accordance with good sense, and does not satisfy the House that the employment work will be done.
The Leader of the House should be careful when I speak because, on the last occasion, in line with my work as a magician, I suggested to the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) that the sooner he joined the Labour party and left the Conservative party, the better. I said that we would welcome him at any moment. To my absolute delight, a week later he crossed the Floor of the House. When that happens in response to one of my speeches, the Leader of the House might at least bend slightly in our direction and try to enable us to complete the work as he has suggested.
First, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will follow the views expressed in the fourth special report, which I shall read to him as unfortunately he did not see fit to mention it. If that is not possible, he should at least ensure that we are not forced to give up our work until the report commissioned by the Central Statistical Office to study options for the monthly publication of International Labour Office unemployment figures is before the House.
I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the proposed changes to Standing Order No. 30, the fourth special report of the Employment Committee, which was agreed by nine of the 11 members. Paragraph 3 reads as follows:
"We believe that the merging of the Education and Employment Committees will seriously diminish the ability of the House to monitor employment issues. We adduce the following reasons.
A committee which is responsible for both the employment and education briefs will not have the time to consider in detail the issues which they raise.
Both Committees have built up a background of knowledge and expertise in their respective areas which will be lost if they are merged into one committee"—
the report says "of only 11 members", but we now all know that it is to be of only 13 members, whereas the combined strength of the two Committees would have been 22 members.
I have consulted members of the Education Committee and found that they share the unhappiness and sense of regret at the Government's position which is felt by the vast majority of members of the Employment Committee.
The Leader of the House referred to a clear structure. I refer him to the original report that led to the setting up of Select Committees, which had in mind flexibility so that the work of the House could be done properly. It is one of the joys of our constitution, both written and unwritten, that there should be flexibility. Unfortunately, we have not yet seen it from the Government on this issue.
I remind the House that the report of the Select Committee on Procedure, which introduced the new Select Committee system in 1978–79, pressed firmly for a more systematic means of scrutinising the public service, which is what we are about. It concluded that
"the committee structure should in future be based primarily on the subject areas within the responsibility of individual government departments, or groups of departments".
I stress the word "primarily". None of us would dispute the fact that that is the normal system, but we have fled from normality with the Government's abnormal abolition of the Department of Employment and the spreading of its
756
work, not between two Departments, which is the usual—[Interruption.] I was hoping that a tiny corner of the mind of the Leader of the House might even be open to argument.
Mr. Newton: I apologise for the discourtesy of my feeling the need to have a word with one of my Front-Bench colleagues.
I hope that I have shown, over quite a long period, that I always try to look constructively at points that are made. However, I must say at this stage that I have already done so, to the degree that this is a substantially different proposal from the one that I first floated in several respects, on which I touched in my speech.
Mr. Janner: I accept that, and I thank the right hon. Gentleman, who is always courteous even when he is wrong.
I shall continue reading the very important paragraph from the report, which states:
"We"—
the Select Committee on Procedure—
"therefore accept that this principle must be tempered by some element of flexibility in the boundaries between committees and by adequate provision for cooperation between them."
I wonder whether the Leader of the House realises what has happened to the work that was with the Department of Employment. The training and enterprise councils have gone into the Department for Education, and we are busy, as a Committee, working on a report on the TECs, on which we have spent a great deal of time.
Into the Treasury, of all places, has gone the work of the Central Statistical Office, which includes the setting up of a task force led by an external consultant, a Mr. David Steel—no relation to anyone in the House, I understand—which is due to produce its report by the end of January 1996. I shall return to that subject.
So we have the TECs with the Department for Education; we have the CSO with the Treasury. Strangely enough, workfare, to which I shall return—this is a subject which is vastly important to the Committee and on which we have done a huge amount of work—is with the Department of Employment. Then we have all the issues concerning wages and trade unions, which have gone to the Department of Trade and Industry. [Interruption.] I am so sorry to interrupt—
The Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household (Mr. Greg Knight): Get on with it.
Mr. Janner: Yes; I will get on with it. I will tell hon. Members exactly what I think. I think that this is a deliberate move by the Government, as part of their policy to remove the Department of Employment and the spotlight on unemployment and on the work that is being done on workfare. They are transferring different aspects of work, one by one, into a long series of Departments, so as to spread them out.
Health and safety go to one place and TECs go to another; all the different aspects of our work have been spread about. It is all part of a confidence trick by the Government, in an attempt to remove the attention of the public from the reality of the existing and unacceptable unemployment.

757
I will get on with it by congratulating the hon. Member for Norfolk, North, whose work on workfare has been prodigious and without whom our Committee would not have undertaken it. That work has led us not only to interview witnesses in this country but to interview them in the United States. The Government have said that they intend to rely on the experience of the United States when proposing ideas about workfare.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Norfolk, North because it is as a result of his persistence that at least someone is listening. I hope that we shall hear from him, because the main reason why, if the Committee is to go, it should not go until we know what is happening, is that otherwise it will not be possible to complete the type of report on workfare that the House deserves.
I will get on with it by saying to the right hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) that he should be more temperate in his language when he is trying to get rid of a Committee whose members have worked happily and in great harmony together for a long time, who have done a superb job in a series of investigations and reports and who want to complete their work properly in a way that is in accordance with the traditions of the House.
We are considering three reports. One report is about TECs. It is possible for us to complete that. It will not be as full as we would want, but it can be done. Secondly, we have a report about employment statistics. That, standing on its own, is of great importance, whatever view—jaundiced or affectionate—anyone may take of the disgraceful way in which the Government publish their employment statistics. I am not surprised that the Government do not want the report, but the Committee wants it. It wants it in its own right and also because it forms the basis of the report that we shall produce on workfare.
One right hon. Gentleman has said, "Well, what does it matter? You can bring your report out on workfare even if you do not know the statistics." That is exactly the sort of rubbish which I will get on with, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer is unlikely to take any interest in a report on workfare based on statistics when other statistics are likely to appear at any minute at the Government's own request.
The question that I was going to ask the Leader of the House, which he stifled at its birth but which he may wish to revive when he replies, is simply as follows. Will he please guarantee that the Committee will have the report of Mr. David Steel before it for a reasonable time before it must pack in, before the Government get rid of it and before the Government get on with their task of getting rid of unemployment by putting it into the Education Select Committee and into a Sub-Committee? Everyone knows that a parliamentary Sub-Committee is a cul-de-sac into which ideas are lured, there to be quietly strangled to death.
We do not want a Sub-Committee; we want the Employment Select Committee to be allowed to continue its work until the end of the current Session.
Sir Terence Higgins: The end of the Session is tomorrow, as I understand it.
Mr. Janner: The end of the Session is tomorrow, which is precisely why the debate is tonight—so that there will not be enough hon. Members in the House to vote on it, so that the payroll vote may steamroller any effort that
758
we make. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and I thank him so much for drawing attention to my error.
We want the Committee to continue its work until the end of the Parliament. If it cannot be to the end of the Parliament, at least let it be until such time as we can bring out our report, not only on the statistics but on the effect that that has on the workfare report.
Every member of the Committee—with the possible exception of two Conservative Members, neither of whom is present—agrees that the level of unemployment, even though, happily, it is lower than it was, is unacceptable. Members of the Committee also agree that the idea that people should be paid for not working when they wish to work, and that they should not pay taxes when they would much prefer to be working and earning and paying taxes, when they are doing nothing with their time but rotting in unemployment—which is a hateful disgrace in modern society—is unacceptable.
We are considering ways in which that can be made better. We cannot guarantee that we shall all agree with the hon. Member for Norfolk, North, but at least let us consider the ideas properly. [Interruption.] The Leader of the House is being passed a billet-doux.
If the Leader of the House is determined to limit his flexibility, in what he chooses to call a compromise, to 1 March 1996, will he at least give us the absolute guarantee that the Committee will have that report before it? I would respectfully suggest that he should look again and consider whether the rush is unseemly.
The right hon. Gentleman has said that there are no real precedents for the change. With respect, I disagree. He referred to the Science and Technology Select Committee, which he described as in migration from one Department to another. I know that we are at the time of autumn mists and that birds migrate, but that Committee has not been migrated.
The Science and Technology Committee considers the work of the Office of Science and Technology. Until July, it came under the Cabinet Office, and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was the responsible Minister. Now it comes under the Department of Trade and Industry. The Government do not intend to abolish the Science and Technology Committee, which, if each Committee is meant to monitor a Department, they should; they will keep it going. It is not subsumed by the Trade and Industry Select Committee, as it would be if there were logic in the right hon. Gentleman's intention to get rid of the Employment Select Committee in that way.
Nor would this be the first time that there had been a delay in removing a Committee. On one occasion, changes to the Standing Orders of the House were delayed after a change in the departmental structure of government. The Department of Health and Social Services was split in summer 1988 and the Select Committee on Social Services was not split into two separate Committees until October 1990. It is a matter of the extent to which the Government permit the work of the House, and especially the work of the Departments and the work done by the Departments, to be carried out properly.
The principle that I mentioned, of "one Department, one Committee", has already been tempered by flexibility, but it must be tempered by more flexibility. It would make much more sense to allow the Select Committee on

759
Education to continue its work until the end of the Parliament. The Government should allow the Select Committee on Employment to continue its work until the end of the Parliament, when the Committee and some of its members would, regrettably, depart. But until then, they could do the job required of them by Parliament through the sensible monitoring system that exists.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, North will speak for himself. We on the Committee are determined to try, within the time limits that we are given by the House, to carry out our work in a way that brings credit to the House. We cannot properly monitor the work of the Department of Employment, as it was, if we are to have only four months to do so and no power to start any new reports. We shall have to wind up what we are doing and continue our work as a Select Committee—but we are at the tail end of the job.
It is the submission of all but two members of the Employment Select Committee, which I am privileged to chair, that the new arrangements are a mistake. That mistake will prevent the Committee from doing its job properly and has occurred owing to the inflexible approach adopted. The mistake could be avoided very simply—Parliament cannot continue much longer. I ask the Leader of the House, even at this late stage, to think again and see whether flexibility can be extended in a way that does credit to the House.
5.3 pm
Mr. Iain Mills: I agree with my colleague, the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), who chairs the Committee: we need more time. I shall not speak for long as we have only a short time for the debate.
We have achieved inward investment from Toyota, Honda and others. The Committee has not achieved that on its own, but it has used its influence to ensure that those companies have invested here. It is a great shame that the Committee is to be abolished. The Select Committee on Education cannot replicate the work of the Select Committee on Employment. I feel passionately that the Select Committee on Education cannot replicate the job creation aspects of the Employment Select Committee.
All I ask is that we should have a few more months—there is nothing else that we can ask for. We cannot ask for the Employment Select Committee to be recreated, but our achievements should be placed on record. I hope that Hansard will tonight record the inward investment achievements and the help and encouragement that the Employment Select Committee has given to various firms to locate in this country. We should have a little longer to conclude our arrangements.
5.5 pm
Mr. Ernie Ross: I support my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) and my other colleagues who are members of the Committee. Clearly, we are not likely to succeed in changing the view of the Leader of the House tonight to the extent that he will allow us to continue to the end of the Parliament. But if he expects us to lie down, roll over and die, he has made a grave mistake.
760
I am sorry that the debate had to take place at the fag end of the parliamentary Session, which has meant that not many hon. Members are here to make the comments that they would want to make on the way in which the Government have sought to forget about employment by burying it within the Department for Education and Employment. The Government have attempted to suggest that their responsibility for getting people into work is based solely on training. A quick résumé of the Government's work on training and their success in getting people into employment would soon dispel any belief that the Government have made a serious attempt to use training as a basis on which to reduce unemployment. I am sure that the Leader of the House could not name a successful Government scheme today to convince members of the Employment Select Committee, whether Government or Opposition Members, that the Government's policy has worked.
Our investigation of the various training initiatives introduced by the Government under the guise of getting people back to work reveals an abysmal success rate. The work that we are currently undertaking with the training and enterprise councils has demonstrated how the TEC system has failed. The previous Secretary of State for Employment travelled to Boston, studied the private industry councils and thought that they were a good way of directly involving business people. He brought the policy back to this country; it was introduced in England and Wales as TEC and in Scotland as local enterprise companies. The policy was supposed to be the driving force to tackle unemployment, but the TECs' and LECs' record on getting people back to work is abysmal.
During our present inquiry into the work of TECs, we recently interviewed TEC personnel. Some TECs no longer exist because of the way in which they were run. They could not run themselves properly, but they were supposed to reduce the levels of long-term unemployed. The Government's record on training is abysmal. The Leader of the House must work harder if he wants to convince the Select Committee on Employment that, by abolishing the Department of Employment and placing the emphasis on training, the Government can tackle the present unemployment problem.
As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West said, the Leader of the House will also have to consider the fact that, in the past, when a Department has disappeared, the Committee monitoring it has not necessarily disappeared. My hon. and learned Friend mentioned the Select Committee on Science and Technology and I should be interested to hear what the Leader of the House has to say in response to his comments.
It beggars belief that the Leader of the House and the Government thought that the Select Committee on Employment would simply lie down and die, and become a Sub-Committee of the newly formed Committee. Such a proposal does not tackle the serious problem of unemployment. People who are at present unemployed want to make a contribution. They currently believe that they cannot make a contribution, either on their own behalf or on behalf of their families. They are regularly attacked by Conservative Members as people who do not want to work or make a contribution, but want to live off the state.
The Government have decided that the best way to end unemployment is to abolish the Department that deals with it, thereby confusing people and trying to convince

761
them that unemployment is no longer the Government's responsibility. That method will not work; it certainly will not work with us this afternoon. It is unlikely that we shall be able to change the mind of the Leader of the House, but we shall certainly make an effort to do so. We certainly shall not let the debate finish this afternoon until we have heard one or two better reasons.
I accept what the Leader of the House has said about the compromises that he believes himself to have made, although I shall not comment on whether they have been made through the usual channels or on whether they are acceptable. However, we require more persuasive, reasonable and sensible arguments from the right hon. Gentleman if we are to accept the need to do away with a Select Committee that has sole responsibility for considering employment and ensuring that the Government's attention is focused on it.
5.9 pm
Sir Peter Emery: I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for missing his opening remarks. I was at a meeting.
I rise to speak only because, having heard two speeches, I well understand the disappointment of members of a Select Committee—and its Chairman, who has done his best to monitor the action of the Department involved—when the Department ceases to exist. I do not wish to become involved in an argument about whether there should be a Department of Employment or a Department for Education and Employment, although that strikes me as being part of the purpose of the debate; I heard what the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) had to say about such matters as training, but it is clear to me that training will have to be dealt with by the new Department. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) mentioned investment, which will have to be dealt with by the Department of Trade and Industry.
As Chairman of the Procedure Committee, I have fought long and hard for each Department to retain its Select Committee, and for the Committees to monitor the work of their Departments. I have proved that over the years with the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs and the Select Committee on Northern Ireland—we had to fight for a long time to obtain that. When the Department of Health and Social Security was split into two Departments, I ensured that separate Committees were set up to monitor the two aspects of its work.
If I use that argument, however, I cannot continue to argue that there should be a Select Committee when there is no Minister or Department for it to monitor. I am slightly surprised that the Department of Employment has not been cut off completely and all its work transferred, but I am pleased that the Government have been flexible enough to try to ensure that the Employment Committee's work will not be wasted. A date has been given for the completion of that work. It is true that no new work will be started, but the new work must be done by a Committee that will monitor a Minister. The idea of starting new work when there is no Minister to monitor strikes me as very strange, even if it involves examining only what has happened in the past. The only person who can respond to the Committee's report—and the reports that are published after, or up to, the end of March—will be the new Secretary of State for Education and Employment. The idea that we can retain a Committee that is monitoring a Minister who does not exist is very odd.
Mr. Janner: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his many courtesies over the years, and not least for what he has said today. Surely he accepts, however, that the Minister who responds to the report will be the Minister in charge of the Department that is now dealing with the matter concerned. If the report is on employment statistics, for instance, it will be dealt with by the Treasury; if it is on training and enterprise councils or workfare, it will be dealt with by the Department for Education and Employment. There may not be a Minister representing a Department that has been abolished, but Ministers will reply to reports on matters that are within the ambit of their responsibilities.
Sir Peter Emery: The hon. and learned Gentleman may or may not be correct. I assume that all the reports from the existing Select Committee on Employment will be dealt with by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment at first, although it is for her to decide whether to refer them elsewhere.
In any event, I cannot—on behalf of the Procedure Committee—say that it is in the interests of the House to set the precedent that Select Committees can continue to monitor when there is no one to monitor. I must support my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House: I believe that he is taking the right step, and is being generous in setting the end of March as the time by which members of the Committee can complete their work.
5.15 pm
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Let me make three brief points. I listened carefully to the eloquent speech of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), the Chairman of the Employment Select Committee; it was what we have come to expect of such a distinguished parliamentarian. I would hate him to think that the House does not appreciate the work that the Committee has done so far—work which has been informative and of high quality, and which has held the Department firmly to account. The House is in the Committee's debt, and I should not like any member of the Committee to think otherwise. It provides an example of what can be done by a Select Committee.
Having said that, however, I think that what is being done is logical. My party has always perceived the elegant synergy between the Department for Education and training and employment, and I was quite happy when the Government made their decision earlier this year. It has left some rough edges, of course, and it will take some time for the House to get used to the idea of the new demarcation and allocation of responsibilities—some of which were not handled very deftly; I would have put some of the bits and pieces in different Departments. It will also take us some time to get out of the habit of referring directly to the Department of Employment.
Although I support the motion, I feel that the eloquent pleas made by Committee members for time to enable them to complete their reports are entirely proper. I hope that the House will do nothing to disturb that work, enabling it to be completed in good time.
Finally, I should like an assurance from the Leader of the House about the position of minority parties in Select Committees. I do not believe that there is a place for such parties on either the Employment Committee or the

763
Education Committee at present. I should hate to think that, if we adopted the habit of folding Sub-Committees into departmental Committees, that would prejudice the precious few places that minority parties currently have.
There is an argument—although this is not the time to advance it—for providing a place on all departmental Committees for parties such as mine, and for nationalist parties such as the Ulster Unionist party in its various complexions. We often feel that we are under-represented. I know that it is preferable to have small executive Committees to do the work, and by and large they do it very well, but I fear that setting up Committees with Sub-Committees may freeze out the possibility of securing an appropriate number of places for minority parties.
Provided that the Leader of the House can reassure me that he will be diligent in protecting the rights and interests of minority parties—and given the thanks that are due to the Committee for the work that it has done to date—I believe that the motion should be supported.
5.19 pm
Sir Ralph Howell: I am glad that the Government have gone as far as they have in letting the Select Committee on Employment continue until the end of February, but I hope that they will listen to this debate and go further, because they are making a serious mistake. Unemployment is the biggest problem that confronts the advanced world and merely trying to hide it in another Department will not solve the problem. That will not help the Government. I ask them to take this matter seriously.
To try to mix education and unemployment in a Committee will not work as the people who are interested in education and the people who are likely to be interested in unemployment are as different as chalk and cheese. To try to put them into one Committee is not acceptable and that will prove to be so.
I congratulate the Government on doing away with the Department of Employment. I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee on Employment for his kind remarks about myself and the right to work/workfare inquiry that I initiated. He is wrong in worrying too much about the old Department of Employment. I found that it was inward looking and, over many years, nothing but obstructive, so I have no problem with its disappearance.
It seems obvious, however, that in the Department for Education and Employment, there must be two separate Departments. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is perfectly capable of looking after those two sectors, but she could very well report to two separate Select Committees. I hope that serious consideration will be given to that matter.
To confine those of us on the Select Committee on Employment to a shorter period will not enable us to get to the bottom of what we need to do.
Mr. David Nicholson: Whether the old Department for Education and the old Department of Employment will satisfactorily gel together remains to be seen, but my hon. Friend is right in saying, as paragraph 3 of the Employment Select Committee special report points out, that there is considerable doubt that the Select Committee on Education and the Select Committee on Employment will gel together, especially in the last year
764
of a Parliament. If that were being done at the beginning of a Parliament, I would understand it, but to do it at the fag end of a Parliament, when it has months to run, is eccentric.
Sir Ralph Howell: I am grateful for that intervention. It reminds me of Question Time today. It is crazy to have education questions and employment questions all muddled up on the Order Paper. They should be in two separate halves, so that we can examine those issues properly and sensibly.
I am especially concerned in relation to the statistical evidence and the report that we are compiling. We need that report as soon as possible, but I doubt that we shall get it before the end of January. We shall then require a lot of time to consider it and the Government will need to consider the statistics much more closely than they have in the past. Again, the Government are doing themselves no service in trying to fob off the unemployment problem as if, because it is falling a little, all is well. All is not well.
A total of 2.25 million people are doing nothing. Even on Government figures, that is costing £11.4 billion, which is a total waste as society gets nothing in return. Those figures, however, do not stand up to examination. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in October 1992, when she was Secretary of State for Employment only, that the cost of an unemployed person was £9,000 a year. In today's terms, the cost must be at least £10,000 a year. With 2.3 million people unemployed, that works out at £23 billion, so it is no good the Treasury telling us that unemployment is costing only £11.4 billion.
In 1979, 612,000 people were claiming invalidity benefit; that has risen to the huge figure of 1.8 million—1.25 million more people. If one adds the number claiming invalidity benefit in 1979 to the number claiming unemployment benefit at that time, it comes to 1.7 million; the figure now is 4.2 million. We need to know how well we are doing and to get to the bottom of the matter. The Government are intent on cutting public expenditure. That is the only sector where public expenditure could be cut, because there is that enormous figure of waste. I do not know whether the Government figure of only £11.4 billion is right or whether the correct figure is £23 billion or £27 billion, as Labour said in 1992, but I am confident that that is a big sector of waste and one that must be dealt with.
It will be impossible to persuade the mixed Committee, sub-committees or whatever one wishes to introduce, to be as effective as one Committee looking after one subject. This is an important subject. It will remain so and it is no good the Government trying to sweep it under the carpet.
5.26 pm
Sir Terence Higgins: The first part of the motions relates to the creation of the Public Service Committee and the abolition, effectively, of the Select Committee on Treasury and Civil Service. I am second to none in believing that the changes that we undertook nearly 15 years ago in the Select Committee system have been the biggest improvement in increasing ministerial accountability to the House, probably even this century. This matter is therefore of great importance and it is right that we should debate it this afternoon. Having said that,

765
I believe that the strength of those reforms lay in the fact that the Select Committee system became departmentally related. If one were to divert from that, the system would be greatly weakened.
Over the years—and I have had a lot to do with this matter in the intervening period—there has been considerable concern when the departmental structure has changed and when the Select Committees have had to be adjusted to meet that, but I have no doubt that that has been essential and, generally speaking, it has been done almost immediately or as quickly as possible. There was only one exception—and that was not a happy one—involving the Select Committee on Social Security,
On the proposed structure, we can take a lesson from the experience of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee, which has a Sub-Committee that deals largely with civil service issues. I have been well aware of the passion—I think that that is a fair description—felt by the Chairman of the Select Committee on Employment, the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Sir R. Howell) and others on that point, and, as Chairman of the Liaison Committee, I have listened as carefully as possible to the various points that have been put to me.
The initial view was that the change should happen immediately and that that should be that, but I was influenced by the arguments advanced, as was my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, and two important changes have been made, one of which gives the new Select Committee on Education and Employment the power to set up a formal Sub-Committee, which is a considerable power. Only the Home Affairs, Foreign Affairs and Treasury and Civil Service Select Committees have such a power, so that is an innovation.
Over my 12 years' experience on the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, the Sub-Committee dealing with civil service matters was not particularly subsidiary. It is true that at the end of the day, the main Committee stamps the decisions that have been taken, but it has proved an effective method of working. The work carried out by that Sub-Committee has been of great importance. It has produced major changes in proposals for the civil service and so on. There is no reason why that should not be the case for the new Committee.
There is a problem about manning the Sub-Committee. That is why the Leader of the House's proposal to increase the membership of the Committee is so important. No doubt, to some extent there will be some continuity of membership with the two previous Committees.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has suggested that the change should not be carried out immediately, as is the case with the Public Service Committee, but that it should be carried out by March next year. I hope that that enables the Committee to complete its work, particularly the proposals on workfare, which it might be true to say have been the life work of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North. He has done a tremendous job and is now in sight of a major step forward. It may be that the Committee's report will have considerable influence. I am anxious that that should be completed.
In recent weeks, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and I have sat through 39 sittings of the Nolan committee, so we are seriously biased about this matter. We might feel that the Employment Committee could fit
766
in some extra sittings. I would have thought that 39 sittings between now and the end of February would be roughly equivalent to what we did. The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West and my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North could probably fit that in.
I hope that this is a reasonable compromise and that it will enable the Committee to complete its work. Members of the new Committee will adopt a new guise, but some aspects of the Committee's work are certainly linked. For example, training and education have a close relationship.
If we were to perpetuate the existence of the Employment Committee, as the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West has suggested, there would be a split into various separate Departments—Education and Employment, Environment, Treasury and Trade and Industry. It would be a mess. Nobody would know which Secretary of State would be called before the Committee next. If the Committee is clearly the Education and Employment Committee, that is the Secretary of State whom the Committee is responsible for monitoring. If we are not to fragment the entire Committee system, that is the only sensible way forward. I hope that, on reflection, hon. Members and Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen will go along with it.
I pay sincere tribute to the substantial and important work carried out over a considerable time by the Select Committee on Employment. Sad though it is, I hope that, on balance, this is the right way forward.
5.33 pm
Mr. Jeff Rooker: This is an important debate and, as has been said by the Chairman of the Procedure Committee and the Chairman of the Liaison Committee, it is more than just a technical adjustment of our Standing Orders. It is an opportunity to praise the work of hon. Members who serve on Select Committees. Those Committees are sometimes the unsung part of Parliament. They are not usually on television and are not part of the party political battle or the cockpit of policy debate in the Chamber. Nevertheless, the Committees form a vital part of the work of the House.
The tragedy is that, until the implementation of the improvements brought about by the changes for the next Session, the House has never really taken seriously or devoted enough time to the work and the reports of the Committees. It is good that, following the resolutions passed last week as a result of the Jopling proposals, there will be an opportunity in the next Session to debate some of the Select Committee reports on the Floor of the House on at least three Wednesday mornings. The sooner my colleagues from both sides of the House who sit on the Employment Select Committee proceed with the three important reports on which they are working, the sooner they will be available to the Liaison Committee for selection for debate on the Floor of the House. That is important.
This is a sensible compromise. I accept the thrust of the Leader of the House's remarks. I share the disquiet of the Chairman of the Employment Committee, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), because we are mindful of the fact that employment matters do not disappear into a black hole. That point has been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House, but the Opposition are particularly mindful of it. The activities of the Department are being split up and it is not always easy to target what the Government

767
are doing to solve unemployment. Are we intent on eradicating mass unemployment? That is a serious issue which needs to be faced. It will come home to haunt the Government in due course.
The Employment Committee has about three and a half months left to complete its work. The Chairman of the Liaison Committee, the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins), mentioned the work of the Nolan committee. I am not sure whether the Employment Committee has the power to sit in a recess, but the Christmas recess will fall within those three and a half months. The Committee needs an opportunity to complete its work on the reports on training and enterprise councils, workfare and employment statistics. That work must be finished by 1 March, not the end of March as was mentioned by the Chairman of the Procedure Committee.
Fifteen or 16 years ago we voted on setting up the departmental Select Committees. I do not know how many hon. Members voted against setting up those Committees, but I was one of them. As I have said before, I did that because I did not believe that they would produce reports that were good enough and I did not believe that they would have sufficient teeth. On balance, experience has proved me wrong. They have provided hon. Members with a good oversight of the work of Departments which was not available to them before. The Committees are able to target a Department. If I had my way—some of my hon. Friends agree with me—I would target much more closely the work of a Department by raising other matters that fall well outside this debate.
The Committees deal with the structure of government and it is important that the House should take cognisance of the machinery of government. It is a little like the Opposition Front Bench. Over the past few years the Opposition have experimented by appointing shadow spokesmen on certain issues without a Minister for them to shadow. On balance, that is not a satisfactory arrangement for our Front Bench. With a change of Government we would form the machinery of government. The departmental Select Committees should reflect the work of the Departments. That is the only sensible way to operate.
It is important to set up a Committee to shadow the work of the Deputy Prime Minister and his colleagues. It is clear that an empire is being built in Whitehall and that it will have to be accountable to the House. Tempers might become a little short because there were many questions that the Deputy Prime Minister was unable to answer in the House. When he is before a Select Committee he will not be able to dodge them in the same way as he has in recent weeks. It is important that that Committee should begin its work early in the new Session.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) made a plea on behalf of the minor parties. He and I are in favour of strict proportionality in many matters. If there were to be a representative from a minor party on every Select Committee, the minor parties would be over-represented and I could not approve of that. The hon. Gentleman knows how the calculation is carried out. In the totality of Select Committee places, the minor parties receive their representation according to the proportions of the House. I understand that that means that many major Select Committees do not have minor party input and I understand the frustration that that causes.
768
I want to raise a not unimportant matter. Last week we passed new Standing Orders relating to the Jopling changes. Yesterday we passed new Standing Orders relating to the Nolan changes. Today, we are passing new Standing Orders relating to what I call the reshuffle changes. Therefore, I expect a very early reprint of Standing Orders, by the start of the new Session, because we already have at least two supplements, not counting the changes that I have just listed. There is no question that HMSO does wonders; the way that it produces our parliamentary papers is an incredible operation. The Standing Orders should be brought up to date before the beginning of the new Session.
I understand the concerns of hon. Members on both sides of the House who have worked hard on the Employment Select Committee. I wish them well in the work that they still have to do in finishing the three vital reports. However, the sooner the reports are available, the sooner we can put pressure on the Liaison Committee to look at them in a bid for proper debate on the Floor of the House. It is certainly a neglected area of our constitution.
5.41 pm
Mr. Newton: I am grateful to all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. If I was mildly irritated by anything, it was one or two remarks suggesting that I was trying to smuggle something through in some curious way. As I said in my speech, there has been widespread pressure to sort out the Select Committees for the new Departments and the others that I am proposing before the start of the next Session, so if I had not taken this initiative people would have asked why I was dragging my feet and not getting on with the job.
I feel bound to observe—I hope in a friendly fashion—that the notion that this early hour on a Tuesday in early November, widely advertised in a business statement two weeks ago as a day on which Parliament would be sitting to do business, is somehow an unreasonable time to debate a matter in which hon. Members are interested strikes even me, an enthusiast for the Jopling changes, as going a bit too far. However, I shall say no more about that.
The hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), in his characteristically moderate way—and I mean that, even though he used a slightly overheated phrase—said that the Committee would not lie down and die. I never expected that it would, especially in view of the nature of some of its members. I am sure that, not unreasonably, they will continue to make their points.
I say to my hon. Friends the Members for Meriden (Mr. Mills) and for Norfolk, North (Sir R. Howell), as well as other hon. Members on both sides of the House, that I am glad that we have given them an opportunity to remind everyone of what the Committee has achieved. It has enabled me to pay tribute to it for the work that it has done. Actually, the loyalty being shown today by its members and the claims that they are making for their reports confirm my view about the merits of Select Committees as a whole and the important contribution they make—even though I am bound to say that my views on how they should be structured have not changed.
I was asked a number of specific points. First, on the point raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) about a reprint of Standing Orders, I have been handed a note that I am trying to digest. I understand that a new volume of Standing Orders will be

769
printed for the start of the next Session, with all the Nolan, Jopling and other changes included. I hope that that will help the hon. Gentleman—although it may not be so helpful to the Labour Deputy Chief Whip, the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon), whom I am delighted to see in the Chamber. I noticed earlier that he was clutching a dog-eared copy of the Standing Orders. No doubt he uses them as his bible whenever he wants to stir up trouble and create difficulties—[Interruption.] I am being attacked from behind by the Government Deputy Chief Whip, my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight). If ever there was a mafia, the Deputy Chief Whips from the two sides of the House must be its core members.
I was grateful to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) for his remarks about minority parties. The hon. Member for Perry Barr answered on my behalf and made the right two points—that it is a matter for the Committee of Selection and that there is a global way of taking account of the representation of minority parties. If the hon. Gentleman were to make strong representations to the Chairman of the Selection Committee about his wish to serve on the new Employment and Education Committee, I am sure that proper weight would be given to that request within the overall position.
The hon. Member for Perry Barr bounced me with the question whether Select Committees could meet in recesses, to which the answer is yes. An oddity that I have resolved, while setting up the new Standards and Privileges Committee, is the fact that our oldest Committees have not been able to meet during recesses although the new Committees have been able to do so. I have brought the old Committees into line with the new ones.
If it is the ambition of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) or any other hon. Member to meet in the recess, 39 meetings between now and the end of February might prove to be a modest target. After all, the Select Committee considering the Nolan report, which I chaired, managed to meet on that number of occasions despite having been able to fit in only three meetings during the summer recess. Therefore, in a remarkably short House sitting time the Committee did a great deal of work. Indeed, in many weeks it sat for two or three hours, three or four days a week. I commend that example to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West in view of his desire to complete the work that he has undertaken.
The hon. and learned Gentleman asked me to listen. I hope that I have shown that I have done so. Indeed, I have read the report published by his Committee. I have it here—it has a little red sticker on it saying "Immediate". My office was concerned that I should see the report almost hot off the press. I have also read the extensive letter that the hon. and learned Gentleman wrote to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins), the Chairman of the Liaison Committee, on 24 October.
The problem is that, having studied the report and read the letter, I had already heard all the arguments to which he is now asking me to respond and already responded to them in the points I made earlier, for example, a bigger Committee than intended, a considerable extension of time compared with what had been originally proposed and the power to create a Sub-Committee. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing said, the power to
770
appoint a Sub-Committee was rubbished by the hon. and learned Gentleman as a way of burying or losing things. He should tell that to the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), who chaired the Civil Service Sub-Committee of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, which produced a report that has formed the basis of a new code. It was an effective and important report produced by a Sub-Committee.
At the end of the day, however reasonable I am and however much I would claim to have demonstrated my overwhelming reasonableness by the changes that I have already made, I cannot make any more.
Mr. Janner: I deeply regret what the Leader of the House has said in such good humour. Will he at least answer the question about the Central Statistical Office report that is due at the end of January and give the requested assurance to members of the Committee, so that we can at least have some hope of completing the work on that report well before the Committee is dissolved?
Mr. Newton: The hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned the end of January in his letter—I understand that the likely date is either the end of January or mid-February—and it was one of the matters that I took into account. All in all, it is a reasonable compromise.
There is no doubt that it would be very messy if we did what the hon. and learned Gentleman and some members of his Committee have pressed for. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing said, we should then have a Committee interrelating with four Departments of State and four Departments of State trying to interrelate with a number of Committees. It would not be very long before that produced considerable problems for my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Liaison Committee as a succession of Committee Chairmen came to tell him that someone was poaching on their territory and that they could not do business like that.
As not only a reasonable man but very much a pragmatic man, I think that what I have proposed is, on balance, the best that I can do.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That Standing Order No. 130 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended—
(1) with effect from the beginning of the next Session—
(a) by inserting the following item after item 10 in the Table in paragraph (2):
"Public Service/Office of Public Service (but excluding the drafting of bills by the Parliamentary Counsel Office)/11/3";
(b) in item 14 in the said Table, after the word 'Industry' in column 2, by inserting the words `(but excluding the Office of Science and Technology)';
(c) in item 16 in the said Table, by leaving out the words "and Civil Service" in column 1 and, in column 2, the words from "Treasury" in line 65 to "Board" in line 69; and
(d) in paragraph (3) by leaving out the words 'and Civil Service'; and
(2) with effect from Friday 1st March—
(a) by leaving out items 3 and 4 in the Table in paragraph (2) and inserting the following item:
"Education and Employment/Department for Education and Employment/I3/4"; and
(b) in paragraph (3) by inserting at the beginning the words "The Education and Employment Committee,".

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Ordered,
That Cheryl Gillan and Mr. William Powell be discharged from the Science and Technology Committee and Mr. Ian Bruce and Mr. Patrick Thompson be added to the Committee.—[Mr. MacKay, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

PETITION

  Naval Personnel
  5.50 pm
  Mr. David Jamieson: I wish to present a petition on behalf of former naval personnel who were exposed to asbestos in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s but who cannot claim compensation because of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. Many of these naval personnel are now suffering from terminal illness.
  The petition reads:
  To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
  The Humble Petition of the people of Plymouth and Devon Sheweth that naval veterans of the armed services are seeking redress for the serious illness caused by exposure to asbestos on the warships on which they served.
  Wherefore your Humble Petitioners pray that your honourable House will urgently investigate the situation of affected servicemen and take steps to ensure that they are adequately cared for.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.
  The petition was collected by the Plymouth Evening Herald which, as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, is an excellent newspaper. It is signed by Bill Luck, a constituent of mine who is suffering from the effects of asbestos, and by Alan Cooper and Sharon Wright from the Evening Herald who have done so much to bring the matter to the public's attention in our area. It is also signed by 13,000 other people in the Plymouth area.
  To lie upon the Table.

  East Sussex (Government Funding)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
  5.52 pm
  Mr. Tim Rathbone: Not only was it a reasonable hour to have the previous debate, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House pointed out, but it is a reasonable hour for this debate.
  This is the final substantive debate of the parliamentary year, and it is only correct that a debate that covers a frightfully important subject affecting East Sussex, which can be said to be the font of parliamentary democracy in that Parliament was first set up after the battle of Lewes, should be the one with which to end the parliamentary year. I am speaking on behalf of all my right hon. and hon. Friends from East Sussex and with whom I have discussed the subject of this debate. Some of them may contribute later.
  As a final word of introduction, I should like to say what a great pleasure it is that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford), is to respond to the debate. He must know more about local government than almost anyone else in the House. The debate is, of course, on various aspects of local government funding. As we have time on our side for once, I hope to cover a broad spectrum of subjects of which I have given my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary notice.
  I deal first with the overall level of rate support grant for East Sussex. On the basis of the Chancellor's Budget statement last year, East Sussex county council is projecting an allowable increase of no more than 0.5 per cent. in 1996–97 and 1997–98. Followed through, that would mean a gap in resources of something like £16 million per annum, which means an 8 per cent. or £32 million reduction over the next two years.
  It is open to question whether that projection by the Chancellor, which of course applies to overall Government funding for all Government expenditure, will be applied to the rate support grant in East Sussex or, indeed, anywhere else. Were it to apply, the county council has pointed out that it would lead to substantial reductions in the budgets for which it is responsible.
  The county council has not attempted to announce its priorities or to give any guidance at all in the consideration of the budget for next year. It has, however, spread reductions pro rata across the board. In so doing, it has not acted as responsibly as it could have done and has certainly given no leadership in terms of consideration of what the reductions might be. For the interest of the House, I shall cite one or two examples.
  The county council has suggested a reduction of £9.5 million in its education budget, a matter with which I shall deal later. It has suggested a reduction of £1.5 million for roads and transportation, a reduction of £300,000 for libraries and the arts and a £750,000 reduction for the fire service—although it would probably not be allowed to make such a cut as it would be contrary to Home Office requirements, which might reassure people living in the county. The council has proposed a cut of £3 million in its social services budget. Incidentally, that is a most peculiar cut, as the council has a £4 million surplus in its social services budget at this very moment.
  774
  I fear that the council is once again stirring up great concern among many people about what it might have to do were something or other to happen elsewhere.
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: My hon. Friend mentioned that the council was stirring up feelings. I can assure him that I have received some 500 letters from parents, many of whom who are shocked and appalled by the conclusions to which they have been driven by that report. Some believe that the county council will be compelled to introduce monumental cuts which will savage the educational system in East Sussex.
  Mr. Rathbone: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to that fact. I shall deal with so-called education cuts in a moment.
  The county council claims that its administrative costs are among the lowest in the country and that steps have already been taken to reduce expenses by cutting down on top management posts. I am not in a position to assess the validity of such claims, but, in view of his deep knowledge of local government, perhaps my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is.
  The district auditor has accepted that any reductions in expenditure will be difficult to achieve. He pointed out that net expenditure on services is already well below the county median per head of population and that East Sussex ranks 28th out of the 39 English county areas. He also said that the county is in a sound financial state. In spite of the auditor's report, there are some questionable aspects of policy and expenditure. I shall cite three by way of illustration, although they are in no way exclusive.
  In education, for example, £1.2 million of savings have been identified and are being achieved through the improved administration of school meals. I understand that only £500,000 has so far been allowed in this year's budget. That of itself allows considerable budget leeway, which is pretty important, as I shall remind the House when I speak specifically about education. It also raises the question, however, of whether similar administrative savings can be made elsewhere in education and, indeed, in other departments.
  In social services, even though the county threatens the closure of homes and day centres, there is an apparent surplus of £4million—unspent—in this year's social services budget. If that is the case, or, indeed, if it is anywhere near the truth, it is near criminal that the county council is stirring up so many worries in people's minds about the cuts in social service expenditure—which it has done.
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in each of its 700 beds, social services pays itself £100 a week per person more than it is prepared to pay the private sector'? It could, in fact, save itself another £4 million if it were to pay itself the same rate as it is prepared to pay the independent sector.
  Mr. Rathbone: My hon. Friend is exactly right. To the best of my knowledge, the cost of keeping somebody in a county council rest home is in the region of £295 a week, whereas the cost to the county council of a person being in an independently run rest home is about £195 per week. If one extrapolates, the figure comes to about £4 million—an extremely large amount of money, particularly in the light of the county's enormous cost-cutting suggestions.

  775
  Having said all that, I know that there are matters of genuine concern. One is the cost of local government reorganisation. In that, East Sussex is unique in England, since in Brighton and Hove a joint unitary authority is being created out of two boroughs. I do not believe that there is any other instance of that anywhere in the country. That makes the matter very much more complicated than elsewhere, and considerable extra costs in preparing for that reorganisation are already being incurred.
  From all accounts, there is a great spirit of co-operation between Brighton, Hove and East Sussex, and all the work together is going well; but, as far as I know, there is no additional Government allowance to cover the added cost to East Sussex, which is of genuine concern to the county.
  A second matter of genuine concern is related to the technical question of the area cost adjustment. As the House will know, Ministers are inspecting the application of the area cost adjustment—the way in which local authorities in the south-east of England benefit from additional Government funding to meet the higher cost of providing services in that area. That comes to a substantial amount of money overall: £28 million a year, which is equivalent to about £100 on the average council tax bill.
  I understand that, as that process is being reviewed in the coming year, there is a real risk that some of that money, if not all, will be withdrawn from the south-east of England and redistributed to other parts of England, which would leave the county in an extremely difficult budgetary situation unless an extra grant were made available to make up for it.
  The third aspect of genuine concern—my concern may not carry all hon. Members—is the effect of capping. In an area where the vast majority of households pay council tax, local government can be held, and be seen to be held, responsible and answerable for its spending plans. With the reduction of the rates support grant as a proportion of the county council's total expenditure, that answerability is of course even further enhanced.
  At the moment, for every £1 million that the council decides to spend over the rates support grant, approximately £3.75 is added to band D council tax bills. To put it another way, every additional 1 per cent. of expenditure increases council tax bills by 3.5 per cent. That of itself should act as a good political brake on a council's level of spending. It is far better than imposing a cap, which, quite honestly, allows local government to blame national Government for not being able to do the things that it feels it wants to do, or that it feels people want to have done for them in the local area.
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is quite remarkable that, despite all the scaremongering at local level in East Sussex, which he has been explaining with great accuracy, and even though this Adjournment debate has started quite early in the parliamentary day, not a single representative of the Liberal Democrats is in the Chamber?
  Mr. Rathbone: That is a good point, although one must point out that there are no Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament in East Sussex. Long may that continue! I shall return to that point in another context.
  776
  It seems that capping has two disadvantages—for an area such as East Sussex at least. It psychologically encourages councils to spend up to that limit, which is exactly what happened when the Liberal Democrats took control of East Sussex county council just three years ago. In the first year after they took over, they decided, contrary to all Conservative advice, to spend right up to their limit, and in the process take advantage of the cumulated balances that the Conservative administration had built up; indeed, they are still taking advantage of those balances.
  The other great disadvantage, which runs across the whole country, is that capping tends to be applied equally across all counties, irrespective of expenditure needs. In East Sussex this year that has led to an inability—so the county claims—to spend the extra 3.1 per cent. grant on education which was made because of soaring school rolls. The money—believe it or not—was used to reduce council tax.
  That cannot be what was in Ministers' minds when capping of East Sussex expenditure was introduced. I sincerely hope that the ministerial review of capping will conclude that capping for counties such as East Sussex should be removed. Failing that—I hope that that will not fail—I hope that there will be some way in which to ring-fence the funding for education so that it gets used for the purposes to which it is being applied, rather than, as has happened this year, for the reduction of council tax, however welcome that may be.
  That leads me to the question of education funding, to which some of my hon. Friends have already referred. It is much in the news and in the minds of people in East Sussex because the county council has set up the Education Committee Strategic Forum which produced a so-called consultation report on so-called education cuts, which has caused desperate worries among parents, teachers and school governors everywhere. Those worries are deeply felt and they have been reflected in conversations, in meetings and in my mailbags and those of all my right hon. and hon. Friends who represent parts of East Sussex.
  Terms such as "cash crisis" abound. They are based only on the quite correct commitment made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to contain overall Government expenditure in this and future years. I say "quite correct" because that is the smack of firm, competent and considerably responsible Government. Will my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary confirm whether there has ever been any similarity between such national expenditure targets and expenditure by local authorities generally, or by local authorities on education specifically? My belief is that there is no parallel between the two. Such parallels would certainly be peculiar in the light of the very specific reassurances by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and, indeed, by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about the importance of expenditure on education and the priority that should be given to it.
  I fear that the truth is that East Sussex county council has been indulging in completely reprehensible political scaremongering rather than responsible contingency planning, as it claims. For that reason, I have asked for the report to be withdrawn and the consultation scaremongering to be brought to an end. I have had no response and I fear that I probably shall not receive one.

  777
  Council leaders and council officials claim that the consultation is an entirely non-political activity and that the concerns are well founded. That claim is made especially about the founding of what has come to be called the East Sussex schools campaign, which is based on the consultation process. The campaign contains within it a belief and a restatement over and again that East Sussex is being compelled to cut £24 million from the school budget when there is no such compulsion and there cannot be as the cuts do not exist. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary can confirm that.
  The East Sussex schools campaign refers to real doubt about future nursery education, when the county council arbitrarily and without any debate refused to consider joining the Government's nursery school voucher scheme, which was designed not only to maintain nursery education but to expand it.
  The campaign also refers to the activities of schools and the marvellous job that is done within schools. The campaign has organised a meeting in the House of Commons in 10 days' time under the spurious title of "Excellence At Risk". The meeting has not been discussed with, and sponsorship has not been requested from, any of the East Sussex Members of Parliament, all of whom have a genuine concern to improve educational standards and educational funding in East Sussex. The meeting is under the sponsorship of the hon. Members for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie), for Bath (Mr. Foster) and for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), all of whom are Liberal Democrats who are far removed geographically from East Sussex—they could hardly be further removed. Is it not peculiar, therefore, that the claim is still made that the meeting is all about a non-party political consultation process? I fear that that is bunkum.
  This well-orchestrated, politically inspired campaign, which is built round scaremongering proposals, is an attempt not only to cause maximum concern, in which respect it has been heart-rendingly successful, but to cover the less than whole-hearted commitment to education excellence of the Liberal Democrat-controlled East Sussex county council.
  I call in witness the fact that education expenditure was 6 per cent. lower than the shire county average for the proportion of total expenditure spent on education in 1994, the most recent year for which comparative figures are available. I call in witness a huge balance of £6 million remaining in the education budget at the end of the previous fiscal year which implies less than full or necessary spend on education. I call in witness the complete lack of search for reductions in expenditure elsewhere which would enable the council to spend the considerable extra moneys made available by the Government for this year to cover the cost of rising student numbers—3.1 per cent. in standard spending assessment versus 1.2 per cent. in other areas.
  Mrs. Lait: Is my hon. Friend aware that in schools in East Sussex the percentage of the teaching budget that is spent on supply teachers is 10 per cent., whereas in grant-maintained schools it is down to about 2 per cent? If the local authority schools could manage to get the number of supply teachers down to the level in grant-maintained schools, would not the schools have sufficient money not only to provide the education that we all wish to be provided but to end the campaign of cuts?
  Mr. Rathbone: It sounds as if my hon. Friend has put her finger precisely on yet another example of administrative and professional costs which could be reduced to increase educational standards.
  As with Government funding for health services, social services and practically everything else, there will never be enough money to do everything that everybody wants to do in education. The Government have to be responsible in proposing levels of public expenditure that reflect national economic interests, especially a continuing low rate of inflation. The county council has to be equally responsible in allocating funding between and within the services that it has to provide for the people living in its area. It is worrying, therefore, and much to be regretted that anyone should play politics with our children's education as the East Sussex education authority has been doing.
  The House would agree that nothing is more important than a good education service and proper educational standards. The whole thrust of our Government's education policy has been devoted to achieving that. It should not and must not be placed in jeopardy; we are all committed to that.
  Sir Peter Hordern: I think that my hon. Friend said that East Sussex county council was talking in terms of having to make a reduction of £24 million. He may be interested to know that West Sussex county council is talking in terms of having to make a cut of £25 million. It is extraordinary that the figures should be so similar; neither is based on anything in the public expenditure White Paper. In addition, West Sussex has enjoyed the highest increase in revenue support grant of any authority in the country.
  Mr. Rathbone: I always welcome support from across the border, especially from my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern). I welcome that support now and I believe that it underlines the absurdity of the awful, gossipy scaremongering in which East Sussex county council has been indulging. I hope that my right hon. Friend and his constituents have not been burdened with the same sort of scaremongering in West Sussex.
  I now turn to a longer-term element of funding and planning for East Sussex which is causing considerable concern now—the current review of the East Sussex structure plan. Once again, the county council has produced proposals that cut across all good sense and that would threaten the character of the towns, villages and beautiful countryside of East Sussex. There are proposals for huge numbers of new homes to be built in East Sussex between 2006 and 2011. That seems a long way off, but the proposals are being discussed now and are causing concern now.
  There are proposals for 800 new homes on the edge of Polegate, an enormous increase of 25 per cent. to that small town. There are proposals for new settlements—a peculiar new term which has crept into the planning language as if one was part of the wild west of America—somewhere between Polegate and Lewes, and somewhere between Lewes and Wivelsfield. They could amount to 10,000 homes, requiring considerable infrastructure as well as housing. What a horrendous erosion of magnificent countryside that would be. There are proposals to expand Sussex villages, such as Wivelsfield,

  779 9
  Newick, Ringmer and Ditchling, expansion that would put the character of those villages at risk. The developments are close to the south downs, in the beautiful Sussex weald, and are close to areas of outstanding natural beauty which I am sure you know only too well, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Over the years, I have been in regular contact with Environment Ministers—including my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary—and their predecessors to plead for a more sophisticated reading of housing needs in the south-east generally and in East Sussex in particular. Special regard must be given to the drastic increase in single-occupancy homes which can and should be accommodated in cities and towns. I believe that there are 100,000 unoccupied houses in London, and there are at least 5,000 unoccupied houses in Brighton. I hope that the Government's review of requirements will benefit not only those people who come to live in the area but those people who have been established there for many years.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will confirm that the present requirements are not tablets handed down by national Government to the county councils to execute. It is my belief that the requirements have been agreed between the Government and those involved with the south-east regional plan, including representatives from all the councils in the south-east. There is continual liaison between the two as the figures become refined. If that is the case, it is ridiculous for local politicians to blame the Government for the plans, as the local county council is partly and jointly responsible for them.
  Thousands of submissions were made to the county council during the recent consultation process seeking drastic and fundamental reconsideration of the structure plan review. I hope that East Sussex county council will heed those requests and that the Under-Secretary will be able to confirm to the House that the council is responsible for those plans and must react to the public consultation process.
  I apologise to the House, as I have gone on at somewhat greater length than was my intention, but all the points that I have raised here this afternoon are close to the hearts of the people who live in East Sussex. They have expressed their worries to me and to my colleagues representing the county. I welcome the opportunity to raise those concerns with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary.
  6.22 pm
  Sir Timothy Sainsbury: I rise to do two things. First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) on giving the House the opportunity to discuss an important subject, and on putting the facts and figures of the matter so eloquently before the House. Secondly, I want to support as strongly as I can everything that my hon. Friend said. Perhaps I should take exception to my hon. Friend's remarks about the beautiful countryside of east Sussex as I have an entirely urban constituency, but I share his sentiments.
  I support what my hon. Friend said about the area cost adjustment. That is very important, and he is entirely justified in saying that it should be maintained. I agree also with what my hon. Friend said about the cost of reorganisation,and about the rather unusual
  780
  reorganisation in East Sussex and its implications for the staff involved. I also support what he said about capping. He said that he might not find sympathy for his views from my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench, but he made a valid point about the effect of capping in East Sussex.
  Most of all, I support my hon. Friend's attack on the inexcusable scaremongering of the Liberal Democrats—who have been supported by Labour—in the county council. I visited the St. John's day centre in my constituency a couple of weeks ago. Any hon. Member would have been distressed to see the concern which has been caused to the elderly people who use that centre, and the quite unjustified alarm that has been given to them about the future of the centre's funding. My hon. Friend has set out the figures relating to the social services and to the £4 million surplus, and to frighten elderly people who use day centres on those grounds is totally inexcusable.
  My hon. Friend rightly said that the worst manifestation of the scaremongering campaign has been seen in the education budget. During the past 15 years, I have witnessed a considerable improvement in the schools in my constituency. In general, we have a high standard and we can be proud of what they achieve and the quality of teaching they provide. It is distressing that head teachers, governors and—most of all—parents in my constituency have been so alarmed by the county council's scaremongering about massive cuts in funding of £24 million, or 10 per cent. The council has also pretended that the cuts will take place in one year, and blames it all on the Government.
  The phoneyness and falseness of the campaign has been portrayed in the "East Sussex Education Committee Strategic Forum". The first page of the document is signed by the county education officer, and contains the revealing statement that
  "It is possible that up to 10 per cent. reductions in the budget may be necessary over this time".
  The time referred to is the three years between 1996 and 1999. That puts the scaremongering campaign in its proper perspective.
  Mr. Waterson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the county treasurer's worst case scenario involves a reduction of only 8 per cent. overall?
  Sir Timothy Sainsbury: My hon. Friend powerfully reinforces my point about political scaremongering. The 8 per cent. to which the county treasurer refers would again be spread over three years, and would not be introduced in one year.
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I apologise for interrupting my right hon. Friend to repeat a point which has been made, but it needs to be emphasised. The quotation from the county education officer is couched in moderate language. However, the notice issued by the three Liberal Democrat Members to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) referred—they have not even done us the courtesy of coming to the debate or informing us that they were sponsoring a meeting—draws attention to a meeting at which it was said that East Sussex would be "compelled" to accept £24 million cuts. I received many letters from constituents who attended meetings organised by governors and headmasters of schools and attended by parents and

  781
  teachers. They wrote to me to say that there would be no alternative but to knuckle under unless we made representations to the Government on the matter.
  Sir Timothy Sainsbury: My hon. Friend vividly illustrates the party-political posturing which is causing alarm and concern. Responsible chief officers must stick accurately to the facts, and the county education officer's quote puts matter in perspective. The remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes about the document were entirely justified. The only proper and honourable course for the Liberal Democrat-controlled county council now is to withdraw the document and to apologise to those whom it has alarmed and scared by its campaign.
  6.28 pm
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: I am very pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the debate, and I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Sir T. Sainsbury) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) on obtaining it. The debate has been well attended by Conservative Members representing constituencies in East Sussex, and I am pleased to see my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Sir D. Spencer) in the Chamber.
  I shall develop some of the themes expressed so well by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes in his remarks. There is a pattern of politically inspired scaremongering by the Liberal Democrats and their Labour coalition partners in East Sussex. We have seen it occur in debates on libraries, social services, the fire service and education. There has been a series of well-timed announcements of considerable drama about cuts which have to be made—it is said—as a result of the wicked Conservative Government. Perhaps the most dramatic example was in the fire service. Within days or almost hours of announcing a new offshore firefighting facility, the council made another announcement that it was threatened by possible cuts. That is precisely the approach adopted by the current administration in East Sussex which is so destabilising. It is worrying for council tax payers, parents, governors and teachers and it must be destabilising for the staff who have to operate the services when they are subject to political ping-pong all the time.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes talked about social services. There are threats to close homes and day centres, yet there is on any view a projected substantial underspend this year on care in the community. That strikes me as remarkable because when I raise cases on behalf of my constituents the answer that I am given almost without exception is that there is a lack of resources—again, presumably, the Government's fault.
  I have mentioned libraries, but let me deal with education. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes put a powerful case, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Hove, on education. In my constituency there is a substantial need and demand for pre-school education. I am sure that the same applies to the constituencies of my hon. Friends who are present this evening. I know that because of the activities of IPNA, the independent nursery operators, with which I have worked closely and from the various play groups that I have visited in recent months, many connected with the Pre-School Learning Alliance.
  Contrary to its image in some parts of the world, Eastbourne is a town growing younger at a rapid rate. That means that there are many families with young
  782
  children. We all know—the evidence is striking—that children who have had the benefit of pre-school education in some form tend to do a lot better when they go into formal schooling. Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait), who is in her place, I was one of the first to write to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education when she made her announcement a few months ago about nursery education. I wrote to say how useful and valuable it would be if East Sussex was one of the authorities involved in the pilot scheme so that parents could be some of the first beneficiaries of the vouchers worth, say, £1,100 a year which would be made available for all four-year-olds so that they could have some form of pre-school education.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes has already said, the suggestion that East Sussex should be part of the pilot scheme has been dismissed out of hand, not by the county council or the local education authority, or even by the East Sussex education committee, but by the chairman of that committee, Councillor Norcross. Barely had the suggestion been made than he issued a statement describing the scheme as a political con which he wanted nothing to do with. Not only have elected members of the authority not had the opportunity even to debate the issue but parents and children in my constituency and across East Sussex have been denied the opportunity of pre-school education.
  Mrs. Lait: I know that my hon. Friend has read closely the draft consultation document. Does he agree that it is appalling, given the circumstances with regard to nursery education that he has outlined and the opportunities that would be available to parents to use the nursery vouchers, that one of the options for cuts suggested by the Liberal Democrats is nursery education?
  Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend is right. I shall describe in a moment how I believe that whenever the so-called "cuts" are proposed, they tend to be the ones most likely to upset parents such as the teaching of French and music, special education and nursery schools.
  The plain truth is that the East Sussex LEA is sulking because it wanted the Government to give it a big bag of money to run pre-school education the length and breadth of East Sussex. It did not want to see independent nurseries operated, heaven forbid, by the private sector, or even playgroups operated by committed people whether in church halls or more dedicated facilities. They wanted nursery education to be operated as a wholly owned subsidiary of the LEA. That is exactly why it has reacted so precipitately against the Government's trial scheme. When one leaves aside all the political rhetoric that is flying around, what all this means is that a raft of children in my constituency and elsewhere will be denied the opportunity of pre-school education for the one and only time in their lives. That is exactly because of a politically motivated decision by the chairman of the education committee. As I have said, there was no consultation about that decision.
  My hon. Friends have referred in some detail to the letters that we have been receiving. As I said when I spoke at the Ratton school awards ceremony in my constituency last Friday, I am not surprised that parents, governors and teachers have written to me in those terms and nor do I blame them. After all, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if someone who seemed to know what he was talking about told you

  783
  that you were going to be hit on the head by a meteor, you would be worried about being hit on the head by a meteor, but that would not mean to say that it was right.
  The disgraceful aspect of this episode is that people who know better because they are professionals or the councillors involved in the education part of the authority's work have allowed a document to go out widely in East Sussex which contains some massive and extremely pessimistic assumptions. Even Members of Parliament do not yet know the allocation for education spending for 1996–97. We will not know, and therefore East Sussex cannot know, what the allocation will be until after the Budget. I am pretty sure that education spending will rise. The only question is by how much.
  I am sure that most of my constituents agree that the Government should try to control public spending and borrowing. Even the report recognises that
  "Opposition political parties do not suggest that a change of Government would lead to a dramatic change of policy."
  I stress again that we cannot yet know the allocation for the coming year. East Sussex county council has at present a total budget of about £420 million. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes that it is difficult to believe that there is no scope for cutting waste and bureaucracy within that figure. We have heard how the LEA has just effected a saving of £1.2 million on school meals alone.
  I wish to have assurances from the authors of the document that any increase in spending on education in East Sussex will be passed in full to the schools and not spent on central administration—
  Mr. Rathbone: Or on a reduction in the council tax.
  Mr. Waterson: Or, as my hon. Friend says, on a reduction in the council tax.
  The council's reserves are estimated at some £15 million, whereas the figure recommended by the National Audit Office is only £8 million. It seems to me that judicious use of reserves plus cutting out any waste could produce significant additional funding for the chalkface—the schools themselves. It seems to me that some of the conclusions reached in this curious document about possible cuts are surprising and worrying. I suspect that they are designed to be worrying.
  It is an abdication of the local education authority's responsibilities to invite people to tick boxes at the end of the report to show which cuts they prefer. Of course, if one's child is doing rather well at his or her music lessons, one will clearly not tick that box.
  The truth is that we elect councillors to do the task of allocating significant resources, difficult though it sometimes is. Only councillors and the officers who advise them have the detailed information necessary to make those choices. One of the features of the Liberal Democrats, even when they temporarily win power in a local authority, is that they continue to behave as though they were in opposition. They do not like making decisions. It is in the nature of running any political organisation that decisions have to be made and it is a sad fact that they tend to upset one group or another. How much easier, even when one is nominally in charge, simply to abdicate that responsibility.
  784
  A considerable amount of money and officer time has been spent on producing the document, for no great purpose except to worry parents, governors and teachers. The report accepts that
  "the Education Service in East Sussex is relatively well funded. Pupil/teacher ratios in particular bear favourable comparisons".
  Along with my colleagues, I will do all I can to continue to press for sufficient funding to maintain those high standards. I hope that when it is proved that these alarmist conclusions are not accurate, as I believe to be the case, the people of East Sussex will receive an apology from the architects of the document and the campaign behind it. People are playing politics with other people's lives and their aspirations for their children—the one thing about which almost everyone gets very passionate.
  In conclusion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you may have seen, as I did recently, that the Liberal Democrats have a new policy for what they call a "virtual Parliament", by which they mean Parliament being organised by video links and the Internet, so that hon. Members would not have to trouble themselves to come to this place, but could operate from their constituencies. That is quite appropriate for the Liberal Democrats because a virtual Parliament would merely confirm that they are virtually never here anyway, and tonight is no exception.
  We have heard how the document was produced. It was based on specious assumptions, with strange conclusions, and it has been used as the basis for a campaign directed at parents, teachers and governors and, through them, at myself and fellow Conservative Members, and a campaign to be organised in the House, of which we have had no notice. That gives away the purpose behind the entire operation—to cause political trouble. It is not directed at the welfare of children in East Sussex.
  That shows what the campaign is about. I hope that the people of East Sussex will realise how people have been trying to manipulate them and how remarkable it is that, despite the alleged seriousness of the issues, not a single Liberal Democrat is in the Chamber to participate in this debate.
  6.43 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) for initiating the debate. Looking over my shoulder at one point, I began to wonder whether the East Sussex mafia—I think that almost every Conservative Member representing the county is present—was here as a lynching party. I am relieved that the pressure has landed on East Sussex county council, as it deserved.
  This is a good opportunity to discuss some local government measures and local government resources. As hon. Member after hon. Member said, there appears to be a campaign. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern), who was described as an hon. Friend from across the border, pointed out, that county council is not the only one in the campaign, but it is interesting that the more virulent and unpleasant campaign seems to have come from the Liberal Democrats, with the Labour party not far behind.
  Before coming to the House, I always saw such campaigns as "bleeding stumps" campaigns. At the last minute, when it is too late for people to react, the word

  785
  "cuts" comes out—it is never savings, always cuts. The alarmists use the opportunity to go for the most valuable and treasured service—the one that will hurt the most. They then threaten to cut it off and wave the bleeding stump around, hence the name of the syndrome. I am afraid that East Sussex is not the only authority to do so. Many others are doing the same—I could mention West Sussex, Nottinghamshire and a number of others.
  There is a straight campaign, but this time it may have been carried too far. That certainly seems to be the case in East Sussex, as I have never seen so many cross Conservative Members of Parliament utilising the opportunity of a lengthened Adjournment debate. The vehemence was such that I feared that it would last until 10 o'clock.
  As my hon. Friends are aware, local government spending for 1996–97 will be announced as part of the Budget statement on 28 November. As a result, they will appreciate that I am not in a position to answer some of the questions on the proposed settlement.
  While we are talking about the figures and the fact that the council has utilised last year's and extrapolated from them, let me say that I find it interesting that, when local authorities look for increases they talk of percentages, but when they are talking of cuts they use figures. Of course, figures are more dramatic in the minds of the people whom they are trying to frighten.
  I am aware that the total amounts involved in the local government settlement for 1995–96 were not as much as local authorities wished. I do not think that they ever have been. Total standard spending rose by 2.2 per cent., however, which was a fair settlement. I believe, particularly because of my background, that local authorities have sufficient resources to carry out their functions. It is too easy for an authority to pick a wish list, add new demands, add it all up—the taxpayer picks up the bill—and, if it is not arrived at, say that it is the result of cuts.
  There ought to be a change. We must recognise the importance to the economy of the way in which local authorities spend their finances. About 25 per cent. of Government expenditure is local government expenditure. It is just as important for local government to squeeze effectiveness out of every drop of other people's money spent as it is for central Government. We need local authorities to look to that. They must realise that they can squeeze full value out of every pound that they spend. They must be more efficient and provide better services. An old local authority motto is, "More services, better services, but for less cost." It can be done.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes and others highlighted issues relating to East Sussex and areas of savings. It is a lesson to councillors that, if Members of Parliament without the expertise, the figures and the official advice that they would receive if they were councillors, can find the savings, it ill behoves the local authority not to do the same by utilising the expertise at its disposal.
  Each local authority has its own problems and, equally, should sort out its own local solutions. The Government's responsibility is for the overall level of resources available to local government and for the fluidity of the means of resource distribution among authorities.
  Every year, we have to set the demands of local authorities in the context of what the country can afford as a whole and that is right. Local government spending
  786
  accounts for a quarter of all public spending and no Government, including—in the dim and distant past—the last Labour Government, could afford to ignore it. No Government will in the future.
  Public spending decisions are made in the context of a medium-term financial strategy to promote sustained economic growth and thus ensure higher living standards. The best way to protect local government services is to ensure that the national economy is strong and inflation under control. To that end, we must continue to seek better use of existing public expenditure and to keep control of public sector bills. Both local and central Government have essential parts to play in bringing about those benefits.
  I have no doubt—this has been illustrated tonight—that there is still scope for increased efficiency in East Sussex and in every other local authority despite the claim made by some, or many, that the potential for more effective working has been exhausted. If successful private business can use every opportunity to find a better way of doing things at better value, and bearing in mind the fact that nothing stays the same in business—after all, the provision of public services is a business—such opportunities should be taken by local authorities.
  The local authority associations acknowledge that significant efficiency gains are there for the taking. In effect, we need less whingeing and more action. I was interested in the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes about administration and East Sussex's claim that it is among the best local authorities. Anyone who examined the figures would question that.
  For example, consider the number of central full-time administrators per thousand of population: in Essex, it is 12.1; in Hampshire, 12.5; in Kent, 13.1; in Surrey, 11.6; and in West Sussex, 13.2, giving an average of 12.5. West Sussex, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham noted, has the highest figure among that small contingent of councils. However, East Sussex outdoes it with a figure of 14.4. That could mean that some considerable savings are available.
  Sir Andrew Bowden: I apologise for not being here earlier in the debate.
  I suspect that East Sussex county council is trying to put up a smokescreen to conceal its inefficiency, given the excessive number of administrators in relation to the county's population. What makes me angry is that the way in which it has presented information has frightened parents and teachers and misled even governing bodies.
  I received a copy of a letter that was sent to the Prime Minister by the chairman of a governing body which said specifically, without qualification, that, as a result of Government action, £26 million would be cut from the education budget in the next financial year. There was no qualification at all. I can only say that the chairman of that governing body—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman was late and wants to contribute, but his intervention is turning into a speech.
  Sir Andrew Bowden: May I ask a question?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call the Minister.
  Sir Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend is right. He has put down, as a physician would say, the diagnostic pointers to what I call the "bleeding stumps" syndrome. That is exactly what we are talking about.

  787
  I shall give one or two other examples. Standard spending assessment per head for this financial year is in the region of £570. East Sussex ranks slightly above the middle figure for all the counties. If other counties can provide the same service, or better, for less, perhaps East Sussex should take a hint. On the SSA for education, East Sussex is the second highest out of 38 counties. West Sussex, since my hon. right Friend the Member for Horsham is here, is 11 th. The complaints and the whingeing do not carry the weight that they ought to.
  Much has been made of area cost adjustment. This is analysed each year using the data available from the previous year. The data are distributed to the local authority associations and this year went out in August. East Sussex should be aware, unless communications have completely broken down, that the data show a shift of 0.5 per cent. Yes, that is negative, but it is 0.5 per cent. and not quite what the bleeding stumps syndrome diagnosis would suggest.
  Education funding has been raised as a matter of special concern, mainly because parents feel vulnerable. Local education authorities have faced some tight decisions in setting their budgets this year, but I do not believe or accept that they need to do anything that would lead to a drop in standards. In fact, with a little imagination, they could improve them, especially when we remember that schools, as well as local authorities, have a variety of means with which to make efficiency gains and to improve standards without incurring extra costs. My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) gave an example—and that was from somebody who is not at the chalk face and who does not have the figures available. If they are easily available for her to give to the House, I am quite sure that the local authority could do that, and more.
  As has been mentioned, the Prime Minister has said that education will be given priority as the economy delivers further growth. Successive settlements have taken into account factors such as the increase in pupils, and future settlements will continue to do so.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes questioned ring fencing. I do not agree with him. The vast majority of government funding for local authority spending on education is provided by way of an un-ring-fenced grant, if hon. Members will excuse the awkward phrase. I believe that that should remain so because local authorities are best placed to decide their spending priorities in the light of local needs and the available resources. The Government cannot dictate such minutiae, and as an ex-local government member, I think that it is vital that local authorities have that opportunity but that they are then held responsible by the public for those decisions rather than shirking them with the sort of campaign that East Sussex is pursuing.
  It is important for local democracy that there is a choice available but it is also important for local accountability. Local authorities must be answerable to their electorate, and I hope that in six months, or in a year's time, we may be able to review what has been said by East Sussex and question its decisions and alarmist statements. I hope that parents and governors will also do that and reflect on what has been said and on what has happened and what could have happened, especially if all the local education funding was not allocated to the schools.
  788
  Mention was made of nurseries and vouchers and the rather dog-in-the-manger attitude taken by East Sussex. I remember, before the days of vouchers, as someone who was involved in a unitary authority, being interested in the opportunity that was offered. That authority, with no positive shift in Government spending, was able to use the availability of nurseries and nursery education in such a way that it was able to offer every three and four-year-old child nursery education free, without nursery vouchers. In addition, it encouraged private sector nurseries and nursery education and a top-and-tailing, or latchkey, system. If that was possible in the difficult parts of central London in which many of us have worked as local authority members, I should have thought that it would be simple for a local authority such as East Sussex to do the same. The opportunity of vouchers is a challenge for local authorities to meet, if they are capable of outdoing the private sector.
  Once the total resources available for local government have been decided, they will be distributed according to need. Each year, the standard spending assessment methodology is discussed in detail and at length with representatives of local government, and each year it is updated and improved. It is an open and fair system. The difficulty that I have with it is that it began as a simple system and the refinements seem to make it worse day by day.
  One element of the distribution formula that always gives rise to arguments is the area cost adjustment. No one disputes the fact that some adjustment to take account of higher costs in some parts of the country is needed, but those who get it say that they are not getting enough and those who do not, say that those getting it are getting too much. The Government cannot win.
  Both my Department and the local authority associations carried out work on the area cost adjustment this year. The Department commissioned research intended to see whether the zones used for the area cost adjustment could be defined more satisfactorily, particularly by reference to travel-to-work areas. The associations carried out further analysis of those higher costs in London and the south-east. They also sought to define alternative ways of determining the area cost adjustment.
  Despite that work, we have had to conclude that, so far, we have nothing that is sufficiently well founded to provide a basis for the area cost adjustment which we could be confident represented an improvement. We accept, however, that the present methodology causes considerable dissatisfaction outside the south-east. We need to continue to investigate potential improvements.
  The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration met leaders of the local authority associations on 16 October to discuss concerns about the effects if changes were made to the area cost adjustment. During the meeting, he proposed to the local authority associations that we set up an independent review of the area cost adjustment. We would ask it to seek a basis for the area cost adjustment that is conceptually sound, achieves the widest possible acceptance among local authorities in all parts of the country, and is practical to apply—there is nothing like hoping.
  We have suggested to the associations that the review be steered by a group of three, chaired by a leading academic economist. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no!"] I note

  789
  the cynicism. The other members would be a nominee of the local authority associations and a nominee of the Department. We would expect the review to require research to be commissioned, the cost of which would be met by the Department. We would ask for the review to be completed by June 1996, so that its findings could be taken into account when determining the standard spending assessments for the following year.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes mentioned capping. That subject comes up for discussion every year. Hon. Members will understand that capping has been successful in ensuring that all authorities play their part in the restraint of public expenditure, and it has protected council tax payers from high bills. As hon. Members will know from some of the conferences—one in particular—there are two sides to the argument. The Secretary of State and I are well aware of the debate, but the abolition of capping could lead to increases in council taxes and hence to higher public expenditure. Moreover, such increases feed through to Government spending on benefits. Such a policy would therefore conflict with our stated aim to reduce the share of the nation's wealth that is taken by the public sector.
  Nevertheless, this year, as every year, we are considering our approach to capping as part of the next local government finance settlement. The Secretary of State will announce his intentions for capping at the same time as his proposals for the 1996–97 settlement. As in previous years, he will be happy to meet authorities to allow them to make representations, once that announcement has been made.
  It has been mentioned that East Sussex is spending at its capping limit. It is inherent in the rationale behind capping that, for local authorities budgeting above their SSA, increases in SSA do not necessarily feed through into increases in the cap limit. That is to ensure that, over time, such authorities bring their budgets into closer alignment with their SSAs. As I have said, I am not in a position at this stage to signal any proposals for capping. I am afraid that my hon. Friend will have to wait for the announcement, but he will have expected that.
  My hon. Friend also mentioned housing requirements. I understand that the county council's suggestion that continuing housing requirements in the county might be met by completely new settlements has aroused strong feelings—to put it mildly. This option is considered in its draft—I emphasise the word, "draft"—proposals for housing and employment on which it has recently consulted the public as part of the structure plan review. That document makes it clear that no decisions have been taken on the draft proposals, and that the views of the
  790
  local people, especially, I hope, of local Members of Parliament, are important to the council in deciding where new developments might be accommodated in the country.
  I hope that local people will take the opportunity to make their views known to the county council so that those can be taken into account in developing the new draft plan. There will be a further opportunity to make representations in the new year, and an examination in public may be held on selected issues before an independent panel, which would report to the county council and may recommend changes. If the council makes changes, it must advertise them and provide another opportunity for objections and representations to be made. In that way, the development plan system allows for appropriate consideration of development needs and can meet those in a way that is sensitive to other key planning objectives of conserving the countryside and the built heritage.
  This has been an interesting debate. I hope that Liberal Democrat and Labour councillors in East Sussex take note of the points that have been made and recognise that they are scaremongering. A final example of that was the prospect of Brighton and Hove unitary authority not gaining finances that would be available to other shadow authorities. That is not so. It will be treated no differently from other shadow authorities. I know from my experience of the delightful disappearance of the Greater London council, followed by that of the Inner London education authority, and of the development of unitary authorities within London, that the opportunities for efficiency savings to produce better services for less for the public in general were massive in unitary authority areas. I hope that, especially in the case of Brighton and Hove, where two authorities are linked and then become a unitary authority, the opportunity for even greater savings are recognised and achieved.
  The Liberal Democrats distribute at irregular intervals a leaflet called "Focus". I hope that they recognise that, in any good business, as one sets one's budget at the beginning of the financial year, one focuses on the anticipated shifts in expenditure throughout that financial year through to the next. To leave it to this stage to look for savings might mean that cuts must be imposed. That is the fault of members of the local authority. Looking over my shoulder, I anticipate that Conservative Members of Parliament will drum that message home vehemently and try to spell out to parents that the "bleeding stump" syndrome does not exist if the local authority is efficient.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Seven o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Nursery Facilities
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what plans his committee has for the construction of nursery facilities in the Palace of Westminster. [42012]

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  The Committee has no power to authorise the construction of facilities of any kind. This is a matter for the House of Commons Commission.

  New Parliamentary Building
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee what is the current estimated cost of the new phase 2 Parliamentary Building. [41175]

  Mr. Channon
  The approved estimate for the new Parliamentary Building is £154 million at 1992 prices, plus any increases in building prices which occur before the contracts are completed in 1999. There are no indices to cover this period so the final cost could be only speculative at this stage.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee how many(a) hon. Members and (b) others he estimates will be accommodated in the new Parliamentary Building phase 2 indicating an upper and lower projection. [41174]

  Mr. Ray Powell
  The new Parliamentary Building will provide offices for at least 210 hon. Members. It will also accommodate an equivalent number of Members' support staff, but the building has been designed flexibly so that Members can, subject to the rules then current, accommodate more staff in either their own or their support offices if they wish.

  Public Access
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what plans his Committee has to alter the entrance for the public to the Palace of Westminster to enable Westminster Hall to be the entrance route via New Palace Yard. [42019]

  Mr. Ray Powell
  None.

  Catering Facilities (Refurbishment Cost)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what was the total cost of the recent refurbishment of catering facilities in the Palace of Westminster. [42011]
  660
  Mr. Ray Powell
  The contract value for the work undertaken this year to modernise the Members' and Strangers' cafeterias and kitchen and the Speaker's state kitchen is £1,600,000.

  Norman Shaw North and South
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what consideration was given to the recycling of materials discarded from Norman Shaw North during refurbishment work; and if he will make a statement. [42015]

  Mr. Ray Powell
  The recycling of materials discarded during the refurbishment of Norman Shaw North is a matter for the main contractors.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what future plans there are for refurbishment of Norman Shaw North and South; and if he will make a statement. [42013]

  Mr. Powell
  It is planned to install the Parliamentary Data Video Network on the first and second floors of Norman Shaw North next year and the remaining floors in 1997. The opportunity will be taken to carry out a limited refurbishment on a similar basis to the work successfully undertaken on the ground floor this year.

  Only limited work was carried out in Norman Shaw South when it was acquired from the Metropolitan police and it will shortly require complete refurbishment. The long-term programme envisages that this work should be started once the new Parliamentary Building is completed at the end of the decade.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what is the total cost of the refurbishment of the ground floor of Norman Shaw North during the recent recess. [42016]

  Mr. Powell
  The project was undertaken to fulfil the decision of the House to make the PDVN available to hon. Members and their staff. This year's phase of the work involved the provision of the network on the ground floor, together with refurbishment work which it was sensible to carry out at the same time, and the installation of monitors to allow Members on the upper floors and in Norman Shaw South to receive the "clean feed" of the proceedings in the Chamber. The estimated cost of the phase is £0.7 million.

DEFENCE

  Radar Interference
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to neutralise the recently installed radar equipment at HMS Cambridge at Wembury, south Devon so as to prevent interference with hearing aids of residents in nearby villages and to prevent security lights from being tripped; and if he will make a statement. [41491]

  Mr. Soames
  The new Watchman radar which is sited at HMS Cambridge provides air traffic control cover above the Plymouth sea exercise areas for flag officer sea training, whose activity has recently moved from Portland to Plymouth.
  661
  These radars first entered service about five years ago and there are now more than 50 in use in the UK. We are not aware that similar problems are being encountered elsewhere and therefore had no expectation of any in south Devon. However, we have arranged for a team of technical experts to visit the area to examine the impact of the radar and to investigate the problems that local residents are reporting. This is planned to commence on 9 November. The team proposes to conduct a "surgery" in the area, followed by technical investigations. Should it be established that the radar is indeed causing these problems, we shall of course do all that we can to resolve them.

  French Nuclear Tests
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make it his policy that the United Kingdom Government will decline to receive, consider or make use of any information or data resulting from the current French nuclear testing programme; [41494]

  (2) if the United Kingdom Government have, at any time, made it their policy to decline to receive, consider or make use of any information or data resulting from French nuclear tests other than the present series. [41495]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  We have neither asked for, nor been offered, information or data resulting from the current French test programme. The UK is not involved in any way in these tests. Data from French tests would not be directly relevant to our nuclear weapons. The Government believe that it would be irresponsible to rule out for the future any form of co-operation with any of our allies, consistent with our international non-proliferation obligations, which might help us fulfil our responsibility to ensure the safety and reliability of our nuclear deterrent.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions and on what dates, aircraft carrying(a) supplies and (b) nuclear materials to the French nuclear test site at Muroroa Atoll in the South Pacific have been authorised to use United Kingdom airspace since June of this current year. [42064]

  Mr. Soames
  I know of no such flights in United Kingdom airspace.

  Forces Manpower
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for defence if he will list the front-line level of uniformed manpower in the British Army, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force in April 1985, April 1990, April 1995 and the projected level in April 1996 and April 1997. [41379]

  Mr. Soames
  The approximate strength of uniformed manpower for each of the three services in April of the years requested is as follows:

  1985

  1990

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Royal Navy

  70,000

  63,000

  51,000

  48,000

  46,000

  British Army

  170,000

  160,000

  116,000

  113,00

  112,000

  Royal Air Force

  93,000

  90,000

  71,000

  65,000

  57,000

  These figures are inclusive of trainees and, in the case of the Army, Gurkhas—but not the Royal Irish Regiment,
  662
  Home Service Force. Estimates of strength for 1996 and 1997 are sensitive to assumptions about recruitment and retention rates.

  Aircraft Loaders
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what military purpose two self-propelled aircraft loaders are required, as set out in future purchase No. SMC31ARAF076; what consideration was given to leasing or contract hire of such vehicles; and if he will make a statement. [41320]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The two self-propelled aircraft loaders are required to support C130 and VC10 aircraft. Their military purpose is to transport air cargo loads between the aircraft and storage areas, and to transfer those loads both into and out of the aircraft. The leasing of equipment is routinely considered as part of the replacement decision. In general, however, there is no commercial equipment available which meets the specific military requirements and the leasing or contract hire of purpose-built self-propelled aircraft loaders has been shown to be uneconomic. As the specialist nature of these vehicles rules out the leasing of commercially available types, and as the high cost of refurbishment of existing vehicles, which are over 20 years old, precludes that option, purchase was assessed to be the most economic means of meeting its operational requirement.

  Materials Handling Equipment
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the operation of the fleet of materials handling equipment. [41586]

  Mr. Soames
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Defensive Monitoring Units
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which unit of(a) the Army and (b) the Royal Navy is responsible for defensive monitoring of Army and Royal Navy frequencies; and if he will make a statement. [41588]

  Mr. Soames
  It is not our policy to comment on operational matters of this kind.

  Nuclear Materials (Transport)
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to change the escort status of nuclear material conveyed by road through South Yorkshire. [41619]

  Mr. Soames
  No changes are currently planned to the escort arrangements for nuclear material convoys operated by the Ministry of Defence. It is not our practice to comment on the routes used by such convoys.

  Accident, Padarn Lake
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 24 October,Official Report, column 587, if he will place in the Library a report of the RAF board of inquiry into the accident at Padarn lake on 12 August 1993. [41576]
  663
  Mr. Soames
  Copies of the summary of the board of inquiry are being placed in the Library today.

  Tornado Aircraft
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Tornado aircraft are stationed at RAF Bruggen; and how many currently have two serviceable engines. [41346]

  Mr. Soames
  There are currently 54 Tornado GR1 aircraft stationed at RAF Bruggen. However, 14 of these aircraft are currently deployed elsewhere on operations and training or undergoing major maintenance. Of the remaining 40 aircraft, 28 currently have two serviceable engines.

  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many RAF service men were engaged on servicing Tornado aircraft in 1992; and how many(a) service men and (b) civilians are doing so now. [41349]

  Mr. Soames
  The following figures relate to Tornado maintenance carried out by the RAF Maintenance Group Defence Agency at RAF St Athan and RAF Sealand:

  1992

  1 November 1995

  Service Personnel

  641

  1,031

  MOD Civilians

  421

  470

  Total

  1,062

  1,501

  Servicing of Tornado aircraft at front-line operating bases is also carried out by service personnel; however, the number of personnel involved is not readily available.

  European Court Decisions
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer from the Attorney-General on 30 October 1995,Official Report, columns 12–14, relating to decisions of the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights, if he will list those European Court decisions relating to responsibilities of his Department over the past two years; and what was the estimated annual cost to public funds of each decision. [41216]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 2 November 1995]: I refer to the answer given today by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  Asbestos Injuries
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he has taken to review the recent court case on asbestos injury; and what assessment he has made of the effect the court case will have on the claims from ex-service personnel who had contact with asbestos during their military service. [41850]

  Mr. Soames
  Any former service personnel suffering an illness as a result of exposure to asbestos dust during their time in the armed forces is eligible for a war pension. However, where the exposure to asbestos dust occurred in service prior to May 1987, section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 precludes payment of common law compensation for resultant illness. Following repeal of 664
  section 10 of this Act, compensation may he paid if exposure occurred after May 1987. The recent court case referred to has not altered this position.

  Defence Contracts
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the percentage and cash values of contracts given to British companies by his Department for defence products; and how many jobs were retained and created as a result of such contracts for each of the last five years. [33096]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Maintenance Trolleys
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what military purpose 16 aircraft hydraulic system maintenance trolleys are required, as set out in future purchase No. SMC31BRAF574; what consideration was given to leasing or contract hire of such vehicles; and if he will make a statement. [41321]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The 16 hydraulic system maintenance trolleys are required to support the VC-10 and Tristar fleets. Their military purpose is to test the hydraulic systems of these aircraft as an aid to fault diagnosis and to prove system performance following maintenance or rectification whether carried out at RAF stations in the UK or when deployed abroad. The tender documents for this contract will include a clause encouraging innovative proposals and any lease or hire options which are put forward by industry will be considered on their merits.

  Armoured Vehicles
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what response has been received to his recent invitation to companies to supply modern wheeled armoured vehicles for a demonstration of such vehicles for senior officers; how much notice was given of this proposed demonstration to potential exhibitors; for what reason the demonstration is to include driving experience for selected officers; on the basis of what previous experience of driving armoured vehicles these officers will be selected; and if he will make a statement. [41239]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Companies have been invited to provide, at their own cost, examples of wheeled armoured vehicles, to give a general demonstration of the capabilities of such vehicles in the context of the Army's potential future equipment requirements. The demonstration will not in any sense be a formal assessment of the vehicles. As part of the demonstration, senior officers with responsibilities relating to the use of armoured vehicles will be given an opportunity to receive first-hand experience of driving the vehicles, in order to gain a better understanding of modern wheeled vehicle technology. Five companies have responded. They were originally given one month's notice, but the demonstration has now been postponed until spring 1996.

  Fuel Tankers
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the tankers in service with the Royal Air Force are capable of the mid-air refuelling of F-16 aircraft. [41489]
  665
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  No.

  Rolls-Royce Engines (Tornadoes)
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cause of the delay at Rolls-Royce in reconditioning RB199 engines for RAF Tornadoes; how many are currently with Rolls-Royce or waiting to be sent to it; how many would be unserviceable at any one time under usual conditions; and what steps the Government are taking to ensure that Rolls-Royce resolves the problems it currently faces and meets the terms of its contract for servicing RB 199 engines for the RAF.[41347]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Complete RB 199 engines are not currently, nor have been held at, Rolls-Royce for reconditioning. Modules for incorporation into the RAF Tornado RB199 engine are reconditioned by Rolls-Royce. Production delays have been experienced because of industrial action at Rolls-Royce plants earlier this year. RAF logistics command has maintained continuous pressure on Rolls-Royce to meet the RAF's requirements and a programme of measures has been initiated to achieve required production levels. CinC Logistics Command met Rolls-Royce senior executives last week and used the occasion to impress on them the need for their personal and continued commitment in meeting new production targets.

  Spare Parts (Tornadoes)
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been spent on spare parts for RAF Tornado aircraft each year for the past five years; and how much is in the estimates for this purpose in the current year. [41350]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The value of spares expenditure incurred for Tornado airframe and engine spares, avionics, special to type ground equipment and test sets for each of the past five years was as follows:

  1990–91: £176 million

  1991–92: £214 million

  1992–93: £200 million

  1993–94: £184 million

  1994–95: £161 million

  The provision for the current year is £149 million.

  These figures do not include details of expenditure in respect of local purchases, spares orders placed by commodity range managers and spares purchased from other nations under mutual supply support arrangements, which are not available centrally.

  Ammunition
  Mr. McWilliam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made as to the necessity of the retention of a comprehensive domestic capability to manufacture ammunition required by British armed forces; and if he will make a statement. [41635]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  We keep under review the availability and dependability of our sources of supply for ammunition. This does not necessarily require the maintenance of a comprehensive domestic capability to manufacture every type of ammunition in service.

  Defence Joint Ventures
  Mr. McWilliam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contact there has been between Ministers or civil servants and Royal Ordnance or BAE regarding the setting up of a joint company or other arrangement involving GIAT of France; and if he will make a statement. [41637]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  My Department has been kept informed about a possible joint venture between Royal Ordnance and GIAT, and the progress of discussions. Such exchanges are in confidence. Any firm proposals which arose would be subject to the approval of the regulatory authorities in the usual way.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by type of project(a) how many schemes have been approved to date under the public finance initiative, (b) what is the value of those schemes and (c) what public sector contribution will be required both initially and as revenue support during the lifetime of the schemes. [41732]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To date my Department has approved one project under the private finance initiative; the value of this scheme is commercially confidential.

  Artillery Shells
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many 155 mm artillery shells were sold off by his Department in each year between 1980 and 1990; and if he will list each country purchasing the shells and the average price obtained. [42060]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The records of sales conducted by the Ministry of Defence, prior to the privatisation of Royal Ordnance in 1985, or of surplus shells between 1985 and 1990, are not available. Questions related to sales conducted by Royal Ordnance plc since that date are a matter for the company.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the number and value of 155 mm shells and cartridges produced for export by the United Kingdom in each of the years 1980 to 1990; and to which countries these items were exported. [42062]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  It remains Government policy not to reveal details of exports of defence equipment. Such information is confidential between the customer and the supplier.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many 155 mm shells were purchased by his Department for the Falklands war; and what was the country of origin of those shells and shell components and the average price paid. [42061]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  No 155 mm guns were used in the Falklands war and therefore no 155 millimetre shells were purchased.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many 155 mm shells and parts of 155 mm shells were purchased by his Department each year between 1980 and 1990; and what was the average price paid for these shells. [42057]
  667
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The information required could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many persons in his Department are on the public payroll or employed as consultants or advisers and work on a part-time or full-time basis in relation to the Scott inquiry; if he will list their names; and how much each is paid. [42507]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The number of staff in my Department wholly employed on matters relating to the Scott inquiry is two and their direct annual salary costs is £60,632. It is not possible to identify the number of people involved on a part-time or occasional basis within the Department or as external consultants or advisers, but the amount so far spent by my Department on external advice is £48,601.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many persons have been authorised to have access to documents held by his Department relating to the Scott inquiry; and if he will list such persons. [42058]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Ministers, former Ministers, officials and other advisers have access to material relating to the inquiry as necessary.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many times in each month of the current year he has met personally the heads of the agencies which report to him to discuss the work of those agencies. [39854]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [holding answer 1 November 1995]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's ownership responsibilities for the 23 defence agencies are usually discharged in the first instance by a designated officer or official in the Department or one of the service commands. Meetings between Ministers and defence agency chief executives occur infrequently, when the nature of the business requires it.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list by type of project(a) how many schemes have been approved to date under the private finance initiative, (b) what is the
  668
  value of those schemes and (c) what public sector contribution will be required both initially and as revenue support during the lifetime of the schemes. [41734]

  The Solicitor-General
  To date, the Law Officers' Departments have not used the private finance initiative for the funding of any schemes. However, use of the PFI is being considered for future projects where appropriate.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Attorney-General how many persons in his Department are on the public payroll or employed as consultants or advisers and work on a part-time or a full-time basis in relation to the Scott inquiry; if he will list their names; and how much each is paid. [42076]

  The Attorney-General
  Leaving aside members of Sir Richard Scott's inquiry team, a number of staff in my Departments work on matters related to the Scott inquiry from time to time as part of their duties and it is not possible to estimate the overall cost. The amount so far spent by my Departments on external advice is £9,940. It is not the practice to name staff or external advisers in these circumstances. The costs of staff in the Treasury Solicitor's Department providing legal services to client departments in connection with the inquiry are included in charges invoiced to Departments.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Attorney-General how many persons have been authorised to have access to documents held by his Department relating to the Scott inquiry; and if he will list such persons. [42077]

  The Attorney-General
  Ministers, officials and other advisers have access to material relating to the inquiry as necessary in order to carry out their responsibilities.

  Marchioness Inquest
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Attorney-General when the Director of the Crown Prosecution Service expects to receive the transcripts of evidence to the inquest into the deaths which followed the sinking of the Marchioness; and when the Crown Prosecution Service will take a decision on whether to initiate a prosecution. [41951]

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service expects to receive transcripts of the evidence given at the inquest within the next four weeks. Once they have been considered, and any further inquiries which may prove necessary have been completed, a decision on whether criminal proceedings should be instituted can be made. It is not yet possible to say when that stage will be reached.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list by type of project(a) how many schemes have been approved to date under the private finance initiative, (b) what is the value of those schemes and (c) what public sector contribution will be required both initially and as revenue support during the lifetime of the schemes. [41733]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  For the Lord Chancellor's Department, including the Court Service and the Public Trust Office, no such schemes have yet been approved.

  Law Commission
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement setting out the criteria by which suitability for appointment to the Law Commission is assessed; and if he will bring forward to the House proposals to ensure that future appointments are first subjected to detailed parliamentary scrutiny. [42109]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Appointments to the Law Commission are statutory and are made by the Lord Chancellor under section 1 of the Law Commissions Act 1965. The 1965 Act, as amended by the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, requires that appointees must be legally qualified or have experience in a judicial office or as a teacher of law in a university. Appointees must also satisfy the Lord Chancellor of their good health.

  The chairman of the Law Commission is appointed by the Lord Chancellor, usually from the ranks of experienced High Court judges. Before reaching his decision, the Lord Chancellor customarily consults senior members of the judiciary. In considering the suitability of candidates for membership of the Law Commission, the Lord Chancellor appoints, in accordance with the principles of fair and open competition, those candidates who appear from the information available to have the best qualifications and experience for appointment. Successful candidates will be lawyers of recognised standing, experience and ability who can make significant contributions to the reform and development of the law.

  The cost of the Commission 1982–19941

  Sub head

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988

  Accommodation charges2

  308,200

  340,500

  400,400

  364,200

  343,000

  344,000

  355,200

  Headquarters overheads4

  64,200

  64,900

  78,700

  133,300

  141,100

  140,600

  168,500

  Printing and Publishing: supply of information technology, office equipment and books

  339,900

  272,490

  217,000

  190,600

  270,100

  107,600

  137,300

  Salaries of Commrs (including ERNIC)

  221,500

  203,100

  182,600

  203,700

  213,600

  223,200

  204,500

  Salaries of draftsmen, legal staff, secondees and consultants (including ERNIC)

  518,900

  533,000

  537,600

  623,100

  635,300

  712,900

  826,900

  Salaries of non-legal staff (including ERNIC)

  203,500

  245,300

  264,100

  276,000

  284,200

  295,400

  316,500

  Superannuation

  140,900

  201,500

  174,100

  171,300

  148,600

  177,900

  213,500

  Telephone/postage

  16,600

  16,800

  21,600

  12,400

  14,400

  18,600

  17,700

  670
  There are no proposals to make future appointments to the Law Commission subject to detailed parliamentary scrutiny.

  Mrs. Winterton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the current members of the Law Commission, indicating in each case the date upon which they were appointed, the date upon which their term of appointment ceases and the specific qualities and experience which were the basis of their appointment. [42108]

  Mr. Taylor
  The dates of the terms of appointment of the current members of the Law Commission are set out in the table. The criteria on which appointments are based are set out in my earlier answer to my hon. Friend.

  Name

  Date of appointment

  Date of expiry of appointment

  The right hon. Mr. Justice Brooke

  1 January 1993

  31 December 1995

  Charles Harpum

  1 January 1994

  31 December 1998

  Diana Faber

  31 January 1994

  30 January 1999

  Stephen Silber QC

  11 April 1994

  10 April 1999

  Andrew Burrows

  1 October 1994

  30 September 1999

  Mrs. Winterton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make it his policy to appoint to the Law Commission in future only those individuals who have demonstrated by their own lifestyles a commitment to the institution of marriage and respect for human life. [42112]

  Mr. Taylor
  No. The Lord Chancellor wishes to maintain his present policy with regard to appointments to the Law Commission, which are made in accordance with the procedures set out in my earlier answer to my hon. Friend.

  Mrs. Winterton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what has been the total cost of the Law Commission, including accommodation costs at estimated market rates, in each of the year since it was established; if he will give a breakdown of those costs indicating the amounts spend on(a) staff costs, (b) allowances and fees, (c) publication costs, (e) the estimated cost of accommodation at market rates and (f) all other identifiable costs. [42110]

  Mr. Taylor
  The available information about the cost of the Law Commission is given in the table.

  The other information requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  671

  The cost of the Commission 1982–19941

  Sub head

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988

  Travel and Subsistence

  4,900

  9,200

  6,600

  10,400

  7,600

  9,500

  4,500

  Entertainment

  300

  400

  500

  200

  200

  500

  300

  Miscellaneous

  700

  2,610

  3,000

  1,400

  4,200

  4,400

  3,300

  Total

  1,819,600

  1,889,800

  1,886,200

  1,986,600

  2,062,300

  2,034,600

  2,248,200

  Sub head

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Accommodation charges2

  377,800

  377,800

  460,100

  465,500

  502,900

  3916,900

  Headquarters overheads4

  205,100

  205,100

  228,000

  345,500

  379,200

  603,800

  Printing and Publishing: supply of information technology, office equipment and books

  139,600

  139,600

  5243,100

  215,400

  217,400

  187,100

  Salaries of Commisioners (including ERNIC)

  250,700

  250,700

  276,200

  300,300

  386,5006

  361,300

  Salaries of draftsmen, legal staff, secondees and consultants (including ERNIC)

  989,500

  989,500

  1,058,300

  1,120,600

  71,485,900

  1,406,600

  Salaries of non-legal staff (including ERNIC)

  345,600

  345,600

  372,400

  380,600

  7401,400

  357,400

  Superannuation

  245,800

  245,800

  265,800

  308,100

  8—

  —

  Telephone/postage

  24,600

  24,600

  935,900

  25,800

  33,500

  28,600

  Travel and Subsistence

  6,500

  6,500

  5,500

  8,400

  10,300

  7,000

  Entertainment

  1,000

  1,000

  600

  500

  500,

  10—

  Miscellaneous

  5,700

  5,700

  11,900

  18,300

  26,200

  15,200

  Total

  2,591,900

  2,591,900

  2,957,800

  3,279,000

  3,443,300

  3,883,900

  1 These figures have been published in the annual reports of the Commission. Until 1988, the figures were related to a "parliamentary year". As from 1988, the figures have related to the calendar year. In no case has the financial year been used as the base.

  2 Component relating to ground rent, rates and major works supplied by the Lord Chancellor's Department, for the years 1988 to date.

  3 This figure reflects the costs of a five yearly rent review, which produced a 130 per cent, increase, and necessary new works to the building (e.g. a new security system).

  4 Portion of the total cost of the Lord Chancellor's Department headquarters attributed to the Commission. The portion attributed to individual parts of the Department is proportional to the number of staff paid as established staff, including research assistants. The 1993 figure excluded any sum for the information technology services provided by the Lord Chancellor's Department, as they were used very little. In 1994, they were used very much more, and a notional figure has therefore been attributed for them in 1994.

  5 Included in the 1991 and 1992 figures for office equipment are sums of £90,000 and £60,000 respectively, which represent the cost of converting the computer system.

  6 This figure included not only superannuation (see n9 below) but also a lump sum paid on retirement.

  7 Figures from 1993 onwards show the actual expenditure on salaries. In previous years, salaries were shown as a multiple of the December monthly salary figures, which gave an exaggerated result.

  8 As of April 1993 superannuation is included in the Lord Chancellor's Department's salary budget and is not shown separately.

  9 This includes some £9,000 spent on converting to a system of direct dialling in.

  10 As from 1994 Entertainment is included in Miscellaneous.

  Mrs. Winterton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the package of remuneration and expenses which may be claimed by members of the Law Commission. [42111]

  Mr. Taylor
  The current chairman of the Law Commission is a High Court judge and, as such, receives a salary of £98,957 per annum. He does not receive any additional remuneration for his work as chairman of the Law Commission. The salary of other members of the Law Commission is currently £69,500 per annum. The office of commissioner is pensionable, but superannuation arrangements depend on individual circumstances. As elsewhere in the Crown's service, travel and subsistence expenses may be payable, on the same basis as senior civil servants, if and when a commissioner is required to travel or stay away overnight in the course of his or her duties.

  Mrs. Winterton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the square footage and address of all accommodation currently occupied by the Law Commission; and if he will estimate the current market rent which could be realised through the letting of that accommodation. [42113]
  672
  Mr. Taylor
  A total of 1,651.1 sq. m. at Conquest house, 37–38 John street, London WC1N 2BQ. The market rent, as valued at June 1995, is £122,000 per annum.

  Mrs. Winterton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make it his policy to abolish the Law Commission [42107]

  Mr. Taylor
  No, that is not the Lord Chancellor's intention.

  Mrs. Winterton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make it his policy to make a statement to the House on each and every occasion that the Law Commission(a) commences and (b) concludes a consideration of a particular area of law. [42105]

  Mr. M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor is required by the Law Commissions Act 1965 to lay before Parliament any programmes prepared by the commission, and approved by him, for the examination of different branches of the law. The sixth programme was laid before Parliament in June. He is similarly required by the Act to lay before Parliament any proposals for reform formulated pursuant to such programmes.

  Right of Audience
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when a decision will be made by the Crown Prosecution Office as to extended right of audience. [42097]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Law Society's application to be authorised to award qualifications for rights of audience in the higher courts to employed solicitors is under consideration in accordance with the procedure set out in the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. There is a related application by the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Treasury Solicitor to have rule 402(1)(c) of the Bar's code of conduct deemed not to have been approved under the provisions of s31(1)(b) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. This is the rule which restricts employed barristers rights of audience.

  The Lord Chancellor and the designated judges announced that they would adjourn their consideration of this related application until they had considered the advice from the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee on legal education and conduct on the Law Society's application. The Lord Chancellor has recently received ACLEC's advice and this is being considered together with other representations. The Lord Chancellor and the designated judges will make an announcement in due course.

  Advisory Committee Membership
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the members and qualifications of the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee. [42096]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I understand the question to refer to the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee on legal education and conduct. Details of the members appear in the latest annual report of the committee, published on 27 October 1995, copies of which have been placed in the libraries of both Houses. The members and their qualifications are as follows:

  Members

  Qualifications

  The Right Honourable The Lord Steyn (Chairman)

  Lord of Appeal in Ordinary

  His Honour Judge Gower QC (Vice Chairman)

  Resident Judge, Crown Court, East Sussex

  Lee Bridges

  Principal Research Fellow, University of Warwick

  Professor Richard Card

  Head of School of Law and Professor of Law, De Montfort University, Leicester

  Eric Hammond OBE

  Member of the Employment Appeal Tribunal; General Secretary, Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunications Union, 1984–92

  Professor Bob Hepple

  Professor of Law; Master of Clare College, Cambridge

  Dr. Neville Hunnings

  Editor, Common Market Law Reports since 1964

  Ian McNeil JP

  Chartered Accountant in Practice. Former President of Institute of Chartered Accountants and currently Chairman of the Institute's Professional Conduct

  674

  Members

  Qualifications

  Directorate

  Charles Plant

  Solicitor

  Ms Usha Prashar CBE

  Civil Service Commissioner; Director, National Council for Voluntary Organisations, 1986–91

  Nicholas Purnell QC

  Barrister

  Professor Peter Scott

  Professor of Education, University of Leeds

  Graham Smith CBE

  Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Probation

  David Steel QC

  Barrister

  Mrs. Mary Tuck CBE

  Former Head of Home Office Research and planning Unit, former National Chair, Victim Support, member of the Parole Board

  David Ward

  Solicitor and former President of the Law Society

  David Wilkins

  Educational Consultant; former Chief Inspector of Schools, Nottinghamshire

  Land Ownership
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make it his policy to require all land to be registered. [41271]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Because of the security and simplicity of titles afforded to land owners under the land registration system, it has been the policy of successive Governments to promote the progressive registration of unregistered titles. Compulsory registration of titles on sale and on the grant of long leases was first introduced in 1899 in central London. Since then, compulsory registration has been extended progressively to other parts of England and Wales—a process which was completed in December 1990. There are currently over 15.5 million registered titles and it is estimated that there remain between 4 and 5 million titles which are as yet unregistered.

  While the existing statutory provision of compulsory registration on sale will continue to reduce the number of unregistered titles, there are a significant number of unregistered titles which are likely to remain unsold, and therefore unregistered indefinitely. Accordingly, the Law Commission, together with the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Land Registry, have been considering in the context of reviewing the commission's third and fourth reports on land registration what additional mechanisms might usefully be put into place to accelerate the process of registering the remaining land in England and Wales. As a result, there was published in September this year a joint report by the Law Commission and the Land Registry, Law Com. No. 235, Cm 2950, which proposes extending compulsory registration to the following additional dispositions of unregistered land: assents, vesting deeds, conveyances by way of gift, conveyances pursuant to a court order and first legal mortgages.

  The appendix to the report contains a draft Bill which, if enacted, would give effect to these proposals, together with certain other recommended reforms, and a suitable opportunity is being sought to bring forward such a Bill for consideration by Parliament.
  675
  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what estimates he has made of the acreage of rural land in England which is in foreign ownership. [41355]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The question concerns a specific matter on which the chief executive of Her Majesty's Land Registry Executive Agency is best placed to provide the answer. I have accordingly asked the chief executive to reply direct.

  Letter from John Manthorpe to Mr. Gordon Prentice, dated 7 November 1995:
  I have been asked by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, to reply to your recent question on the acreage of rural land in England which is in foreign ownership.I regret that statistics relating to land acreage or the nationality of registered proprietors ar not maintained by the Registry and I am therefore unable to supply the information requested.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many persons have been authorised to have access to documents held by his Department relating to the Scott inquiry; and if he will list such persons. [42075]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Ministers, former Ministers, officials and other advisers have access to material relating to the inquiry as necessary in order to carry out their responsibilities.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many persons in his Department are on the public payroll or employed as consultants or advisers and work on a part-time or a full-time basis in relation to the Scott inquiry; if he will list those their names; and how much each is paid. [42074]

  Mr. Taylor
  There are no members of staff in my Department employed on matters relating to the Scott inquiry, on either a full-time or a part-time basis. My Department does not employ an external consultants or advisers in relation to the inquiry.

HEALTH

  Psychiatric Hospitals
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds there were in each of the psychiatric hospitals that have closed(a) in 1995 and (b) in each year since 1979. [41101]

  Mr. Bowis
  The information available centrally is published in "Bed availability for England", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mental Health Services
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what reports have been commissioned by his Department to review mental health services in the last five years; and what action has been taken as a result of the findings of such reports. [41102]
  676
  Mr. Bowis
  The reports commissioned by my Department are set out in the following list. They have provided useful in helping to develop of a comprehensive range of mental health services to support Government policy. Copies of the published reports will be placed in the Library.

  The Clinical Standards Advisory Group report on Schizophrenia;

  The report of the Mental Health Nursing Review Team;

  Services for the Mental Health of Children and Young People in England: A National Review;

  The Health Advisory Service (HAS) Review, Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services: Together we stand;

  The HAS Review of the Adolescent Forensic Psychiatry Service;

  The HAS Review, People who are Homeless, A Place in Mind;

  The HAS Review, Suicide Prevention, The Challenge Confronted;

  The Homeless Mentally Ill Initiative—an evaluation of four clinical teams;

  Factors Influencing the implementation of the Care Programme Approach;

  Survey of English Mental Illness Hospitals, March 1993 and March 1994;

  Confidential Inquiry into Homicides and Suicides by Mentally Ill People;

  Review of Health and Social Services for Mentally Disordered Offenders and others with similar needs;

  Report of the Working Group on High Security and related Psychiatric Provision;

  Report of the Department of Health and Home Office Working Group on Psychopathic Disorder;

  The Extent of Local Arrangements for the Diversion of the Mentally Abnormal Offender from Custody;

  The Brixton Diversion Project;

  Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Complaints about Ashworth Hospital;

  The relationship between the NHS and the Criminal Justice System;

  The NHS and the Penal and Criminal Justice Systems;

  The Education and Training of Doctors in the Health Care Service for Prisoners;

  Psychopathic and Antisocial Personality Disorders;

  Bentham Unit—Summary Report;

  Good Practice in Medium secure units;

  An Analysis of Pump Priming for Multi-Agency Projects;

  The Survey of English Mental Illness Hospitals March 1993 and March 1994.

  GP Fundholding
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners in(a) the Ealing, North constituency and (b) the remainder of the London borough of Ealing are fundholders; how much cash is involved in each case; and if he will make a statement. [41770]

  Mr. Malone
  The information available centrally for Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow family health services authority indicates that 67 general practitioners are fundholders. For further information, I refer my hon. Friend to Sir William Staveley, the chairman of North Thames regional health authority.
  677
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his oral answer of 31 October,Official Report, column 90, if he will list the repeated independent assessments of the substantial savings and improved patient care achieved by general practitioner fundholders to which he referred. [41927]

  Mr. Malone
  Considerable independent research into the general practitioner fundholding scheme has been carried out by a number of people and organisations—for example, Professor Howard Glennerster, Professor Julian Le Grand, Professor John Howie, the King's Fund, the National Audit Office and the Office of Economic Co-operation and Development.

  Mental Health Services (Coventry)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many patients with mental illness were treated at Walsgrave hospital in each year since 1990; [41603]

  (2) how many rehabilitative beds for mental health patients have been lost during the past year in Walsgrave hospital, Coventry. [41600]

  Mr. Bowis
  Walsgrave hospital did not have a mental illness specialty for the years in question.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many staff with responsibility for mental health in Walsgrave hospital, Coventry, have left their post in the last year; [41599]

  (2) if he will make a statement on projected mental health provision at Walsgrave Hospital. [41601]

  Mr. Bowis
  These are matters for the Walsgrave Hospitals national health service trust. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of the trust for this information.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in Coventry require hospital treatment for mental illness. [41602]

  Mr. Bowis
  Coventry health authority is responsible for purchasing mental health services for the people of Coventry. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of the authority for this information.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations from mental health organisations he has received expressing concern about the level of mental health provision in(a) Coventry and (b) England and Wales in the last year. [41604]

  Mr. Bowis
  We receive many representations on a wide variety of mental health subjects.

  Community Care
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have been refused community care in East Sussex without a reassessment of their needs since the introduction of the current scheme. [41235]

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally. My hon. Friend may wish to contact the chairman of social services for that county.

  Child Care
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average cost of keeping a child in local authority care for one year. [41501]

  Mr. Bowis
  The latest estimates available centrally are for 1992–93 and relate to the average annual gross expenditure by local authorities on children looked after in foster placements and in residential accommodation. These were £7,100 and £45,200 respectively.

  Injection Pens
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to make(a) injector pens and (b) needles for injector pens available on the NHS for people with diabetes. [41993]

  Mr. Malone
  Disposable injection pens are available on general practitioner prescription and manufacturers supply reusable ones to people with diabetes through hospital diabetic clinics. There are no plans to make reusable pens and needles prescribable by GPs.

  NHS Treatments
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list all the treatments that are available on the NHS; and if he will specify for each health authority area what treatments are available on the NHS and what treatments are available only privately. [41990]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to establish a national database which lists, by health authority area, which treatments are available on the NHS and which treatments are available only privately. [41989]

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  NHS Pension
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to extend the NHS pension provision to practice nurses and other practice staff who are contracted to a practitioner rather than to the NHS direct. [41885]

  Mr. Malone
  This matter is currently under consideration.

  Property Dealings
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list which health authorities and trusts have lost money as a result of property dealings as described in a memorandum from Mr. Brian Marsden, deputy director of the NHS executive's finance and performance directorate to all trust and health authority chief executives on 30 September; if he will list which private organisations were involved in each case and the amount of money lost in each case; and if he will make a statement. [41984]

  Mr. Sackville
  It would not be appropriate to comment on leaked confidential documents.

  Hospices
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what guidelines are issued by his Department for the allocation of capitation weighted funding to hospices outside a health authority's geographic area; [41978]

  2) if he will make a statement on the relationship between capitation weighted funding for hospices by health authorities and the cost of core services provided by these hospices. [41979]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department issues guidance to health authorities and total purchasing pilot general practice fundholders on the purchase of hospice and palliative care services. The Department does not issue specific guidance on the use of general allocations for this purpose as this is a matter for local determination.

  The weighted capitation formula is used to inform allocations to health authorities for hospital and community health services. The national formula uses forecast resident population adjusted for age, relative health need and the geographical variation in the cost of providing services.

  It is then for health authorities to purchase health care for their resident population taking account of local circumstances and characteristics, and within the framework of national policies and priorities.

  Purchasing Plans
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library copies of all the health care purchasing plans agreed by every health commission and health authority in England in the last two years. [41991]

  Population Projections for the years 2000, 2010 and 2020

  Thousands

  2000

  2010

  2020

  Age

  M

  F

  Total

  M

  F

  Total

  M

  F

  Total

  Under 5

  1,661

  1,583

  3,243

  1,517

  1,445

  2,962

  1,546

  1,473

  3,019

  5 to 15

  3,643

  3,452

  7,095

  3,585

  3,406

  6,991

  3,350

  3,191

  6,541

  16 to 24

  2,756

  2,614

  5,370

  3,051

  2,901

  5,952

  2,938

  2,796

  5,734

  25 to 44

  7,491

  7,203

  14,693

  6,892

  6,574

  13,465

  6,535

  6,263

  12,798

  45 to 64

  5,783

  5,844

  11,627

  6,789

  6,776

  13,565

  7,156

  7,016

  14,172

  65 to 84

  2,970

  3,806

  6,777

  3,282

  3,895

  7,177

  4,011

  4,616

  8,627

  85 and over

  282

  758

  1,040

  374

  853

  1,227

  461

  891

  1,353

  16 to 64

  16,030

  15,661

  31,690

  16,732

  16,251

  32,982

  16,629

  16,075

  32,704

  Note:

  Figures may not sum due to rounding.

  Oral Contraceptives
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the dates and those attending the meetings he or his officials have held with those companies involved in the marketing of third generation oral contraceptives containing gestodene and desogestrel since the statement made by the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products on 27 October. [41488]

  Mr. Sackville
  No meetings have taken place between the Medicines Control Agency and pharmaceutical companies regarding oral contraceptives containing desogestrel or gestodene since October 27.
  680
  Mr. Malone
  Copies of health authorities' purchasing plans are not available centrally. The plans are available on request from individual health authorities.

  Expenditure
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list, for each year since 1992, the average cost to the NHS and community centre services of someone aged(a) under five, b) five to 15, (c) 16 to 24, (d) 25 to 44, (e) 45 to 64, (f) 65 to 84), (g) 85 or over and (h) 16 to 64 overall; and if he will provide estimates for the number of people in those age groups of each sex and in total and the respective average cost to the NHS and community care services for each group in 2000, 2010 and 2020. [41983]

  Mr. Sackville
  The information available on the average estimated cost per head to the national health service by age is shown in the table. Information on personal social services expenditure by age group is not available centrally.

  £

  Age group

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Under 5

  530

  577

  5 to 15

  289

  300

  16 to 64

  411

  431

  65 and over

  1,419

  1,457

  Notes:

  1. Figures are expressed in real terms at 1993–94 prices.

  2. The figures are per head of population and cover expenditure on hospital and community health services and family health services only.

  3. A more detailed breakdown is not available for total NHS expenditure.

  Population projections for the years 2000, 2010 and 2020 are shown in the table. No estimates have been made of expenditure by age for these years.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for health further to his oral contraceptive statement of 23 October,Official Report, column 701–2, if he will review the advice given to general practitioners and family planning professionals in the light of the statement made by the CPMP on 27 October, concerning those oral contraceptives which contain gestodene and desogestrel. [41487]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products assessment makes it clear that, on the basis of three studies, oral contraceptives containing desogestrel or gestodene are associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism. Its position statement
  681
  also envisages that it may be appropriate to inform doctors and women about the risks of oral contraceptives but it does not specify what information should be provided about the increased risk of venous thromboembolism. This and the fact that the CPMP's statement is not a binding opinion indicates that it is a mater for individual member states to deal with based on their particular prevailing circumstances.

  The advice recently given by the Committee on Safety of Medicines on oral contraceptives containing desogestrel or gestodene has been reviewed in the light of the CPMP's statements. The action we have taken in the United Kingdom is consistent with the CPMP's statements and therefore no additional action is necessary at present. The matter will be kept under close review in the light of any new scientific evidence which may emerge.

  NHS Expenditure
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if expenditure on the national health service in 1995–96, in cash terms, will exceed the planned amount, as set out in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report, 1995–96"; and if he will make a statement. [41802]

  Mr. Sackville
  Government spending on the national health service in 1995–96 is currently expected to be in line with the plan set out in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report".

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the expenditure on the national health service in 1979; and what is at present on a cash basis; [41872]

  (2) what has been the percentage change in real terms in expenditure on the national health service between 1979 and the current year. [41877]

  Mr. Sackville
  Total national health service expenditure has risen from £6,273 million in 1978–79 to an estimated £31,974 million in 1995–96, an increase of 69.7 per cent. in real terms.

  Advertising
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the future of the referral system following changes to rules governing advertising by doctors; [41632]

  (2) what is his policy regarding the control of advertising of medical services; and if he will make a statement. [41633]

  Mr. Malone
  I will write to the hon. and learned Member.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by type of project(a) how many schemes have been approved to date under the public finance initiative, (b) what is the value of those schemes and (c) what public sector contribution will be required both initially and as revenue support during the lifetime of the schemes. [41741]
  682
  Mr. Sackville
  For information on the number and type of schemes approved under the private finance initiative, and the value of those schemes, I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) on 6 November. Public sector contributions will depend upon the performance of the private sector in each individual contract awarded.

  Microbiological Food Safety
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much Government funding is being put into research into E. coli 0157 in the current financial year; and what plans he has to increase the amount of Government-funded research into this bacteria. [41639]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Government are spending just over £0.5 million on research into E. coli 0157 in the current financial year and an overall total of nearly £1.5 million up to March 1998. Further substantial funding is planned over the next two to three years.

  Psychiatric Beds
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many psychiatric beds have been lost in each region in each of the last five years; and what are the planned numbers for further closure. [41942]

  Mr. Bowis
  The information available is published in "Bed Availability for England", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement in respect of the number of children occupying adult psychiatric beds(a) nationally, (b) regionally and (c) at health authority level in each of the last five years. [41946]

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children's psychiatric beds have been available in each of the last three years(a) nationally, (b) regionally and (c) by health authority. [41940]

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to "Bed Availability for England", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Residential Care
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 31 October,Official Report, column 208, what is the estimated cost in a full year of raising the threshold for contribution to the cost of residential care for the elderly from £8,000 to (a) £10,000, (b) £12,000, (c) £14,000 and (d) £16,000, assuming that the total capital disregard figure (i) remains at £3,000 and (ii) is increased to £6,000. [41928]

  Mr. Bowis
  The table shows the estimated increased cost in a full year to local authorities personal social services expenditure of placing elderly people into residential care homes1.

  Estimates have been made on the basis of generalised data from the elderly population as a whole and are a guide only. The figures quoted do not take account of any possible effects of such changes on Department of Social

  683
  Security expenditure, or of demographic changes. Such estimates would also depend on the rate of tariff income between the upper and lower thresholds.

  Illustrative figures for raising thresholds to:

  (£ million England)

  Upper threshold £

  Lower threshold-£3,000

  Lower threshold-£6,000

  10,000

  3

  20

  12,000

  4

  22

  14,000

  5

  23

  16,000

  7

  25

  1Figures do not include residents in nursing homes.

  Personal Social Services
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the level of spending on personal social services, discounting the effects of the special transitional grant and other specific grants, for(a) the elderly, (b) children, (c) those with learning disabilities, (d) young physically disabled persons, (e) mentally ill persons and (f) others. [41982]

  Mr. Bowis
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Care Homes (Abuse)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many investigations have been undertaken in each of the last five years into abuse of residents in(a) children's, (b) residential and (c) nursing homes; and what have been the outcomes. [41944]

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  Spending Statistics
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 30 October,Official Report, column 47, on spending statistics, when figures for (a) 1994–95 and (b) 1995–96 will be available. [41953]

  Mr. Malone
  Figures for 1994–95 will be published shortly. No decisions have yet been made on the timing of publication of figures for 1995–96.

  Capital Expenditure
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 30 October,Official Report, column 34–35. on capital expenditure, when 1994–95 figures will be available. [41952]

  Mr. Sackville
  Provisional figures are expected to be available by the end of November 1995.

  Mental Hospitals
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many mental hospitals have closed in each region during each of the last five years; and what further closures are planned. [41941]

  Mr. Bowis
  Information is available on the closure of large mental illness hospitals in the report "Survey of English Mental Hospitals March 1994—Monitoring the Closure of the Water Towers, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Community Psychiatric Nurses
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his Department's recommended level of community psychiatric nurses per head of population. [41945]

  Mr. Bowis
  Decisions on appropriate staffing levels are for local managers. They are in the best position to determine the number of staff needed in the light of local circumstances.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average annual payment, for each of the last three years for which figures are available, for patients who paid for NHS dental treatment, per family health service authority. [39799]

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 30 October 1995]: I will write to the hon. And learned Member.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  China
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he takes to ensure that no United Kingdom aid to China disbursed via the World bank or EC involves the use of forced labour camps in Chinese prison camps. [41278]

  Mr. Hanley
  We have no evidence to suggest that either World bank or EC funding for projects in China has involved the use of forced labour. The World bank, however, is taking very seriously recent allegations about links between a World bank-funded project in Xinjiang province and labour camps and has launched an investigation of the claims, while confirming that it would not condone lending for projects involving the use of forced labour.

  OECD Countries (Aid Expenditure)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the per capita spending on overseas aid in the last year for which figures are available for each member country of the OECD. [41263]

  Mr. Hanley
  The table gives a breakdown of OECD member countries' per capita spending on overseas aid for 1994.

  OECD members' per capita spending on overseas aid

  1994 Net oda US$ millions

  1993 Population (millions)

  US$ Per capita expenditure

  Australia

  1,087

  17.71

  61.4

  Austria

  561

  7.94

  70.7

  Belgium

  677

  10.06

  67.3

  Canada

  2,230

  27.82

  80.2

  Denmark

  1,450

  5.19

  279.4

  Finland

  289

  5.07

  57.0

  France

  8,447

  57.65

  146.6

  Germany

  6,751

  80.77

  83.6

  Ireland

  105

  3.57

  29.4

  Italy

  1,967

  57.84

  34.0

  Japan

  13,239

  124.85

  106.0

  685

  OECD members' per capita spending on overseas aid

  1994 Net oda US$ millions

  1993 Population (millions)

  US$ Per capita expenditure

  Luxembourg

  59

  0.40

  147.5

  Netherlands

  2,531

  15.28

  165.6

  New Zealand

  111

  3.46

  32.1

  Norway

  1,137

  4.31

  263.8

  Portugal

  296

  9.85

  30.1

  Spain

  1,247

  39.13

  31.9

  Sweden

  1,703

  8.71

  195.5

  Switzerland

  978

  6.98

  140.1

  United Kingdom

  3,197

  58.04

  55.1

  United States

  9,851

  258.06

  38.2

  Source:

  1994 net oda—OECD Statistics.

  1993 population—World Bank Atlas 1995.

  Brazil
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what monitoring is being carried out by the British Government on the spending of G7 money on the G7 financed pilot plan for the Amazon, and if he will make a statement on the steps being taken to protect the Makuxi Indian people in Brazil. [41823]

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 6 November 1995]: Britain contributes to the pilot plan trust fund, which is managed by the World bank and monitored by an independent international advisory group. We attend regular meetings of participants and in-country co-ordination. One component of the pilot plan is a project to protect indigenous peoples and their lands.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has to change the Overseas Development Administration cash limits for 1995–96. [41142]

  Mr. Hanley
  [pursuant to his reply, 31 October 1995, c. 140]: The answer should have read: "Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit on the external assistance vote (class II, vote 5) will be increased by £4,919,000 from £1,759,358,000 to £1,764,277,000. The increase is in respect of rollover of underspending against the 1994–95 external assistance vote. The increase will be offset by a claim on the reserve and will not, therefore, add to the planned total of public expenditure. The cash limit includes the cost of services provided in connection with the privatisation of the Crown Agents. This expenditure is not included in the control total".

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Grants
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what grant-giving funds his Department is responsible requiring a private sector contribution where the use of national lottery funds is not allowed to count towards that private sector portion. [3595]
  686
  Mr. Boswell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Sproat) on 31 October 1995,Official Report, columns 186–87.

  Racing Pigeons
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement regarding the use of drugs in pigeon racing, and what discussions he has had with the Belgian Minister of Agriculture regarding the situation in Belgium. [40681]

  Mrs. Browning
  Veterinary medicines for racing pigeons are subject to the normal controls on the manufacture, sale and supply of veterinary medicines. No product may be marketed in the United Kingdom other than in accordance with a marketing authorisation, issued following an assessment by the independent Veterinary Products Committee against the statutory scientific criteria of safety, quality and efficacy.

  The Veterinary Medicines Directorate has pursued reports of illegal sales in the UK to pigeon fanciers of veterinary medicines imported from the Community and will continue to follow up and further reports that may be received.

  I understand that the Belgian authorities are concerned about the misuse of veterinary medicines to enhance the performance of racing pigeons and are putting in place legislation to test birds for drug misuse. The Ministry has no evidence of pigeon fanciers in the UK misusing drugs on their birds in order to enhance their performance.

  If the hon. Member has a specific concern, I will be happy to look into it if he could write to me with the details.

  Departmental Buildings, Clwyd
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has undertaken of the safety of the site, grounds and infrastructure of his Department's former buildings at Rhydymwyn, Clwyd. [41243]

  Mr. Boswell
  Dames and Moore, environmental consultants commissioned by Drivers Jonas, acting on behalf of my Department, produced an environmental assessment of the Valley factory site at Rhydymwyn in May 1994. This is under consideration. There is no danger to local residents so long as they do not trespass on the site.

  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends to publish proposals for the use of his Department's former buildings at Rhydymwyn, Clwyd. [41240]

  Mr. Boswell
  A report jointly commissioned by my Department, the Welsh Development Agency and Delyn borough council on the remediation of the site is expected by the summer of 1996. Proposals will be published as soon as agreement with those with a direct interest in the site has been reached.

  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions his Department has had with the National Rivers Authority regarding toxic
  687
  waste entering the watercourse at Rhydymwyn, Clwyd, from his Department's former buildings on site. [41241]

  Mr. Boswell
  Representatives from the National Rivers Authority were present at a meeting between Ministry officials and Delyn borough council in March 1995 to discuss the site. The NRA has been given the results of the environmental consultants' investigations. I understand that the NRA has a monitoring point on the site which has been in place for some years. However, the NRA has not indicated to the Ministry that it is concerned about water quality within the watercourse.

  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions his Department has had with the Welsh Development Agency regarding the future use of his Department's factory at Rhydymwyn, Clwyd. [41242]

  Mr. Boswell
  Officials from my Department have met the Welsh Development Agency on two occasions. My Department continues to work closely with both WDA and Delyn borough council with a view to reaching agreement on the future of the site.

  Cheese
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish for England and for the United Kingdom the total volume of cheese production in tonnes and in pounds sterling at constant 1995 prices for each of the last three years. [41464]

  Mrs. Browning
  The total volume of cheese production in the United Kingdom for the years in question was as follows.

  Year

  Production 000 tonnes

  1992

  327

  1993

  333

  1994

  331

  Production statistics for England alone are not available. We do not routinely monitor the monetary value of UK cheese production.

  Training Courses, North-west
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the institutions in the north-west offering(a) agricultural and (b) horticultural training; and if he will make a statement on the nature of the courses; and if he will list the number of places offered and the number of vacancies. [41493]

  Mr. Boswell
  In the north-west of England, Myerscough college, Preston, and Newton Rigg college, Penrith, offer a variety of agricultural and horticultural courses leading to the attainment of degrees, diplomas, certificates and national vocational qualifications. A full list and details of the courses, including places offered and vacancies, can be obtained from the colleges themselves. Alternatively, the "Directory of Courses in Land-Based Industries", published by the farming press, contains comprehensive information on all full-time and sandwich courses currently available in the land-based industries.
  688
  Details of training courses and providers can be obtained from the Industry Training Organisation for Agriculture and Commercial Horticulture, ATB-Landbase Limited, based at the National Agricultural Centre, Stoneleigh, Kenilworth, Warwickshire, CV8 2LG, telephone 01203 696996.

  Microbiological Food Safety
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into E. coli 0157 bacteria in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [41638]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Department is supporting, and will continue to support, research on this important food poisoning organism, including the detection of the organism and conditions leading to its growth, survival and death in foods. In addition, research is also directed at gaining a greater understanding of the incidence of the organism in cattle and its carriage into the food chain.

  In formulating future research priorities in this area, the Department will take account of the recommendations for research on this organism identified by the independent advisory committee on the microbiological safety of food in its report published in June of this year. In producing the report, the advisory committee evaluated all the scientific information on this organism which was currently available. Officials will continue to assess new developments in this area in conjunction with colleagues in the Department of Health.

  Coastal Protection
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the projects, their location and cost funded last year and the year before from his budget on coastal protection. [41691]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is responsible for flood and coastal defence policy in England. The Ministry administers the Coast Protection Act 1949 and provides financial assistance for approved capital works, and studies, undertaken by coast protection authorities to protect land from erosion and encroachment by the sea. A list of the schemes approved for grant aid and supplementary credit approval to enable authorities to borrow to cover the residual costs in the 1993–94 and 1994–95 financial years is as follows:

  Coast protection schemes approved in 1993–94

  Local authority

  Scheme

  Estimated eligible cost (£000)

  Restormel B.C.

  Towan Beach, Newquay

  167

  Kerrier D.C.

  Porthleven Phase 8

  325

  Penwith D.C.

  Chyandour to Long Rock, Penzance

  1,372

  Penwith D.C.

  Strategic Study-Lizard Point to Lands End

  85

  East Devon D.C.

  Emergency Works-Sidmouth

  545

  Poole B.C.

  Strategic Study-Poole

  80

  New Forest D.C.

  Emergency Works-Hurst Spit

  125

  New Forest D.C.

  Emergency Works-Calshot Spit

  27

  New Forest D.C.

  Barton on Sea Phase 4

  170

  Medina B.C.

  Emergency Works-Sea Wall near Cowes Castle

  16

  689

  Coast protection schemes approved in 1993–94

  Local authority

  Scheme

  Estimated eligible cost (£000)

  Gosport B.C.

  Preliminary Study-Lee on the Solent

  25

  Portsmouth C.C.

  Preliminary Study-Camber Quay

  12

  Portsmouth C.C.

  Ten Gun Battery

  33

  Havant B.C.

  Sandy Point, Hayling Island

  269

  Chichester D.C.

  Strategic Study-Pagham to Langstone

  210

  Arun D.C.

  Pagham Beach, Phase 2

  489

  Adur D.C.

  Preliminary Study-River Walk, Shoreham

  3

  Wealdon D.C.

  Preliminary Study-Birling Gap

  6

  Eastbourne B.C.

  Emergency Works-Langney Point and the Redoubt

  99

  Canterbury C.C.

  Beach Monitoring Programme-Canterbury Coastline

  60

  Canterbury C.C.

  Wave and Tide Measurement-Canterbury Coastline

  36

  Canterbury C.C.

  East Cliff, Herne Bay

  217

  Canterbury C.C.

  Swalecliffe

  119

  Canterbury C.C.

  Hampton Pier Avenue, Herne Bay

  623

  Canterbury C.C.

  Preliminary Study-Tankerton Bay

  185

  Tendring D.C.

  Clacton on Sea Phase la

  4,941

  North Norfolk D.C.

  Sheringham, Stage 1

  2,238

  Holderness B.C.

  Preliminary Study-Aldbrough

  3

  Holderness B.C.

  Preliminary Study-Cowden

  4

  Holderness B.C.

  Preliminary Study-Withernsea

  13

  Holderness B.C.

  Preliminary Study-Hornsea

  3

  Holderness B.C.

  Emergency Works-Withernsea

  1,191

  Scarborough B.C.

  Strategic Study-Scarborough

  10

  Easington D.C.

  Strategic Study for the Durham Coast

  17

  Sunderland B.C.

  Hendon Sea Wall

  697

  Berwick upon Tweed B.C.

  Preliminary Study-Spittal Point

  34

  Berwich upon Tweed B.C.

  Preliminary Study-Holy Island Road

  4

  Allerdale D.C.

  Preliminary Study-Silloth-Skinburness

  13

  Allerdale D.C.

  East Cote Groyne, Silloth

  81

  Barrow in Furness

  Earnse Bay, Walney Island

  788

  Lancaster C.C.

  Morcambe Phase 4

  4,580

  Eastleigh B.C.

  Preliminary Study-Hamble Common

  3

  Eastleigh B.C.

  Preliminary Study-Netley Cliff

  10

  Coast Protection Schemes approved in 1994–95.

  Local Authority

  Scheme

  Estimated Eligible Cost (£thousands)

  West Somerset D.C.

  Strategic Study—Hartland Point to Sand Bay

  23

  North Cornwall D.C.

  Trevone, Padstow

  79

  Restormel B.C.

  Beach Monitoring—Towan Beach, Newquay

  9

  Kerrier D.C.

  Breageside. Porthleven Helston

  114

  690

  Coast Protection Schemes approved in 1994–95.

  Local Authority

  Scheme

  Estimated Eligible Cost (£thousands)

  Caradon D.C.

  Emergency Works—Portwrinkle

  6

  South Hams D.C.

  Sedgewell Cove, Bigbury-on-Sea

  84

  East Devon D.C.

  Sidmouth phase 2

  6,664

  West Dorset D.C.

  Preliminary Study for Seaton, Lyme Bay

  15

  West Dorset D.C.

  Emergency Works—Ringstead

  9

  West Dorset D.C.

  Emergency Works—Charmouth

  3

  West Dorset D.C.

  Lower Sea Lane, Charmouth

  236

  Pool B.C.

  Emergency Works—Sandbanks Peninsula

  37

  Bournemouth B.C.

  Bournemouth

  56

  South Wight D.C.

  Eastern Esplanade Phase 1—Ventnor

  329

  South Wight D.C.

  Brambles Chine, Colwell Bay

  84

  South Wight D.C.

  Preliminary Study—Castle Haven, Niton

  22

  South Wight D.C.

  Horseshoe Bay, Bonchurch, Ventnor

  160

  South Wight D.C.

  Western Esplanade, Ventnor

  379

  Medina B.C.

  Egypt Point—Gurnard Bay

  835

  Chicester D.C.

  Park Copse, Selsey

  408

  Arun D.C.

  Kingston and Rustington

  294

  Arun D.C.

  Eastern Seawall, Bognor Regis

  93

  Arun D.C.

  Aldwick Groyne, Renovations phase 2

  62

  Arun D.C.

  Strategic Study

  141

  Arun D.C.

  Beachy Head—Selsey Bill

  145

  Adur D.C.

  Ropetackle River Wall, Shoreham-by-Sea

  344

  Lewes D.C.

  Emergency Works—Peacehaven Phase 1

  65

  Shepway D.C.

  Strategic Study-South foreland to Beachy Head

  80

  Shepway D.C.

  Hythe

  2,009

  Dover D.C.

  Deal and Kingsdown

  1,687

  Thanet D.C.

  St. Mildred's Bay, Westgate-on-Sea

  1,038

  Thanet D.C.

  Pegwell Cove to Western Undercliff

  625

  Canterbury C.C.

  Strategic Study—Isle of Grain to Dover Harbour

  105

  Tendring D.C.

  Strategic Study—Harwich to Canvey Island

  93

  Tendring D.C.

  East Terrace, Walton-on-the-Naze

  424

  Suffolk Coastal D.C.

  Strategic Study, Suffolk Coast

  67

  Great Yarmouth B.C.

  Emergency Works—Caister Sea Wall

  230

  Great Yarmouth B.C.

  Emergency Works—Caister

  170

  Great Yarmouth B.C.

  Rock Armour Fish-Tail Groynes at Caister

  677

  North Norfolk D.C.

  Overstrand

  1,676

  Holderness B.C.

  Withernsea Sea Wall, Refurbishment Phase 1

  1,860

  Holderness B.C.

  Emergency Works—Groynes At Withernsea

  114

  East Yorkshire B.C.

  Bridlington, Alexandra Promenade

  595

  Scarborough B.C.

  Emergency Works—Holbeck Cliff, South Bay

  1,881

  Berwick-upon-Tweed B.C.

  Emergency Works—Spittal Promenade

  26

  691

  Coast Protection Schemes approved in 1994–95.

  Local Authority

  Scheme

  Estimated Eligible Cost (£thousands)

  Copeland B.C.

  Preliminary Study for Selker Bay to Tarn Bay

  10

  Lancaster C.C.

  Preliminary Study for Sunderland Point

  5

  Blackpool B.C.

  Emergency Works—Red Bank

  24

  Isles of Scilly Council

  Bryher

  685

  Isles of Scilly Council

  Preliminary Study for the Isles

  20

  Isles of Scilly Council

  Porth Cressa, Hugh Town St. Mary's

  966

  Notes:

  1. C.C.-City council.

  2. B.C.-Borough council.

  3. D.C.-District council.

  Rules and Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the rules and regulations he proposes to repeal or amend by means of a reference to the Deregulation Committee before the end of 1995; and if he will make a statement. [41537]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 6 November 1995]: I refer my hon. Friend to the oral answer given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 6 November 1995, Official Report, column 490.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what regulations his Department proposes to repeal by the end of 1995; if he proposes to conduct a compliance cost assessment on each regulation repealed; and what is the estimated cost of undertaking a compliance cost assessment to assess the advantages or disadvantages of such a repeal. [41557]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 6 November 1995]: Examples of regulations which are expected to be brought forward for repeal this year include a series of national measures relating to food composition and food additives and contaminants.

  The requirement to carry out a cost compliance assessment applies to regulations which impose additional burdens on business while the programme of repeals and amendments is concerned with reducing the burden.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the estimated saving to the Exchequer by the repeal of each rule and regulation which has so far been the subject of a reference to the Deregulation Committee from his Department; and in how many cases a compliance cost assessment has been carried out. [41538]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 6 November 1995]: My Department has laid two draft deregulation proposals to date, removing certain burdens under the Corn Returns Act 1882 and in relation to slaughterhouses. No estimate has been made of the likely savings to the Exchequer as a result of these proposed orders, but they are likely to be small.

  The explanatory document which is presented to the committee alongside each draft order is required to contain an assessment of the cost of savings to business and any other persons whom the draft order is intended to benefit.

  Cash Limits
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Foot what changes are proposed in his Department's cash limits for 1995–96.[40630]

  Mr.Dougles Hogg
  [pursuant to his reply,27 October 1995,c. 828–29]: I should like to add that the running costs limit for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will increase by £5,278,000,from £329,416,000 to £334,694,000.

FORIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what communications his Department has had from the World court project since June on the action started on 30 October at the International Court of Justice in The Hague on the legality of nuclear weapons. [41471]

  Mr. David Davis
  The World court project United Kingdom wrote to us on 26 September 1995. A reply was sent.

  Argentina
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans there are to return the British Council library to Buenos Aires. [41644]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The British Council has never had its own library in Argentina. The library in Buenos Aires belonged to the Buenos Aires Cultura—Anglo—Argentine cultural association. That still exists but is no longer co-located with the Council. The British Council continues to work closely with the Culturas throughout Argentina to meet the needs for books in English.

  Northern Cyprus
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs with whom he has discussed the education facilities for young people over the age of 16 years who live in the Karpas area of occupied northern Cyprus; and if he will make a statement on what facilities and regulations apply to such youngsters who are seeking further and high education. [41854]

  Mr. David Davis
  The high commission and British Council office in Nicosia maintain regular contact with the Cypriot education authorities. In the Karpas area, there is a middle school in the town of Galacia, and high schools in the towns of Trikomo and Yialousa. There is also a vocational high school covering the Karpas area. There are four universities in northern Cyprus, with a total enrolment of around 13,000.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the number of children under the age of 18 years who are now living in the Karpas area of occupied northern Cyprus. [41855]

  Mr. Davis
  We have no information on this subject. There has been no census in northern Cyprus since 1992, and detailed census figures are not made publicly available.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list, with dates of implementation, all European and international action and agreements to which the United Kingdom Government are party, that have been taken against the Nigerian military regime. [41338]

  Mr. Hanley
  In response to the annulment of the presidential elections in 1993, and the subsequent return to power of the military government, we and our European partners introduced a series of measures against the Nigerian military. The details of those measures were set out in an answer to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on 2 December 1993,Official Report, column 680.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the dates and content of meetings that Her Majesty's Government have had with representatives of the Nigerian military regime since 17 November 1993. [41351]

  Mr. Hanley
  There have been no meetings between British Ministers and members of the Nigerian military regime in either Britain or Nigeria since the European Union adopted its measures in December 1993. There has been occasional contact in the margins of international meetings in third countries. Contact has been maintained at official level in furtherance of British policy towards Nigeria.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards Nigeria's military regime including details of the policy towards arms sales to the regime and its relation to European Union agreements. [41352]

  Mr. Hanley
  We continue to press for an early return to democratic civilian rule and a restoration of full human rights in Nigeria. In line with EU measures agreed with our partners against the Nigerian military in December 1993, all applications for new licences for the export of defence equipment to Nigeria have been reviewed case by case, with the presumption of denial. We are keeping these measures under review in the light of progress towards civilian democratic rule.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Nigeria concerning the death penalty ordered against Ken Saro-Wiwa and others; and if he will make a statement. [42002]

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his Department will make representations to the Government of Nigeria about the death sentence imposed on Ken Saro-Wiwa. [41465]

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) on 1 November,Official Report, column 266.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contact he has had with the United Kingdom embassy in Lagos concerning the safety of Abdul Onibiyo following his recent deportation from the United Kingdom. [42004]
  694
  Mr. Hanley
  Her Majesty's high commission in Lagos has had no contact with Mr. Onibiyo since his removal from the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings have been held by Her Majesty's ambassador in Lagos to discuss human rights; and if he will make a statement. [42001]

  Mr. Hanley
  Her Majesty's high commissioner in Lagos has regular meetings with representatives of non-governmental human rights organisations. Human rights issues are also raised regularly with the Nigerian authorities and discussed at meetings of European Union heads of mission in Lagos.

  Burundi
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has received about a massacre of Hutus near Ngozi in Burundi; and what representations his Government have made to the Government of Burundi. [41998]

  Mr. Hanley
  The UN secretariat has reported to the Security Council that a number of people have been killed in recent operations involving guerilla forces and the Burundi army, including 50 deaths at Ngozi. Together with our partners in the EU, we continue to give our strong backing to the efforts of the UN and OAU to assist the moderate and broad-based government, and bring an end to the inter-ethnic violence in Burundi.

  Sudan
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to influence the Government of the Sudan to prevent the persecution of Christians and Animists in southern Sudan. [41634]

  Mr. Hanley
  We continue to express our concerns about the human rights situation in Sudan to the Sudanese Government, bilaterally, with EU partners, and through the United Nations. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary raised the subject with the Sudanese ambassador on 13 September, as I did on 2 August.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list by type of project(a) how many schemes have been approved to date under the private finance initiative, (b) what is the value of those schemes and (c) what public sector contribution will be required both initially and as revenue support during the lifetime of the schemes. [41740]

  Mr. Hanley
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office, including the Overseas Development Administration, has not yet approved any schemes under the private finance initiative. All new capital spend is considered under the PFI, including spending on home and overseas estate, information technology and other technical equipment.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many persons in the Secret Intelligence Service and at GCHQ are on the public
  695
  payroll or employed as consultants or advisers and work on a part-time or a full-time basis in relation to the Scott inquiry, and how much each is paid. [42051]

  Mr. Hanley
  There are no staff in the Secret Intelligence Service or at GCHQ wholly employed on matters relating to the Scott inquiry. It is not possible to identify the number of people involved on a part-time or occasional basis within the Department or as external consultants or advisers, nor is it our practice to comment on financial matters relating to the security and intelligence agencies or to name their staff or external advisers.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many persons in his Department are on the public payroll or employed as consultants or advisers and work on a part-time or full-time basis in relation to the Scott inquiry; if he will list them; and how much each is paid. [42049]

  Mr. Hanley
  The number of Foreign and Commonwealth Office staff wholly employed on matters relating to the Scott inquiry is three and their annual salary cost is £74,539, at 1994–95 rates. It is not possible to identify the number of people involved on a part-time or occasional basis within the Department or as external consultants or advisers, but the amount so far spent by this Department on external advice is £318,165.46. It is not the practice to name staff or external advisers.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many persons have been authorised to have access to documents held by the Secret Intelligence Service and GCHQ relating to the Scott inquiry; and if he will list such persons. [42052]

  Mr. Hanley
  Ministers, former Ministers, officials and other advisers have access to material relating to the inquiry as necessary in order to carry out their responsibilities.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many persons have been authorised to have access to documents held by his Department relating to the Scott inquiry; and if he will list such persons. [42050]

  Mr. Hanley
  Ministers, former Ministers, officials and other advisers have access to material relating to the inquiry as necessary in order to carry out their responsibilities.

  Harjit Singh
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when his officers last contacted the Indian authorities concerning the progress of the court case into the disappearance of Harjit Singh; and what was the outcome of their representations. [42098]

  Mr. Hanley
  We remain in touch with the Indian authorities about the case of Harjit Singh. The final court hearing was held on 29 August. Judgment is now awaited.

  Bankruptcy
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many petitions for bankruptcy have been begun by his Department for 696
  businesses with under 500 employees in each of the last five years. [40524]

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 1 November 1995]: None.

  Annual Remuneration
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will estimate the number of individuals in his(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non departmental public bodies whose annual remuneration including benefits in kind exceeded (i) £100,000, (ii) £200,000, (iii) £300,000 in (1) 1985–86, (2) 1990–91, (3) 1992–93, (4) 1994–95 and (5) 1995–96. [40808]

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 1 November 1995]: Other than pension contributions, benefits in kind are not normally paid to staff in the Department, agencies and NDPBs. As members of the principal civil service pensions scheme, staff receive benefits in accordance with the scheme rules, which have been deposited in the Library of the House. The number receiving annual remuneration above the sums specified, excluding pension benefits in the years in question, were:

  1985–86

  1990–91

  1992–93

  1994–95

  1995–96

  (i)

  none

  none

  1

  1

  1

  (ii)

  none

  none

  none

  none

  none

  (iii)

  none

  none

  none

  none

  none

  Salaries
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the(a) the lowest and (b) the highest full-time salary paid to any employee in his (i) Department, (ii) agencies and (iii) non departmental public bodies in (1) 1994–95 and (2) 1995–96. [40809]

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 1 November 1995]: It is the Government's normal policy to publish civil servants' salaries in bands. Accordingly, the lowest full-time salary for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office fell within the band:

  1994–95 £

  1995–96 £

  The lowest full-time salary fell within the band

  7,000–12,000

  7,000–12,000

  The highest full-time salary fell within the band

  106,000–111,000

  110,000–115,000

  At the agency Wilton Park, the lowest full-time salary fell within the band

  7,000–12,000

  7,000–12,000

  At the agency Wilton Park, the highest full-time salary fell within the band

  39,000–44,000

  39,000–44,000

  For Non-Departmental Public Bodies, the lowest full-time salary fell within the band

  7,000–10,000

  7,000–10,000

  697

  1994–95 £

  1995–96 £

  For Non-Departmental Public Bodies, the highest full-time salary fell within the band

  85,000–89,999

  90,000–94,999

  European Court Decisions
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the oral answer of the Attorney-General of 30 October,Official Report, column 12, relating to decisions of the European

  Judgements in cases before the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights in which United Kingdom Departments have participated since 16 October 1993

  European Court of Justice

  Date of ECJ Judgement

  Reference

  Case description

  Cost to UK Public Funds (excluding the cost of Government counsel)

  20 October 1993

  C92/92

  Colins v. Imrat Handelsgesellschaft

  None

  27 October 1993

  C338/91

  Mme H Steenhorst-Neerings v. Bestuur van de Bedrijfsver eniging voor Detailhandel Ambachten en Huisvrouwen

  None

  27 October 1993

  C337/91

  Mme A M van Gemert-Derks v. Bestuur van de Nieuwe Industriele Bedrijfsverenigine

  None

  27 October 1993

  C93/91

  Evrard

  None

  27 October 1993

  C69/91

  Decoster

  None

  27 October 1993

  C92/91

  Taillandier

  None

  27 October 1993

  CI 27/92

  Enderby v. Frenchay Health Authority

  None1

  10 November 1993

  C48/91

  Kingdom of the Netherlands v. Commission of the European Communities

  None

  10 November 1993

  C60/92

  Otto v. Postbank

  None

  17 November 1993

  C2/91

  Meng

  None

  17 November 1993

  C185/91

  Reiff

  None

  17 November 1993

  C245/91

  Ohra

  None

  29 November 1993

  C132/92

  Birds Eye Walls Ltd. v. Friedal M. Roberts

  None

  30 November 1993

  C317/91

  Renault v. Audi

  None

  14 December 1993

  C110/91

  M. Moroni v. Firma Collo GMBH

  None

  15 December 1993

  C116/92

  Huyton and others

  None

  15 December 1993

  C63/92 and C33/93

  Lubbock Fine and Co. v. Commissioners of Customs and Excise/Empire Stores v. Commissioners of Customs and Excise. (Date of judgment 2 June 1994)

  Costs directly attributable to these two cases are estimated at between £500,000 and £1 million. In both cases, as a result of ECJ judgments, there will have been a marginal reuction in the overall estimated future revenue yield.

  16 December 1993

  C275/92

  Schindler

  None

  22 December 1993

  C152/91

  David Neath v. Hugh Steeper Ltd.

  None

  19 January 1994

  C364/92

  Eurocontrol

  None

  25 January 1994

  C212/91

  Angelopharm GmbH v. Freie und Hanses Tadt Hamburg

  None

  27 January 1994

  C287/92

  Alison Mainland Toosey v. Chief Adjudication Officer

  None

  23 February 1994

  C236/92

  Comitato di coordinamento per la Difesa della Cava and others v. Regione Lombardia and OthersNone

  24 February 1994

  C368/92

  Administration des Duanes v. Solange Chiffre

  None

  24 March 1994

  T3/93

  Air France v. Commission

  None

  24 March 1994

  C80/92

  Commission v. Belgium

  None

  13 April 1994

  C128/92

  H. J. Banks and Co. v. British Coal Corporation

  None

  24 April 1994

  C2/92

  The Queen v. the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte Dennis Clifford Bostock

  None

  24 April 1994

  C40/92

  Commission v. United Kingdom (supervision of Milk Marketing Boards)

  None

  5 May 1994

  C21/92

  Marlies and Heinz Bernd Kamp v. Hauptzollamt Wuppertal

  None

  5 May 1994

  C421/92

  Habermann Beltermann v. Arbeiterwohlfahrt Bezirksuerband

  None

  698
  Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights, if he will list those European Court decisions relating to responsibilities of his Department over the past two years; and if he will further indicate the estimated annual cost to public funds of each decision. [41207]

  Mr. David Davis
  [holding answer 2 November 1995]: The table contains a list of the judgments in cases before the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights in which UK Departments have participated since 16 October 1993. The UK has also gained from ECJ decisions, or the threat of court action in cases involving other member states, such as the penalties incurred by the Italian and Spanish Governments for breaching the EC milk quota regulations.
  699

  Judgements in cases before the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights in which United Kingdom Departments have participated since 16 October 1993

  European Court of Justice

  Date of ECJ Judgement

  Reference

  Case description

  Cost to UK Public Funds (excluding the cost of Government counsel)

  5 May 1994

  C38/93

  H. J. Glawe Spiel und Unterhaltungsgerate Aufstellungsgesellschaft mbH and Co. KG v. Finanzamt Hamburg-Barmbeck-Uhlenhorst

  None

  19 May 1994

  T2/93

  Air France v. Commission

  None

  2 June 1994

  C313/92

  Van Swieten

  None

  2 June 1994

  C401 & 402/92

  Criminal proceedings against tankstation't heukske vof and j.b.E Boermans

  None

  2 June 1994

  C69 & 258/93

  Punta Casa

  None

  2 June 1994

  C356/93

  Techmada Internationale Medizinisch-Technische Marketing und Handels GMBH and Co. KG V. Oberfinanzdirektion Koeln

  None

  9 June 1994

  C153/93

  Delta Schiffahrts

  None

  22 June 1994

  C9/93

  Ideal Standard

  None

  3 July 1994

  C432/92

  The Queen v. the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte S.P. Anastasio (Pissouri) Ltd. and others

  £179,000

  7 July 1994

  C420/92

  Elizabeth Bramhill v. Chief Adjourdication Officer

  None

  14 July 1994

  C91/92

  Dori v. Recreb

  None

  14 July 1994

  C32/93

  Webb v. Emo Air Cargo

  None1

  9 August 1994

  C43/93

  Raymond Vander Elst v. Office des Migrations Internationals

  None at present

  9 August 1994

  C396/92

  Bund Naturschutz in bayern e V Richard Stahnsdorf and Others v. Freistaat Bayern

  None

  15 September 1994

  C293/93

  Houtwipper

  None

  28 September 1994

  C128/93

  Madame G.C. Fisscher v. 1 Voorhuis Hengelo BV and 2. Stichting Bedrijfspensioenfonds

  Eventual capital cost of up to £15 million. Figure represents estimated maximum likely capital costs of judgements for public service pension schemes

  28 September 1994

  C28/93

  Van den Akker v. Shell

  None

  28 September 1994

  C57/93

  Mme A. A. Vroeg v. 1 NCIV Institut voor Volkshuisvesting BV and 2. Pensioenfonds NCIV

  Included in C128/93 (Fisscher)

  28 September 1994

  C200/91

  Coloroll Pension Scheme Trustees Ltd. v. Russell and others

  None

  28 September 1994

  C408/92

  Constance Christina Ellen Smith and others v. Avdel Systems Ltd.

  None

  28 September 1994

  C7/93

  Bestuur van het Alegmeen Burgerlijk Pensioenfonds Pensions v. G.A. Beune

  None

  5 October 94

  C280/93

  Federal Republic of Germany v. Council of the European Union

  None

  5 October 94

  C96/94

  Centro Servizi Spediporto

  None

  5 October 94

  C165/91

  S.J.M van Munster v. Rijksdienst Voor Pensioenen

  None

  15 November 1994

  Opinion 1/94

  World Trade Organisation

  None

  6 December 1994

  C410/92

  Elsie Rita Johnson v. Chief Adjudication Officer

  None

  15 December 1994

  C399/92

  Helmig v. Stadt Lengerich

  None

  15 December 1994

  C409/92

  Schmidt v. Deutsche angestellten-krankenkasse

  None

  15 December 1994

  C425/92

  Herzog v. Arbeiter-samariter-bund landverband hamburg

  None

  15 December 1994

  C34/93

  Lange v. bundesknappschaft bochum

  None

  15 December 1994

  C50/93

  Kussfeld v. Firma detlef bogdol gmbh

  None

  15 December 1994

  C78/93

  Ludvig v. Kreis Segeberg

  None

  14 February 1995

  C279/93

  Finanzamt Koln-Altstadt v. Roland Schumackers

  None

  16 February 1995

  C425/93

  Firma Calle Grenzshop Andresen GmbH and Co. KG v. Allegmeine Ortskranken-kasse fur den Kreis Schleswig-FlensburgNone

  23 February 1995

  C358/93 and 416/93

  (Joined Cases) Criminal proceedings against Aldo Bordessa, Vicente Mari Mellado and Concepcion Barbero Maestre v. Audiencia Nacional Spain

  None

  24 March 1995

  Opinion 2/92

  OECD National Treatment Instrument

  None

  700

  701

  Judgements in cases before the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights in which United Kingdom Departments have participated since 16 October 1993

  European Court of Justice

  Date of ECJ Judgement

  Reference

  Case description

  Cost to UK Public Funds (excluding the cost of Government counsel)

  28 March 1995

  C324/93

  R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Evans Medical Ltd., intervener: Generics (UK) Ltd. None at present

  30 March 1995

  C65/93

  European Parliament v. Council of the European Union

  None

  5 April 1995

  C103/94

  Zoulika Krid v. Caisse National D'Assurance Vieillesse des travailleurs Salaries

  None

  6 April 1995

  C4/94

  BLP Group plc v. Commissioners of Customs and Excise

  None

  10 May 1995

  C384/93

  Alpine Investments

  None

  31 May 1995

  C400/93

  Specialarbejderforbundet 1 Danmark v. Industri

  None

  9 June 1995

  C394/92

  Michielsen

  None

  13 July 1995

  C116/94

  Jennifer Meyers v. Adjudication Officer

  Not yet known. Case referred back to Social Security Commissioner. Costs will depend on his decision

  11 August 1995

  C92/94

  1. Secretary of State for Social Security 2. Chief Adjudication Officer v. Mrs. Rose Graham and others

  None

  5 October 1995

  C440/93

  Regina v. Licensing Authority of the Department of Health and Norgine. Ex parte: Scotia Pharmaceuticals Ltd. None

  12 October 1995

  C85/94

  V.Z.W.P.IA.G.E.M.E and others v. B.V.B.A. Peeters

  None

  19 October 1995

  C137/94

  Richardson

  £44 million per annum, plus a cost of £11 million for respective claims going back 3 months.

  1 For these cases the annual costs to public funds will depend on how many public sector employeer now succeed in sex discrimination or equal pay claims which would, before the decision of the court, have failed. Government lawyers estimate that any such costs should be very low.

  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given by the Attorney General on 30 October, Official Report, column 12–14. This answer included nine cases concerning the 1968 Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in which the UK chose to submit written observations. In none of these cases was the UK a party and there was therefore no question of paying legal costs to another party, or compensation.

  European Court of Human Rights

  Date of ECHR judgment

  Case description

  Cost to UK public Funds (excluding Government counsel)£

  26 October 1993

  Darnell

  8,207.40

  23 February 1994

  Stanford

  None

  18 July 1994

  Wynne

  55.23

  21 September 1994

  Al Fayed

  None

  28 October 1994

  Murray

  None

  28 October 1994

  Boner and Maxwell

  14,373

  9 February 1995

  Welsh

  15,010.33

  24 February 1995

  McMichael

  8,000

  5 May 1995

  Air Canada

  None

  13 July 1995

  Tolstoy

  91,516.94

  27 September 1995

  McCann

  To be determined

  I do not yet have complete information on the following ECJ cases:

  Case number

  Case reference

  C109/92

  Max Wirth

  C392/92

  Schmidt

  C382/92

  Commission v. United Kingdom

  C383/92

  Commission v. United Kingdom

  C28/92

  Maria Belleke

  702

  Case number

  Case reference

  C458/93

  Saddilk

  C434/93

  Bozkurt

  Ministers in the Departments responsible for these cases will write to the hon. Gentleman shortly.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Greenbury Report
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the Government's response to the recommendations addressed to them in the report by the study group on directors' remuneration chaired by Sir Richard Greenbury. [42094]

  Mr. Lang
  The study group on directors' remuneration chaired by Sir Richard Greenbury published its report on 17 July. In an oral statement to the House that day,Official Report, columns 1311–12, I set out the Government's initial response, welcoming the group's work and the emphasis placed by its report on the need for pay to be justified by performance. The support which the report has commanded since its publication, and the

  703
  fact that those to whom the report is addressed have already begun to act upon its recommendations, are further confirmation both of the value of the group's work and of the effectiveness of the self-regulatory approach that it promotes.

  In the short time since the recommendations were published, it has become clear that the Greenbury report will do much to improve accountability and communication with shareholders, and to foster best practice in setting executive remuneration.

  The Government welcome the stock exchange's agreement to enforce the Greenbury recommendations through its listing rules, which are binding on listed companies. Since publication of the report, the stock exchange has consulted on the wording of amendments to its listing rules designed to give effect to recommendations contained in the Greenbury report relating to the determination and disclosure of executive directors' remuneration and the explanation of company policy on executive remuneration. The stock exchange has now issued amended listing rules, which will come into effect for reporting periods ending on or after 31 December 1995. It is undertaking further consultation on incorporating other aspects of the Greenbury recommendations into its rules.

  The Greenbury recommendations are primarily addressed to listed companies whose shares are traded widely, and the decision of the stock exchange to amend the listing rules is therefore an appropriate way forward. The Government do not propose to duplicate these requirements in legislation, but will seek to ensure that the legislation relating to disclosure of directors' remuneration is consistent with the Greenbury recommendations as implemented through the listing rules. In particular, the Government accept the recommendation that the Companies Act 1985 should be amended to remove overlap with the group's recommendations for full disclosure of directors' remuneration. We also note the conclusions reached by the Greenbury group on the disclosure of pension entitlements, and the recommendation that the information which companies supply on directors' pension entitlements should reflect the value of the pension entitlements to the director, rather than the pension contributions made by the company. We accept the recommendation that the Government should review the Companies Act requirements for disclosure of information on directors' pensions once the technical issues raised by the Greenbury recommendation have been resolved and companies are able to make the new form of disclosure.

  We will undertake public consultation on detailed proposals for amending the Companies Act by statutory instrument, which will take account of these two specific recommendations and more generally will ensure consistency of approach between the Companies Act requirements and the Greenbury recommendations.

  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced his intention to make amendments to the rules on the taxation of executive share options in the next Finance Bill.

  The Government welcome the emphasis which the Greenbury report places on accountability to shareholders. We recognise the need to ensure that both institutional
  704
  investors and private shareholders can continue to play their part in the affairs of the companies in which they invest. A company's annual general meeting provides a focus for shareholder involvement, particularly for private shareholders. Recent events have demonstrated the importance which shareholders rightly attach to the opportunity offered by the annual general meeting to express their views and to debate issues of general concern to the company. This is a matter to which the Employment Select Committee drew particular attention in its recent report on the remuneration of directors and chief executives of privatised utilities. The committee recommended that the Companies Act should be amended to require shareholders' resolutions, where they are supported by a sufficient number of shareholders and are limited in length, to be circulated by the company to all shareholders without cost. The Government will next year be seeking views on the existing statutory rules under which shareholders may table resolutions for discussion at general meetings, and whether any amendments are necessary in order to ensure that the arrangements work effectively without imposing undue burdens either on the company or on its shareholders.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the arrangements for providing Export Credits Guarantee Department support to Jordan. [42228]

  Mr. Lang
  I have been advised by the Export Credits Guarantee Department's accounting officer that, in his view, the risks involved in giving medium-term guarantees for exports to, and investments in, Jordan under sections 1(1) and 2 of the Export and Investment Guarantees Act 1991 do not meet ECGD's normal underwriting criteria.

  However, in view of the importance which the Government attach to assisting the economic development of Jordan, given its key role in the middle east peace process, I have instructed him to make arrangements for such guarantees to be issued in support of commercially viable projects which will benefit Jordan's economy. These guarantees will be excluded from ECGD's break-even objective for new business.

  European Space Agency Council
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the outcome of the recent European Space Agency ministerial Council at Toulouse. [42229]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  I attended the meeting at ministerial level of the European Space Agency Council in Toulouse on 19 October. Important decisions were taken which will reinforce ESA's contribution to the UK's industrial and scientific goals for space and to European space collaboration generally. My ministerial colleagues and I agreed unanimously to set a level for the ESA science programme capped at 347 million ESA accounting units a year for 1996–2000, except to the extent that inflation exceeds 3 per cent.—that is, some 15 per cent. below earlier proposals. This decision was vital to allow the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council to devote adequate resources to domestic scientific activity
  705
  which exploits the opportunities provided by the ESA programme. We endorsed the introduction of reforms to ESA's procurement practices and to internal management and structures, including a 12 per cent. staff reduction, which will significantly improve the agency's value for money and contribution to industrial competitiveness. We further agreed to develop and bring forward proposals in a year's time on industrial policy, including reforms to the agency's system of geographical industrial return. The ecu was adopted as ESA's unit of account, for both national contributions and contracts with industry, a change which also brings about the end of the system of retroactive exchange rate adjustments to member states' contributions. Agreement was reached on the European contribution to the international space station, in which the UK does not participate, and on the Ariane complementary programmes for which I indicated political support. A further formal ministerial meeting was envisaged to take space in Belgium in 1998, together with an informal meeting at the end of next year.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list by type of project(a) how many schemes have been approved to date under the private finance initiative, (b) what is the value of those schemes and (c) what public sector contribution will be required both initially and as revenue support during the lifetime of the schemes. [41747]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Private finance was used in the refurbishment of the DTI's premises at 1 Victoria street and the relocation of the Radiocommunications Agency to South Quay 3 in docklands. These projects were valued at £68 million and £5.5 million respectively and were completed in the current financial year. Commercial rents will be paid in respect of the buildings. No further projects have yet been approved under PFI but all DTI projects are now considered under the initiative and likely proposals have been identified.

  Export Licences
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the practice not to disclose details of export licences has precluded providing information on the country of origin and destination of goods which are the subject of trans-shipment licences on every occasion that applications for such information has been made in 1993. [42018]

  Mr. Nelson
  To ascertain whether the practice precluded the provision of such information in 1993 would involve disproportionate cost. I would refer the hon. Member to my answer to her on 1 November 1995,Official Report, column 354–35.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if export licences have been applied for or granted for the export of logging trucks to Jakarta, Indonesia, in the past five years. [42017]

  Mr. Nelson
  None in the period 1990 to 1995. Examination of manual records for earlier years would entail disproportionate costs.

  Electronic Batons (Exports)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what were the countries of origin and the destinations of the electronic batons which were covered by transhipment licences issued in(a) 1985, (b) 1986, (c) 1987, (d) 1988, (e) 1989 and (f) 1990. [40650]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  No transhipment licenses for such goods were issued in 1989 or 1990. To confirm the position in respect of the earlier years could be undertaken only at disproportionate cost.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many persons have been authorised to have access to documents held by his Department and the Export Credits Guarantee Department relating to the Scott inquiry; and if he will list such persons. [42054]

  Mr. Nelson
  Ministers, former Ministers, officials and other advisers have access to material relating to the inquiry as necessary in order to carry out their responsibilities.

  Westcountry Development Corporation
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consideration the Government have given to the Westcountry development corporation's Coopers and Lybrand report about public sector funding of the south-west; and what action it intends to take in response. [41646]

  Mr. Page
  The Prime Minister commissioned the regional director of the Government office for the south-west to evaluate the claims made in the Coopers and Lybrand report and to report back. That report is with Ministers. My hon. Friend the Minister for Trade and the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration are meeting Westcountry development corporation on 5 December to discuss the report. The findings of the report will be made public soon after.

  Gas-powered Domestic Water Heaters
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many people have died or been injured by accidents due to a fault in gas-powered domestic water heaters in each of the past four years. [41668]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The estimated numbers of people receiving treatment at accident and emergency units in the United Kingdom, for injuries from faults in gas-powered water heaters, are presented in the table. The corresponding numbers for fatalities in England and Wales are also given. However the figure for 1993, normally provided by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, is not available.

  Data year

  Non-fatal accidents (UK)

  Fatalities (England and Wales)

  1990

  56

  0

  1991

  114

  1

  1992

  88

  2

  1993

  50

  0

  Nuclear Material (Road Transport)
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had with the Association of Chief Police Officers about escorting nuclear material by road. [41618]

  Mr. Page
  None. The escort of nuclear materials is carried out, where necessary, by the UK Atomic Energy Authority constabulary, with whom the appropriate arrangements are in place. These include provision for notification of local Home Office and Scottish Office police forces, where appropriate.

  GIAT of France
  Mr. McWilliam
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what contact there has been between Ministers or civil servants and Royal Ordnance or BAe regarding the setting up of a joint company or other arrangement involving GIAT of France; and if he will make a statement. [41636]

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department has regular contact with British Aerospace about collaborative opportunities, including possible arrangements between Royal Ordnance and GIAT. These discussions are commercially confidential.

  British American Business Groups
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the total number of British-American business groups in the United Kingdom with whom his Department is in contact; and if he will make a statement. [41860]

  Mr. Nelson
  My Department has regular contact with a number of associations in the United Kingdom interested in promoting trade with the USA, including the British-American chamber of commerce in London and the British-American business groups in the north-west and in Bristol.

  Consultancy Brokerage Service
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade with what he intends to replace the Consultancy Brokerage Service; and at what cost to public funds. [42005]

  Mr. Page
  The Consultancy Brokerage Service will not be replaced by any centrally driven initiative.

  My Department will, however, be working with business links to ensure that they each have in place an acceptable approach to consultant selection. The Department would not rule out a modest contribution to the development of that work but no applications for support have been agreed nor have any funds been allocated.

  Manufacturing Labour Costs
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the manufacturing labour costs per hour in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) each EU country for which equivalent figures are available, (c) the USA, (d) Canada and (e) Japan at the latest available date. [41871]
  708
  Mr. Oppenheim
  The information is provided in the table.

  International comparisons of hourly compensation costs in US Dollars for production workers in manufacturing, 1994

  Country

  Hourly compensation costs in US Dollars

  United Kingdom

  13.62

  Germany

  27.31

  Belgium

  22.97

  Austria

  21.73

  Netherlands

  20.91

  Denmark

  20.44

  Finland

  18.89

  Sweden

  18.81

  France

  17.04

  Italy

  16.16

  Spain

  11.45

  Portugal

  4.57

  Canada

  15.68

  USA

  17.10

  Japan

  21.42

  Source:

  "International Comparisons of Hourly Compensation Costs for production Workers in Manufacturing, 1994. Supplementary tables".

  "US Department of Labour—Bureau of Labour Statistics.

  World Trade (Shares)
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the share of world trade held by each of the 20 countries in the world that had the largest shares of world trade in 1979; and if he will provide the equivalent information for the most recent year for which figures are available. [41870]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The answer is in the following table:

  Shares of world visible exports—20 largest exporters 1979 and 1994

  Rank

  Country

  Per cent, share

  1979

  1

  USA

  11.9

  2

  F R Germany

  11.3

  3

  Japan

  6.7

  4

  France

  6.6

  5

  UK

  5.7

  6

  Italy

  4.7

  7

  Netherlands

  4.2

  8

  Saudi Arabia

  3.8

  9

  Canada

  3.8

  10

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  3.7

  11

  Sweden

  1.8

  12

  Switzerland

  1.7

  13

  USSR

  1.7

  14

  Iraq

  1.3

  15

  Kuwait

  1.2

  16

  Iran

  1.2

  17

  South Africa

  1.2

  18

  Spain

  1.2

  19

  Nigeria

  1.1

  20

  Libya

  1.1

  1994

  1

  USA

  12.2

  2

  Germany

  10.0

  3

  Japan

  9.4

  4

  France

  5.7

  5

  UK

  4.9

  6

  Italy

  4.5

  7

  Canada

  3.9

  8

  Hong Kong1

  3.6

  709

  Shares of world visible exports—20 largest exporters 1979 and 1994

  Rank

  Country

  Per cent, share

  9

  Netherlands

  3.2

  10

  China

  2.9

  11

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  2.6

  12

  Singapore1

  2.3

  13

  Korea

  2.3

  14

  Taiwan

  2.2

  15

  Spain

  1.8

  16

  Switzerland

  1.7

  17

  Russia

  1.5

  18

  Sweden

  1.5

  19

  Malaysia

  1.4

  20

  Mexico

  1.4

  Note:

  1 Includes significant re-exports.

  Source:

  IMF Direction of Trade.

  Artillery Shells
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what were the number and value of 155 mm shells and cartridges produced for export by the United Kingdom in each of the years 1980 and 1990; and to which countries these items were exported. [42063]

  Mr. Nelson
  This is a matter for my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, and I refer the hon. Member to his answer of today.

  European Court Decisions
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to the reply of the Attorney-General of 30 October,Official Report, column 12 relating to decisions of the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights, if he will list those European Court decisions relating to responsibilities of his Department over the past two years; and if he will further indicate the estimated annual cost to public funds of each decision. [41206]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 2 November 1995]: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him today by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis).

  BCCI
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he last met the liquidators of BCCI to discuss progress with the liquidation. [41288]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 3 November 1995]: My officials last met the joint liquidators on 31 March 1995.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many creditors reports have been published by the liquidators of BCCI. [41289]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 3 November 1995]: Three annual reports to the Secretary of State made under regulation 14 of the Insolvency Regulations 1994 have been made available to the creditors of BCCI. In addition, the joint liquidators have reported to the creditors on specific issues as they have arisen in the liquidation.
  710
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the outstanding settlement issues in the BCCI liquidation. [41290]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 3 November 1995]: No. These are matters for the joint liquidators.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much creditors' money is currently held by the liquidators of BCCI. [41291]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 3 November 1995]: The joint liquidators are holding funds of £415 million. Additional sums have been recovered and are held in pool realisation accounts on behalf of the pooled liquidation. Sums held in these accounts currently amount to $694 million.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much money has been recovered by the liquidators of BCCI since the liquidation commenced. [41292]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 3 November 1995]: The joint liquidators had recovered £694 million since their appointment. In addition, $694 million has been recovered directly into pooled realisation accounts by the liquidators of the pooled liquidation.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much money has been received by the liquidators of BCCI from(a) the USA settlements (b) other parties and (c) the sale of First American bank. [41291]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 3 November 1995]: The pooled liquidations have received $487 million in respect of American settlements. The liquidators of the pooled liquidations have not yet received any funds from the sale of the First American bank.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the total of fees taken by the liquidators of BCCI, Touche Ross, in respect of the liquidation(a) in dollars, (b) in £ sterling. [41295]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 3 November 1995]: Total authorised fees drawn by the joint liquidators to 15 October 1995 amount to £116 million.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the total fees taken by the solicitors acting for the liquidators of BCCI Messrs Lovell White Durrant in respect of the liquidation(a) in dollars and (b) £ sterling. [41296]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 3 November 1995]: Legal fees paid to Messrs Lovell White Durrant and other solicitors by the joint liquidators amount to approximately £50 million.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he now expects the creditors of BCCI to receive their first compensation payment. [41297]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 3 November 1995]: The joint liquidators have advised my officials that the timing and amount of any distribution to creditors is dependent on the determination of the appeal currently before the Court in Luxembourg.

  Felixstowe-Zeebrugge Ferry Service
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when his Department was first informed of the
  711
  closure of the P and O ferry service from Felixstowe to Zeebrugge; what steps his officials took to assess the impact of the closure on the economy of Suffolk; and if he will now make a statement. [41082]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 6 November 1995]: My Department was first made aware of the closure of the Felixstowe to Zeebrugge ferry service on 27 September. While regrettable, the closure of the service is a commercial matter for the company. The Government office for eastern region monitors the state of the economy in Suffolk but no separate assessment has been made of the impact of the closure of the ferry service.

  Felixstowe is this country's largest container port. It is expanding and only two weeks ago exceeded its own container handling records. I have no plans to make a statement.

  Post Office Closures
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to prevent post office closures in rural areas. [41687]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 6 November 1995]: The commercial prospects of the network of post offices have already been much enhanced by Government initiatives on automation, and on freedom to take on new business. We will continue to work with the Post Office to make sure that the benefits of these initiatives are captured.

  Rom Data Corporation
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 2 March,Official Report, column 719, if his Department was aware of the previous business and bankruptcy record of directors of Rom Data Corporation in Cornwall before making grants to the Company in (a) 1991–92 and (b) 1994. [34648]

  Mr. Lang
  [pursuant to his reply, 19 July 1995, c. 1562]: The Department has now conducted its own investigation into the circumstances of the regional selective assistance grant made to the Rom Data Corporation and has passed the relevant information to the SFO, which has agreed to investigate the matter further. In addition, the Department's internal inquiries to date suggest that the background to the directors of the Rom Data Corporation may not have been investigated at the time that the decision was made to make the grant in 1991, in which case the replies given by my hon. Friends on 2 March 1995, column 719 and 19 July 1995, columns 1561–62 may not be correct. As soon as these inquiries have been completed, I will report further.

SCOTLAND

  Toll Exemptions
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the exemptions for which vehicles displaying disabled orange badges are eligible on the(a) Tay bridge (b) Erskine bridge (c) Forth road bridge and (d) Skye bridge. [40141]
  712
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Disabled persons who display orange badges on their vehicles to officers at the Tay, Erskine and Forth road bridge toll booths and complete the appropriate form are exempt from tolls. The procedure applies for each trip across these bridges. Disabled drivers who are exempt from payment of vehicle excise duty are exempt from tolls on Skye bridge. Other users of Skye bridge can buy a book of 10 tickets and can cross at £2.44 for each journey. This is less than the 50 per cent. fare reduction provision—£2.70—offered by the ferry operators, Caledonian MacBrayne, for vehicles displaying an orange badge whose drivers can produce documentary proof of their disability. The exemption arrangements were put before the public local inquiry which considered the Skye bridge toll arrangements and no objections were received. However, I have written to the chairman of Skye Bridge Ltd. in order to discuss the exemption arrangements.

  Caledonian MacBrayne
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the annual revenue earned by Caledonian MacBrayne from carriage of commercial goods vehicles on all routes to and from the Western Isles in(a) 1980, (b) 1985, (c) 1990 and (d) 1995 at 1995 values. [40140]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is set out in the table:

  Year

  Revenue £000

  RPI adjusted (base December 1994)

  1980

  1,190

  2,582

  1985

  1,530

  2,341

  1990

  2,193

  2,527

  1994–95

  2,566

  2,566

  Sporting Venues (Security)
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration has been given to the establishment of an inspectorate for sport to lay down basic rules for security and safety at sporting venues following the death of boxer, James Murray. [41129]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  There are a number of provisions in place to deal with security and safety at sporting venues in Scotland, including powers under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 and the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980. There are no plans to adjust these provisions or to establish an inspectorate for sport. Medical safeguards for boxing are matters for the British Boxing Board of Control and have recently been the subject of a review.

  Temporary and Part-time Staff
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many staff are currently employed in his Department and in related agencies on(a) temporary or casual employment contracts and (b) part-time employment contracts, given as an actual figure and as

  713
  a proportion of the total workforce; and what were the corresponding figures for five years ago. [41116]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Breakdowns by department and executive agency for 1 April 1995 of the number of permanent staff, the number of casual staff—normally those engaged for a period of up to 12 months, but, exceptionally, up to two years—and of the number of part-time staff are presented in the civil service staff in post summary table for 1 April 1995, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. Estimates on a comparable basis for 1 April 1990 have also been placed in the Library of the House.

  £ Thousand

  Actual expenditure

  Current estimate

  Existing PES provision

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Farm woodland scheme (closed to new applicants 31 March 1992)

  446

  461

  414

  470

  470

  Farm woodland premium scheme (opened 1 April 1992)

  14

  485

  1,089

  1,650

  2,200

  Total

  460

  946

  1,503

  2,120

  2,670

  Official Inquiries
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all the official inquiries the Lord Advocate's Department has undertaken over the last five years indicating the dates they were initiated and the dates when findings were released to the public. [41454]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Lord Advocate's Department has not undertaken any official inquiries in the last five years. On 14 September 1992, W. A. Nimmo Smith QC and J. D. Friel, regional procurator fiscal of north Strathclyde, were invited by the Lord Advocate to undertake an inquiry into an allegation of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice in Scotland. Their report was ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 26 January 1993.

  Forests
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what financial aid he intends to provide to rural local councils to maintain public access to forests. [41705]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The Government appreciate the value of our forests for access and recreation, and we have taken steps to strengthen the arrangements for making agreements to maintain public access to forests which are sold by the Forestry Commission. The commission will meet the local authorities' legal costs in drawing up these agreements.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the mean(a) tier one payment and (b) tier two payment for each environmentally sensitive area in Scotland. [41701]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The information is set out in the table.

  Farm Woodland Premium Schemes
  Mr. Lord
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost to public funds of the farm woodland premium schemes in the years ended March 1993, 1994 and 1995; and what is the projected cost for each of the next two years. [40882]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Expenditure in Scotland on annual payments to farmers participating in the farm woodland scheme and farm woodland premium scheme in each of the last three financial years, estimated expenditure for the current year and the existing PES provision for next year, are shown in the table.

  £

  Mean tier 1 payment during 1994–95

  Mean tier 2 payment during 1994–95

  Breadalbane

  1,602

  3,735

  Loch Lomond

  1,469

  1,369

  Stewartry

  1,120

  4,431

  Central Borders

  1,200

  3,500

  Machair of the Uists and Benbecula, Barra and Vatersay

  323

  975

  Central Southern Uplands

  952

  4,235

  Western Southern Uplands

  912

  5,305

  Cairngorms Straths

  1,722

  3,899

  Argyll Islands

  1,099

  0

  Shetland Islands

  601

  1,570

  Mrs. Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total payment for each environmentally sensitive area in Scotland for the past two fiscal years. [41703]

  Mr. Robertson
  The information is set out in the table.

  £ 1993–94

  £ 1994–95

  Breadalbane

  154,000

  229,000

  Loch Lomond

  77,000

  77,000

  Machair of the Uists and Benbecula, Barra and Vatersay

  215,000

  109,000

  Stewartry

  453,000

  335,000

  Central Borders (formerly known as Whitlaw/Eildon)

  50,000

  36,000

  Central Southern Uplands

  11,000

  150,000

  Western Southern Uplands

  3,000

  59,000

  Cairngorms Straths

  —

  17,000

  Argyll Islands

  —

  24,000

  Shetland Islands

  —

  8,000

  Total

  963,000

  1,044,000

  715
  Mrs. Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many units in each environmentally sensitive area were entered under tier one only in Scotland. [41702]

  Mr. Robertson
  The total number of agreements under the Scottish environmentally sensitive area scheme is 930: the numbers containing tier one requirements only are set out in the table below:

  Number1

  Central Southern Uplands

  34

  Western Southern Uplands

  14

  Stewartry

  4

  Argyll Islands

  1

  1 As at 3 November 1995.

  Decommissioning
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of applications for fishing vessel decommissioning in the most recent decommissioning round received from each port of registration in Scotland from which applications were received; and what was the number of successful applications in each case. [41261]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 6 November 1995]: The table lists by port the number of decommissioning applications received in Scotland under the third round of the scheme, and the number of successful applications in each case:-

  Port

  Number of applications received

  Number of successful applications

  Aberdeen

  2

  2

  Arbroath

  4

  4

  Ayr

  7

  7

  Buckie

  2

  0

  Campbeltown

  3

  1

  Eyemouth

  3

  1

  Fraserburgh

  6

  5

  Kirkwall

  3

  2

  Lerwick

  5

  0

  Lossiemouth

  3

  2

  Mallaig

  4

  3

  Macduff

  2

  0

  Oban

  1

  1

  Peterhead

  5

  4

  Pittenweem

  1

  0

  Stornoway

  10

  10

  Total

  61

  42

  Rules and Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the rules and regulations he proposes to repeal or amend by means of reference to the Deregulation Committee before the end of 1995; and if he will make a statement. [41539]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 6 November 1995]: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given earlier by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
  716
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimated saving to the Exchequer by the repeal of each rule and regulation which has so far been the subject of a reference to the Deregulation Committee from his Department; and in how many cases a compliance cost assessment has been carried out. [41540]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 6 November 1995]: My Department has an interest in two of the draft deregulation proposals laid to date. The explanatory document which is presented to the Committee alongside each draft order contains an assessment of the benefits, including any cost savings, to business and to any other persons whom the draft order is intended to benefit.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what regulations his Department proposes to repeal by the end of 1995; if he proposes to conduct a compliance cost assessment on each regulation repealed; and what is the estimated cost of undertaking a compliance cost assessment to assess the advantages or disadvantages of such a repeal. [41558]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 6 November 1995]: The Scottish Office is currently taking forward the review or repeal of legislation in areas as diverse as the sale of farmed salmon roe, social work, slaughterhouses and town and country planning. The requirement to carry out a compliance cost assessment applies to regulations which impose additional burdens on business while the programme of repeals and amendments is concerned with reducing the burden.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Archaeological Sites
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the archaeological sites that have been revealed as(a) crop marks and (b) parch marks in field as a result of aerial photography during the last 12 months. [40006]

  Mr. Sproat
  Archaeological aerial photography is carried out in England by the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England, supported by regional aerial archaeologists assisted by RCHME grants. I am pleased to say that advantage was taken of the recent exceptional drought and additional funds were made available to survey Stonehenge and other nationally important areas. However, it is not the RCHME's practice to distinguish between buried archaeological sites displayed in cereal and other arable plants, knows as, "crop marks", and those presenting themselves under conditions of exceptional drought in grass, known as "parch marks". For the purposes of recording and interpretation, parch marks are regarded as a specialised sub-category of crop mark. A list of photographs showing crop marks is not available in an abbreviated form, although details and copies of all photographs funded by grants are readily available for consultation at the RCHME's headquarters in Swindon.
  717

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list by type of project(a) how many schemes have been approved to date under the private finance initiative, (b) what is the value of those schemes and (c) what public sector contribution will be required both initially and as a revenue support during the lifetime of the schemes. [41743]

  Mr. Sproat
  In the Department of National Heritage, which includes its two agencies, five projects have been approved to date:

  (i) Royal Armouries project (Historic Royal Palaces Agency;

  (ii) Hampton Court catering (Historic Royal Palaces Agency);

  (iii) Dell Restaurant (Royal Parks Agency);

  (iv) Lido, Hyde Park (Royal Parks Agency);

  (v) Car Parking, Regents Park and Hyde Park (Royal Parks Agency).

  In the bodies sponsored by the Department, one project has so far been approved, for computer equipment for the British Library.

  The total value of these projects is:

  (i) Royal Armouries: £42.7 million

  (ii) Hampton Court: £1.3 million

  (iii) Dell Restaurant, Regents Park £0.8 million

  (iv) Lido, Hyde Park: £0.5 million

  (v) Car parking, Regents Park and Hyde Park: £0.1 million; and,

  (vi) British Library computer equipment: £0.55 million.

  The initial and continuing public sector contributions are:

  Initial £ million

  Continuing

  (i) Royal Armouries

  1.5

  £18.5 million over the five years 1993–98

  (ii) Hampton Court catering

  0.31 (1995–96)

  + £0.17 million to date

  (iii) Dell Restaurant, Regents Park

  0.14

  Small positive annual return expected.

  (iv) Lido, Hyde Park

  0.3

  Small positive annual return expected.

  (v) Car Parking, Regents Park and Hyde Park

  None

  +£0.275 million to date (1995–96)

  (vi) British Library computer equipment

  None

  None

  1 Positive figures indicate that projects generate income, and require no continuing revenue support.

  Ministerial Transport
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what has been the cost of ministerial transport in each of the past five years; what allowance has been paid to Ministers who use their own vehicles; and what has been the cost in each of the past five years. [40736]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Department of National Heritage was established in 1992 and figures are not therefore available 718
  before the 1992–93 financial year. The cost of ministerial use of the Government car service in the years for which information is available is as follows:

  £ thousands

  1992–93: 167.21

  1993–94: 192.7

  1994–95: 151.3

  1 Figure includes cost attributable to Permanent Secretary's office.

  No allowance has been paid to Ministers who use their own vehicles.

  Stonehenge
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what success she had had in carrying out the pledges made by the Government in respect of the protection, conservation, presentation and rehabilitation of the world heritage site at Stonehenge; and if she will make a statement. [40005]

  Mr. Sproat
  Stonehenge, with its surrounding landscape, is one of the most important of Europe's pre-historic monuments. Its significance is recognised by its designation as a world heritage site. The Government fully support the efforts of English Heritage and the National Trust to improve the setting of the stones and provide better facilities for visitors. The possible re-routing of the A303 trunk road is a key factor in any plans for improving the Stonehenge landscape. Discussions have taken place between the Department of Transport, the Ministry of Defence, English Heritage, and my Department; and the Highways Agency will be holding a planning conference in early November for public discussion of route options.

  Special Adviser
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the job description of her special adviser Mr. John Bercow; how many other applicants applied for the post; what is his salary and length of service contract; and if she will make a statement. [39517]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  With the approval of the Prime Minister, and after interviewing a number of candidates, I appointed Mr. Bercow personally as my special adviser. For special advisers' roles and salary arrangements, I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) on 28 February 1995, at columns 484–85. The appointments of special advisers terminate in the circumstances set out in the model appointment letter for special advisers. A copy is in the Library.

  Public Libraries
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, further to her Department's press release, "Public Libraries in the 1990s," if she will list all the lottery awards made to public libraries to date. [38746]

  Mr. Sproat
  There have been five awards made to public libraries to date. The awards are as follows:
  719

  Distributing Body

  Date

  Recipient

  Region

  Amount £

  Arts Council of Wales

  24 March 1995

  The Cardiff Old Library Trust

  Cardiff

  2,000,000

  Arts Council of Wales

  17 July 1995

  Clwyd Library and Information Service

  Mold

  6,000

  Scottish Arts Council

  1 September 1995

  Scottish Poetry Library

  Edinburgh

  506,301

  The National Heritage Memorial Fund

  19 September 1995

  Tameside Central Library

  Ashton-Under-Lyne

  1,400,000

  The Arts Council of England

  21 September 1995

  Bradford Central Lending Library

  Bradford

  58.310

  In addition, the Ruskin library at the university of Lancaster has been awarded a grant of £2,314,259 to provide a new home for the world's greatest collection of the works of John Ruskin, the 19th-century social reformer and critic. Though the library is not, in essence, a public lending library, the award will make the collection easily accessible to the general public for the first time.

  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the number of functioning public libraries in England annually since 1979. [41718]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 6 November 1995]: Such information is contained in the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy's "Public Library Statistics", copies of which are held in the House Library. The latest actual information is for 1993–94, but estimates are available for 1994–95.

  Television Cabling
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the percentage of the land area of each county in England which is(a) cabled and (b) currently being cabled. [41672]

  Mr. Sproat
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate costs.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will give powers to the Independent Television Commission to alter and amend the boundaries of a local delivery area proposed by a cable franchise applicant so as not to exclude sizeable towns and adjacent settlements. [41674]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Broadcasting Act 1990 gives the ITC powers to determine the areas to be covered by local delivery licences and to alter those areas when licences come up for renewal.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many local delivery cable franchise areas stand alone and are not contiguous with another. [41673]

  Mr. Sproat
  Nineteen of the 127 cable franchises awarded by the Cable Authority, and two of the 22 local delivery franchises advertised by the Independent Television Commission, which replaced the authority, stand alone and are not contiguous with another.

  Temporary and Part-time Staff
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many staff are currently employed in her Department and in related agencies, on(a) temporary or casual employment contracts and (b)
  720
  part-time employment contracts given (i) as an internal figure and (ii) as a proportion of the total work force. [41127]

  Mr. Sproat
  Breakdowns by Department and executive agencies for 1 April 1995 of the number of permanent staff, the numbers of casual staff—normally those engaged for a two-year period of up to 12 months, but exceptionally up to two years—and of the number of part-time staff are presented in the civil service staff in post summary table for 1 April 1995, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. Estimates on a comparable basis for 1 April 1990 have also been placed in the Library of the House.

  Concessionary Television Licences
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what recent representations she has received from(a) pensioners and (b) other bodies urging the abolition of the television licence concession in favour of a low-cost television licence for all pensioners. [41675]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Government receive regular representations from and on behalf of pensioners, calling either for the extension of the concessionary television licence scheme or for reduced fee licences for all pensioners. There are few specific requests to abolish the concessionary scheme.

  Sport (Disabled People)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what part the British Academy of Sport will be playing in the furtherance of sailing for the blind and sailing for disabled people; and when she expects to make an announcement on plans for disabled sports men and women. [41593]

  Mr. Sproat
  The precise functions of the British Academy of Sport will not be decided until the Sports Council's consultation is completed and bids to establish it are invited. The Government have no plans to make an announcement on disabled sports men and women, though we expect that the measures and recommendations announced in the sports policy statement, "Sport: Raising the Game", which the Government published on 14 July, will be interpreted and adapted for all sportsmen and women, regardless of their individual circumstances.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many medals(a) able-bodied and (b) disabled British sailing sports men and women have won in the last four years. [41592]

  Mr. Sproat
  I understand from the Royal Yachting Association that British crews have won a total of 18 medals in International Yacht Racing Union sanctioned world championships in the last four years, and one medal
  721
  at the 1992 Olympic games. In the same period, disabled British sailors have won a total of five medals in their respective world championships and the 1992 Paralympics.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proportion of British athletes took medals at(a) the last Olympic games and (b) the last Paralympic games. [41591]

  Mr. Sproat
  A total of 45 British competitors from a team of 389 won medals in 20 events at the 1992 Olympic games; 83 from a team of 205 won 128 medals at the 1992 Barcelona Paralympics; and 26 from a team of 93 won 11 medals at the 1992 Madrid Paralympics.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the estimated saving to the Exchequer by the repeal of each rule and regulation which has so far been the subject of a reference to the Deregulation Committee from her Department; and in how many cases a compliance cost assessment has been carried out. [41528]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 6 November 1995]: My Department has not yet laid any draft orders before the Committee.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what regulations her Department proposes to repeal by the end of 1995; if she proposes to conduct a compliance cost assessment on each regulation repealed; and what is the estimated cost of undertaking a compliance cost assessment to assess the advantages or disadvantages of such a repeal. [41552]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 6 November 1995]: There are no plans to repeal any further legislation by the end of 1995, but we are currently consulting on a number of proposals for deregulation. The requirement to carry out a compliance cost assessment applies to regulations which impose additional burdens on business, while the programme of repeals and amendments is concerned with reducing the burden.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the rules and regulations she proposes to repeal or amend by means of a reference to the Deregulation Committee before the end of 1995; and if she will make a statement. [41527]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 6 November 1995]: I refer my hon. Friend to the oral answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 6 November 1995, Official Report, column 590.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what estimate her Department has made of the short-term effects of the balances held by the lottery distribution fund on the PSBR; and what discussions her Department has had with Her Majesty's Treasury on this matter. [40087]

  Mr. Sproat
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury today. My Department has regular discussions 722
  with Her Majesty's Treasury and exchanges information on the flow of lottery funds which enable it to assess the effect of lottery funds on the PSBR.

  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps she is taking to ensure that there is an equitable distribution of Millennium Commission funds between Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the regions of England. [41226]

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what guidelines she has(a) given and (b) proposed for determining the geographical balance of grants from the millennium fund as between (a) Wales, (b) Scotland, (c) Northern Ireland, (d) England and (e) the regions of England; and if she will make a statement. [40725]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Millennium Commission has been directed by the former Secretary of State for National Heritage under the section 26 directions concerning matters to be taken into account when making funding decisions. Direction 2 (H) states that the Millennium Commission shall take into account"the objective of ensuring that major projects are supported in each country of the United Kingdom".

  The spread of national lottery awards on a regional basis is a matter for the Millennium Commission. The commission seeks to ensure a fair geographical distribution of lottery proceeds. In its second round of awards the commission is encouraging applications from those regions which submitted few in the first round.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make it her policy to make available figures for the distribution of national lottery proceeds by constituency. [41237]

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department is currently developing a dedicated database system which will enable me to make available figures on the distribution of national lottery proceeds across the United Kingdom by constituency.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the distribution of grants awarded by the Millennium Commission between Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and the regions of England in both monetary and percentage terms. [41228]

  Mr. Sproat
  A report on the distribution of national lottery proceeds is placed in the Library of the House each month which includes information in the format requested. The October edition will be placed in the Library of the House in the coming week.

  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will give a breakdown by standard planning region of lottery grants since the introduction of the national lottery. [41221]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the total lottery moneys allocated to be spent to date within each of the English regions, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. [41234]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 6 November 1995]: A report on the distribution of national lottery proceeds is placed in the Library of the House each month which includes information in the format requested. The October edition will be placed in the Library of the House in the coming week.
  723
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proposals she has for providing representation from Wales in the membership of the Millennium Commission. [40728]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 31 October I995]: Members of the Millennium Commission are appointed by Her Majesty the Queen. They are not appointed to represent specific areas of the United Kingdom. The commissioners have a broad range of experience and travel widely before making any decisions concerning the allocation of national lottery funds.

  Annual Remuneration
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many individuals in(a) her Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies received annual remuneration including benefits in kind exceeding (i) £100,000, (ii) £200,000 and (iii) £300,000 in each year since 1985–86. [40860]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 1 November 1995]: Other than pension contributions, benefits in kind are not normally paid to staff in the Department, agencies and NDPBs. As members of the principal civil service pension scheme, staff receive benefits in accordance with the scheme rules which have been deposited in the Library of the House.

  The Department of National Heritage was created in April 1992. It has two agencies—the Historic Royal Palaces Agency, created in October 1989, and the Royal Parks Agency, created in April 1993. Prior to the year 1994–95 no staff in the Department of National Heritage, its agencies and non-departmental bodies received annual remuneration above £100,000. The numbers receiving annual remuneration above the sums specified in the following year was:

  Organisation

  1994–95

  Department of National Heritage

  0

  DNH agencies

  0

  DNH non-departmental public bodies

  1

  Notes:

  1. The above figures relate to staff based in the United Kingdom.

  2. Figures for the current financial year 1995–96 will not be available until after the end of the financial year.

  No staff received remuneration in excess of £200,000.

  Salaries
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what was the(a) lowest and (b) highest full-time salary paid to any employee in her (i) Department, (ii) agencies and (iii) non-departmental public bodies in (1) 1994–95 and (2) 1995–96. [40861]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 1 November 1995]: It is the Government's normal policy to publish civil servants' salaries in bands.

  Organisation

  1994–95 £

  1995–96 £

  The lowest full-time salary fell within the following bands

  Department of National Heritage

  5,000–9,999

  5,000–9,999

  DNH agencies

  5,000–9,999

  5,000–9,999

  724

  Organisation

  1994–95 £

  1995–96 £

  DNH non-departmental public bodies

  0–4,999

  0–4,999

  The highest full-time salary fell within the following bands

  Department of National Heritage

  85,000–89,999

  90,000–94,999

  DNH agencies

  60,000–64,999

  60,000–64,999

  DNH non-departmental public bodies

  100,000–104,999

  100,000–104,999

  Notes:

  1. The above figures relate to staff based in the United Kingdom.

  2. Figures for the current financial year 1995–96 are estimates only (actual figures will not be available until after the end of the financial year).

TREASURY

  Gross Domestic Product
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the per capita gross domestic product for each of the 20 countries in the world that had the highest wealth per head in 1979; and if he will list the equivalent information for the most recent year for which figures are available. [41869]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The figures requested are available only for countries who are members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The most recent year for which data are available is 1993. These are shown in "National Accounts Main Aggregates: Volume 1", published by the OECD and held in the House of Commons Library.

  Shareholding
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many individuals in the United Kingdom he estimates were shareholders in the 1979; and how many he estimates are shareholders at the latest date for which figures are available. [41873]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  In 1979 there were 3 million shareholders in the United Kingdom. The figure had risen to 10 million by 1993.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many persons have been authorised to have access to documents held by(a) the Treasury, (b) Her Majesty's Customs and Excise and (c) the Bank of England relating to the Scott inquiry; and if he will list such persons. [42080]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Ministers, former Ministers, officials and other advisers have access to material relating to the inquiry as necessary in order to carry out their responsibilities.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many persons in(a) the Treasury, (b) Her Majesty's Customs and Excise and (c) the Bank of England are on the public payroll or employed as consultants or advisers and work on a part-time or a full-time basis in relation to

  725
  the Scott inquiry; if he will list their names; and how much each is paid. [42048]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  There are no staff in the Treasury wholly employed on matters relating to the Scott inquiry. In HM Customs and Excise, there are two staff wholly employed on these matters and their direct salary cost is £36,114 per annum. It is not possible to identify the number of people involved on a part-time or occasional basis, but the amount so far spent by the Treasury on external advice is very small. HM Customs and Excise has so far spent £4,112.50. It is not the practice to name staff or external advisers.

  Bank of England staff or consultancy costs would not be public expenditure. I understand that no Bank of England staff are wholly employed on matters relating to the Scott inquiry, and the bank has incurred no expenditure on external advice.

  Disposable Incomes
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average annual money increase in net disposable income(a) between 1974 and May 1979 and (b) between June 1979 and the present date at constant prices. [41880]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The average annual increase in real personal disposable income at 1990 prices between the first quarter of 1974 and the first quarter of 1979 was £1.27 billion. Between the second quarter of 1979 and the second quarter of 1995 the average increase was £1.97 billion.

  Inflation
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average annual rate of inflation from(a) 1974 to May 1979 and (b) June 1979 to date. [41881]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Between the start of 1974 and May 1979 the average rate of inflation, as measured by the retail prices index, was 15.5 per cent. per annum. This compares with 6.3 per cent. for the period June 1979 to September 1995, the latest month for which information is available.

  Strikes
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average annual number of working days lost through strikes(a) from 1974 to 1979 and (b) from 1979 to date. [41878]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The average annual number of working days lost in the United Kingdom through strikes from 1974 to 1979 was 12.2 million and from 1979 to 1994 was 6.6 million.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the number of working days lost through strikes in(a) 1978 and (b) the last year for which figures are available. [41879]

  Mrs. Knight
  In 1978, 9.4 million days were lost to strikes in the United Kingdom. This compares with a 1994 total of 278,000.

  Private Medical Insurance
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the cost of tax relief on private medical insurance for those over 60 years who are non-taxpayers. [39093]

  Mr. Jack
  Relief is given to all individuals, whether taxpayers or not, who pay qualifying private medical insurance premiums for those aged 60 or over. The cost of giving relief to non-taxpayers is estimated to be £3 million in 1995–96.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list by grade the numbers of staff and their cost for(a) the financial year 1994–95 and (b) the estimated figures for the financial year 1995–96, for each executive agency for which he is responsible. [39494]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Estimated outturn for 1994–95 and plans for 1995–96 for civil service manpower and pay bill are set out in the Treasury's annual report, Cm 2817, copies of which are in the Libraries of the House. A breakdown by grade and individual agency could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the effects of the moneys held by the national lottery distribution fund on the public sector borrowing requirement. [40085]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  So far, the direct effect of the moneys held by the national lottery distribution fund has been to reduce the PSBR by £1.1 billion. This reflects timing lags between receipt of the money into the NLDF and its spending on good causes.

  The effect of the lottery on the PSBR will be unwound in due course as the NLDF runs down its surplus by increasing its grants to good causes.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the impact on the public sector borrowing requirement of the national lottery, distinguishing between revenue raised through taxation, lottery money not yet distributed and lottery money remaining unclaimed. [40778]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 31 October 1995]: The table gives the relevant figures. The direct impact of the national lottery, before allowing for the displacement of other tax receipts, was to reduce the PSBR by £0.4 billion in 1994–95. The summer economic forecast projected that the direct effect of the lottery would be to reduce the PSBR by £1.4 billion in 1995–96. This assumed lottery spending of £5 billion.

  Lottery prize money that remains unclaimed after 180 days is paid into the national lottery distribution fund. At the end of September, unclaimed lottery prize money received by the NLDF was £15 million.

  The effect of the lottery on the PSBR will be unwound in due course as the NLDF runs down its surplus by increasing its grants to the good causes.
  727

  The direct effects of the lottery on the PSBR

  £million

  Outturn 1994–95

  Forecast 1995–96

  Receipts

  Betting duty on Lottery

  104

  600

  Payments into the NLDF

  295

  1,350

  Total General Government Receipts

  399

  1,950

  Payments

  Payments from the NLDF

  6

  550

  Total General Government Expenditure

  6

  550

  PSBR

  -393

  -1,400

  To date the total receipts of the NLDF, including interest, are £1.2 billion. This includes unclaimed prize money of £15 million. Deductions from the NLDF, for payment of both expenses and draw down to distributing bodies, so far totals £71.7 million. To date 2,329 projects have been approved, with a total value of £671 million. Most of the schemes approved are for capital spending, with a resultant lag between commitment and cash flow from the NLDF.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the effect on the public sector borrowing requirement in the first six months of 1995–96 of the cash flows associated with the receipts and disbursements of national lottery funds; and if he will make a statement. [40825]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 1 November 1995]: The table gives the relevant figures. The direct impact of the lottery, before allowing for the displacement of other tax receipts, was to reduce the PSBR by £1 billion in the first six months of 1995–96.

  The effect of the lottery on the PSBR will be unwound in due course, as the NLDF runs down its surplus by increasing grants to the good causes.

  The direct effects of the lottery on the PSBR in the first six months of 1995–96

  £ million

  Receipts

  Lottery duty

  307

  Payments into the distribution fund

  747

  Total general Government receipts

  1,054

  Payments

  Payments from the distribution fund

  52

  Total General Government Expenditure

  52

  PSBR

  -1,002

  To date, the total receipts of the NLDF, including interest, are £1.2 billion. This includes unclaimed prize money of £15 million. Deductions from the NLDF, for payment of both expenses and draw-down to distributing bodies, so far totals £71.7 million. To date 2329 projects have been approved, with a total value of £671 million. Most of the schemes approved are for capital spending, with a resultant lag between commitment and cash flow from the NLDF.

  Child Allowances
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the comparative administrative costs of child allowances made available as(a) cash payments by (i) order and (ii) direct deposit in family accounts and (b) tax allowances to (i) one parent and (ii) to either parent, noting the burden in each case on employers. [41137]

  Mr. Jack
  The total administration costs of child benefit and one-parent benefit were estimated to be £132 million in 1993–94, the latest year for which information is available. It is not possible to split the costs between payments made by order book and those made by automated credit transfer.

  The administrative costs of the other items listed would depend on the nature of such schemes.

  Mr. Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for a cost-effective, fair solution to the problem of a taxable child cash allowance being worth more to a married couple with one person earning £100,000 than to a married couple with each earning £15,000. [41140]

  Mr. Jack
  It would be inappropriate for me to comment on tax matters at this point in the Budget cycle.

  Alcohol Tax
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the assumptions for the calculations of the estimated revenue for taxation on whisky and whiskey before and after the last three proposed changes; and if he will estimate the actual revenue in the current year and the past two years and(b) the revenue maximising tax rate. [41141]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The estimated revenue effects for changes in spirits taxation follow normal practice. The responsiveness of spirits sales to changes in price is based on elasticities produced by the Institute for Fiscal Studies. It is assumed that changes in duty are fully passed on to consumers and that consumers' real incomes are constant. The effect on revenue reflects both the changes in revenue from spirits itself and also the change in revenue from diversion of expenditure into or from other goods as a result of the duty change,

  The actual revenue from excise duty on spirits in the last two years and the forecast for the current year are as follows:

  Revenue (spirits)

  £ billion

  Actual 1993–94

  1.7

  Actual 1994–95

  1.8

  Forecast 1995–96

  1.9

  The assumptions underlying the revenue costings described imply that current duty levels are below the revenue maximising rate.

  Unemployment
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the basis for the figure of
  729
  £13.2 billion as the total cost for unemployment for 1992–93 as given by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in a letter dated 13 October 1993, ref.cst.ps/dr/llmp12.10, to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North; and if he will publish figures showing the overall cost of unemployment for 1993–94 and 1994–95 calculated on the same basis. [41375]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The figure in my predecessor's letter was not an estimate of the cost of unemployment. It was simply the total public expenditure on various items specified by my hon. Friend. The corresponding figures for 1993–94 and 1994–95 are estimated at £14.3 billion and £13.5 billion respectively.

  Overseas Aid Budget
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many letters about the size of the overseas aid budget he has received from members of the public since 1 September; and what was the comparable figure for the same period in the previous year. [41660]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The information is as follows:

  Letters from general public

  Numbers

  1 September 1995 to 3 November 1995

  2,000

  1 September 1994 to 3 November 1994

  35

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many letters about the size of the overseas aid budget he has received from hon. Members since 1 September; and what was the comparable figure for the same period in the previous year. [41661]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The information is as follows:

  Hon Members' letters

  Numbers

  1 September 1995 to 3 November 1995

  340

  1 September 1994 to 3 November 1994

  20

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many letters about the size of the overseas aid budget he has received from non-governmental organisations since 1 September; and what was the comparable figure for the same period in the previous year. [41659]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We do not keep separate records on the number of letters we receive from non-governmental organisations.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the final outturn for 1994–95 for(a) each running costs limit and (b) the Ministry of Defence's operating costs limit. [42241]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The final outturn for each running costs limit and the Ministry of Defence's operating costs limit in 1994–95 are shown in the following table:730

  £ thousand

  Gross running costs limits

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Diplomatic Wing)

  491,127

  Overseas Development Administration

  71,244

  Intervention Board Executive Agency

  31,073

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  277,839

  Department of Trade and Industry

  310,237

  Office of Fair Trading

  18,182

  Office of Telecommunications

  8,633

  Office of Gas Supply

  3,791

  Office of Electricity Regulation

  9,665

  Department of Employment

  1,421,833

  Health and Safety Commission

  168,415

  Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service

  21,407

  Department of Transport

  387,734

  Office of Passenger Rail Franchising

  3,468

  Office of the Rail Regulator

  7,620

  Department of the Environment

  206,111

  Property Holdings

  17,044

  Office of Water Services

  9,042

  Home Office

  1,649,029

  Charity Commission

  21,794

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  412,269

  Northern Ireland Court Service

  17,684

  Public Record Office

  25,227

  Crown Prosecution Service

  222,507

  Serious Fraud Office

  10,323

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  28,320

  Crown Office

  33,010

  Department for Education

  86,666

  Office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools In England

  28,836

  Department of National Heritage

  25,415

  Office of the National Lottery

  2,559

  Department of Health

  242,029

  Office of Population Censuses and Surveys

  47,732

  Department of Social Security

  2,901,531

  Scottish Office

  329,938

  Scottish Courts Administration

  25,258

  Scottish Record Office

  4,451

  General Register Office for Scotland

  7,023

  Welsh Office

  77,412

  Office of Her Majesty's Chief

  3,208

  Inspector of Schools In Wales Northern Ireland

  775,698

  HM Treasury

  72,389

  HM Customs and Excise

  744,964

  Inland Revenue

  1,634,138

  Department for National Savings

  193,578

  Registry of Friendly Societies

  8,055

  National Investment and Loans Office

  1,256

  Central Statistical Office

  47,746

  Government Actuary's Department

  5,739

  Cabinet Office—Office of Public Service and Science

  64,646

  Central Office of Information

  1,235

  Cabinet Office—Other Services

  40,106

  Security and Intelligence Services

  437,544

  Privy Council Office

  2,535

  731

  Net running costs limits

  £ thousand

  Wilton Park (FCO)

  282

  ADAS Agency (MAFF)

  11,481

  Central Science Laboratory (MAFF)

  0

  Central Veterinary Laboratory (MAFF)

  0

  Veterinary Medicines Directorate (MAFF)

  0

  Accounts Services Agency (DTI)

  0

  Central Services (DTI)

  0

  Laboratory of the Government Chemist (DTI)

  0

  National Engineering Laboratory (DTI)

  0

  National Physical Laboratory (DTI)

  0

  Radiocommunications Agency (DTI)

  0

  Vehicle Certification Agency (DoT)

  0

  Transport Research Laboratory (DoT)

  0

  QEII Conference Centre (PH)

  6.199

  Security Facilities Executive (PH)

  0

  Building Research Establishment (DoE)

  0

  Ordnance Survey

  12,993

  PSA Services

  88,163

  Forensic Science Service (HO)

  0

  Historic Royal Palaces Agency (DNH)

  0

  Social Survey Division (OPCS)

  0

  Information Technology Services Agency (DSS)

  0

  Registers of Scotland

  0

  Valuation Office (IR)

  0

  Paymaster Agency

  0

  Civil Service College (OPSS)

  2,286

  Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency (NI)

  0

  Operating costs

  Ministry of Defence

  17,193,297

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes are proposed to the Central Statistical Office's cash and running costs limits in 1995–96. [42193]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class XVII, vote 12 will be increased by £1,630,000 from £48,400,000 to £50,030,000 and the running costs limit by £14,936,000 from £46,630,000 to £61,566,000. These increases reflect:

  (a) The take-up of entitlement under the end-year flexibility scheme for running costs (£76,000) and capital (£854,000), as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 13 July 1995, Official Report, columns 776–82.

  (b) Additional capital to meet the net additional cash requirement, for 1995–96, of the cost of the move to new premises in London, which CSO will share with OPCS (£700,000).

  (c) Additional running costs arising from increased sales, offset by a corresponding increase in appropriations in aid (£518,000).

  (d) A transfer of provision from the former Department of Employment, class V, vote 1, to CSO, in respect of the transfer of responsibility for the compilation and publication of labour market statistics (£14,342,000 running costs, £60,000 capital and £240,000 receipts).

  The increases are offset by inter-departmental transfers and additional receipts or are agreed charges to the reserve and do not, therefore, add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Consolidated Fund Shareholding
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the effect on the public sector borrowing requirement of selling all shares still held which are listed 732
  in table B13 of the Consolidated Fund and national loans fund accounts 1993–94, assuming share prices were those of 24 October 1995. [40773]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 31 October 1995]: Information on all the shares which are assets of the Consolidated Fund is not held centrally. The Treasury holdings of shares have a total value of around £1,400 million at the closing market prices of 24 October 1995. If it were possible to sell all shares at these prices, the public sector borrowing requirement would be reduced by a like amount, less the costs of sale. In practice, some of the shares could not be sold in this way because they have been retained for bonus share entitlements.

  No decisions have yet been taken on the timing or method of any sales.

  Salaries
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of individuals in his(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies, whose annual remuneration including benefits in kind exceed (i) £100,000, (ii) £200,000, (iii) £300,000 in each of the years (1) 1985–86, (2) 1990–91, (3) 1992–93, (4) 1994–95 and (5) 1995–96. [40832]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 1 November 1995]: Other than pension contributions, benefits in kind are not normally paid to staff in the Department, agencies or NDPBs. As members of the principal civil service pension scheme, staff receive benefits in accordance with the scheme rules which had been deposited in the Library of the House. The numbers receiving annual remuneration above the sums specified, excluding pension benefits in the years in question, are as follows:

  1985–86

  1990–91

  1992–93

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Department

  (i)

  —

  1

  2

  2

  2

  (ii)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (iii)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Agencies

  (i)

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  (ii)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (iii)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Note:

  Members of the Treasury's NDPBs are either unpaid, or paid a daily fee depending on the work they carry out.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the(a) lowest and (b) highest full time salary paid to any employee in his (i) Department, (ii) agencies and (iii) non-departmental public bodies in (1) 1994–95 and (2) 1995–96. [40803]

  Mrs. Knight
  [holding answer 1 November 1995]: It is the Government's normal policy to publish civil servants' salaries in bands.

  Accordingly, the lowest full-time salary fell within the band:

  1994–95

  1995–96

  (i) Department

  £5,000–£9,999

  £5,000–£9,999

  (ii) Agencies

  Up to £4,999

  Up to £4,999

  (iii) NDPB's'

  —

  —

  733
  The highest full-time salary fell within the band:

  1994–95

  1995–96

  (i) Department

  £110,000–£115,000

  £115,000–£120,000

  (ii) Agencies

  £110,000–£115,000

  £90,000–£95,000

  (iii) NDPBs1

  —

  —

  1 Members of the Treasury's NDPBs are either unpaid, or paid a daily fee depending on the work they carry out.

  Mr. Peter Wilmott
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he made to Mr. Santer of the European Commission that Mr. Peter Wilmott, Director General of Customs and Indirect Taxation at the European Committee, should be retained in post. [41404]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 6 November 1995]: Neither my right hon. and learned Friend nor any other Treasury Minister made such representations. United Kingdom policy generally is to ensure that the number of senior posts in the European Commission held by British citizens reflects the UK's importance as a member of the European Union. In the light of Mr. Wilmott's departure, the UK is therefore seeking to maintain the number of posts filled by British citizens at that level within the Commission.

  Rules and Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what regulations his Department proposes to repeal by the end of 1995; if he proposes to conduct a compliance cost assessment on each regulation repealed; and what is the estimated cost of undertaking a compliance cost assessment to assess the advantages or disadvantages of such a repeal. [41560]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 6 November 1995]: There are no plans to repeal any further regulations by the end of 1995.

  VAT (Harmonisation)
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on which dates during 1995 officials of Her Majesty's Treasury have attended discussions with the European Commission in Brussels on the harmonisation of value added tax within the European Union; and if he will list the individuals whom they met. [41402]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 6 November 1995]: Officials of HM Customs and Excise regularly attend meetings with the European Commission in Brussels to discuss a wide range of VAT-related issues. In doing so they meet a number of Commission officials at all levels in the Directorate General for Customs and Indirect Taxation.

ENVIRONMENT

  PSA Services
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about PSA Services. [42242]
  734
  Mr. Gummer
  PSA Services' operational functions were either closed or successfully privatised during 1992–93. Since October 1993, when the building management businesses were sold, a residuary unit has been responsible for dealing with a number of post-sale personnel and finance issues and for discharging Government's responsibilities under the sale agreements. By 31 March 1996 these on-going functions will be absorbed by the Department of the Environment; consequently, the PSA will formally cease to exist from that date.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to the answer of 27 June,Official Report, columns 549–60, if the Government have now studied the full text of Mr. Justin Ognall's judgment on separate valuation for council tax purposes of annexes set aside for elderly relatives and if the Government have decided what action may be necessary. [40256]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Housing Corporation
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is the total value of public sector loans made by the Housing Corporation under the Housing Act 1974; [40563]

  (2) what is the Housing Corporation's total debt outstanding to the national loans fund under its borrowing in the Housing Act 1974. [40564]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Housing Corporation's lending and borrowing powers are now contained in the Housing Associations Act 1985. As at 31 October 1995, the outstanding principal on the corporation's lending to housing associations was £952.6 million. At the same date, the outstanding principal on Housing Corporation loans from the national loans fund was £942.6 million.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is the total budget for the enhanced urban network air pollution monitoring programme for 1995–96; [41152]

  (2) if he will publish a list of the sites to be included in the enhanced air pollution monitoring programme by 1997, including the time frame for each site. [41153]

  Mr. Clappison
  In January 1995 the Department of the Environment merged the enhanced urban network and the statutory urban networks to form a harmonised national automatic urban monitoring network. The current contract value for the automatic urban network is £2,084,874, exclusive of VAT, for the financial year 1995–96. This sum includes both the central management, quality assurance and quality control of the network.

  The Department intends to expand the automatic urban network by 13 centrally funded sites by the end of 1996. Sites have been announced for Manchester, Glasgow, Sheffield, Nottingham, Bradford, Wolverhampton, Plymouth, Norwich, Stoke on Trent, and a further two locations in London. An additional two sites will be announced next year.
  735
  In addition, the Department aims to integrate a total of 35 locally operated sites into the national network by 1996. The location of the first 17 of these sites was announced in October this year. The Department plans to integrate sites at Oxford and the London borough of Brent by November 1995. Within Greater London sites at Sutton, two sites: Greenwich; Haringey, two sites; Kensington and Chelsea; Hounslow; Hackney; Tower Hamlets; Bromley; Camden; Wandsworth; Southwark, two sites and Lewisham will be integrated by April 1996, subject to the approval of the Department's quality assurance and quality control unit.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many times serious air pollution has occurred without being forecast by his Department in each of the last three years for which figures are available. [41162]

  Mr. Clappison
  An air quality forecast of the following day's air quality for ozone, nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide is updated twice a day and is made available to the public as part of the Department's air quality information service via Freephone, Ceefax, Teletext, the Internet and a wide range of other media outlets. An air quality descriptive banding is predicted for each of nine regions of the United Kingdom. Since 1 April 1991, across the United Kingdom, there have been three occasions of "very poor" air quality when "poor" air quality was forecast and two occasions of "very poor" air quality when "good" air quality was forecast.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many times in the last 12 months motorists have been asked to leave their cars at home due to high levels of air pollution; what estimate he has made of the number who complied; and if he will make a statement. [41754]

  Mr. Clappison
  In the last 12 months, in periods of elevated air pollution, the Department of the Environment has advised motorists to leave their cars at home four times.

  A survey undertaken following a period of poor air quality at the beginning of August this year found that 18 per cent. of drivers surveyed said that they had decided not to use their cars on at least one occasion during the high levels of air pollution. This compares with 10 per cent. reporting taking action when a similar survey was carried out the previous year.

  Houses in Multiple Occupation
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the extent to which standards in houses in multiple occupation need to be improved; and what plans he has to set up a national registration scheme whereby landlords of such property would have to be licensed. [41055]

  Mr. Clappison
  An assessment of the need to improve standards in houses in multiple occupation was published in "Houses in Multiple Occupation—Consultation paper on the case for licensing", Department of the Environment, November 1994, and "Improving Standards in Houses in Multiple Occupation", Department of the Environment, July 1995. Copies of both are in the Library. I have no plans to set up a national licensing scheme.
  736
  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to make mandatory grants available to landlords of houses in multiple occupation in order that they may improve the safety and the standards of health in their property. [41056]

  Mr. Clappison
  Proposals for changes to the house renovation grant system, which includes grants to landlords, are contained in the explanatory paper "The Future of Private Housing Renewal Programmes". A copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of current housing stock is made up of houses in multiple occupation. [41054]

  Mr. Clappison
  The definition of a house in multiple occupation is very wide and for statistical purposes is not capable of precision. In practice, there is considerable case law as to what constitutes an HMO and this will depend on the circumstances in each case. For the 1995 local authority HMO survey, the Department asked authorities to report the presence of six different HMO types, regardless of whether the LA considered them to be HMOs. The percentage of the current English housing stock in all of these types of HMO was found to be is 3.2 per cent., table 1 although more than half of these are buildings converted into self-contained flats which many authorities do not regard as true HMOs.

  Total number of HMOs in England 1995

  Type of HMO

  Number

  (Per cent, stock)

  Traditional HMOs (houses converted into bedsits)

  111,000

  (0.5)

  Shared houses/flats

  100,000

  (0.5)

  Households with lodgers

  41,000

  (0.2)

  Purpose-built HMOs

  17,000

  (0.1)

  Hostels, guest houses, boarding houses, B and Bs

  17,000

  (0.1)

  Buildings converted into self-contained flats

  352,000

  (1.8)

  All types of HMO

  638,000

  (3.2)

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to introduce a construction contracts Bill designed to improve relations between clients, contractors and subcontractors in the construction industry; and what alterations he has considered. [41016]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Government's consultation paper "Fair Construction Contracts" set out our proposals for legislation to promote less adversarial contractual arrangements in construction projects with a view to bringing about more co-operative working relationships. We have published the results of the consultation exercise and are considering legislation in the light of these and subsequent discussions with the construction industry.

  The Government are working with other members of the construction industry board on a range of initiatives to promote industry relationships based on teamwork.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy in respect of improving the relationship between clients, contractors
  737
  and subcontractors in the construction industry; and what assessment he has made the improvement in the value for money that would result from such a change. [41015]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Government share the concern of the construction industry about the level of adversarialism in the industry. We support the view expressed in Sir Michael Latham's report "Constructing the Team" that a real improvement in relationships depends upon moving from a culture based on conflict to one of co-operation. We are actively supporting and encouraging such a culture change and are taking a strong lead, together with other members of the construction industry board, in implementing the Latham recommendations.

  While the information available does not permit a precise calculation of the scope for improving value for money by reducing conflict, we follow Sir Michael and the industry consensus in believing that increased

  Company

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995

  Prosecutions

  North West

  —

  1

  2

  6

  9

  12

  1

  Southern

  —

  1

  4

  1

  1

  1

  —

  South West

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Wessex

  —

  2

  —

  3

  3

  1

  —

  Thames

  —

  3

  7

  5

  7

  3

  2

  Welsh

  —

  7

  15

  9

  1

  1

  1

  Anglian

  —

  3

  6

  5

  1

  2

  —

  Northumbrian

  1

  4

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Yorkshire

  1

  1

  7

  1

  13

  1

  —

  Severn Trent

  —

  2

  7

  2

  4

  3

  2

  Convictions

  North West

  —

  1

  2

  6

  7

  11

  1

  Southern

  —

  1

  4

  1

  1

  1

  —

  South West

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Wessex

  —

  2

  —

  3

  3

  1

  —

  Thames

  —

  3

  7

  5

  7

  3

  2

  Welsh

  —

  7

  15

  9

  1

  1

  1

  Anglian

  —

  3

  6

  5

  1

  2

  —

  Northumbrian

  1

  4

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Yorkshire

  1

  1

  6

  1

  13

  1

  —

  Severn Trent

  —

  2

  7

  2

  4

  3

  2

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what measures he proposes to reduce the number of sites of special scientific interest that are damaged by road developments; [40912]

  (2) what assessment he has made of whether the current system of sites of special scientific interest provides sufficient protection for endangered habitats and rare wildlife species against new developments, including quarries; [40985]

  (3) if he will make it his policy to develop a new system of measures to preserve a percentage of each endangered habitat and rare wildlife species in England, Scotland and Wales; [40986]

  (4) what assessment he has made of whether the current system of sites of special scientific interest provides sufficient protection for endangered habitats and rare wildlife species; [40989]

  (5) what assessment he has made of the extent to which new measures are needed to preserve a percentage of each endangered habitat and rare wildlife species in England, Scotland and Wales. [40991]
  738
  teamwork could make the industry significantly more competitive and productive. Sir Michael recommended that, overall, it would be realistic to set a target to achieve 30 per cent. savings in construction costs by the year 2000.

  Water Companies (Prosecutions)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many times each of the privatised water companies have been(a) prosecuted and (b) convicted for water pollution offences in (i) the current year and (ii) each of the last five years; and if he will list the dates. [41164]

  Mr. Clappison
  The information requested is set out in the tables, except for the dates of prosecutions on which I shall write to the hon. Gentleman shortly. The figures attributed to 1995 are for the period since April.

  Mr. Clappison
  The United Kingdom's "Biodiversity: The UK Action Plan" contains some 59 broad targets, including a commitment to develop specific costed targets for key species and habitats for the years 2000 and 2010.

  Notification as a SSSI identifies land of scientific interest. It ensures that in the determination of development proposals, the land use planning system takes careful account of nature conservation interests. Where conflict is unavoidable, appropriate mitigation measures are taken to minimise adverse effects. The continuing decline in SSSI loss and damage demonstrates the effectiveness of the system.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those sites of special scientific interest in English Nature's report on hydrological threats to sites of special scientific interest as being liable to be adversely affected by water abstraction. [41305]

  Mr. Clappison
  English Nature undertook an internal survey in 1991. This preliminary study identified SSSIs which may be affected. However, these need to be further investigated before a list is published.
  739
  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those sites of special scientific interest identified by recent research carried out by English Nature and the university of Liverpool that could be adversely affected by eutrophication. [41306]

  Mr. Clappison
  English Nature will shortly publish a report containing this information. A copy will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will(a) list and (b) make a statement on the sites of special scientific interest (i) along the western side of Southampton Water and the Solent and (ii) in the New Forest. [41456]

  Mr. Clappison
  The information requested is as follows:

  Southampton Water—Eling and Bury marshes; Hythe to Calshot marshes;

  Solent—North Solent; Hurst castle and Lymington river estuary; Thorness bay; Newtown harbour; Bouldnor and Hamstead cliffs; Yar estuary;

  New Forest—the New Forest.

  These sites have been notified for their biological and geological importance.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many incidents involving damage to sites of special scientific interest in 1994 have resulted in prosecution. [41972]

  Mr. Clappison
  None. Prosecution is sought only when circumstances warrant such action. Where a site has been damaged, the first approach is to seek the co-operation of the landlowner in restoring it and avoiding any further damage.

  Tenants (Repossessions)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the effects the reduction from 13 to eight weeks for the time a landlord may repossess his property will have on tenants; and if implementation of such a policy will be accompanied by legislation allowing courts to safeguard the security of tenant in extenuating circumstances, with special reference to a delay in the payment of housing benefit. [41057]

  Mr. Clappison
  For many landlords, having a tenant who does not pay the rent can be very difficult, especially if there is a loan to repay. Under the legislative change we propose, a tenant will have to be at least eight weeks in arrears before the landlord can serve two weeks' notice of possession proceedings. By the time the case reaches court, the tenant will generally owe substantially more than eight weeks' rent. The change is not expected to cause any particular problems for tenants who claim housing benefit—about 80 per cent. of housing benefit cases are possessed within 14 days of all the required information being received. Where claims are delayed, through no fault of the claimant, local authorities have a statutory duty to make payments on account. We do not propose any additional legislative safeguards.

  Housing Estates (Regeneration)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what safeguards he will be 740
  introducing to ensure that the regeneration of poor-quality estates, outlined in the housing White Paper, will not be affected by cost-cutting building companies; and what regulation he will be implementing to make certain that building standards are safe and tenants' rights are recognised. [41052]

  Mr. Clappison
  The building regulations establish minimum standards of health and safety for all new dwellings created by new construction or conversion.

  In addition, we are actively promoting a competitive construction industry which focuses on quality. For example, we are working with the other members of the construction industry board to implement the recommendations in Sir Michael Latham's report "Constructing the Team".

  Waste Management
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what targets are being set in respect of the next(a) five years, (b) 10 years and (c) 20 years by his Department for the reduction of controlled waste going to landfill sites; and what percentage of municipal waste will be targeted for recycling at the end of a 10-year period. [41323]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Government intend to publish waste management targets in the waste strategy for England and Wales which we expect to publish before the end of the year.

  Unified Business Rate
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 16 October,Official Report, column 166, what transitional arrangements he is proposing in respect of the increases in unified business rates in the west midlands. [41326]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The transition scheme phasing in the effects of the 1995 revaluation, and contained in the Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts) Regulations 1994, SI 1994 No. 3279, limits increases in rates bills from one year to the next to 10 per cent. plus inflation. There are tighter limits for small properties—those with rateable values less than £10,000, or £15,000 in Greater London—of 7.5 per cent. plus inflation, or 5 per cent. plus inflation if there is living accommodation on the same premises.

  Environmental Legislation
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans his Department has to initiate legislation concerning the protection of the environment during the next 12 months. [41445]

  Mr. Clappison
  I would prefer not to anticipate Her Majesty's forthcoming Gracious Speech.

  Wild Birds
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds concerning the decline of bird species; and if he will make a statement. [41439]
  741
  Mr. Clappison
  My Department has regular contact with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds on a wide range of issues relating to conservation of birds. The society regularly publishes reports on trends in wild bird populations. A recent report dealt with farmland birds.

  Mr. Mark Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what changes are intended to be made to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 concerning the defences available to those who need to take urgent action to kill wild birds to prevent agricultural damage; and what plans there are to align the licensing provisions in the Act for killing or other use of birds more closely with the provisions of the EC directive on the conservation of wild birds. [42249]

  Mr. Gummer
  Regulations have today been laid in both Houses which would change the provisions of section 4(3)(c) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which provide certain defences to the killing or injuring of wild birds to protect agricultural interests, to bring them into line with the defences provided in section 10(6) of the Act in respect of the killing or injuring of wild animals. The defences would be available to those who could show that there was no other satisfactory solution to killing or injuring wild birds; that if the need for such action could have been foreseen, a licence should have been applied for as soon as practicable and not yet have been determined; and that the person should notify the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food as soon as reasonably practicable after taking such action.

  The regulations would extend the provisions of section 16 of the Act governing licensing authorities' responsibilities and the conditions under which licences may be issued, and would increase the range of licensing purposes.

  These changes, which follow consideration of responses to public consultation, would align the Act more closely with the detailed derogation requirements of the birds directive.

  Air Monitoring Stations
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the location of all air monitoring stations in the United Kingdom. [41810]

  Mr. Clappison
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 31 October 1995,Official Report, column 178.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to reduce the burden of business rates on small traders. [41670]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Small properties—those with rateable values of less than £10,000 or £15,000 in Greater London—receive more generous treatment under the transition scheme, which is phasing in the effects on rates bills of the 1995 revaluation.

  As announced in the rural White Paper published on 17 October, the Government also intend to introduce, at a suitable legislative opportunity, a new rate relief scheme targeted specifically on general stores and post offices in villages.

  War Pensioners
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to introduce measures whereby war pensioners will be housed by local authorities only if they have exhausted all their income from war pensions. [41606]

  Mr. Clappison
  We have no such plans.

  Hazardous Waste
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if the EC directive on hazardous waste incineration applies in retrospect to authorisations granted before January 1997 by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution for the burning of liquid fuels in cement kilns; [41985]

  (2) if the EC directive on hazardous waste incineration will apply to the burning of secondary liquid fuels in cement kilns. [41986]

  Mr. Clappison
  The hazardous waste incineration directive requires transposition into UK law by the end of 1996. On the basis that secondary liquid fuels constitute waste, the relevant provisions of the directive will apply to the burning of SLF in cement kilns. Plants for which authorisations to burn SLF are granted before 1 January 1997 will be required to meet these provisions by 30 June 2000 at the latest.

  Isle of Wight
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those projects and schemes received by his Department for funds from the single regeneration budget from the Isle of Wight. [41848]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  One bid for funding from round two of the single regeneration budget challenge fund has been received from a partnership led by the Isle of Wight council, entitled "Altogether Wight".

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce his decision on the Isle of Wight's application for single regeneration budget funds. [41849]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  It is intended that decisions on successful bids for the second round of the single regeneration budget challenge fund will be made by Christmas.

  Special Protection Areas
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is(a) the total number and (b) the total area of (i) special protection areas and (ii) special areas of conservation in the United Kingdom. [41851]

  Mr. Clappison
  Some 107 special protection areas have been designated in the UK covering a total area of some 355,000 hectares. Further designations are expected shortly.

  In March, public consultation began on 280 possible special areas of conservation covering over 900,000 hectares. The final list must be agreed with the European Commission. The designation of agreed sites should be completed by 2004.

  Liquid Fuel Waste
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to issue guidance to the waste regulation authorities about the classification of secondary liquid fuel as waste. [41987]

  Mr. Clappison
  Whether or not a substance is waste must be determined on the facts of the case and the interpretation of the law is a matter for the courts. The Department has provided guidance on the interpretation of the definition of waste in DoE circular 11/94.

  The Department's views on the classification of secondary liquid fuel as waste were set out in our initial response of 13 June 1995 to the Environment Select Committee's report on the burning of this fuel in cement kilns. We have no plans to revise the guidance issued to waste regulation authorities in DoE circular 11/94.

  Mrs. Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will ensure that the Government will respond to the Environment Select Committee's second report on burning of secondary liquid fuels in cement kilns before Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution reaches a decision on the permanent authorisation for the burning of secondary liquid fuels in cement kilns. [41988]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Government have already given their initial response to the Environment Select Committee and stated that when Parliament enacted the Environmental Protection Act 1990, EPA90, the systems thus created were, and are, sufficiently robust to cope with the regulation of cement kilns and secondary liquid fuels. Her Majesty's inspectorate pollution has a statutory obligation to deliver the requirements of EPA90 for all plants under its control. Under the circumstances, I see no useful purpose in delaying HMIP decisions.

  Housing, Sheffield
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will increase resources for the provision of social housing in the Darnall area of Sheffield following the publication of the Darnall review. [40038]

  Mr. Clappison
  The need for social housing in the Darnall area is a matter best determined by Sheffield city council in consultation with the local community and other housing providers in the area. Allocations under the housing investment programme will be announced in December. Bids for Housing Corporation resources are due on 24 November, and allocations will be announced in early February.

  Bats
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if English Nature recommends the removal of bat roosting sites after October. [40556]

  Mr. Clappison
  English Nature makes every effort to negotiate the retention of bat roosting sites. Where this is not possible, English Nature advises on the least harmful time of year to perform operations on a bat roost. This time will vary according to whether the site is used by the bats during the summer, or during the winter for hibernation. English Nature makes every effort to ensure that any removal of hibernacular sites does not take place between 1 November and 31 March.
  744
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what legislation protects bats and their breeding sites. [40557]

  Mr. Clappison
  All bats are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and the Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc.) Regulations 1994. Under sections 9 and 10 of the 1981 Act and regulations 39 and 40 of the 1994 regulations, unless a licence has been granted, it is an offence to kill or injure a bat deliberately or intentionally to possess or sell one or offer it for sale or to damage, destroy or obstruct access to any structure bats use for shelter. Certain assemblages of bats may also qualify as a roost notified as a site of special scientific interest.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what licences have been issued for the further removal of bat roosting sites on the route of the A34 Newbury bypass; and where and when such works will be carried out. [40558]

  Mr. Clappison
  No licences have been issued for the further removal of bat roosts on the route of the A34 Newbury bypass.

  Recycling
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what tonnage of waste is estimated to be recycled, annually; what percentage this constitutes of total waste; and if he will make a statement. [40328]

  Mr. Clappison
  An average of 38 million tonnes of controlled wastes, excluding sewage sludge and dredged spoils, are estimated to be recycled annually. This represents 22 per cent. of total controlled waste arisings. The Government's overall policy aim for achieving more sustainable waste management is to increase the proportion of waste managed by the options towards the top of the waste hierarchy including recycling.

  Vacant Dwellings
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the current number of vacant dwellings. [41645]

  Mr. Clappison
  Estimates of the numbers of vacant dwellings on 1 April 1994, the latest date for which figures are available, are as follows:

  Number of vacant dwellings

  Local authority1

  70,300

  Housing associations2

  20,700

  Other public sector3

  17,000

  Private sector1

  737,000

  Total

  845,000

  Sources

  1HIP1 returns.

  2Housing Corporation HAR10/1 retrurns.

  3Government Departments and HIP1 returns.

  There are doubts about the quality of some authorities' estimates of the number of private sector vacants; independent survey data suggest that the HIP1 figures may over-estimate the total of these vacants.

  Green Belts
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what size land area constitutes a major development site in a green belt area; and what is his definition of a major development site. [41694]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  PPG2 gives guidance on major existing developed sites in green belts. If such a site is specifically identified in an adopted local plan or unitary development plan, construction of new buildings for the purpose of limited infilling or redevelopment is not inappropriate, providing it meets criteria stated in the PPG. The guidance applies only to sites which are substantial. Its proposed application to any particular site is tested through the planning process.

  Mrs. Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to advise or instruct local planning authorities to publish lists of sites for major development in green belt areas as part of his revised PPG2. [41688]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  PPG2 stipulates that, if limited infilling or redevelopment of a major existing developed site in the green belt is not to require justification by very special circumstances, the site must be specifically identified for this purpose in an adopted local plan or unitary development plan.

  Mrs. Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which local authorities have put forward revised guidelines to their urban development plan submissions following the revision to PPG2 for green belt sites. [41689]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Mrs. Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many extra dwellings he estimates being approved for planning permission in the current year in green belt areas following his revision to PPG2. [41690]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I have made no such estimate. The revised PPG2 enables local plans and unitary development plans to provide greater certainty about the future of major existing developed sites and speedier development control decisions. The previous guidance permitted the redevelopment of redundant hospitals and, in very special circumstances, of other sites. The revised guidance stipulates that redevelopment must have no greater impact on the green belt than the existing development, and where possible less; must contribute to green belt land use objectives, such as countryside access and outdoor recreation; and must not occupy a larger area of the site than the existing buildings.

  Mrs. Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many planning applications for major development sites in green belt areas he has called in since he published the revised guidance note on PPG2. [41692]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I have called in 18 applications for development in the green belt since January 1995. This figure includes various types and sizes of development on different sorts of site.

  Mrs. Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what notice he has had of planning applications for the development of major development sites of green belt areas, which include applications to 746
  build more than (a) 10, (b) 20, (c) 50 and (d) 100 houses, since his revised guidance note on PPG2. [41693]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Planning applications for development in the green belt are formally notified to me only if they are departures from the development plan. Information on the scale of individual proposals is not collected centrally. Applications for the limited infilling or redevelopment of major existing developed sites specifically identified for this purpose in adopted local plans or unitary development plans would not be departures.

  Public Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by type of project(a) how many schemes have been approved to date under the public finance initiative, (b) what is the value of those schemes and (c) what public sector contribution will be required both initially and as revenue support during the lifetime of the schemes. [41739]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Department of the Environment and its sponsored bodies attracted around £4 billion in private investment in support of its programmes in 1994–95 and expects to increase that figure in 1995–96. This will assist the delivery of a very large number of projects, most notably ones relating to housing, inner cities and regeneration. Secondary legislation to encourage and facilitate private finance initiative schemes in the local authority sector came into effect from 1 April 1995 and the Government aim to implement further measures by 1 April 1996. It is not practicable for the Department to collect detailed information on each project being advanced under private financing arrangements.

  Home Owners
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the number of home owners in Britain in 1979; and what is the number at present. [41874]

  Mr. Gummer
  An estimated 10.2 million households owned their own home in 1979, and 15.4 million in 1993, the most recent year for which figures are available for the whole of Great Britain.

  These estimates are based on the general household survey and the survey of English housing. Like all estimates from surveys, they are liable to sampling variability.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money has been allocated to TECs for training from the single regeneration budget for 1995–96. [42008]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Planned expenditure by training and enterprise councils on continuing programmes which now form part of the single regeneration budget is £40 million in 1995–96. In addition, there are 45 schemes which were successful under round one of the SRB challenge fund where a TEC is receiving funding as the accountable body on behalf of the SRB partnership concerned. Planned expenditure in 1995–96 on these schemes is £22 million. It is not possible to identify how
  747
  much of the total of £62 million, expected to be paid to TECs from the single regeneration budget in the current year, will be specifically for training activities. TECs may also be receiving indirect funding from the SRB challenge fund where they are members of SRB partnerships but not the nominated accountable body.

  Business Start-up Grants
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment for each training and enterprise council area how many firms have received business start-up grants in each of the last 12 months. [42007]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The business start-up scheme was incorporated into the single regeneration budget from 1 April 1994 and ceased as a separate programme on 31 March 1995. For 1994–95, the information requested has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Since 1 April 1995, support for new businesses is one of the objectives of the SRB challenge fund. Some 70,000 business start-ups are forecast to be supported under schemes approved in the first challenge fund bidding round. The second bidding round was launched on 12 April and this will provide further opportunities for similar support.

  Water Profits
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the profits of each water company in England and Wales in each year since 1989 as recorded by Office of Water Services. [42135]

  Mr. Clappison
  Current cost operating profits for each of the regulated water companies in England and Wales for each financial year from 1990–91 are given in figure 4 of Ofwat's 1994–95 report on the financial performance and capital investment of the water companies in England and Wales, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  Building Research Establishment
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the future of the Building Research Establishment. [42245]

  Mr. Gummer
  The Building Research Establishment has made great strides in developing new services and improving operational efficiency since becoming an executive agency in 1990. It has played a central role in support of the Government's policy and executive responsibilities as they relate to construction and buildings. Government and other customers of BRE have a continuing need for access to the technical excellence and objectivity of judgment which BRE provides and which is much valued. I wish, however, to see BRE's expertise more directed towards stimulating innovation in construction and to helping industry improve its performance and competitiveness. I believe that closer links between BRE and industry will be achieved more effectively if BRE were in the private sector.

  I therefore intend to commission consultants later this month to advise me on the relative advantages and disadvantages of the options for transferring BRE to the private sector. The consultants will be asked to take account of the need of the Government, industry and
  748
  clients for construction research, advice and technical support which will be accepted as authoritative and independent of sectoral interests. The options examined will include the proposal from representatives of construction interests for a national centre for construction research and advice. Meanwhile, BRE will remain an executive agency of my Department under its present chief executive. I shall make a further statement when I have considered the consultants' report.

  Local Government Staff
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will finalise the measures to compensate staff who suffer a drop in remuneration as a result of local government reorganisation. [42246]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I am today laying before the House regulations which will give effect to a scheme for detriment compensation. The regulations are being made following two separate consultation exercises, which generated helpful comments. The scheme provides for compensation staff in England and Wales who suffer a drop in remuneration as a result of local government reorganisation. Such staff will, provided they meet certain criteria, receive compensation equal to three times the drop in remuneration, payable over 36 months. This will provide transitional relief to staff if they work in an authority directly affected by reorganisation and suffer a drop in salary during the prescribed period. By avoiding the need for redundancy payments and encouraging councils to retain existing employees in new jobs, the scheme should benefit staff, employers and the taxpayer.

  Pan-European Environment Conference
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the outcome of the Pan-European conference of Environment Ministers held in Sofia on 23 to 25 October; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Sofia conference reaffirmed the political framework and programme of action agreed in Lucerne in 1993 for pan-European co-operation to improve the environment, with particular reference to central and eastern Europe. Steps will be taken to strengthen the links between this process and the Helsinki environment and health process. The decisive role of domestic finance and policy reforms in achieving greater environmental investment in central and eastern Europe and the role of external finance as a catalyst to help bring this about were stressed. The importance of an effective dialogue between business on environmental matters was also strongly emphasised. The conference endorsed the strategy prepared by the Council of Europe as a framework for the conservation of pan-European biological and landscape diversity. It also endorsed the environmental programme for Europe which makes recommendations for long-term action on some of the findings of the pan-European state of the environment report published in September 1995. The conference reaffirmed the importance of public participation including the role of non-governmental organisations. It called for the development of a regional convention on public participation to be considered. The next "Environment for Europe" conference will be held in Denmark in 1998.

  Audit Commission
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements he has made for appointing a chairman of the Audit Commission. [42248]

  Mr. Curry
  I am minded to appoint Roger Brooke as a member and chairman of the Audit Commission for three years from 1 December 1995. This appointment is still subject to consultation, as required by section 11(2) of the Local Government Finance Act 1982.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he proposes any further changes to his Department's cash limits for 1995–96. [42244]

  Mr. Gummer
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the following changes will be made:

  The cash limit for class VII, vote 2—regeneration and countryside and wildlife—will be increased by £20,466,000 from £1,500,333,000 to £1,520,799,000. The increase is the net effect of the payment of £20,716,000 on capital projects which slipped from previous years for the city challenge programme within the single regeneration budget, the docklands light railway, Central Manchester development corporation, Trafford Park development corporation, coalfield areas fund, the Victoria arena Manchester and European Community regeneration projects, a transfer of £250,000 from the Department of Health in respect of urban programme payments following an excess transfer in the main estimates and a reduction of £500,000 to allow supplementary credit approvals to be issued in respect of the urban programme from the DoE/RCW non-voted cash limit.

  The non-voted cash limit for regeneration and countryside and Wildlife, DoE/RCW, will be increased by £21,283,000 from £1,482,233,000 to £1,503,515,000. The increase is the net effect of the payment of £21,033,000 on capital projects which slipped from previous years for the same programmes on the cash limit for class VII, vote 2 including £817,000 for the issue of supplementary credit approvals for the Victoria arena Manchester and the transfer of £250,000 from the Department of Health in respect of urban programme payments following an excess transfer in the main estimates.

  There will be associated increases to external financing limits for urban development corporations, by £15,775,000 from £243,739,000 to £259,514,000; and by £12,000,000 from £143,898,000 to £155,898,000 for the Urban Regeneration Agency—English Partnerships.

  The DoE/European regional development fund cash limit remains unchanged at £184,219,000.

  The increases are covered in full by take-up of the entitlement to capital end of year flexibility announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 13 July 1995, Official Report, columns 776–82, and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the last date by which the orders for 750
  structural change must be laid before the House in order for elections to take place for the successor unitary authorities in May 1996; and what is the anticipated date that the Government expect to lay the order for structural change before the House in respect of (i) Leicester city, (ii) Rutland district council, (iii) Nottingham city, (iv) Plymouth city, (v) Torbay borough council, (vi) Wokingham district council, (vii) Newbury district council, (viii) Reading city, (ix) Windsor and Maidenhead district council, (x) Slough borough council, (xi) Bracknell Forest district council, (xii) Southend on Sea borough council, (xiii) Herefordshire, (xiv) The Wrekin district council, (xv) Thurrock borough council, (xvi) Northampton borough council, (xvii) Halton borough council, (xviii) Warrington borough council, (xix) Peterborough city, (xx) Dartford and Gravesham borough councils, (xxi) Gillingham borough council and Rochester/Medway city, (xxii) Blackburn borough council and (xxiii) Blackpool borough council. [41950]

  Mr. Curry
  There is no statutory requirement to lay structural change orders by a particular date. However, given the requirements governing the publication of the notice of election in the Local Elections (Principal Areas) Rules 1986 along with the administrative needs of the returning officer, we consider that an order should be made not less than two months before the date of the election to which it relates.

  For all those districts which are the subject of fresh reviews by the Local Government Commission—xiv-xxviii—whether or not there will be an order to be laid will of course depend on the commission's final recommendations and the Government's response to them. For the others, there are outstanding issues such as judicial review in the case of Berkshire or the fact that the commission is examining the further case for unitary structures in certain counties. We aim to lay these orders before Parliament during the new Session once these various matters are resolved.

TRANSPORT

  "Sally Star"
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when his Department received the first draft of the Marine Accident and Investigation Branch report into the fire aboard the ro-ro passenger vessel "Sally Star" on 25th October 1994. [41680]

  Mr. Norris
  The incident referred to occurred on 25 August 1994. The Secretary of State did not receive a copy of any drafts of the report. A copy of the final version was sent to him on 19 October 1995.

  Marine Safety Agency
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what considerations led him to advise the Marine Safety Agency to cancel its appointment with the hon. Member for Nottingham, North scheduled for 6 November at 11 am. [41779]

  Sir George Young
  The meeting was cancelled because it would not be appropriate for an official to brief an opposition spokesman in the absence of a Minister.

  Aircraft Noise
  Sir John Cope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he has taken to encourage aerodromes to introduce noise amelioration schemes in accordance with his announcement of March 1993 in respect of the conclusions of the review of aircraft noise legislation; and what assessment he has made of their impact. [41437]

  Mr. Norris
  It has been the Government's policy for many years that measures to minimise noise nuisance from aerodromes are best developed and monitored locally. The Government continue to encourage aerodromes to consult their local communities. Many aerodromes have established voluntary arrangements and at most of the larger airports consultation is required. The manner in which consultation is conducted is a purely local issue, in which the Government have no role.

  Sir John Cope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to issue the national guidance on aircraft noise amelioration, in accordance with his announcement of March 1993 in respect of the review of aircraft noise legislation. [41438]

  Mr. Norris
  In due course.

  Sir John Cope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what considerations will determine whether the use of non-military aircraft at military airfields will be subject to the new legislation on aircraft noise amelioration, set out in his announcement of March 1993 in respect of the conclusions of the review of aircraft noise legislation. [41436]

  Mr. Norris
  The use of military aerodromes by civil aircraft is governed by military regulations, which are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

  West Coast Main Line
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 25 October,Official Report, columns 578–79, if he will provide a breakdown of the £7 million European funding awarded indicating the amount allocated to each project, the terms of reference and the timetable for the project. [41258]

  Mr. Watts
  The funds were awarded to project costs incurred in 1995 as a whole, and not to any particular phase of the west coast main line scheme. Most of the relevant work in 1995 will be on feasibility studies, including the examination of the use of an in-cab control system and running high-speed trains and physical works to allow the running of European passenger services as far as Glasgow.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State what regulations his Department proposes to repeal by the end of 1995; if he proposes to conduct a compliance cost assessment on each regulation repealed; and what is the estimated cost of undertaking a compliance cost assessment to assess the advantages or disadvantages of such a repeal. [41556]
  752
  Mr. Watts
  We are developing a number of proposals for repeal or deregulatory amendment which we hope to bring forward this year. These include: abolition of the requirement for local authorities to use type approved parking equipment; liberalising signing for tourist attractions; amendments to regulations concerning cycle racing on the highways; the updating and consolidation of navigation and collision regulations for merchant shipping.

  The requirement to carry out a compliance cost assessment applies to regulations which impose additional burdens on business while the programme of repeals and amendments is concerned with reducing the burden.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the estimated savings to the Exchequer by the repeal of each rule and regulation which has so far been the subject of a reference to the Deregulation Committee from his Department; and in how many cases a compliance cost assessment has been carried out. [41536]

  Mr. Watts
  My Department has not yet laid any draft orders before the committee.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the rules and regulations he proposes to repeal or amend by means of a reference to the Deregulation Committee before the end of 1995; and if he will make a statement. [41535]

  Mr. Watts
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of Duchy of Lancaster at column 593.

  Gateshead Bypass
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve the A1 western bypass around Gateshead. [41821]

  Mr. Watts
  We are working closely with Gateshead metropolitan borough council on options for the improvement of the A1 around Gateshead.

  Transport Projects (Moratorium)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the savings resulting from a moratorium on transport construction projects which have not yet begun construction in(a) the current year and (b) 1996–97. [41781]

  Mr. Watts
  None.

  Car Phones
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what information he has recently received about the installation and use of mobile telephones in cars; and if he will make a statement about their safety; [41480]

  (2) if he will introduce safety standards for the installation of mobile phones in cars.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department has no evidence of accidents occurring as a result of mobile phones in cars interfering with vehicle electronic systems.

  A forthcoming EC directive will require new types of vehicle to have a minimum level of resistance to electromagnetic interference. In addition, the Department

  753
  is discussing with the Radiocommunications Agency, an executive agency of the Department of Trade and Industry, how best to ensure that devices such as in-car phones do not produce excessive interference which might affect vehicle electronic systems.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to curb the use of hand-held mobile telephones by car drivers while driving; and if he will make a statement. [40935]

  Mr. Norris
  The Highway Code makes it clear that drivers must exercise proper control of their vehicles at all times and should not use a hand-held telephone while driving.

  Transport Council
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) of 26 October,Official Report, columns 731–32, what was the voting record of each member state on items agreed at the meeting of the European Community's Transport Council held on 28 September; and if he will make it his practice to list all votes, including where there have been no votes, in the future. [41088]

  Sir George Young
  There were no formal votes at the 28 September Transport Council, but, as reported in my answer of 26 October to the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes), the UK and Germany opposed a scrapping scheme to reduce capacity in the inland waterways industry: other member states supported the measure.

  I shall continue to list all formal votes, or the fact that no votes were taken, when reporting on future Transport Councils.

  A36 (South Newton)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 19 July,Official Report, column 1327, when he plans to install experimental electronic speed limit warning signs on the A36 at either end of South Newton village. [41259]

  Mr. Norris
  The experimental electronic speed limit warning signs on the A36 are due to be installed at either end of South Newton village before Christmas.

  Road Building
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what spending has been provisionally allocated to road building for the current year and for 1996–97 for projects which have yet to begin construction. [41780]

  Mr. Watts
  We have allocated £683 million to national schemes (schemes over £3 million in value) for the current year together with £108 million for network improvement schemes (schemes less than £3 million in value). These allocations are contained in the Highways Agency business plan. No decision has yet been taken on allocations for 1996–97.

  European Aviation Centre
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy towards a European aviation centre. [41594]
  754
  Mr. Norris
  The term "European aviation centre" is not one that the Department recognises. If the hon. Member would provide further details, my noble friend the Minister of Aviation and Shipping will write to him.

  Temporary and Part-time Staff
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many staff are currently employed in his Department and in related agencies on(a) temporary or casual employment contracts and (b) part-time employment contracts, given as an actual figure and as a proportion of the total work force; and what were the corresponding figures for five years ago. [41115]

  Mr. Norris
  Breakdowns by Department and executive agency for 1 April 1995 of the number of permanent staff, the number of casual staff—normally those engaged for a period of up to 12 months, but, exceptionally, up to two years—and of the number of part-time staff are presented in the civil service staff in post summary table for 1 April 1995, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. Estimates on a comparable basis for 1 April 1990 have also been placed in the Library of the House.

  M1
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the proposed completion dates for current construction work on the M1; and what is his latest information on whether the dates will be met. [40980]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Sir Irvine Patnick, dated 6 November 1995:
  As you know, the Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts, has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking the Secretary of State for Transport, what are the proposed completion dates for current construction work on the M1; and what is his latest information on whether the dates will be met.
  The contract for the widening M1 between junctions 21 and 21A is due to end in February 1996 but we are currently considering an extension to late March because of unforseen ground conditions. If that extension is granted, we have no reason to thin that the revised date will not be met.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to widen the M1 from junctions 23 to 28. [41001]

  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. Graham Allen, dated 6 November 1995:
  As you know, the Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr John Watts, has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question, asking the Secretary of State for Transport, what proposals he has to widen the M1 between Junctions 23 and 28.
  The road programme contains two schemes covering this section of the M1. A preferred option for widening between Junctions 23A and 25 to dual 4 lanes was announced in March 1995.
  Proposals for widening the motorway to dual 4 lanes between Junctions 25 and 28 were put to the public in July 1994. We are considering the responses received.

  National Transport Debate
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish a Green Paper following the national transport debate. [40992]

  Sir George Young
  Once my colleagues and I have considered responses to "Transport: The Way Ahead" we will publish a further report drawing together the threads of the debate.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the organisations who contributed to the national transport debate and place copies of their responses in the Library. [40993]

  Sir George Young
  Individual responses, and the list of respondents, will not be made available for public inspection since we did not indicate in "Transport: The Way Ahead" that we would be doing so.

  Bus Companies
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to re-regulate in any material way the operations of bus companies. [41273]

  Mr. Norris
  I have no such proposals. I am considering, with the help of the bus working group, which I am chairing with the bus industry, local authority associations and the users, what sensible measures might be introduced to assist buses within the deregulated framework.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which five cities have the largest municipally owned or controlled bus companies in the United Kingdom. [41329]

  Mr. Norris
  In terms of vehicle numbers including tramcars, the five largest local authority-owned bus companies, in descending order, are: Lothian RT, Nottingham, Blackpool, Cardiff and Reading.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the proposed sales of municipal bus companies to which he withheld his consent; and if he will give reasons in each case. [41270]

  Mr. Norris
  Consent for the proposed sale of a municipal bus company has in some cases been withheld because the method of sale did not meet the requirement that public assets must be sold by means of a competitive tender. It would not be appropriate to provide details of these cases as they are commercially sensitive.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 24 October,Official Report, column 579, if he will make it his policy to monitor changes of ownership within the bus industry where this involves the onward sale of a

  Number of heavy goods vehicles, public service vehicles, private and light goods vehicles inspected and the number of vehicles prohibited at roadside 'spot' checks over the past five years

  Vehicle type

  Number of vehicles inspected

  Number of vehicles prohibited

  Percentage

  1990–91

  Heavy goods vehicles

  108,204

  17,014

  15.7

  Public service vehicles

  20,713

  1,125

  10.5

  756
  company after a management-employee buy out for a local authority. [41307]

  Mr. Norris
  No.

  Probationary Drivers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of car accidents for the latest year for which figures are available, involve drivers who passed their driving test in the preceding 12 months. [41277]

  Mr. Norris
  The information is not available in this form but drivers aged 17 and 18 were involved in some 5 per cent. of all injury accidents during the period 1992–94.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent consideration he has given to the introduction of probationary driver plates to be displayed for a period on cars driven by newly qualified drivers. [41276]

  Mr. Norris
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 22 February,Official Report, column 188. We are keeping this issue under review but I have yet to see any conclusive evidence that P-plates are effective in reducing road accidents.

  North Bridge, Doncaster
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the life expectancy of the North bridge, Doncaster. [41580]

  Mr. Watts
  The existing North bridge in Doncaster is the responsibility of the local highway authority, Doncaster metropolitan borough council.

  Roadside Vehicle Inspections
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each of the last five years the number of inspections undertaken by the Vehicle Inspectorate at roadside checks and the percentage of vehicles found to be defective. [40996]

  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. Graham Allen, dated 6 November 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question concerning the number of inspections undertaken at roadside checks and the percentage of vehicles found to be defective for the last 5 years.
  The attached table shows the number of roadworthiness inspections carried out by vehicle type and the number that were prohibited as a result of a mechanical defect being found. The prohibition figure includes both immediate and delayed prohibitions.
  757

  Number of heavy goods vehicles, public service vehicles, private and light goods vehicles inspected and the number of vehicles prohibited at roadside 'spot' checks over the past five years

  Vehicle type

  Number of vehicles inspected

  Number of vehicles prohibited

  Percentage

  Private and light goods vehicles

  12,405

  2,779

  22.4

  Private and light goods vehicles special checks1

  —

  —

  —

  1991–92

  Heavy goods vehicles

  110,753

  17,632

  15.9

  Public service vehicles

  20,859

  2,547

  12.2

  Private and light goods vehicles

  35,231

  5,461

  15.5

  Private and light goods vehicles special checks1

  —

  —

  —

  1992–93

  Heavy goods vehicles

  134,382

  18,786

  14.0

  Public service vehicles

  29,542

  2,366

  8.0

  Private and light goods vehicles

  31,781

  4,799

  15.1

  Private and light goods vehicles special checks1

  44,720

  1,236

  2.8

  1993–94

  Heavy goods vehicles

  134,266

  19,019

  14.2

  Public service vehicles

  29,686

  2,594

  8.7

  Private and light goods vehicles

  21,270

  3,339

  15.7

  Private and light goods vehicles special checks1

  33,103

  223

  0.7

  1994–95

  Heavy goods vehicles

  130,035

  20,075

  15.4

  Public service vehicles

  32,826

  3,315

  10.1

  Private and light goods vehicles

  21,360

  3,259

  15.3

  Private and light goods vehicles special checks

  70,899

  2,580

  3.6

  1 Special checks cover emissions, tyres and lights.

  Briefings (Civil Servants)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy towards civil servants in his Department at grade 2 or above arranging briefings for the opposition spokesmen on their responsibility. [40711]

  Sir George Young
  Prior ministerial approval is required for briefings with officials at any grade and requests should be made to the Private Office of the relevant Minister. A Minister may wish to be present at any briefings which is arranged.

  Midland Main Line
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what cost-benefit analysis his Department has received on electrifying the midland main line; and if he will make a statement on its future. [41000]

  Mr. Watts
  The Department has not received any cost-benefit analysis on the electrification of the midland main line during the last five years. Railtrack informs me that it will continue to ensure the safe and efficient operation of the line.

  Nottingham Station
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all those organisations that currently operate in and from Nottingham railway station, specifying in each case whether they own or lease assets and services once wholly delivered by BR with particular reference to catering, parking, track, signals, rolling stock and platforms. [40988]

  Mr. Watts
  Nottingham station is owned by Railtrack and operated under a lease by Regional Railways Central, which is the main passenger service operator. Midland Main Line also operates services to and from Nottingham 758
  and manages the travel centre at the station. Regional Railways Central leases all its rolling stock from the three rolling stock leasing companies, Eversholt, Porterbrook and Angel Train Contracts. Midland Main Line leases its rolling stock from the Porterbrook leasing company. Station catering is provided by Travellers' Fare under contract from Regional Railways Central. The platforms and the car park are managed by Regional Railways Central. The track and signals are owned by Railtrack.

  Heathrow Airport
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many staff are directly employed at Heathrow Airport; what estimate he has made of how many staff would be employed at the new terminal 5; and what is his Department's estimate of the number of employees in west London who are employed on work dependent on Heathrow. [41281]

  Mr. Norris
  These are matters for the British Airports Authority.

  Plane Crashes
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all plane crashes in United Kingdom airspace since 1980 giving the date and location of each crash and the types of aircraft involved [41442]

  Mr. Norris
  It is estimated that over 3,000 accidents involving civil aircraft have occurred in the United Kingdom since 1980. The vast majority of these were minor accidents involving light aircraft. A record of all reportable civil aviation accidents and incidents is held on a computer database by the Civil Aviation Authority. I have asked the chairman of the authority to write to the hon. Gentleman to establish his exact data requirement.
  759

  Carriage of Bicycles (Trains)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will summarise the minimum conditions to which cyclists will be entitled in respect of the carriage of bicycles on trains, as a result of the passenger service requirements issues so far. [41255]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 3 November 1995]: The franchising director intends to specify requirements in respects of the carriage of bicycles on passenger rail services in the franchise agreements that he makes with franchises. He intends to include in franchise agreements the requirement that franchise operators shall, so far as is reasonably practicable and subject to the availability of appropriate space on their rolling stock, ensure that facilities for the carriage of bicycles on trains are made available at reasonable, if any, charges. There will be no provisions relating to the carriage of bicycles in the passenger service requirements, which are concerned with the protection of an overall level and pattern of service base on the BR timetable in operation immediately prior to franchising.

  European Passenger Services
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the costs to public funds of creating those assets of European Passenger Services which it is now intended to privatise. [41256]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 3 November 1995]: The value of EPS's fixed assets covering land and buildings, plant and equipment and rolling stock, as stated in the company's annual report and accounts for the year ended 31 March 1995 is £1,149.4 million. This figure includes assets to a value of £357.6 million which have been leased. The value of any assets acquired since 1 April 1995 will be included in the next annual report for the company.

  Rail Services
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the 1995–96 turnover and subsidy requirement under the section 52 agreement with the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising for(a) Great Western Trains, (b) LTS Rail and (c) South West Trains companies. [41257]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 3 November 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish), Official Report, 13 July, column 706. Negotiations between the franchising director and the British Railways Board on the support appropriate to each individual train operating company are yet to be completed. I will write to the hon. Member when the level of support has been agreed and will place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.

  Cones Hotline
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) on what date the cones hotline was established; and if he will make a statement as to its current status and past effectiveness; [40805]
  760
  (2) how many phone calls there have been to the cones hotline and its successor service since the establishment of these services; and if he will give a breakdown of the number for each full year of the service; [40833]

  (3) how many traffic cones have been removed in response to communication via the cones hotline and its successor service; if he will list (a) the number of occasions when this has occurred and (b) the total length of cones in metres removed; and if he will make a statement; [40804]

  (4) what has been the total cost to date of establishing and running the cones hotline and its successor service; [40806]

  (5) what is his estimate of the total mileage of traffic cones in place on the United Kingdom roads network; and what was the equivalent figure for October 1992. [40807]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 1 November 1995]: These are operational matters for the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Laurie Haynes to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 6 November 1995:
  As you know, the Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts, has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Questions asking the Secretary of State for Transport for information on the cones hotline and its successor service.
  The cones hotline was introduced in June 1992 and was incorporated into the new, more general Highways Agency information line in September 1995. Information on the cones hotline service was given in Hansard on 10 July 1995, vol 263, cols 403 to 404. Highways Agency regularly reviews the needs of road users and we decided to expand the service into a broader information service which will be abe to tell people where roadworks are in place, when they are due to be completed and what delays can be expected as well as giving more general information about the Highways Agency.
  Between June 1992 and September 1995 there was a total of 19,500 calls to the hotline and information line. There were 6,000 calls between June 1992 and February 1994, a further 8,000 calls between March 1994 and February 1995 and 5,500 calls between March 1995 and September 1995.
  The cost of establishing and running the cones hotline prior to March 1994 is not available as, until then, calls were routed through the Department of Transport's general enquiry number. The estimated average cost of handling each call during the financial year 1994–95 is £2.22. The only additional cost of setting up the new service will be change to roadwork signing. Costs for these will be negligible because new signs are generally being phased in as new roadwork sites are started.
  The traffic management arrangements for the roadwork at M3 junction 2 (M25 interchange) were changed at the beginning of this month following calls from motorists and discussions with the local police and our agents. Information is not held centrally on the length of roadwork altered or removed following calls.
  The Highways Agency is responsible for trunk roads including motorways in England. Our target is to keep 93% of lanes available on each individual route, and 95% of lanes on the whole trunk road network available at all times. Over the first six months of this financial year, we exceeded this target with over 99 per cent. of lanes on the trunk road network available. Information is not available on the equivalent figure for October 1992, or on the extent of roadworks on local authority roads in England. Roads in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are the responsibility of the respective Secretaries of State.
  I hope this information is helpful.

  Ports (Privatisation)
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has reached a decision on the privatisation of the ports of Dover, Ipswich and Tyne. [42100]

  Sir George Young
  Following consultation with the trust port authorities concerned, I have decided to use my powers under the Ports Act 1991 to require the port authorities of Ipswich and Tyne to submit schemes for privatisation. As regards Dover, I accept the harbour board's advice that it would be better for privatisation to be deferred for two years until the effect of the channel tunnel on the port's business is clearer. The board has assured me that it is its aim to submit a scheme for privatisation by September 1997.

  Newbury Bypass
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what contracts have been let to carry out preliminary works for the construction of the A34 Newbury bypass. [40555]

  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. Cynog Dafis, dated 7 November 1995:
  As you know, the Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts, has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking the Secretary of State for Transport, what contracts have been let to carry out preliminary works for the construction of the A34 Newbury Bypass.
  We have let a contract which has been completed for the demolition of the properties needed for the scheme and plan to let a contract in the next few weeks for advance site clearance. This work will take place before the main works begin next year.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what examination he has made of the Highways Agency's detailed cost-benefit analysis of the Newbury bypass; and if he will make a statement on the estimated economic benefit of this road. [40554]

  Mr. Watts
  The cost-benefit analysis prepared for the schemes progress through the statutory procedures was considered by the then Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West, (Mr. Channon) when he considered the public inquiry inspector's report in February 1989. He accepted the inspectors' recommendation that the scheme should proceed. The Highways Agency study looked again at the economic evaluation and this was considered as part of the whole report by the then Secretary of State, my right hon.Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) when he decided that the scheme should proceed. This decision is supported fully by my right hon. Friend the current Secretary of State. The net present value of the benefits of the scheme, at current prices, range between £124.8 million on low traffic growth assumptions and £285.6 million assuming high growth.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) on what date he expects the tender documents for the Newbury bypass to be sent out to contractors; [41954]
  762
  (2) what has caused the delay in the issue of Newbury bypass tender documents to contractors beyond the end date expected in August; [41958]

  (3) on what date he now expects the construction of the Newbury bypass to commence; [41956]

  (4) by what date he now expects the Newbury bypass to be completed; [41957]

  (5) by what date he now expects the tendering process for the Newbury bypass to be completed. [41955]

  Mr. Watts
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State confirmed on 11 October that the Newbury bypass will go ahead.

  We are aiming to complete the tendering process in order to meet that commitment. Work will start as soon as possible in 1996 and we would anticipate that construction would be completed some two or so years after award of contract.

  Following upon the previous Secretary of State's decision to go ahead with the bypass, work has continued to complete EC procedures for competition and bring the tender documents up to date. There has been no undue delay. The Highways Agency has moved as quickly as possible. We currently expect tenders to be invited within a few weeks.

  Oil Tankers (Movements)
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he proposes to review safety procedures and pollution control regarding movements of oil tankers. [41459]

  Mr. Norris
  This is an operational matter for the Marine Safety Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Mr. Cynog Dafis, dated 7 November 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your Question about oil tanker movements.
  A number of internationally-agreed routeing measures are in place around the United Kingdom (UK) to enhance safe navigation and protect the marine environment. Measures include Areas to be Avoided, Precautionary Areas, Recommended Routes, Traffic Separation Schemes and a Deep-Water Route west of the Hebrides, specifically for large tankers.
  This Agency reviews the effectiveness of the routeing measures around the UK and takes rigorous action to follow up reported infringements. In particular, the Agency considers carefully any recommendations on routeing matters made by the Department of Transport's Marine Accident Investigation Branch as a result of its investigations into collisions and groundings.
  Recent amendments to the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) Convention will allow for the introduction of compulsory ship-reporting systems from 1 January 1996 and compulsory ship-routeing systems from 1 January 1997, subject to their acceptance at the International Maritime Organization (IMO). The UK is at the forefront of efforts to develop a workable system of automatic ship-identification transponders and is pressing at the IMO for the early introduction of this equipment on oil tankers. Transponders will increase the ability of coastal states to monitor the movement of shipping.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what new plans he has to tighten regulations regarding movements of bulk oil tankers. [41490]
  763
  Mr. Norris
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him today.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list by type of project(a) how many schemes have been approved to date under the private finance initiative, (b) what is the value of those schemes and (c) what public sector contribution will be required, both initially and as revenue support during the lifetime of the schemes. [41748]

  Mr. Watts
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Transport and Road Safety to the hon. Member for Nottinhgam, North (Mr. Allen) and 6 November. As to public sector contributions for approved projects, the position is as follows:

  Project

  Public funding

  Northern Line trains

  Payments to GEC over the period of the contract are confidential.

  Midland Metro Line 1

  In total, some £130 million is being contributed by the public sector towards the capital cost of the scheme. There is no public sector revenue support.

  Emergency Tugs
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the cost in the financial year of stationing emergency tugs at(a) Stornoway and (b) Dover; and what is the estimated cost for the stationing emergency tugs at the same ports during the forthcoming winter for six months from 1 November. [41730]

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

  Letter from C. J. Harris to Mr. James Wallace, dated 7 November 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question as the question deals with operational matters, for which I have responsibility as Chief Executive.
  The cost for the emergency tugs for winter 1994–95 (4 months) was as follows:

  (a) Stornoway: £425,500

  (b) Dover Strait: £418,400

  The estimated cost of the vessels for winter 1995–96 (6 months) is as follows:

  (a) Stornoway: £1,000,000

  (b) Dover Strait: £1,100,000

  Red Routes
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the new priority routes, red routes, to be introduced in Islington; on which roads; at what costs; and if he will make a statement. [42043]

  Mr. Norris
  The programme of implementation of red routes is a matter for the traffic director for London. In Islington, he is currently introducing red route measures on the A501 Pentonville road, at a cost of 764
  around £500,000, and measures on the A503 Seven Sisters road are planned for 1997, subject to finance, at a cost of around £1 million.

  Car-free Areas (London)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to authorise car-free areas in inner London; and if he will make a statement. [42041]

  Mr. Norris
  It is for local highway authorities to consider whether to introduce such schemes.

  Traffic-Free Zones (London)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what studies have been undertaken by the Government office for London into the possibility of creating traffic-free zones in inner London; and if he will make a statement. [42040]

  Mr. Norris
  None.

  Car Commuting Estimates
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are his latest estimates for the level of daily car commuting into central London for 1996 to the year 2000; and if he will make a statement. [42042]

  Mr. Norris
  The Department's most recent cordon survey recorded 114,000 cars entering central London between 7 am and 10 am on a typical weekday in 1993. Projections are not made for short spans of years but on present assumptions, growth is expected to average about 0.5 per cent. per year between 1991 and 2011.

  Burnley and Pendle Bus Co.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what indication he has given to Pendle council or any of its councillors regarding his consent to the sale of Burnley and Pendle Bus Co. [41920]

  Mr. Norris
  For reasons of commercial confidentiality, it is not my practice to disclose the details of any correspondence with a local authority on such an issue.

  Vehicle Emission Checks
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what budget is allocated for enforcing emission standards; how many vehicle owners are fined for failing emission standards every year; and how many light vehicles fail emission standards at road tests every year. [42117]

  Mr. Norris
  The total budget for vehicle emissions checks in 1995–96 is £621,900, which includes £400,000 for the special emission blitzes we have been running over the past year. Latest figures show that around 16 per cent. of taxis, 4 per cent. of cars, and 8 per cent. of light goods vehicles exceed prescribed emission limits. Offenders are normally given 14 days to obtain a new MOT certificate in order to demonstrate that any roadworthiness defects have been corrected. Most comply and so there is only a very small number of prosecutions.

  Bus and Coach Industry
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the impact of the EC bus and coach directive on the United Kingdom industry. [42115]

  Mr. Norris
  We are currently awaiting a formal proposal for a bus and coach construction directive from the Commission. We have had full discussions with the manufacturing and operating industry and will do everything possible to ensure that any directive protects both the interests of industry and the future of existing UK vehicle types.

  Transport Policy
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what were the main findings of the interactive survey to examine public attitudes to transport policy and the environment. [42116]

  Mr. Norris
  Results from the first stage of this research are not expected until the new year.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish a response to the 18th report of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution, transport and the environment. [41755]

  Mr. Norris
  Decisions on the Government's response will be taken in the light of the national debate on transport policy.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he is proposing(a) to promote (i) cycling, (ii) walking and (iii) use of public transport and (b) to reduce the amount of road traffic. [41756]

  Mr. Norris
  A range of measures is already in place. Views on further measures were invited as part of the national debate on transport policy.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he intends to take to reduce the proportion of urban journeys undertaken by car(a) in London from 50 per cent. in the London area to (i) 45 per cent. by 2000 and (ii) to 35 per cent. by 2020 and (b) in other urban areas from 65 per cent. (i) to 60 per cent. by 2000 and (ii) 50 per cent. by 2020. [41762]

  Mr. Norris
  Views on the desirability of such targets, and the measures required to meet them, were invited as part of the national debate on transport policy.

  Ship-identification Transponders
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has currently been made through the International Maritime Organisation for the early introduction of ship-identification transponders on oil tankers. [41864]

  Mr. Norris
  This is an operational matter for the Marine Safety Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from R.M. Bradley to Mr. Elliot Morley, dated 7 November 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your Question about transponders.
  766
  There appears to be broad international acceptance of the principle of transponders and it is encouraging that the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) has now developed a performance standard for a system based on VHF radio, which is particularly suitable for monitoring coastal shipping.
  The United Kingdom is continuing its efforts at the IMO to secure the compulsory carriage of transponders on larger ships as soon as possible. As part of that drive, this Agency is conducting a trial using automatic ship-identification transponders on a number of ships in the Dover Strait.

  Official Hospitality (Expenditure)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list(a) the total amount spent by his Department on hospitality and (b) each item of expenditure over £1,000 spent on hospitality by his Department in each of the last five years. [40995]

  Mr. Norris
  The Department of Transport—excluding its agencies—has spent the following amounts on official hospitality over the past five years.

  1990–91: £204,040

  1991–92: £170,015

  1992–93: £233,762

  1993–94: £234,986

  1994–95: £127,247

  These figures have been obtained from the Department's computerised accounts system. The categories of expenditure used to obtain the figures are:

  C1300: Entertainment UK (superseded in 1993–94 by C1305 and C1306)

  C1301: Official teas/working lunches

  C1305: Entertainment UK (ministers)

  C1306: Entertainment UK (others)

  C1310: Entertainment overseas (ministers)

  C1311: Entertainment overseas (others)

  C1320: Road opening ceremonies

  C1321: Medal ceremony costs.

  The number of items of expenditure over £1,000 in each of the above categories over the past five years is as follows:

  C1300

  C1301

  C1306

  C1311

  C1320

  C1321

  Total

  1990–91

  13

  11

  —

  3

  1

  1

  29

  1991–92

  1

  1

  —

  3

  8

  3

  16

  1992–93

  4

  2

  —

  2

  3

  1

  12

  1993–94

  —

  2

  1

  1

  2

  —

  6

  1994–95

  —

  —

  3

  2

  —

  —

  5

  Freight Transport
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the percentage of freight sent by(a) road and (b) rail in each year since 1979. [41811]

  Mr. Watts
  The percentage of total freight sent by(a) road and (b) rail in each year since 1979 is as follows:

  Year

  Rail percentage of billion tonne KMs

  Road percentage of billion tonne KMs

  1979

  11

  55

  1980

  10

  53

  1981

  10

  54

  767

  Year

  Rail percentage of billion tonne KMs

  Road percentage of billion tonne KMs

  1982

  9

  53

  1983

  9

  52

  1984

  7

  55

  1985

  8

  55

  1986

  9

  56

  1987

  9

  58

  1988

  8

  60

  1989

  8

  62

  1990

  7

  62

  1991

  7

  61

  1992

  7

  61

  1993

  7

  64

  1994

  6

  65

  Source:

  TSGB, 1995.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to increase the proportion of freight carried by rail and decrease the proportion of freight carried by road. [41758]

  Mr. Watts
  Rail must improve its performance if it is to attract new traffic and retain existing freight customers. The key to this is liberalisation and privatisation. We have already opened up the rail network to competition. Privatisation of British Rail's freight businesses will follow as soon as possible.

  Rail freight is being further encouraged by a considerably enhanced grants regime. Some 145 grants have been awarded since 1979, with a total value of £100 million at today's prices, securing traffic to rail equivalent to over 2.5 million lorry journeys per year.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the total amount of EU funds that have been made available to the channel tunnel rail link; for what purposes and to which organisations; and if he will make a statement. [41761]

  Mr. Watts
  Grant has been provided from the transport infrastructure programme since 1991 to support Union Railway's expenditure on feasibility studies for the channel tunnel rail link project. The payments made are as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1991

  4.0

  1992

  9.6

  Directive number

  Title

  Outstanding action

  95/21/EC

  On the enforcement, in respect of shipping using Community ports and sailing in the waters under the jurisdiction of the member states, of international standards for ship safety, pollution prevention and shipboard living and working conditions (port state control).The Regulations are being redrafted and it is intended to have domestic legislation in place at the beginning of 1996.

  94/57/EC

  Concerning common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations.

  Draft regulations are being prepared and will be the subject of public consultation. No Parliamentary timetable has yet been set.

  768

  Year

  £ million

  1993

  8.0

  1994

  14.7

  Total

  36.3

  Note:

  £1 = 1.25 ECU.

  The Commission has recently awarded £13.6 million feasibility studies grant to Union Railways from the 1995 trans-European networks programme. This programme has replaced the transport infrastructure programme.

  Union Railways, a Government-owned company, is responsible for CTRL project development. Its feasibility studies work includes environmental and consultation work, geotechnical surveys, business planning and engineering design.

  Drivers' and Pilots' Working Hours
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what transport issues relating to(a) drivers' hours and (b) pilots' hours are currently before the EC's Social Committee and what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on each of them. [41766]

  Mr. Norris
  The European Commission's Joint Transport Committee on Road Transport is carrying out a survey of drivers' working hours in member states and has been asked to produce conclusions on the adoption of working time into the EU regulation on drivers' hours rules. The committee comprises representatives from employer organisations and unions. The Government are not party to these discussions but will consider the report when produced.

  We are not aware of any issues relating to pilots' hours before European Commission committees at present. However, flight and duty time for aircrew are being considered by the joint aviation authorities and we will consider any recommendation they propose.

  European Directives
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 31 October,Official Report, column 136, if he will list the 12 directives under consideration indicating the action required or being taken in each case and the timetable for parliamentary consideration in each case. [41598]

  Mr. Watts
  My answer of 31 October should have said that only 11 directives require secondary legislation. These directives are listed, along with the action required or being taken in each case:
  769

  Directive number

  Title

  Outstanding action

  94/58/EC

  Concerning the minimum level of training for seafarers.

  The vast majority of the IMO Standards for Training, Certification and Watchkeeping regulations have already been implemented. New legislation is required only for that part dealing with communication by the crew.

  Number not yet assigned

  On the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the charging of infrastructure fees.

  Discussions are underway with industry partners in advance of preparation of secondary legislation.

  Number not yet assigned

  On the licensing of railway undertakings.

  Discussions are underway with industry partners in advace of preparation of secondary legislation.

  87/540

  Access to the occupation of carrier of goods by waterway in national and international transport, and on the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications for this occupation.

  The United Kingdom benefits from a derogation for United Kingdom domestic carriers. Secondary legislation is being drafted to provide for certification for United Kingdom carriers operating in other member states and for the recognition in the United Kingdom of certificates granted in other member states for non-United Kingdom carriers using United Kingdom inland waterways.

  94/56

  On the investigation of civil aviation accidents and incidents.

  Implementation of this directive entails amendments to both primary and secondary legislation. It is anticipated that this will be completed before the obligatory date of 21 November.

  92/97

  Amends 70/157 in respect of the permissible sound level and the exhaust system of vehicles.

  Regulations applying this directive to new vehicle types came into effect on 1 October 1995. Regulations applying it to all vehicles entering into service are in preparation and will come into effect on 1 October 1996. Subject to statutory consultation the latter will be made and laid in Parliament early in 1996.

  93/75

  Minimum requirements for vessels bound for or leaving Community ports and carrying dangerous or polluting goods.

  This directive as implemented on 31 October 1995.

  94/55

  On the approximation of the laws of member states with regard to the transport of dangerous goods by road.

  The Health and Safety Executive will soon publish draft regulations for consultation. The regulations are expected to be laid before Parliament in the summer of 1996.

  91/439

  On driving licences.

  Draft regulations amending primary legislation are now with Parliamentary Counsel. The drafting of regulations to amend secondary legislation is in hand. It is not possible at present to indicate when either set of regulations will be submitted to Parliament.

  Cycling
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures exist, or are proposed, to increase cycle use to 10 per cent. of all urban journeys by 2005. [41757]

  Mr. Norris
  We have taken a number of initiatives which are designed to encourage and increase the number of people cycling. I announced in June this year that we intended to identify national targets for more cycling use. The steering group that we have set up to generate a national strategy for cycling will consider what targets are most appropriate.

  Railways (Expenditure)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list figures for total Government spending on the railways for the current year and in each of the last 10 years. [41809]
  770
  Mr. Watts
  The table provides details of the railways' external finance requirement for each year since 1985–86.

  £ million cash

  1985–86

  910

  1986–87

  777

  1987–88

  545

  1988–89

  376

  1989–90

  711

  1990–91

  1,077

  1991–92

  1,464

  1992–93

  2,064

  1993–94

  1,461

  1994–95

  1,541

  1995–96

  1 975

  Notes:

  1 Planned figure.

  1. From 1987–88, figures exclude movements in payroll creditors.

  Ro-ro Ferries
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the decision by the Council of Ministers in respect of the European Parliament's proposal in respect of the safety management certificates of ro-ro ferries visiting EU ports. [41759]

  Mr. Norris
  This is an operational matter for the Marine Safety Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from R.M. Bradley to Mr. Graham Allen dated 7 November 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your request that he make a statement on the decision by the Council of Ministers in respect of the European Parliament's proposal in respect of the Safety Management Certificates of ro-ro ferries visiting EU ports.
  The UK fully supports this proposal which will require all such ro-ro passenger ferries to carry a Safety Management Certificate from the 1 July 1996 regardless of the flag of the vessel.

  Council of Transport Ministers
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make available the minutes of the last EU Council of Transport Ministers meeting on 28 September. [41760]

  Mr. Watts
  Details of the voting at the Transport Council were set out in my right hon. Friend's reply of 6 November to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes). Minutes of the Council meetings prior to a Council decision of 2 October 1995 on the release of such minutes were not routinely made public. However, the Council Secretariat has issued a press release reporting on the outcome of the Transport Council. I shall send a copy to the hon. Member.

  Rail Commuters
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which five cities have the lowest percentage of commuters using rail. [41331]

  Mr. Watts
  This information is not held by my Department.

  Road Accident Statistics
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list for each police force area the number of children killed or injured while travelling on school transport for each of the last five years; [40998]

  (2) if he will list for each police force area the number of fatalities resulting from accidents involving heavy goods vehicles for each of the last five years. [40997]

  Mr. Norris
  Available information is shown in the following tables.

  School pupil casualties (travelling to or from school) on a minibus or PSV by police region, severity and year

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Metropolitan Police

  Fatal

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Serious

  18

  10

  9

  7

  1

  Slight

  35

  40

  80

  43

  34

  772

  School pupil casualties (travelling to or from school) on a minibus or PSV by police region, severity and year

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Cumbria

  Fatal

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Serious

  0

  1

  0

  3

  1

  Slight

  9

  0

  5

  3

  3

  Lancashire

  Fatal

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Serious

  0

  0

  0

  4

  0

  Slight

  7

  3

  7

  35

  26

  Merseyside

  Fatal

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Serious

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  Slight

  14

  9

  14

  20

  63

  Greater Manchester

  Fatal

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Serious

  1

  2

  1

  0

  1

  Slight

  28

  25

  30

  21

  32

  Cheshire

  Fatal

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Serious

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Slight

  6

  3

  14

  2

  3

  Northumbria

  Fatal

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Serious

  1

  2

  0

  0

  2

  Slight

  12

  9

  7

  9

  31

  Durham

  Fatal

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Serious

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  Slight

  21

  8

  7

  61

  5

  North Yorkshire

  Fatal

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Serious

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Slight

  15

  25

  1

  6

  6

  West Yorkshire

  Fatal

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Serious

  0

  0

  3

  0

  2

  Slight

  19

  26

  12

  79

  35

  South Yorkshire

  Fatal

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Serious

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  Slight

  10

  4

  20

  13

  25

  Humberside

  Fatal

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Serious

  1

  0

  0

  19

  2

  Slight

  5

  7

  7

  54

  2

  Cleveland

  Fatal

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Serious

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Slight

  1

  3

  2

  1

  0

  West Midlands

  Fatal

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Serious

  0

  0

  1

  2

  0

  Slight

  0

  12

  7

  23

  12

  Staffordshire

  Fatal

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Serious

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Slight

  34

  4

  5

  14

  39

  773

  School pupil casualties (travelling to or from school) on a minibus or PSV by police region, severity and year

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  West Mercia

  Fatal

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Serious

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Slight

  14

  21

  10

  27

  14

  Warwickshire

  Fatal

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Serious

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Slight

  3

  2

  6

  0

  6

  Derbyshire

  Fatal

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Serious

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Slight

  13

  4

  1

  7

  4

  Nottinghamshire

  Fatal

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Serious

  1

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Slight

  11

  11

  9

  12

  18

  Lincolnshire

  Fatal

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Serious

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Slight

  7

  17

  5

  43

  10

  Leicestershire

  Fatal

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Serious

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Slight

  25

  18

  28

  0

  1

  Northamptonshire

  Fatal

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Serious

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Slight

  1

  4

  2

  0

  4

  Cambridgeshire

  Fatal

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Serious

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  Slight

  0

  4

  8

  0

  0

  Norfolk

  Fatal

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Serious

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Slight

  5

  60

  1

  5

  0

  Suffolk

  Fatal

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Serious

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Slight

  20

  2

  25

  4

  5

  Bedfordshire

  Fatal

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Serious

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Slight

  2

  7

  2

  2

  2

  Hertfordshire

  Fatal

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Serious

  1

  0

  0

  5

  0

  Slight

  7

  0

  25

  9

  1

  Essex

  Fatal

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Serious

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Slight

  9

  2

  4

  28

  9

  Thames Valley

  Fatal

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Serious

  2

  0

  2

  1

  0

  Slight

  7

  26

  70

  35

  22

  774

  School pupil casualties (travelling to or from school) on a minibus or PSV by police region, severity and year

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Hampshire

  Fatal

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Serious

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  Slight

  11

  3

  16

  0

  22

  Surry

  Fatal

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Serious

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Slight

  19

  3

  1

  39

  1

  Kent

  Fatal

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Serious

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Slight

  11

  2

  3

  10

  6

  Sussex

  Fatal

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Serious

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Slight

  8

  3

  20

  1

  14

  City of London1

  Fatal

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Serious

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Slight

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Devon and Cornwall

  Fatal

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Serious

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Slight

  46

  5

  3

  5

  7

  Avon and Somerset

  Fatal

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Serious

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Slight

  2

  7

  2

  7

  6

  Gloucestershire

  Fatal

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Serious

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Slight

  18

  0

  0

  13

  22

  Wiltshire

  Fatal

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Serious

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Slight

  0

  4

  30

  1

  0

  Dorset

  Fatal

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Serious

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Slight

  20

  0

  10

  1

  10

  North Wales

  Fatal

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Serious

  0

  0

  0

  0

  6

  Slight

  5

  1

  5

  64

  93

  Gwent

  Fatal

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Serious

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Slight

  15

  30

  1

  3

  17

  South Wales

  Fatal

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Serious

  0

  2

  1

  0

  0

  Slight

  13

  22

  47

  32

  21

  Dyfed-Powys

  Fatal

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Serious

  2

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Slight

  30

  7

  7

  0

  23

  775

  School pupil casualties (travelling to or from school) on a minibus or PSV by police region, severity and year

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Northern

  Fatal

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Serious

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Slight

  2

  2

  1

  2

  8

  Grampian

  Fatal

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Serious

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Slight

  5

  3

  2

  3

  3

  Tayside

  Fatal

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Serious

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Slight

  16

  2

  1

  2

  1

  Fife

  Fatal

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Serious

  2

  0

  1

  1

  1

  Slight

  30

  1

  12

  1

  4

  Lothian and Borders

  Fatal

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Serious

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Slight

  2

  3

  7

  11

  12

  Central

  Fatal

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Serious

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Slight

  14

  20

  4

  10

  4

  Strathclyde

  Fatal

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Serious

  0

  4

  1

  1

  5

  Slight

  22

  22

  17

  11

  78

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Fatal

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Serious

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Slight

  1

  2

  0

  6

  0

  Total Fatal

  0

  1

  1

  3

  2

  Serious

  46

  30

  26

  51

  31

  Slight

  630

  498

  603

  778

  766

  1 Included in Metropolitan area.

  Notes:

  1. The Police do not record the purpose for which the vehicle is being used when involved in injury accidents. Consequently the Mr. Norris: The Mayday call is used where there is a table includes all minibuses and PSV's where a school pupil travelling to or from school was killed or injured.

  2. Scchool pupils have been classified as those aged fifteen and is required. under.

  Fatalities from accidents involving HGVs by police area and year

  Police Force Code

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Metropolitan Police

  58

  37

  39

  44

  41

  Cumbria

  33

  14

  18

  17

  11

  Lancashire

  23

  8

  11

  11

  13

  Merseyside

  9

  6

  7

  10

  7

  Greater Manchester

  23

  24

  24

  22

  11

  Cheshire

  20

  32

  16

  18

  19

  Northumbria

  17

  14

  13

  5

  6

  Durham

  11

  12

  8

  7

  3

  North Yorkshire

  23

  36

  21

  23

  18

  West Yorkshire

  25

  24

  16

  25

  18

  South Yorkshire

  13

  10

  12

  20

  8

  Humberside

  11

  11

  19

  15

  15

  Cleveland

  1

  8

  2

  0

  1

  West Midlands

  35

  14

  23

  12

  14

  Staffordshire

  18

  12

  12

  8

  19

  West Mercia

  31

  18

  23

  30

  31

  776

  Fatalities from accidents involving HGVs by police area and year

  Police Force Code

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Warwickshire

  3

  7

  16

  22

  8

  Derbyshire

  13

  22

  17

  23

  13

  Nottinghamshire

  22

  21

  12

  9

  15

  Lincolnshire

  39

  16

  20

  18

  18

  Leicestershire

  15

  20

  24

  20

  13

  Northamptonshire

  24

  23

  11

  12

  6

  Cambridgeshire

  30

  18

  15

  10

  18

  Norfolk

  17

  15

  22

  18

  22

  Suffolk

  9

  6

  9

  10

  9

  Bedfordshire

  12

  8

  20

  15

  7

  Hertfordshire

  17

  11

  8

  11

  8

  Essex

  28

  28

  21

  17

  6

  Thames Valley

  46

  35

  34

  24

  25

  Hampshire

  34

  21

  17

  18

  16

  Surrey

  13

  11

  4

  5

  5

  Kent

  17

  21

  27

  22

  14

  Sussex

  17

  12

  16

  14

  7

  City of London1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Devon and Cornwall

  11

  11

  13

  17

  8

  Avon and Somerset

  18

  25

  21

  15

  11

  Gloucestershire

  17

  12

  10

  4

  13

  Wiltshire

  14

  15

  18

  14

  16

  Dorset

  6

  13

  8

  4

  14

  North Wales

  10

  18

  4

  12

  10

  Gwent

  3

  2

  6

  1

  5

  South Wales

  9

  5

  9

  7

  11

  Dyfed-Powys

  17

  13

  11

  9

  14

  Northern

  7

  8

  5

  7

  7

  Grampian

  9

  9

  11

  9

  12

  Tayside

  7

  13

  11

  9

  7

  Fife

  5

  2

  2

  4

  5

  Lothian and Borders

  15

  11

  15

  9

  6

  Central

  5

  3

  3

  3

  3

  Strathclyde

  22

  36

  27

  27

  26

  Dumfries and Galloway

  3

  11

  11

  13

  7

  Total

  885

  782

  742

  699

  620

  1 Included in Metropolitan area.

  Heathrow Airport (Emergency Calls)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the numbers and categories of Mayday aircraft for Heathrow airport for the last 10 years. [42114]

  Mr. Norris
  The Mayday call is used where there is a serious and/or imminent danger and immediate assistance is required.

  Mayday calls are normally made to air traffic control centres rather than to airport. Monday calls made by aircraft bound for Heathrow airport for the last 10 years are as follows:

  Years

  Mayday calls

  1985 to 1989 inclusive

  0

  1990

  2

  1991

  0

  1992

  0

  1993

  1

  1994

  1

  1995

  1

  Hidden Report
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the legal obligation on the British Railways
  777
  Board to implement the recent recommendation of the Hidden report, following the Clapham accident, is also binding on Railtrack. [42082]

  Mr. Watts
  Railtrack, like the British Railways Board, implements railway accident inquiry recommendations relating to its responsibilities according to the principles of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. The Act is based on reducing risks as low as reasonably practicable, taking into account costs and safety benefits.

  All the Hidden report recommendations addressed to British Rail and the British Transport police have either been implemented, or have alternative actions in hand, or are on-going. The position on outstanding recommendations is recorded in my reply to a question by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) on 16 October 1995, columns 86–87.

  A350
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate of future traffic flows has been made by his Department for the A350 between the M4 and Warminster in both directions. [41856]

  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. David Faber, dated 7 November 1995:
  As you know, the Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts, has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking the Secretary of State for Transport, what estimate of future traffic flows has been made by his Department for the A350 between the M4 and Warminster in both directions.
  The A350 is a principal road for which Wiltshire County Council is the highways authority. However, the Highways Agency have carried out limited traffic survey work on the A350 at West Aston to the east of Trowbridge, in connection with our trunk road proposals for the A36 East of Bath-Beckington Improvement scheme. The annual average two-way daily flow forecast for the year 2018 at West Aston is in the range 27,000–35,000 if there is no improvement to the A36, and in the 18,000–24,000 if the A36 East of Bath-Beckington Improvement scheme is built to dual carriageway standard on the preferred route.

  International Marine Safety Corps
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy towards re-establishing an international marine safety corps to inspect vessels globally. [41595]

  Mr. Norris
  The original international marine safety corps was set up in 1978 primarily to provide expert advice to developing countries in the formulation of regulations and survey procedure.

  International co-operation in maritime safety has now advanced to a point where re-establishment of such a corps would no longer be appropriate or necessary.

  Roads Expenditure
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list total Government spending on roads in each year for the last 10 years. [41808]

  Mr. Watts
  The information requested regarding total Government spending on roads, in cash terms in each year for the last 10 years is set out below in £ million:778

  1985–86: 1,317.8

  1986–87: 1,391.8

  1987–88: 1,476.6

  1988–89: 1,599.3

  1989–90: 1,852.5

  1990–91: 2,435.4

  1991–92: 2,623.8

  1992–93: 2,919.3

  1993–94: 3,084.6

  1994–95: 2,929.2

  European Court Decisions
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the oral answer of the Attorney-General of 30 October,Official Report, column 12, relating to decisions of the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights, if he will list those European Court decisions relating to responsibilities of his Department over the past two years; and what was the estimated annual cost to public funds of each decision. [41217]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 2 November 1995]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given today by my hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Foreign Office.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 November. [40299]

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 November. [40300]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister is travelling to New Zealand to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting.

  Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of the 31 October 1995,Official Report, column 96, regarding membership of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, if he will make a further statement. [41994]

  The Prime Minister
  I understand that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) was a member of Parliamentary Labour CND in the 1980s. I would be delighted if he has since recanted his views.

  Council of Europe and Western European Union
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of the information bulletin on the activities of the United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Assembly of the Western European Union covering the period March to September 1995. [42215]

  The Prime Minister
  I have done so today.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Terrorist Offences
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people were first prosecuted for terrorist type offences(a) in the year prior to the 1 September 1994 in respect of crimes occurring before 1 September 1993 and (b) in the year prior to 1 September 1995 in respect of crimes occurring over a year before that date. [38483]

  Sir John Wheeler
  I will write to the hon. and learned Gentleman as soon as possible.

  Occupational Health and Safety
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what public funds have been made available to the Northern Ireland occupational health and safety group over the last three years. [40887]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Since 1 April 1992 the Health and Safety Agency for Northern Ireland has contributed £11,226 to initiatives involving the Northern Ireland occupational health and safety group. Details are provided in the table.

  Financial year

  Purpose of payment

  Amount £

  1992–93

  Purchase of display stand space at Group conference

  130

  1993–94

  Contribution towards costs of Group safety quiz and three Group safety awareness seminars

  5,500

  1994–95

  Contribution towards costs of Group safety quiz, school leavers' seminars and school video project

  4,450

  1995–961

  Costs of advertising occupational safety awards scheme

  1,146

  Total

  11,226

  1 To date.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consideration is given in the rules relating to the Child Support Agency to pre-existing debts owned by the absent parent; what assessment he has made as to whether the regulations are leading to bankruptcies; and what evidence he has as to the relationship between claims for incapacity benefit and the agency's financial demands. [40890]

  Mr. Moss
  At present no allowance is made for pre-existing debts in the child support maintenance formula. Such debts will, however, be considered under the proposed departure system, which it is anticipated will come into force towards the end of 1996.

  While we have undertaken no formal evaluation, there is no indication that child support regulations have led to bankruptcies; nor is there any evidence of a relationship between claims for incapacity benefits and the requirements to pay child support maintenance.

  Temporary and Part-time Staff
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many staff are currently employed in his Department and in related agencies on(a) temporary or casual employment contracts and (b) part-time employment contracts, given as an actual figure and as a proportion of the total workforce; and what were the corresponding figures for five years ago. [41118]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested is listed:

  Temporary/casual employment

  Percentage of total workforce

  Part-time employment

  Percentage of total workforce

  1995

  1,365

  5.21

  1,910

  7.29

  1990

  1,137

  4.18

  754

  2.77

  The 1990 figures for civilian staff of the Prison Service are not included as the information is not held in the format requested.

  Official Inquiries
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list all the official inquiries he and his Department have undertaken over the last five years indicating the dates they were initiated and the dates when findings were released to the public. [41449]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information is as follows:

  Official enquiries

  Date initiated

  Date findings released to public

  The Stormont Fire and Fire Safety in Crown Buildings Inquiry

  January 1995

  April 1995

  'An Abuse of Trust' an investigation by the Social Services Inspectorate

  November 1992

  January 1994

  Review of the Operational Policy in Belfast Prison for the Management of Paramilitary Prisoners from opposing factions.

  December 1991

  March 192

  Business Assistance
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people who have been helped to return to business in Northern Ireland by the local enterprise development unit, have also received assistance from(a) Industrial research and technology unit and (b) the Training and Employment Agency. [41896]

  Sir John Wheeler
  One company which was established following the original launch of LEDU's "Making it Back Home" campaign in 1991 has received assistance from both the Training and Employment Agency and the industrial research and technology unit.

  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many businesses in Northern Ireland have(a) applied for assistance from the export marketing research scheme and (b) been granted

  781
  assistance by the export marketing research scheme in the past five years in Northern Ireland. [41904]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Since March 1990, 11 Northern Ireland companies have applied for assistance under the export marketing research scheme. Of these, eight applications were successful and three were rejected.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what public funds were invested in the Rath Mor community business centre in Creggan, Londonderry; what assistance was given to the project by the International Fund for Ireland; what plans there are for the location of a Wellworths supermarket in the centre; and if he will make a statement about the availability of public funds for supermarket chains from(a) Great Britain; and (b) the Republic of Ireland locating in Northern Ireland. [41947]

  Mr. Moss
  The public sector contribution to the Rath Mor centre comprised a grant of £1.08 million and a loan of £0.27 million paid by the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland together with an amount of £12,500 paid by the local enterprise development unit of the Department of Economic Development.

  I understand that the International Fund for Ireland has assisted the development. The fund is administered by an independent board appointed jointly by the two Governments. All disbursements are a matter for that Board and questions regarding them should be directed to the fund's chairman, Mr. William T. McCarter, PO Box 2000, Belfast BT4 3SA.

  Wellworths has occupied the supermarket unit in the Rath Mor centre since it opened.

  There are no public funds available for supermarket chains from Great Britain or the Republic of Ireland wishing to locate in Northern Ireland.

  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money will be available in total every year for the "Making it Back Home" scheme. [41898]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The initial budget will be £2 million next year. Experience from that year will help set future budgets.

  Jobskills Programme
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he will list the names of the Training and Employment Agency approved providers of the jobskills programme in Northern Ireland; [41900]

  (2) how many people are currently participating in jobskills programmes in Northern Ireland (a) in the 16–24 year age group, (b) in the 25–60 year age group, (c) who have never been in employment and (d) who have been unemployed for more than one year; [41902]

  (3) how many of the participants in the jobskills programme in Northern Ireland are currently on a jobskills access course. [41901]

  Mr. Ancram
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Training and Employment Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Ian Walters. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  782
  A list of organisations approved by the Training and Employment Agency to provide training for the jobskills programme has been placed in the library.

  Letter from Ian Walters to Ms Marjorie Mowlam, dated 6 November 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me, as the Chief Executive of the Training and Employment Agency, to reply to your questions about Jobskills.

  1. Question No 1683

  Attached is a list of the organisations approved by the Training and Employment Agency to provide training for the Jobskills programme.

  2. Question No 1696

  The numbers of participants in Jobskills Access from the latest information available at 13 October 1995 is 1,496.

  3. Question No 1691

  From the latest information available the number of people participating in the Jobskills programme at 13 October 1995:

  (a) in the 16–24 year age group is 9,104;

  (b) in the 25–60 year age group is 1,477.

  The eligibility conditions for entry to Jobskills do not require information from participants which would provide answers to questions (c) and (d).

  I hope you find this helpful.

  Investors (Visits)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many investors visited the(a) district of Down (b) borough of Castlereagh (c) borough of Ards at the request of the industrial development board in each of the past 10 years and if he will make a statement about the number of new jobs promoted by the IDB in each of these areas. [41908]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested on the number of visits by investors is not available for all of the period specified and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The table shows the number of IDB sponsored visits by potential investors to the areas concerned between April 1993 and September 1995.

  Visits by investors

  District Council

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96 (to 30 September)

  Total

  Newtownards

  10

  3

  1

  14

  Castlereagh

  5

  3

  5

  13

  Down

  2

  10

  3

  15

  In the past 10 years IDB has promoted a total of 2,863 jobs in the areas concerned as follows:

  District council area

  Down

  Castlereagh

  Ards

  Total

  1985–86

  10

  141

  155

  306

  1986–87

  67

  168

  247

  482

  1987–88

  108

  124

  298

  530

  1988–89

  318

  95

  164

  577

  1989–90

  24

  404

  67

  495

  1990–91

  —

  68

  50

  118

  1991–92

  —

  84

  149

  233

  1992–93

  —

  18

  49

  67

  1993–94

  —

  —

  41

  41

  1994–95

  —

  —

  14

  14

  Total

  527

  1,102

  1,234

  2,863

  European Regional Funds
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if private sector funding is admissible to match funding available under the European Union objective 1 funding programmes for Northern Ireland; [41889]

  (2) if private sector funding is admissible to match funding available under European Union objective 2 funding programmes for Northern Ireland. [41890]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Northern Ireland is entirely an objective 1 region and as such the Government welcome private sector contributions to projects which the structural funds support. Where activities merit and are eligible for support under approved programmes in Northern Ireland private sector contributions are admissible as matching funding.

  Radioactivity
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what systems are in place to monitor levels of radioactivity in the seas surrounding Northern Ireland and how often such monitoring is carried out. [41891]

  Mr. Moss
  In Northern Ireland the Department of the Environment's chief inspector, appointed under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993, monitors levels of radioactivity in the Irish sea and the Northern Ireland coastal environment.

  The inspectorate arranges for samples of seaweed, sediment, fish, nephrops and winkles to be collected and forwarded for analysis by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's fisheries research laboratory at Lowestoft. Samples are taken quarterly except in the case of sediments, where the frequency is six monthly. The Northern Ireland results are published annually in the MAFF report "Radioactivity in Surface and Coastal Waters of the British Isles" and in the Northern Ireland abstract of statistics.

  In addition to this programme the inspectorate monitors the gamma dose rate in air over intertidal sediments in each district council in Northern Ireland with a coastline.

  Peace and Reconciliation Programme
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what have been the administration costs to date to the Northern Ireland Office for the management and distribution of the European special support programme for peace and reconciliation. [41894]

  Sir John Wheeler
  To date, the administration of the European special support programme for peace and reconciliation has been undertaken by the Department of Finance and Personnel and other Northern Ireland Departments from within their existing resources. This activity is undertaken alongside other activities and has not been separately costed. As is the case with other structural fund programmes, the costs of this administration will not be scored against the programme.

  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if private sector funding is admissible to match funding available under the European Union programme for peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland. [41888]
  784
  Sir John Wheeler
  The Government welcome private sector contributions to projects which the structural funds support. As is the case with all other European programmes, there is scope for the private sector and private finance to play their part in the special support programme for peace and reconciliation.

  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much of the funding allocated under the European Union special support programme for peace and reconciliation has been distributed to organisations in Northern Ireland to date; and what percentage this is of the total planned spending for the first year of the programme. [41893]

  Sir John Wheeler
  To date, no funding from the special support programme for peace and reconciliation has been distributed to organisations outside central Government in Northern Ireland, though provisional allocations have been determined for all measures. It is hoped that payments under the technical assistance sub-programme and for some projects can be made in November 1995. This reflects the need to establish the novel delivery mechanisms envisaged in the programme, including the need to develop contracts between the European Commission, Northern Ireland departments and intermediary funding bodies. In addition, the Government recognise that small organisations, which would not usually apply for funding, must be given time to submit an application. Any funds unspent in the first year of the programme will be carried forward to future years.

  Asbestos Pipes
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of(a) the presence and (b) the effects on health of asbestos fibres in water systems using asbestos cement pipes; what proposals exist to monitor the presence of asbestos fibres in the proposed Mourne to Belfast water supply pipelines; what is the estimated cost of monitoring the pipeline during its working lifetime; and if he will make a statement about the use of asbestos cement pipes for water supply systems. [41906]

  Mr. Moss
  The Department has commissioned a study by the water research centre to advise on the use of asbestos cement pipes for public water supply. The questions asked by the right hon. Gentleman are being considered as part of the study. I will let him know the outcome of the study in due course.

  Community Work Programmes
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is(a) the target number of trainees set for the pilot projects under the community work programme in (i) Fermanagh, (ii) Strabane and (iii) west Belfast and (b) the target date for completion of the pilot projects; [41895]

  (2) how many trainees have been placed to date under the community work programme pilot project in (a) Strabane, (b) Fermanagh and (c) west Belfast. [41905]

  Mr. Ancram
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Training and Employment Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Ian Walters. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  785
  Letter from Ian Walters to Ms Marjorie Mowlam, dated 6 November 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me as Chief Executive of the Training and Employment Agency to reply to your questions on the Community Work Programme.
  The target number of participants and current occupancy in each of the pilot areas is as follows:

  Target

  Occupancy

  Fermanagh

  250

  89

  Strabane

  250

  38

  West Belfast

  500

  69

  A full evaluation of the Community Work Programme will be undertaken by March 1997 when decisions will be taken regarding the future of the Programme.

  Deregulation
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consideration led to the decision not to replicate sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 in the proposed Northern Ireland Order. [41866]

  Mr. Ancram
  This approach was not adopted because of concerns that subordinate orders, made under an Order in Council, would not be subject to formal scrutiny by Parliament— a situation substantially at odds with that in Great Britain.

  Employment Schemes
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what structures are in place to monitor the success rates of people gaining full-time employment after finishing a placement with an action for community employment scheme in Northern Ireland. [41899]

  Mr. Ancram
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Training and Employment Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Ian Walters. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Ian Walters to Ms Marjorie Mowlam, dated 6 November 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me, as Chief Executive of the Training and Employment Agency, to reply to your question about ACE.
  The ACE Leavers Survey is a biannual survey which examines the destinations of leavers three months after leaving the programme. The first survey analyses the results of those who leave in May each year with a corresponding exercise being carried out for October leavers.
  A Community Audit Return is undertaken on an annual basis. All ACE Projects are asked to provide information on a range of measures related to their performance including destinations of leavers.
  In 1994–95, 19% of ACE leavers entered full-time employment.
  I hope that you find this helpful.

  Planning Permission (Black Mountain)
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consultations with the local community took place before the Department of the Environment gave planning permission to White Quarry Industries for quarrying to go ahead in the Black Mountain area of Belfast. [41903]
  786
  Mr. Moss
  Prior to 1974, express planning permission was not required in Northern Ireland for the continuation of operations in respect of a quarry undertaking which had been in existence when planning control was first introduced in 1944. The Black Mountain quarry was such a quarry undertaking and enjoyed what were known as "existing use rights". Quarry operations were brought under control in 1974 subject to a compensation provision for loss of existing use rights. Since that date eight planning applications for planning permission for the continuation of quarrying at Black Mountain have been granted subject to conditions. Before the applications were determined, notices were placed in local newspapers, in accordance with normal statutory procedures, giving the opportunity for members of the public to make representations and objections which were taken into account before the applications were determined.

  Export Marketing Research Scheme
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money is available to employers of up to 500 workers in Northern Ireland under the export marketing research scheme. [41911]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The maximum amount of financial assistance available to Northern Ireland employers under the export marketing research scheme is £20,000 per project. A maximum of two projects can be funded annually.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list by type of project(a) how many schemes have been approved to date under the private finance initiative, (b) what is the value of those schemes and (c) what private sector contribution will be required both initially and as revenue support during the lifetime of the schemes. [41744]

  Sir John Wheeler
  No schemes under the private finance initiative, announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in November 1992, have been approved in Northern Ireland to date. A number of areas, including two pilot projects covering sewage treatment plans in the water executive with an estimated value of £20–25 million are under consideration. It is too early, however, to put a total value on these schemes or estimate what the public sector contribution is likely to be.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons in his Department are on the public payroll or employed as consultants or advisers and work on a part-time or full-time basis in relation to the Scott inquiry; if he will list their names; and how much each is paid. [42078]

  Sir John Wheeler
  None.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons have been authorised to have access to documents held by his Department relating to the Scott inquiry; and if he will list such persons. [42079]
  787
  Sir John Wheeler
  Ministers, former Ministers, officials and other advisers have access to material relating to the inquiry as necessary in order to carry out their responsibilities.

  Guided Learning Hours
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 4 April,Official Report, column 1062, what definition he intends to introduce to mirror the concept of guided learning hours appropriate to England and Wales. [41949]

  Mr. Moss
  The guided learning hours concept does not apply in Northern Ireland where the distinction between full-time and part-time courses remains clear in all sectors of education. The determining rules for Northern Ireland will continue to be that attendance at a full-time course will normally exclude a person from benefit. Attendance at a part-time course will not exclude that individual from benefit, so long as he or she remains available for and actively seeking work.

  Abortions
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will commence recording as a separate statistic the number of medical terminations of pregnancy carried out in the Northern Ireland health service; and for what reasons they are not so recorded. [42083]

  Mr. Moss
  The number of medical terminations of pregnancy carried out in the Northern Ireland health service is not collected as a separate statistic. The Abortion Act 1967 does not apply in Northern Ireland and thus there is at present no legal obligation for doing so.

  Regimental Pension Provision
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list those sections of the RUC, Royal Ulster Constabulary reserve, Ulster Defence Regiment and Royal Irish Regiment that were since 1969 ineligible to join their appropriate public sector pension scheme and if he will list(a) the dates on which they became eligible, (b) what backdating was applied and (c) in each case which sections were (i) part-time and (ii) full-time; and what plans he has to review the position of those whose service has not been pensionable. [42084]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Pension provision for the UDR and the RIR is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary.

  The RUC full-time reserve was given access to the RUC pension scheme on 1 July 1994 and awarded full credit for service from 6 April 1988.

  The RUC part-time reserve does not have access to the RUC pension scheme. However, in the light of a recent European Union directive, a review of the terms and conditions, including pensions, of part-time employees generally will be undertaken by the Northern Ireland Office.

  Former members of the Ulster Special Constabulary who on 1 March 1969 had less than 10 years' continuous mobilised service or who had 10 or more years of such service but elected to retain their mobilised status, and
  788
  who were subsequently embodied in the RUC on 1 May 1970 as full-time "auxiliary constables", are entitled under the terms of the RUC Pensions Regulations 1988 to a gratuity rather than a pension. Their entitlement is under review at present.

  Civil Service Transfers
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to add to the categories of compassionate grounds for facilitating inter-service transfers between the Northern Ireland and home civil service of those civil servants who marry a person resident in Great Britain and vice versa. [42085]

  Sir John Wheeler
  I have no plans to add to the categories of compassionate grounds for facilitating inter-service transfers. As I said in my reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman on 16 October 1995,Official Report, column 177, the criteria for compassionate transfers between the Northern Ireland civil service and the home civil service include those who need to move to be with their spouse. A civil servant seeking a transfer because of marriage to a person resident in Great Britain or vice versa would be eligible for consideration.

  However, movement is dependent on suitable vacancies being available and the recent contraction of both services has reduced opportunities for transfers.

  Ulster Scots Language
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the Arts Council's policy in respect of initiatives to support the Ulster Scots language. [42087]

  Mr. Ancram
  I shall write to the hon. and learned Gentleman as soon as possible.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will propose to the Arts Council that it(a) takes steps to give symbolic recognition to the Ulster Scots language and (b) produces part of its annual report in that language. [42088]

  Mr. Ancram
  I shall write to the hon. and Learned Gentleman as soon as possible.

  Annual Remuneration
  Mr. Malcom Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many individuals in(a) his Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies received annual remuneration including benefits in kind exceeding (i) £100,000, (ii) £200,000 and (iii) £300,000 in each year since 1985–86. [40858]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 1 November 1995]: Other than pension contributions, benefits in kind are not normally paid to staff in the Northern Ireland Office and NI Departments, agencies and NDPBs. As members of the principal civil service pensions scheme, staff receive benefits in accordance with the scheme rules which have been deposited in the Library of the House. The numbers receiving annual remuneration above the sums specified, excluding pension benefits, in the years in question, is not available in some Departments prior to 1992–93. In 1992–

  789
  93, one individual received annual remuneration exceeding £100,000.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Ministerial Information Systems
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he has established a MINIS system for his office. [41468]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  Yes.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list by type of project(a) how many schemes have been approved to date under the private finance initiative, (b) what is the value of those schemes and (c) what public sector contribution will be required both initially and as revenue support during the lifetime of the schemes. [41736]

  Mr. Horam
  The Cabinet Office, including the Office of Public Service, HMSO and the Central Office of Information have not approved any schemes to date under the private finance initiative.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list by type of project(a) how many schemes have been approved to date under the private finance initiative, (b) what is the value of those schemes and (c) what public sector contribution will be required both initially and as revenue support during the lifetime of the schemes. [41735]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  In respect of the Cabinet Office (Office of Public Service), HMSO, and COI, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many persons in(a) his Office and (b) the Central Office of Information are on the public payroll or employed as consultants or advisers and work on a part-time or full-time basis in relation to the Scott inquiry; if he will list them; and how much each is paid. [42070]

  Mr. Freeman
  There are no staff within my private office or within the Central Office of Information wholly employed on matters relating to the Scott inquiry. It is not possible to identify the number of people involved on a part-time or occasional basis within my private office or the Central Office of Information or as external consultants or advisers. It is not the practice to name staff or external advisers.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many persons have been authorised to have

  Local Education Authority net current expenditure on education administration

  Cash prices

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  £000

  Percentage of total education1spending

  £000

  Percentage of total education1spending

  £000

  Percentage of total education1spending

  £000

  Percentage of total education1spending

  Clywd

  5,992

  3.9

  7,903

  4.4

  8,057

  4.1

  7,585

  4.7

  Dyfed

  5,847

  4.3

  5,370

  3.5

  8,262

  4.8

  6,865

  4.3

  Gwent

  n/a

  n/a

  6,821

  3.5

  7,184

  3.5

  6,707

  3.5

  790
  access to documents held by (a) his Office and (b) the Central Office of Information relating to the Scott inquiry; and if he will list such persons. [42071]

  Mr. Freeman
  Ministers, former Ministers, officials and other advisers have access to material relating to the inquiry as necessary in order to carry out their responsibilities.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many persons have been authorised to have access to documents held by the Deputy Prime Minister's Office and the Office of Public Service relating to the Scott inquiry; and if he will list such persons. [42056]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  Ministers, former Ministers, officials and other advisers have access to material relating to the inquiry as necessary in order to carry out their responsibilities.

WALES

  Local Education Authorities (Administrative Costs)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list by local eduation authority the number of administrative staff employed and the administrative costs in cash and constant terms, indicating the percentage of total education spending in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [41159]

  Mr. Richards
  The latest available outturn information is given in the tables. Administration expenditure includes service strategy and regulation and management and administration within the education management and support services sector. Administration expenditure was charged directly to the relevant parts of the education service in 1990–91 for Gwent, 1990–91 and 1991–92 for Gwynedd and 1993–94 for Powys, and is not available separately. Outturn information is not available on a consistent basis for 1989–90.

  The number of administrative staff employed by education authorities cannot be identified from the information held centrally. The estimated number of full-time and part-time non-manual staff employed in the education service, other than lecturers and teachers, in June 1994 was 11,050–8,870 full-time equivalents.

  This comprises all non-manual support staff identified as employed within the education service and includes administrative, secretarial and clerical staff, youth and community workers, nursery and other non-teaching classroom assistants, library staff serving educational establishments, educational psychologists and careers guidance staff. Figures for individual education authorities are not published by the Local Government Management Board because estimates at this level of disaggregation are not sufficiently reliable.
  791

  Local Education Authority net current expenditure on education administration

  Cash prices

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  £000

  Percentage of total education1spending

  £000

  Percentage of total education1spending

  £000

  Percentage of total education1spending

  £000

  Percentage of total education1spending

  Gwynedd

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  4,553

  4.2

  4,081

  4.1

  Mid Glamorgan

  9,347

  4.3

  9,459

  3.8

  11,221

  4.4

  10,501

  4.2

  Powys

  2,290

  4.8

  2,254

  4.1

  3,283

  5.4

  n/a

  n/a

  South Glamorgan

  4,519

  3.1

  5,406

  3.2

  3,920

  2.3

  2,696

  1.7

  West Glamorgan

  5,245

  3.6

  5,131

  3.2

  6,293

  3.7

  4,586

  3.0

  Constant 1994–95 prices

  Clywd

  6,948

  3.9

  8,625

  4.4

  8,449

  4.1

  7,722

  4.7

  Dyfed

  6,779

  4.3

  5,861

  3.5

  8,664

  4.8

  6,989

  4.3

  Gwent

  n/a

  n/a

  7,444

  3.5

  7,534

  3.5

  6,828

  3.5

  Gwynedd

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  4,775

  4.2

  4,155

  4.1

  Mid Glamorgan

  10,838

  4.3

  10,323

  3.8

  11,767

  4.4

  10,691

  4.2

  Powys

  2,655

  4.8

  2,460

  4.1

  3,443

  5.4

  n/a

  n/a

  South Glamorgan

  5,240

  3.1

  5,900

  3.2

  4,111

  2.3

  2,745

  1.7

  West Glamorgan

  6,081

  3.6

  5,600

  3.2

  6,599

  3.7

  4,669

  3.0

  1Excluding school catering.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many students taking places in teacher training for(a) primary and early years and (b) secondary in each of the last three years were able to teach through the medium of Welsh; and if he will make a statement about the extent to which all schools will have sufficient staff to meet the Welsh language requirements of the national curriculum. [41156]

  Mr. Richards
  The number of student teachers enrolled on to Welsh medium primary and secondary initial teacher training courses in the period 1992 to 1994 is shown in the table. Enrolment figures for 1995 are not yet available.

  Primary

  Secondary

  Total

  1992

  229

  95

  324

  1993

  197

  103

  300

  1994

  203

  121

  324

  In addition, students on English medium courses of training, but who are Welsh speaking, may also be available to teach in Welsh medium schools if prospective employers judge that the individual teachers can meet the needs of their school.

  As from September 1996, all ITT primary courses are required to have, as an integral part of their courses, training in Welsh as a second language. This should increase substantially the number of teachers capable of teaching Welsh in primary schools.

  The enrolment target given to the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales for secondary courses with Welsh as the main subject takes into account the Department's published projections of demand for teachers of Welsh. In 1994, the number of students enrolled on secondary Welsh courses increased, for the fifth consecutive year, and was in line with the target set. A substantial investment is also being made in in-service training for teachers, particularly to support the teaching of Welsh as a second language and to enable schools to meet the requirements of the national curriculum.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of state for Wales what is the average class size in(a) grant-maintained secondary schools and (b) grant-maintained primary schools; and what changes in average class size have taken place in each of the last three years. [41169]

  Mr. Richards
  Average class sizes in grant-maintained primary and secondary schools are shown as follows:

  Average Class Size1

  Year

  Primary Schools

  Secondary Schools

  September 1991

  —

  20.9

  September 1992

  —

  22.5

  January 19942

  25.9

  21.1

  January 19953

  25.2

  20.8

  1 Average class size is calculated as the number of pupils divided by the number of classes. In the case of primary schools, the number of classes used is the number of registered classes whereas for secondary schools it is the number in which the pupils were taught in a specified period on the day of the school census.

  2 From 1993–94 onwards class size information has been collected in January not September.

  3 Provisional data.

  Source:

  School Census.

  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many pupils at(a) primary and (b) secondary level currently attend grant-maintained schools; and what was the percentage attended at each level listed by local education authority. [41155]

  Mr. Richards
  The number of pupils in grant-maintained schools in each local authority as at January 1995 is as follows.

  Local Education Authority

  1Number of pupils

  2Per cent.

  Primary schools

  Clwyd

  489

  1.2

  Dyfed

  —

  —

  Gwent

  223

  0.5

  Gwynedd

  270

  1.3

  Mid Glamorgan

  —

  —

  793

  Local Education Authority

  1Number of pupils

  2Per cent.

  Powys

  26

  0.2

  South Glamorgan

  —

  —

  West Glamorgan

  —

  —

  Wales

  1,008

  0.3

  Secondary schools

  Clwyd

  3,739

  13.8

  Dyfed

  —

  —

  Gwent

  1,573

  5.2

  Gwynedd

  —

  —

  Mid Glamorgan

  —

  —

  Powys

  —

  —

  South Glamorgan

  3,144

  11.2

  West Glamorgan

  975

  4.0

  Wales

  9,431

  4.8

  16-year-olds in full-time education for each local education authority area in Wales1 1992–93

  Clwyd

  Dyfed

  Gwent

  Gwynedd

  Mid Glamorgan

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Population2

  5,100

  100

  4,100

  100

  5,200

  100

  2,900

  100

  6,600

  100

  In schools3 4

  1,938

  38

  2,310

  57

  1,977

  38

  1,166

  40

  2,898

  44

  In sixth Form colleges5

  510

  10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  In FE institutions5

  833

  16

  764

  19

  1,688

  32

  713

  24

  1,379

  21

  Total

  3,281

  64

  3,074

  75

  3,665

  70

  1,879

  64

  4,277

  65

  Powys

  South Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan

  Wales

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Population2

  1,400

  100

  4,600

  100

  4,400

  100

  34,400

  100

  In Schools3 4

  632

  44

  1,921

  42

  882

  20

  13,724

  40

  In Sixth Form Colleges5

  —

  —

  347

  7

  —

  —

  857

  2

  In FE Institutions5

  388

  27

  1,045

  23

  2,268

  52

  9,078

  26

  Total

  1,020

  70

  3,313

  72

  3,150

  72

  23,659

  69

  1993–94

  Clwyd

  Dyfed

  Gwent

  Gwynedd

  Mid Glamorgan

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Population2

  4,900

  100

  4,000

  100

  5,100

  100

  2,600

  100

  6,200

  100

  In Schools3 4

  1,829

  38

  1,965

  49

  2,031

  40

  847

  33

  2,868

  47

  In Sixth Form Colleges5

  556

  11

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  In FE Institutions5

  865

  18

  996

  25

  1,733

  34

  995

  38

  1,316

  21

  Total

  3,250

  67

  2,961

  75

  3,764

  73

  1,842

  71

  4,184

  68

  Powys

  South Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan

  Wales

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Population2

  1,400

  100

  4,500

  100

  4,100

  100

  32,700

  100

  In Schools3 4

  588

  42

  1,883

  42

  869

  21

  12,880

  39

  In Sixth Form Colleges5

  —

  —

  383

  8

  —

  —

  939

  3

  In FE Institutions5

  370

  27

  1,000

  22

  2,129

  52

  9,404

  29

  Total

  958

  69

  3,266

  72

  2,998

  73

  23,223

  71

  61994–95

  Clwyd

  Dyfed

  Gwent

  Gwynedd

  Mid Glamorgan

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Population2

  4,800

  100

  4,100

  100

  5,000

  100

  2,700

  100

  6,300

  100

  In schools3 4

  1,793

  37

  1,986

  48

  1,928

  38

  979

  36

  2,876

  46

  794
  Notes:

  1 The total number of full-time pupils in secondary schools and for primary schools the total number of full-time and part-time pupils. Provisional data.

  2The total number of pupils in grant-maintained schools as a percentage of the total number of pupils in the local education authority. Provisional data.

  Source:

  Schools Census.

  Full-time Education
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was(a) the number and (b) the percentage of 16-year-olds in full-time education in (i) school sixth forms, (ii) sixth form colleges and (iii) colleges of further education in each local education authority in each of the last three years. [41148]

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested is in the following tables.
  795

  61994–95

  Clwyd

  Dyfed

  Gwent

  Gwynedd

  Mid Glamorgan

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  In sixth form colleges5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  In FE institutions5

  1,712

  36

  1,116

  27

  1,178

  23

  942

  35

  1,342

  21

  Total

  3,505

  73

  3,102

  75

  3,106

  62

  1,921

  70

  4,218

  67

  Powys

  South Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan

  Wales

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Population2

  1,500

  100

  4,500

  100

  4,200

  100

  33,200

  100

  In schools3 4

  691

  47

  1,967

  43

  854

  20

  13,074

  39

  In sixth form colleges5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  In FE institutions5

  317

  21

  1,394

  31

  2,251

  53

  10,252

  31

  1,008

  68

  3,361

  74

  3,105

  73

  23,326

  70

  Notes:

  1Information based on providing LEA and not student domicile. Ages as at 31 August prior to academic year. Sixth Form Colleges transferred from LEA control on 1 April 1993 and are now funded by the FEFCW. From 1994–95 no distinction is made between Sixth Form Colleges and any other type of Further Education Institution.

  2 Population based on mid year estimates and rounded to nearest hundred.

  3Includes all 16 year olds at Maintained, Grant Maintained, Independent and Special Schools.

  4 At January each year.

  5 At November each year.

  6 Provisional.

  Source:

  FESR and STATS1.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list by local education authority or local authority area the capital expenditure on colleges of further eduction in both cash and constant prices since 1978–79. [41163]

  Mr. Richards
  The figures for 1978–79 to 1992–93 are not available. Capital expenditure made available by the Further Education Funding Council for Wales since it became responsible for funding the FE sector in April 1993 is shown in the table by local education authority area.

  LEA Area

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  1995–96 £

  Clwyd

  2,307,260

  5,584,663

  2,900,083

  Dyfed

  4,613,090

  4,599,179

  2,588,230

  Gwent

  2,153,694

  3,484,716

  1,058,175

  Gwynedd

  4,219,279

  4,962,548

  1,613,573

  Mid Glamorgan

  1,619,187

  4,279,814

  1,529,900

  Powys

  488,784

  1,536,977

  923,045

  South Glamorgan

  1,550,465

  2,517,561

  835,627

  West Glamorgan

  1,680,790

  3,627,462

  1,213,878

  Non-County Based1

  34,656

  75,137

  14,043

  Total

  18,667,206

  30,668,057

  12,676,554

  Grand total £62,011,817

  1 In respect of Workers Educational Association and YMCA.

  School Catering
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total net expenditure on the school catering service in each local education authority in each of the last five years. [41154]
  796
  Mr. Richards
  The latest available outturn information is given in the following table. Figures for 1989–90 have been reworked to match, as closely as possible, the definition of current expenditure used from 1990–91 onwards.

  Current Expenditure on School Catering

  £ thousands

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Clywd

  3,241

  3,280

  3,801

  4,039

  2,297

  Dyfed

  3,430

  4,518

  6,300

  6,113

  5,177

  Gwent

  4,920

  5,254

  5,124

  5,458

  5,828

  Gwynedd

  2,259

  2,976

  3,629

  3,907

  3,403

  Mid Glamorgan

  7,454

  8,296

  9,164

  10,051

  9,760

  Powys

  1,066

  1,253

  1,465

  1,441

  1,261

  South Glamorgan

  1,840

  2,244

  2,904

  4,846

  3,873

  West Glamorgan

  2,903

  2,716

  3,183

  3,505

  3,370

  Total Wales

  27,113

  30,537

  35,570

  39,360

  34,969

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the average class size in(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools; and what were the comparable figures in 1989 to 1994. [41171]

  Mr. Richards
  The table shows the average class size in Wales for both primary and secondary schools.

  Average class size1 as at:

  Primary Schools

  Secondary Schools

  September 1989

  24.8

  20.5

  September 1990

  24.8

  21.0

  September 1991

  25.0

  21.5

  September 1992

  25.0

  21.4

  797

  Average class size1 as at:

  Primary Schools

  Secondary Schools

  January 19942

  25.6

  20.1

  January 19953

  25.8

  21.1

  1 Average class size is calculated as the number of pupils divided by the number of classes. In the case of primary schools, the number of classes used is the number of registered classes, whereas for secondary schools it is the number in which the pupils were taught in a specified period on the day of the school census.

  2 From 1993–94 onwards, class size information has been collected in January not September.

  3 Provisional data.

  Source: Schools Census

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the number of primary school pupils in Wales taught in classes of over 40 pupils in(a) January 1994 and (b) January 1995, per local authority and if he will make a statement. [41631]

  Mr. Hague
  The annual schools census collects information about class sizes only in respect of the number of classes, not the precise number of pupils in the classes. The information can, however, be used to make broad estimates of the numbers of pupils in classes of a particular size. On the basis of these estimates, there were approximately 500 pupils in ordinary classes of more than 40 pupils in January 1994 and approximately 700 in January 1995. These pupils represented 0.2 per cent. of all pupils in ordinary classes in January 1994 and 0.3 per cent. in January 1995.

  No estimates are available for individual local authorities.

  New Homes
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total number of new homes started by(a) local authorities and new towns and (b) housing associations in each year since 1974. [41150]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) on 19 October 1995,Official Report, column 340.

  Dunlop Semtex Factory
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action his Department has taken to date to preserve the Brynmawr rubber factory; and if he will make a statement. [40947]

  Number of pupils (full time equivalent)1

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Primary

  Secondary

  Primary

  Secondary

  Primary

  Secondary

  Primary

  Secondary

  Clwyd

  36,538

  27,367

  37,208

  26,487

  37,512

  26,303

  37,683

  26,774

  Dyfed

  31,339

  23,682

  31,853

  23,182

  31,846

  23,310

  31,839

  24,014

  Gwent

  40,055

  29,227

  41,499

  28,222

  42,070

  28,129

  42,441

  28,810

  Gwynedd

  19,742

  16,357

  19,868

  15,549

  19,258

  15,285

  19,179

  15,340

  Mid Glamorgan

  53,417

  37,539

  54,892

  36,161

  55,374

  35,899

  55,410

  36,792

  Powys

  10,188

  7,986

  10,361

  7,814

  10,392

  7,739

  10,471

  7,800

  South Glamorgan

  34,794

  26,627

  35,599

  25,743

  36,541

  25,857

  37,333

  26,544

  West Glamorgan

  33,804

  23,214

  34,463

  22,565

  34,731

  22,671

  34,778

  22,928

  Wales

  259,877

  191,999

  265,743

  185,723

  267,724

  185,193

  269,134

  189,002

  798
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In 1986, the former Dunlop Semtex factory at Brynmawr was listed grade II* as a building of special architectural or historic interest. The associated boiler house was listed grade II. As listed buildings, listed building consent—from the local planning authority—is required before either structure can be altered or demolished. In 1986, an application to demolish the factory was called-in for determination by the then Secretary of State and consent refused. Subsequently, a working party was convened by the local planning authority under the chairmanship of Dame Margaret Weston to seek uses for the buildings. The Welsh Office has given financial assistance towards the costs of a project to re-use the boiler house as a theatre. The future of the former factory building continues to be considered through the planning system.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to make a statement on local government finance, and if he will include additional information in respect of Welsh Office expenditure. [41049]

  Mr. Hague
  In accordance with usual practice, I plan to announce my proposals for 1996–97 local government total standard spending and aggregated external finance in a written parliamentary answer on Budget day, 28 November.

  I hope to make an oral statement to the House some time in December on public expenditure in Wales. My statement will include expenditure on Welsh Office services; provisional standard spending assessments for local authorities; details of a damping scheme to limit increases in council tax levels in 1996–97; my capping proposals and relevant notional amounts; and local government capital settlements for 1996–97.

  Pupil-teacher Ratios
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list by local education authority the number of(a) primary pupils and (b) secondary pupils and the number of teachers with the pupil-teacher ratio in both categories since 1989. [41157]

  Mr. Richards
  Information on pupils, teachers and pupil teacher ratios in maintained primary and secondary schools in each local education authority area since 1989 is as follows:
  799

  1992–95

  1993–94

  1994–952

  Primary

  Secondary

  Primary

  Secondary

  Primary

  Secondary

  Clwyd

  37,882

  27,269

  38,407

  26,753

  38,978

  27,172

  Dyfed

  31,645

  24,289

  31,567

  24,571

  31,816

  24,861

  Gwent

  43,025

  29,440

  43,792

  30,002

  44,662

  30,536

  Gwynedd

  19,544

  15,445

  19,680

  15,318

  20,220

  15,303

  Mid Glamorgan

  56,976

  37,743

  56,814

  38,590

  56,881

  39,479

  Powys

  10,588

  7,885

  10,688

  7,927

  10,941

  8,071

  South Glamorgan

  38,234

  27,229

  39,472

  27,364

  39,840

  28,150

  West Glamorgan

  35,115

  23,263

  35,242

  23,876

  35,282

  24,325

  Wales

  272,009

  192,563

  275,662

  194,401

  278,620

  197,897

  1 Includes both GM and LEA schools. Secondary includes sixth form colleges prior to 1993–94. Full-time equivalent of pupils: each part-time pupil is treated as half of a pupil.

  2 Provisional.

  Number of qualified teachers (full-time equivalent)1

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1992–92

  Primary

  Secondary

  Primary

  Secondary

  Primary

  Secondary

  Primary

  Secondary

  Clwyd

  1,482

  1,718

  1,510

  1,679

  1,550

  1,676

  1,563

  1,711

  Dyfed

  1,554

  1,495

  1,597

  1,469

  1,599

  1,472

  1,614

  1,480

  Gwent

  1,756

  1,966

  1,798

  1,889

  1,801

  1,857

  1,801

  1,841

  Gwynedd

  951

  1,142

  945

  1,110

  926

  1,082

  907

  1,074

  Mid Glamorgan

  2,308

  2,380

  2,347

  2,297

  2,311

  2,271

  2,355

  2,328

  Powys

  518

  555

  519

  544

  508

  529

  510

  537

  South Glamorgan

  1,536

  1,606

  1,607

  1,651

  1,691

  1,641

  1,716

  1,656

  West Glamorgan

  1,566

  1,592

  1,609

  1,531

  1,615

  1,498

  1,617

  1,477

  Wales

  11,671

  12,454

  11,932

  12,170

  12,001

  12,026

  12,083

  12,104

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–952

  Primary

  Secondary

  Primary

  Secondary

  Primary

  Secondary

  Clwyd

  1,610

  1,746

  1,588

  1,641

  1,565

  1,599

  Dyfed

  1,625

  1,517

  1,636

  1,535

  1,599

  1,528

  Gwent

  1,843

  1,886

  1,864

  1,859

  1,870

  1,861

  Gwynedd

  926

  1,074

  915

  1,035

  953

  1,019

  Mid Glamorgan

  2,386

  2,378

  2,416

  2,452

  2,409

  2,500

  Powys

  513

  535

  524

  544

  533

  553

  South Glamorgan

  1,737

  1,675

  1,747

  1,652

  1,798

  1,698

  West Glamorgan

  1,646

  1,486

  1,673

  1,516

  1,668

  1,531

  Wales

  12,286

  12,297

  12,363

  12,234

  12,395

  12,289

  1 Includes both GM and LEA schools. Secondary includes sixth form colleges prior to 1993–94. Full-time equivalent of teachers: the full-time equivalent of part-time teachers express the teachers' service in hours as a proportion of school week, normally 32.6.

  1 Provisional.

  Pupil teacher ratio1

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–97

  1991–92

  Primary

  Secondary

  Primary

  Secondary

  Primary

  Secondary

  Primary

  Secondary

  Clwyd

  24.7

  15.9

  24.6

  15.8

  24.2

  15.7

  24.1

  15.7

  Dyfed

  20.2

  15.8

  19.9

  15.8

  19.9

  15.8

  19.7

  16.2

  Gwent

  22.8

  14.9

  23.1

  14.9

  23.4

  15.2

  23.6

  15.7

  Gwynedd

  20.8

  14.3

  21.0

  14.0

  20.8

  14.1

  21.2

  14.3

  Mid Glamorgan

  23.2

  15.8

  23.4

  15.7

  24.0

  15.8

  23.5

  15.8

  Powys

  19.7

  14.4

  20.0

  14.4

  20.5

  14.6

  20.5

  14.5

  South Glamorgan

  22.7

  16.6

  22.2

  15.6

  21.6

  15.8

  21.8

  16.0

  West Glamorgan

  21.6

  14.6

  21.4

  14.7

  21.5

  15.1

  21.5

  15.5

  Wales

  22.3

  15.4

  22.3

  15.3

  22.3

  15.4

  22.3

  15.6

  800 801

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Primary

  Secondary

  Primary

  Secondary

  Primary

  Secondary

  Clwyd

  23.5

  15.6

  24.2

  16.3

  24.9

  17.0

  Dyfed

  19.5

  16.0

  19.3

  16.0

  19.9

  16.3

  Gwent

  23.4

  15.6

  23.5

  16.1

  23.9

  16.4

  Gwynedd

  21.1

  14.4

  21.5

  14.8

  21.2

  15.0

  Mid Glamorgan

  23.5

  15.9

  23.5

  15.7

  23.6

  15.8

  Powys

  20.6

  14.7

  20.4

  14.6

  20.5

  14.6

  South Glamorgan

  22.0

  16.3

  22.6

  16.6

  22.2

  16.6

  West Glamorgan

  21.3

  15.7

  21.1

  15.7

  21.2

  15.9

  Wales

  22.1

  15.7

  22.3

  15.9

  22.5

  16.1

  1 Includes both GM and LEA schools. Secondary includes sixth form colleges prior to 1993–94. Pupil teacher ratio is calculated as the ratio of full-time equivalent pupils t full-time equivalent teachers.

  2 Provisional.

  Improvement Grants
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people in each housing authority area are waiting for(a) improvements and (b) disabled improvement grants; and what percentage of the population this is for each area. [41170]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Pupil Statistics
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list by local education authority in cash and constant prices the spending per child in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools since 1989 and the average cost per pupil in cash and constant prices of an assisted place since 1989. [41161]

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

  Historic Houses
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what support is given to help private owners of homes that have a historic and architectural interest to retain and maintain their homes; and if he will list those private historic homes which have received grants over the past three years, giving the amount of grant in each case and the specific purpose of each grant. [41149]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Welsh Office may offer grants for the repair of buildings judged to be of outstanding historical or architectural interest or for works that make a significant contribution towards the preservation or enhancement of a conservation area. The Historic Buildings Council for Wales must be consulted before a grant is made and details of grants and their purpose are set out in the council's annual reports, which have been laid before the House.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people are estimated to be homeless in each local housing authority area, and what were the comparable figures in 1986 and 1990. [41147]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on people accepted as homeless under part III of the Housing Act 1985 is shown in the table.
  802

  People accepted as homeless in Wales

  Number

  Between 1 April and 30 June

  19861

  19901

  11995

  Aberconwy

  43

  20

  42

  Alyn and Deeside

  84

  80

  118

  Arfon

  9

  22

  24

  Blaenau Gwent

  114

  221

  159

  Brecknock

  34

  50

  84

  Cardiff

  456

  650

  489

  Carmarthen

  34

  45

  49

  Ceredigion

  24

  87

  67

  Colwyn

  13

  27

  62

  Cynon Valley

  229

  116

  37

  Delyn

  80

  241

  51

  Dinefwr

  51

  31

  99

  Dwyfor

  53

  38

  31

  Glyndwr

  13

  17

  9

  Islwyn

  34

  101

  83

  Llanelli

  76

  66

  41

  Lliw Valley

  55

  104

  13

  Meirionnydd

  38

  63

  39

  Merthyr Tydfil

  46

  141

  123

  Monmouth

  211

  69

  26

  Montgomery

  27

  44

  87

  Neath

  212

  151

  137

  Newport

  295

  665

  295

  Ogwr

  421

  304

  600

  Port Talbot

  33

  94

  84

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  44

  70

  98

  Radnor

  12

  14

  29

  Rhondda

  61

  36

  52

  Rhuddlan

  51

  38

  22

  Rhymney Valley

  172

  148

  52

  South Pembrokeshire

  25

  88

  69

  Swansea

  161

  98

  646

  Taff-Ely

  75

  145

  111

  Torfaen

  212

  194

  107

  Vale of Glamorgan

  100

  316

  142

  Wrexham Maelor

  169

  212

  148

  Ynys Mon

  14

  9

  57

  1Figures relate to people accepted as homeless through the quarter to 30 June.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each civil service grade dealing with education at all levels the number of(a) male and (b) female and (i) full-time and (ii) part-time employees and the comparable figures for 1990 and 1985. [41151]
  803
  Mr. Hague
  The following tables show the numbers of staff in my Department by grade dealing with education as at 1 November 1995 and 1 October 1990.

  The staff figures shown for 1 November 1995 exclude staff working in the office of Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools in Wales, which was established as a separate department in 1992.

  Comparable figures for 1985 are not available.

  Count of Staff Working in the Education Department by Grade by Sex as at 1 November 1995

  Males

  Females

  Grade

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Total

  Grade 3

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Grade 5

  4

  —

  —

  —

  4

  Grade 7

  6

  —

  2

  —

  8

  SEO

  4

  —

  —

  1

  5

  HEO

  10

  —

  4

  1

  15

  HEOD

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  AT

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  EO

  11

  —

  12

  1

  24

  AO

  3

  —

  7

  5

  15

  PS

  —

  —

  4

  —

  4

  AA

  3

  —

  5

  2

  10

  TYP

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  43

  —

  36

  10

  89

  Count of staff working in the Education Department by grade by sex as at 1 October 1990 (including OHMCI)

  Males

  Females

  Total

  Grade

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Grade 3

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Grade 4

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Grade 5

  9

  —

  —

  —

  9

  Grade 6

  35

  —

  11

  —

  46

  Grade 7

  8

  —

  4

  —

  12

  SEO

  3

  —

  1

  —

  4

  HEO

  11

  —

  2

  1

  14

  EO

  6

  —

  11

  —

  17

  AO

  5

  —

  6

  —

  11

  PS

  —

  —

  13

  —

  13

  AA

  2

  —

  3

  —

  5

  TYP

  —

  —

  2

  —

  2

  Casual AA

  2

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Casual TYP

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  83

  —

  54

  1

  138

  Nursery Classes
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish for each local education authority and for Wales as a whole the number of statutory proposals made for the introduction of new nursery classes into a school during each of the last three years, indicating how many of these were in respect of Welsh medium schools. [41440]

  Mr. Richards
  The number of statutory proposals made by local authorities or governing bodies of voluntary schools to make a significant change in the character of a school by introducing a nursery class is given as follows. None was in respect of a Welsh medium school.
  804

  Number of statutory proposals published to establish nursery classes/units at infant/primary schools by relevant county and all Wales within the last three academic years:

  County

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Clwyd

  2

  0

  2

  Gwent

  2

  1

  2

  South Glamorgan

  0

  1

  7

  West Glamorgan

  2

  1

  1

  All Wales

  6

  3

  12

  Permanent Exclusions
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list by local education authority for each of the last five years the number of(a) primary and (b) secondary pupils who have been permanently excluded from school to attend pupil referral units; [41317]

  (2) if he will list by local education authority for each of the last five years the number of (a) primary and (b) secondary pupils who are receiving home tuition after being permanently excluded from school and (i) the average, (ii) the most and (iii) the least tuition hours provided [41319]

  Mr. Richards
  This information is not collected centrally at present. Consideration is, however, being given to the introduction of monitoring arrangements for the collection of such data.

  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list by local education authority the number of pupils in each of the last five years who have been permanently excluded from(a) LEA-maintained schools and (b) grant-maintained schools; and what percentage of the school population this represents in each case. [41308]

  Mr. Richards
  I refer the hon. member to my reply of 19 July 1995 to the hon. Member for Darlington, (Mr. Milburn)Official Report, columns 1403–4.

  Cheese Production
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a list showing which varieties of cheese are produced in Wales together with the location of these production centres and his estimate of the total volume of production in tonnes for each of the last three years. [41463]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The following varieties of cheese are produced in Wales:

  Caerphilly

  Cheddar and other rigid hard pressed cheeses

  Brie

  Specially blended cheeses such as:

  Y Fenni, St Illtyd, Harlech, Tintern Cambrian

  Goats cheeses

  Sheep cheeses

  Mozzarella

  Stilton

  This list may not be exhaustive.

  There are 29 cheese producers in Wales, nine of whom are major producers.
  805

  Location of cheese producers

  Area

  Number

  Clwyd

  3

  Dyfed

  19

  Glamorgan-Mid

  1

  Glamorgan-West

  1

  Gwent

  1

  Gwynedd

  3

  Powys

  1

  Information on the volume of production is not available.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the total volume of cheese production in Wales in tonnes and in pounds sterling at constant 1995 prices for each of the last three years, expressing each set of figures as a proportion of the corresponding totals for the United Kingdom. [41462]

  Mr. Jones
  This information is not available for Wales.

  NHS Finance
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of the NHS budget in Wales was spent on management, administrative and clerical staff in(a) 1989 and (b) the latest year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [41245]

  Mr. Richards
  The proportion of the NHS budget in Wales spent on management, administrative and clerical staff in 1988–89 and 1994–95 was about 6 per cent. and 7 per cent. respectively.

  Nurse Regrading
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about regrading in the nursing profession. [41246]

  Mr. Richards
  The management and staff side secretaries of the Nursing and Midwifery Negotiation Council are working together to formulate arrangements to complete all the clinical grading appeals as soon as possible.

  Pupils with a statement of special educational needs linked to emotional and behavioural difficulties 1

  Local Education Authority

  Primary schools

  Secondary schools

  January 1994

  January 19952

  January 1994

  January 19952

  Local Education Authority

  Clwyd

  50

  57

  48

  89

  Dyfed

  99

  96

  36

  42

  Gwent

  125

  154

  124

  116

  Gwynedd

  16

  24

  9

  13

  Mid Glamorgan

  23

  18

  11

  15

  Powys

  10

  22

  9

  13

  South Glamorgan

  45

  62

  14

  35

  West Glamorgan

  19

  9

  4

  5

  Wales

  387

  442

  255

  328

  1Includes children in both mainstream classes/units and special classes/units within the school.

  2Provisional.

  Unitary Authorities
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which of the unitary councils have formally selected the name of their council; if he will indicate, in each case,

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list by local education authority the amount(a) not included and (b) included in schools' budgets to cater for special educational needs; and what were the comparable figures for 1990. [41315]

  Mr. Richards
  According to the section 42 budget statements submitted earlier this year by local education authorities in Wales, the following amounts have been retained by LEAs in 1995–96 for special needs support services including special units:

  £

  Clwyd

  3,412,000

  Dyfed

  8,005,000

  Gwent

  1,606,000

  Gwynedd

  1,747,000

  Mid Glamorgan

  4,377,000

  Powys

  1,447,000

  South Glamorgan

  4,520,000

  West Glamorgan

  991,000

  Comparable figures for 1990 are not available because the content of the section 42 statement was changed in 1992.

  Details of the amounts delegated to schools through their LEA's local management of schools budget formulae for special educational needs are not collected centrally.

  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list by local education authority the numbers of(a) primary and (b) secondary school children who have received statements because of their emotional and behavioural difficulties in each of the last five years. [41318]

  Mr. Richards
  Information for 1994 and 1995 on the number of pupils in primary and secondary schools with statements of special need linked to emotional and behavioural difficulties is shown in the table. The information relates to the major need of the pupil identified on the individual statements of special educational need. Comparable figures for earlier years are not available.

  the name chosen; if there are separate English and Welsh versions; and if he will make a statement. [41380]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The 22 unitary councils bear the names of their authority area as approved by Parliament in the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994.
  807
  All authorities have Welsh and English names as listed in schedule 1 to the Act and are identified as either counties or county boroughs. The authority names were chosen after an extensive consultation exercise held in the spring of 1993. The new section 21 of the Local Government Act 1972—inserted by section 2 of the 1994 Act—requires all councils to have Welsh and English titles. Section 74 of the 1972 Act provides for local authorities to change the name of their area. Until 1 October 1996, a name change requires the consent of the Secretary of State for Wales. His consent is not required after that date. If a name is changed under section 74 and there are generally accepted alternative Welsh and English forms of the name, or alternative names, both names should be used.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the name of each community or town council within each of the new unitary council areas. [41381]

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

  Traffic Calming
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each county and for Wales as a whole for 1992, 1993 and 1994(a) the number of applications received to implement traffic-calming measures (b) the number for which permission was granted (c) the total actual expenditure for each category and (d) the total actual expenditure paid for by the Welsh Office, together with this amount expressed as a proportion of (c), and if he will make a statement. [41441]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  On the Welsh trunk road network, the Welsh Office is considering approximately 20 locations as possible sites for trials of significant traffic-calming measures mainly on the rural network in Gwynedd, Powys and Dyfed.

  To date, eight sites have been authorised with a total cost of approximately £400,000 being fully funded by the Welsh Office as the trunk road highway authority. Design work is proceeding on a further three locations.

  The information on the county road network is not held by the Welsh Office. However the Welsh Office has received eight applications for the approval of 20 mph zones and a number of additional applications for the authorisation of non-standard measures in the period 1992–94. Decisions on implementation rest with the local highway authority and funding is provided from unhypothecated resources.

  National Blood Service
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning the reorganisation of the National Blood Service as it affects Wales. [41266]

  Mr. Richards
  The review of the National Blood Service undertaken by the National Blood Authority is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. Organisational changes stemming from the review which could have implications for the delivery of blood services in Wales will be considered by the Welsh Office and the managers of the National Blood Transfusion Service (Wales).

  Prostate Cancer
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cases of prostate cancer have been treated in each of the last 10 years, and if he will make a statement. [41249]

  Mr. Richards
  Information on the number of cases of prostate cancer treated is not available. The latest information on the number of new cases of prostate cancer registered by the Wales Cancer Registry is given in the following table.

  Prosate Cancer (ICD9 185)

  Year

  Number

  1981

  569

  1982

  548

  1983

  625

  1984

  691

  1985

  705

  1986

  681

  1987

  699

  1988

  729

  1989

  859

  1990

  857

  Source:

  Wales Cancer Registry.

  English and Welsh Education
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to improve spoken English and Welsh in schools. [41316]

  Mr. Richards
  The revised national curriculum, in place from September 1995, sets clear targets for improvements in spoken English and Welsh. Progress against these targets is assessed at ages seven, 11 and 14 and at age 16 through the GCSE. Additionally, discussions will be held shortly with the Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales and the Welsh Joint Education Committee on recording grades of spoken English and Welsh on GCSE certificates.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list by type of project(a) how many schemes have been approved to date under the private finance initiative, (b) what is the value of these schemes and (c) what public sector contribution will be required both initially and as revenue support during the lifetime of the schemes. [41737]

  Mr. Hague
  Within Welsh Office programmes, no contracts have been signed to date under the private finance initiative for projects costing over £1 million. Information on schemes costing less than £1 million is not collected.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many persons in his Department are on the public payroll or employed as consultants or advisers and work on a part-time or full-time basis in relation to the Scott inquiry; if he will list their names; and how much each is paid; [42044]
  809
  (2) how many persons have been authorised to have access to documents held by his Department relating to the Scott inquiry and if he will list such persons. [42045]

  Mr. Hague
  None.

  Environment Charters
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those district councils which have published environmental charters since 1991; and if he will make a statement. [42081]

  Mr. Hague
  This information is not held centrally. In 1993 the Government published guidance to assist local authorities in the production of local environmental charters and a number of Welsh councils have now prepared these.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish those projects promoting the Welsh language and culture which have received European funding during the last five years, indicating the amount received in each case. [42092]

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

  Rural Development
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if in the further consideration he is giving to rural development he will issue guidelines as to how much housing development he will allow in villages, in order that they retain their present character. [40937]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  [holding answer 6 November 1995]: At present, planning guidance on housing development in villages is included in planning policy guidance note 7 "The Countryside and The Rural Economy", issued in January 1992. This indicates that new housing will continue to be required in rural areas to sustain the health of the rural economy and the viability of village communities and that in many villages, provision can be made for modest development without damage to the character of the village. It is for the local planning authorities to determine the level of housing allowed in particular villages. These issues have been raised in the responses to the consultation exercises which have taken place both on the proposed revision of planning policy guidance in Wales and on the forthcoming rural White Paper for Wales. My right hon. Friend is now considering the responses received.

  Mr. Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consideration he has given to Welsh Office guidelines on out-of-town store development; and what account he has taken of the rules governing planning applications in England. [40936]

  Mr. Jones
  [holding answer 6 November 1995]: Planning policy guidance on out-of-town retail developments is incorporated in the draft planning policy guidance (Wales) document which my right hon. Friend issued for public consultation in July. This draft provides
  810
  similar planning policy guidance to that contained in the draft PPG6—"Town Centres and Retail Developments" issued by DoE for Consultation in England.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by type of product(a) how many schemes have been approved to date under the private finance initiative, (b) what is the value of those schemes and (c) what public sector contribution will be required both initially and as revenue support during the lifetime of the schemes. [41742]

  Mr. Howard
  Two contracts have been awarded under private finance initiative terms to date:

  The police national network

  Immigration detention facilities at Gatwick airport

  The total capital values of these projects are matters for the contractors, but are estimated to be £50 million and £12 million respectively.

  No public sector initial contribution has been required. Individual police forces purchase usage of PNN from public funds, but the value during the lifetime of the scheme will vary with demand. The rental for the Gatwick centre is projected to be £987,000 per annum.

  Private Security Industry
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if it is his policy to introduce legislation in the coming Session of Parliament to bring into effect statutory regulation of the private security industry; [41930]

  (2) if he will make it his policy to establish a system of regulation in the private security industry to provide for (a) the international nature of operators and (b) the range of inter-related services provided by some operators; [41936]

  (3) if he will make it his policy to introduce a statutory system to regulate the private security industry; and if he will set a target date for these measures; [41929]

  (4) if he will make it his policy to protect those companies in the private security industry which his Department assesses to be well run under statutory regulation of the industry; [41939]

  (5) if he will make it his policy to establish a system of regulation for the private security industry which can respond quickly to changes in the market. [41937]

  Mr. Maclean
  The case for regulation is being considered in the light of the Home Affairs Select Committee report. We will provide a full response to the Committee as soon as possible.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what mechanisms are in place in his Department to ensure that any private security company providing services to his Department is and remains a member of the relevant voluntary regulatory body for the industry. [41934]
  811
  Mr. Howard
  No formal systems are in place, but membership of voluntary regulatory bodies may be taken into account with other factors when assessing companies for the award of security services contracts.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to bring into effect arrangements to allow for proper vetting procedures for(a) employees and (b) employers within the private security industry within statutory provisions to regulate that industry. [41938]

  Mr. Maclean
  We are aware that there are concerns about the employment within the industry of individuals with criminal records. The whole issue of disclosure of criminal records for employment vetting purposes is currently under review. A White Paper containing the Government's proposals in this area will be issued during the next few months.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to give powers to the police to intervene in the work of the private security industry in circumstances where there is a threat to public safety. [41926]

  Mr. Maclean
  The police have comprehensive powers to protect the public and to deal with criminal behaviour whenever it occurs.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will include(a) manned guarding and (b) patrol duties and (c) door supervision within statutory provisions to regulate the private security industry. [41931]

  Mr. Maclean
  The issue of regulation for the industry is under review. We are aware that concerns lie mainly in the contract manned guarding sector, which includes private patrolling services. Door supervisors raise particular difficulties which are being tackled through local registration schemes—a measure which the Home Affairs Select Committee supported—and guidance on these will shortly be issued.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the private security firms undertaking work for his Department during the present financial year and for each of the last five financial years, listing in each case and for each year the total number of full time equivalent posts paid for by his Department and the numbers in each category of role in each year; [41932]

  (2) how many private security firms employed by his Department have ceased to be a member of the relevant voluntary regulatory body during the period in which such services were being provided; and if he will indicate (a) the firms and (b) the regulatory bodies concerned; [41935]

  (3) if he will list the organisations providing private security services of any sort to his Department or to any agency responsible to him or to his Department in the current financial year and in any part of each of the past five financial years; indicating against each name the voluntary regulatory body or bodies to which each belongs. [41933]
  812
  Mr. Howard
  The following organisations have provided private security services to my Department over the past five years. Those marked are currently employed.

  Airline Security Consultants Ltd.

  Arrnaguard Ltd.*

  Aviation Defence International

  Aviation Security Consultants*

  Burns International Security Services Ltd.*

  Care Security Systems Ltd.*

  Chubb Wardens Ltd.

  Chubb Alarms Ltd.*

  Defence Security Services

  Defenco Security Services*

  Felixstowe Security Co

  Group 4 Court Service Ltd.*

  Group 4 Remand Services Ltd.

  Group 4 Prison Services Ltd.*

  Group 4 Securitas (Security Express)*

  Group 4 Total Security Ltd.*

  Grundig International Ltd.

  Harlow Security Systems Ltd.

  Lisburn Security Services*

  Maritime Aviation Security Services*

  North Essex Security Services Ltd.

  Potton Leisure Ltd.

  Premier Prison Services Ltd.*

  Reliance Security Service Ltd.*

  Rentokil Security Services Ltd.

  Scrottons Aviation Security*

  SDA (1979) Ltd.

  Securicor Custodial Services Ltd.*

  Securicor Ltd.*

  Securicor Management Group

  Securicor Security Services Ltd.*

  Securiguard Services Ltd.*

  Securite Service Ltd.

  Security Express Guards Ltd.

  Security Ulster Ltd.*

  Security Wales Ltd.*

  Sigma Security Ltd.*

  Shorrock Security Guards Ltd.*

  Sterling Granada

  UK Detention Services Ltd.*

  Information about the voluntary regulatory bodies to which these organisations belong, and whether the membership of such bodies has been maintained for the duration of the contract period, is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Information about the number of staff employed on each contract and their role is also not readily available; in some cases the number varies from day to day for operational reasons.

  Kent Police Costs
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the expenditure on the police in Kent in 1979; and what it is at present and on a cash basis and as a percentage change in real terms since 1979. [41876]
  813
  Mr. Maclean
  Total expenditure on the Kent county constabulary has increased from £27.05 million in 1978–79 to an estimated £164.93 million for 1995–96. This is a real terms increase of 103 per cent.

  Mr. Abdul Onibiyo
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he gave to the safety of Abdul Onibiyo before ordering his removal to Nigeria; and if he will make a statement. [42003]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Mr. Onibiyo's asylum application was fully considered and rejected. This decision was subject to review by the independent appellate authority, which dismissed his appeal. Mr. Onibiyo's further application for leave to appeal to the tribunal was not granted and he was therefore returned to Nigeria under normal immigration procedures.

  Employment Vetting
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to introduce effective penalties against those who fail to follow proper procedures in respect of(a) vetting of staff, (b) vetting of employers and (c) provision of appropriate training to those so employed. [41925]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government have been engaged in a review of all aspects of the employment vetting process and will be publishing a White Paper within the next few months setting out its proposals for new vetting arrangements.

  Stage Hypnosis
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the review established to examine the evidence of the possible risk of harm to people taking part in stage hypnosis will report its findings. [42216]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The expert panel appointed to consider this matter submitted its report on 11 October 1995. A copy of the report has been placed in the Library. The report concludes that there is no evidence of serious risk to the public from stage hypnosis. The report recommends that it may none the less be desirable to revise the scope of present licensing arrangements and the terms of associated guidelines. A public consultation paper will accordingly be issued shortly to interested parties.

  Electronic Monitoring
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he has taken in respect of representations from the Magistrates Association about the trials of electronic monitoring currently in progress in Manchester, Reading and Norfolk: and if he will make a statement. [42217]

  Mr. Howard
  I have agreed to extend the area covered by the trials from the city of Manchester to the whole of Greater Manchester, and from Reading to the whole of Berkshire, and a statutory instrument has been made to give effect to this from Monday 6 November. As a separate issue, I am considering whether to extend the number of courts involved in the trial.
  814
  I have also agreed to fund a Magistrates Association seminar on sentencing in relation to electronic monitoring and this will be held on 8 and 9 November.

  Former Yugoslavia
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements are being made for the reception and support of those additional people whom he announced on 6 August the Government had accepted under the temporary protection programme for people from the former Yugoslavia. [42218]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  On 28 July this year the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees wrote to a number of Governments asking for further 5,000 temporary protection places for citizens of the former Yugoslavia. In view of the pressing humanitarian need, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary announced on 6 August that the United Kingdom would accept 500 people, principals and dependants, under the programme. This was an addition to the 1,000 vulnerable people and their dependants accepted under the previous programme announced in November 1992. The United Kingdom was one of the first countries in the world to respond to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees' request.

  The UNHCR will continue to be responsible for identifying those who are most in need of temporary protection. The first group arrived on 5 October and arrangements are in hand to bring in a further group shortly. The Home Office is continuing to liaise with UNHCR about the timing of further arrivals.

  The Home Office is funding the Refugee Council and other voluntary agencies to support these new arrivals, by running reception centres to accommodate them on arrival, arranging more permanent housing and providing support in the community. Two centres have been opened and two more will open in November. On leaving the reception centres the evacuees will be housed, as were those on the current programme, in "clusters" which enable them to support each other but do not place an undue burden on local services. Programmes are being established to involve volunteers in the work of reception centres and in providing community help such as sports, social and cultural events.

  A request was also received from the International Organisation for Migration for the United Kingdom and other countries to accept for treatment sick and wounded people from the former Yugoslavia. The United Kingdom has agreed to accept a further 20 medical evacuees. Three patients have so far arrived under this programme.

  In addition to the temporary protection programme, the Home Office continues to examine carefully asylum applications made in the United Kingdom by people from the former Yugoslavia. Up to the end of June more than 12,000 people had applied for asylum. The Government's policy remains that those refused asylum will not be expected to return to a war zone, but will be granted leave to remain exceptionally until it is safe for them to return.

  Police Personnel Services
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are his proposals for bringing competition to bear on police personnel services. [42219]
  815
  Mr. Maclean
  It is the Government's intention that compulsory competitive tendering should be introduced to police white collar support services as part of a rolling programme. Detailed consultation proposals for police personnel services were issued on 24 February 1995. The Government have now considered the responses received from the police service, local authority associations and other interested bodies.

  The Government have decided that police authorities will be subject to the same CCT regime for personnel services as other authorities defined under the Local Government Act 1988, except for a number of specific exemptions. The exemptions centre on the provision of operational and specialist training, together with the personnel work associated with police complaints and discipline, unsatisfactory performance proceedings against police officers, and discharging probationary constables. The exemptions will protect operational policing, security, and management functions special to the police service.

  Prisoner Costs
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total cost per prisoner in each prison within the United Kingdom. [41971]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. John Heppell, dated 7 November 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the cost per prisoner in each prison within the United Kingdom.
  The attached table shows the net average operating cost per prisoner per year for each of the prisons in England and Wales for the year 1993–94, the latest year for which information has been published.
  Information on prisons in Scotland is a matter for the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Scottish Prison Service and on prisons in Northern Ireland for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland Prison Service.

  Net operating cost for prisoner per year

  Establishment

  Net operating cost per prisoner per year £

  Local prisons and remand centres

  Bedford1

  27,419

  Belmarsh

  29,310

  Birmingham

  20,077

  Brinsford

  20,273

  Bristol

  24,824

  Brixton1

  33,764

  Bullingdon/Oxford

  19,896

  Canterbury

  29,500

  Cardiff

  20,925

  Chelmsford

  23,692

  Dorchester

  21,390

  Durham

  27,006

  Elmley

  17,110

  Exeter

  22,572

  Gloucester

  25,893

  Haslar

  15,603

  Highdown

  23,732

  Holme House

  19,292

  816

  Net operating cost for prisoner per year

  Establishment

  Net operating costper prisoner peryear£

  Hull

  25,065

  Lancaster Farms1

  24,000

  Leeds

  16,864

  Leicester1

  23,780

  Lewes

  24,024

  Lincoln

  16,890

  Liverpool

  16,331

  Manchester1

  43,087

  Moorland1

  17,298

  Norwich

  26,969

  Pentonville

  23,124

  Preston

  20,583

  Rochester

  35,000

  Shrewsbury

  20,000

  Swansea

  21,790

  Wandsworth

  25,461

  Winchester

  28,177

  Woodhill1

  26,514

  Wormwood Scrubs

  25,560

  Contracted out prisons

  Blakenhurst

  21,727

  Wolds

  18,069

  Dispersal prisons

  Frankland

  38,905

  Full Sutton

  34,122

  Long Lartin

  36,982

  Parkhurst1

  55,066

  Wakefield

  25,270

  Whitemoor1

  32,099

  Category B training prisons

  Albany

  25,574

  Blundeston

  20,000

  Dartmoor

  21,002

  Garth

  17,717

  Gartree

  29,249

  Grendon/Springhill

  21,237

  Kingston-Portsmouth

  30,189

  Maidstone

  19,415

  Nottingham

  25,121

  Swaleside

  16,298

  Category C Training Prisons

  Acklington

  14,050

  Aldington

  21,429

  Ashwell

  13,695

  Blantyre House

  20,213

  Brockhill

  22,388

  Camp Hill

  21,127

  Channings Wood

  14,071

  Coldingley

  25,455

  Downview

  20,357

  Erlestoke

  23,500

  Everthorpe

  22,273

  Featherstone

  14,638

  Haverigg

  18,563

  Highpoint

  16,410

  Kirklevington Grange

  29,508

  Lancaster

  14,800

  Latchmere House

  16,279

  Lindholme1

  18,851

  Littlehey1

  14,857

  The Mount

  13,816

  Ranby

  18,269

  Risley1

  19,850

  Send

  20,370

  Shepton Mallet

  20,000

  Stafford1

  17,631

  817

  Net operating cost for prisoner per year

  Establishment

  Net operating costper prisoner per year£

  Stocken

  15,385

  Thorpe Arch

  20,245

  Usk/Prescoed

  22,330

  The Verne

  14,695

  Wayland

  14,201

  Wellingborough1

  18,557

  Whatton

  16,588

  Wymott

  24,051

  Adult Male Open Prisons

  Ford

  13,064

  Hewell Grange

  16,250

  Kirkham

  11,504

  Leyhill1

  14,925

  Morton Hall

  12,651

  North Sea Camp

  15,385

  Rudgate

  14,015

  Standford Hill1

  17,532

  Sudbury/Foston

  13,948

  Young Offender Closed Establishments

  Aylesbury

  28,070

  Castington

  19,291

  Deerbolt

  19,242

  Dover

  27,320

  Glen Parva

  16,780

  Hollesley Bay1

  31,186

  Huntercombe/Finnamore Wood

  23,176

  Northallerton

  25,490

  Onley

  15,914

  Portland

  21,557

  Stoke Heath

  21,377

  Swinfen Hall

  24,260

  Werrington House

  21,154

  Wetherby

  27,132

  Young Offender Open Establishments

  Guys Marsh

  28,750

  Hatfield and Gringley

  23,377

  Thorn Cross

  21,965

  Young Offender Remand Estabishments

  Feltham

  20,267

  Hindley

  23,051

  Low Newton

  19,433

  Reading

  31,788

  Female Establishments

  Askham Grange

  20,588

  Bullwood Hall

  32,407

  Cookham Wood

  22,727

  Drake Hall

  18,717

  East Sutton Park

  21,333

  Holloway

  31,435

  New Hall

  32,667

  Pucklechurch

  39,344

  Styal

  29,534

  Vehicle Crime
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each year since 1990 the numbers of(a) thefts from vehicles and (b) thefts of vehicles, together with the numbers of vehicles involved (i) by make of vehicle and (ii) by year of manufacture. [41862]
  818
  Mr. Maclean
  The requested information on the number of thefts from and of a motor vehicle is published in table 2.18 of "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales" Cm 3010, a copy of which is in the Library. Information is not collected centrally on the make and year of manufacture of vehicles.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was(a) the number of vehicles stolen, (b) the number of vehicles recovered and (c) the recovery rate for 1994 (i) in the United Kingdom and (ii) by constabulary area. [41458]

  Mr. Maclean
  The latest published information relates to England and Wales and is contained in table 2.14 of "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, 1994", Cm 3010. A copy of this publication is in the Library. Information on Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for the Secretary of State for each Department.

  Prisons (Efficiency Savings)
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the target efficiency savings from the year 1992–93 to 1995–96 in each of Her Majesty's prisons within the United Kingdom; and what ere the actual savings in spending from 1992–93 to 1994–95. [41970]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. John Heppell, dated 7 November 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the target efficiency savings from the year 1992–93 to 1995–96 in each of Her Majesty's prisons within the United Kingdom; and the actual savings in spending from 1992–93 to 1994–95.
  For England and Wales as a whole current expenditure costs per prisoner place reduced in real terms by 2.1 percent between 1992–93 and 1994–95, equivalent to £27 million. Details relating to individual prisons are not readily available.

  Access to Criminal Records
  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish the Government White Paper on new arrangements for access to criminal records. [41695]

  Mr. Maclean
  I expect to publish the White Paper within the next few months.

  Immigration
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in the exercise of discretion in allowing a person who has resided in the United Kingdom for more than 10 years with leave to remain indefinitely, it is his practice to take into account residence in(a) Ireland and (b) other parts of the common travel area. [41467]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Under the long residence concession, a person who has 10 years or more continuous lawful residence in the United Kingdom, or 14 years continuous residence regardless of legality, may qualify for the grant of indefinite leave to remain in the absence of any strong
  819
  countervailing factors. For the purposes of the concession, residence in the Republic of Ireland is not considered to be residence in the United Kingdom and is therefore not taken into account. The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are, for the purposes of the concession, considered to be part of the United Kingdom. Residence in the islands is therefore taken into account.

  Police National Computer
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of information available to the police between January 1991 and 22 May 1995 has been placed on to the Phoenix system of the police national computer; which company has the contract for preparing the information to be placed on Phoenix; what percentage of files which have been attempted to be loaded have been rejected by the system in each week of September 1995; what was the expected number of files to be placed on the system for each week in September; what was the actual number which were loaded; and to what extent these results breached the contract. [41360]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Phoenix database holds specified categories of data. It is not possible to assess what proportion this forms of all information available to the police between January 1991 and 22 May 1995. Since Phoenix went live on 22 May 1995 the police have input information directly for new offenders. Conversion of existing records by keying data from scanned images of the microfiche records held by the national identification service, and the provision of specially written software for quality assurance and problem resolution is undertaken by PCL Group Ltd.

  The percentage of records which have been loaded and rejected by the system in each week of September 1995 is shown in the table, together with the actual number of records loaded in each week. The expected average number of records to be placed on the system for each week over the life of the contract is 46,000. Discussions between the Home Office and PCL Group on technical and contractual matters are commercially confidential.

  Records exported to Phoenix in September 1995

  Week

  Total accepted

  Percentage rejected

  1

  7,178

  28.23

  2

  3,087

  30.14

  3

  3,866

  27.84

  4

  765

  23.5

  Mr. O' Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints have been received from(a) police officers and (b) others about the quality of information on Phoenix. [41362]

  Mr. Maclean
  We have received no complaints about the quality of the information currently held on Phoenix from the police service or others.

  Mr. O' Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Phoenix system on the police national computer went live; and when was it nationally announced to go live. [41358]
  820
  Mr. Maclean
  The Phoenix system went live on 22 May 1995. The police service was informed of this date on 24 March 1995.

  Mr. O' Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many days in September 1995 the police national computer office attendant did not receive tapes from the company designated to provide information to go on to Phoenix. [41361]

  Mr. Maclean
  Tapes were not sent to Hendon data centre on nine of the 21 working days in September.

  Mr. O' Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of(a) pre-1981 information and (b) post-1981 information is on Phoenix for direct access by the police. [41359]

  Mr. Maclean
  All criminal record data held on the police national computer was transferred to the Phoenix database on 22 May 1995. This comprised 2.8 million records originating before 1981 which consisted of name and criminal record office number and 2.3 million records originating after 1981 which also included details of convictions. Back record conversion is in progress which will add information currently held only on microfiche to selected earlier records. It is not possible to state precisely what percentage of all criminal record information held centrally or locally by the police service this represents.

  Police Numbers
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the numbers of police posts requested and granted under the annual application procedure in each police authority region in 1995; and if he will make a statement; [41452]

  (2) if he will list the numbers of officers requested by each chief constable in each police authority region for the year 1995–96 under the annual application procedure; and if he will make a statement. [41451]

  Mr. Maclean
  No applications were submitted for 1995–96. The centralised system of determining police numbers by setting an establishment of officers for each police force was abolished from 1 April 1995.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he expects to allocate the 3,000 new police officers outlined in the Prime Minister's speech of October 1995; where he will locate the officers; what is the timetable; and if he will make a statement. [41453]

  Mr. Maclean
  Funding will be provided to enable chief constables to recruit an additional 5,000 officers over the next three financial years. The basis on which that funding will be distributed between police authorities is still to be decided. An announcement about police funding will be made after the Budget.

  Gaming Act Review
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish his review of the Gaming Act 1968; and if it is his intention to introduce legislation in the next Parliamentary Session. [41364]
  821
  Mr. Kirkhope
  We are currently reviewing the present controls on casinos and bingo clubs as part of the Government's deregulation initiative. Public consultation would be necessary before introducing legislation. We hope to publish a consultation paper soon.

  Young Offenders (Yorkshire)
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to establish a secure unit for young offenders in(a) Barnsley, (b) South Yorkshire or (c) Yorkshire. [41367]

  Mr. Maclean
  We have no plans to set up a secure training centre in Barnsley, South Yorkshire or Yorkshire and no plans to establish a new young offender institution in this area.

  Prisoners from Wales
  Mr. Allan Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) convicted and (b) remand prisoners from Wales are currently in custody (i) by county (ii) by sex and (iii) in total. [41382]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Allan Rogers, dated 7 November 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking how many a) convicted and b) remanded prisoners from Wales are currently in custody i) by county ii) by sex and iii) in total.
  Table 1 gives the number of prisoners born in Wales who were held on 30 September in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales. Information by county of birth is not routinely collected. However, the 1991 National Prison Survey collected this information for the prisoners in that sample. The numbers given in table 2 should be treated with care as they are taken from a medium sized sample study.

  Forces

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1 April 1994 to 31 March 1995

  Avon and Somerset

  66

  42

  56

  175

  Bedfordshire

  35

  27

  53

  36

  Cambridgeshire

  64

  105

  66

  73

  Cheshire

  42

  43

  40

  93

  City of London

  71

  93

  23

  8

  Cleveland

  5

  28

  22

  107

  Cumbria

  16

  11

  18

  44

  Derbyshire

  14

  31

  28

  68

  Devon and Cornwall

  38

  46

  51

  29

  Dorset

  33

  27

  28

  46

  Durham

  49

  27

  134

  100

  Dyfed-Powys

  14

  9

  7

  16

  Essex

  107

  140

  138

  267

  Gloucestershire

  5

  6

  10

  27

  Greater Manchester

  100

  100

  107

  110

  Gwent

  27

  15

  13

  20

  Hampshire

  94

  180

  215

  195

  Hertfordshire

  49

  53

  57

  69

  Humberside

  14

  6

  89

  49

  Kent

  96

  74

  89

  95

  Lancashire

  9

  23

  45

  57

  Leicestershire

  27

  18

  41

  78

  822

  Table 1: Population in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales on 30 September 1995 whose country of birth was Wales1

  Sex

  Type of custody

  Males

  Females

  Remand

  489

  3

  Sentenced

  1,754

  25

  Fine defaulters

  20

  —

  Total

  2,266

  28

  1 Provisional figures, total includes 3 non-criminal prisoners.

  Table 2: The 1991 National Prison Survey sample showing county of birth within Wales

  County

  Number in the sample

  Clwyd

  15

  Dyfed

  11

  Gwent

  28

  Gwynedd

  10

  Mid Glamorgan

  29

  South Glamorgan

  41

  West Glamorgan

  25

  Powys

  3

  Police Standard Spending Assessment
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take into account the number and type of police stations within a police authority's area when calculating the police standard spending assessment. [41275]

  Mr. Maclean
  No.

  Police (Firearms)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions in the last year officers in each police force had to draw firearms in the line of duty; and what are the figures for each of the previous three years. [41363]

  Mr. Maclean
  Numbers of police operations in England and Wales in which firearms were issued to officers are as follows:
  823

  Forces

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1 April 1994 to 31 March 1995

  Lincolnshire

  21

  22

  41

  50

  Merseyside

  35

  57

  74

  116

  Metropolitan Police

  1,520

  1,838

  12,585

  1,804

  Norfolk

  38

  28

  30

  56

  North Wales

  38

  29

  34

  60

  North Yorkshire

  16

  26

  25

  25

  Northamptonshire

  11

  10

  43

  40

  Northumbria

  325

  320

  299

  593

  Nottinghamshire

  35

  28

  77

  47

  South Wales

  24

  18

  22

  55

  South Yorkshire

  39

  78

  244

  172

  Staffordshire

  15

  18

  29

  21

  Suffolk

  84

  99

  75

  119

  Surrey

  37

  64

  36

  60

  Sussex

  116

  63

  53

  375

  Thames Valley

  37

  34

  48

  65

  Warwickshire

  12

  12

  28

  25

  West Mercia

  63

  64

  73

  50

  West Midlands

  66

  172

  209

  141

  West Yorkshire

  200

  377

  258

  181

  Wiltshire

  15

  18

  12

  26

  England and Wales Total

  3,722

  4,479

  5,625

  5,843

  1 This figure is unreliable due to inadvertent double-counting.

  Figures for operations in which firearms were issued to officers are not available for the first three months of 1994. The number of operations in which police firearms were fired was five in 1991, 12 in 1992, five in 1993 and six between 1 January 1994 and 31 March 1995.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide figures collected by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary on domestic violence incidents recorded by the police in England and Wales in 1994 in terms comparable with the 1993 figures given in the answer on 26 October 1994 to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton),Official Report, columns 640–41. [41173]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information available has been provided by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary and is in the table. It covers incidents of domestic violence recorded by the police in England and Wales in calendar year 1993 and financial year 1994–95. HMIC is currently examining the reasons for the disparities highlighted in the table and the methods used by police forces to record incidents of domestic violence.

  Domestic violence incidents recorded by the police in England and Wales in 1993 and 1994–95

  Forces

  19931

  1994–952

  Avon and Somerset

  n/a

  1,570

  Bedfordshire

  n/a

  6,338

  Cambridgeshire

  2,253

  2,566

  Cheshire

  17,918

  3,117

  different classification used

  City of London

  0

  3

  Cleveland

  3,448

  3,397

  Cumbria

  654

  1,857

  collection and systems improved

  Derbyshire

  7,606

  n/a

  Devon and Cornwall

  n/a

  7,294

  Dorset

  5,624

  6,138

  Durham

  3,277

  1,619

  Dyfed-Powys

  1,223

  1,612

  824

  Domestic violence incidents recorded by the police in England and Wales in 1993 and 1994–95

  Forces

  19931

  1994–952

  Essex

  1,724

  12,011

  under-recording in 1993

  Gloucestershire

  2,401

  4,612

  Greater Manchester

  33,988

  35,084

  Gwent

  135

  207

  Hampshire

  n/a

  4,908

  Hertfordshire

  3,367

  3,748

  Humberside

  8,401

  514

  different classification used

  Kent

  5,875

  5,865

  Lancashire

  6,090

  5,601

  Leicestershire

  4,075

  4,467

  Lincolnshire

  373

  625

  Merseyside

  11,956

  14,088

  1993 figure revised from previous table

  Metropolitan Police

  11,420

  n/a

  Norfolk

  881

  n/a

  North Wales

  287

  357

  North Yorkshire

  15,841

  n/a

  Northamptonshire

  2,104

  2,508

  Northumbria

  2,071

  10,364

  used wider classification

  Nottinghamshire

  1,990

  2,267

  South Wales

  3,451

  3,830

  South Yorkshire

  482

  n/a

  Staffordshire

  n/a

  n/a

  Suffolk

  1,396

  1,619

  Surrey

  3,155

  4,471

  Sussex

  1,157

  2,107

  Thames Valley

  9,167

  3,547

  1993 includes domestic disputes

  Warwickshire

  n/a

  500

  West Mercia

  916

  631

  1 Calendar year.

  2 Financial year.

  Child Sex Offenders
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what records exist within his Department in respect of convicted child sex offenders who have committed such offences outside the United Kingdom; [40945]
  825
  (2) in what circumstances his Department seeks to be informed of people convicted of sex offences overseas who have served their prison sentence and have then departed to the United Kingdom. [40944]

  Mr. Maclean
  The national criminal intelligence service maintains a paedophile index which holds detailed intelligence based information on known active paedophiles, whether they are active in the United Kingdom or abroad. There is no formal requirement for NCIS to be notified of the convictions of people normally resident in the United Kingdom who commit child sex offences abroad, but it receives information from foreign law enforcement agencies and also from non-governmental organisations concerned about overseas paedophile activities.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the arrangements for children giving evidence in court against alleged sex offenders; and if he will make a statement. [41708]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 6 November 1995]: We keep this area of law under review. We have already done a great deal to make it easier for children to give evidence effectively and to make the experience less of an ordeal. Recent research has indicated that the provisions for children's evidence which we have introduced have been useful, particularly in reducing the level of trauma for the child. We are considering in conjunction with the other agencies involved how further practical improvements can be made.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to implement the recommendations of the report, "The Game's Up", on child prostitution. [39697]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 6 November 1995]: We share the concern of the Children's Society about child prostitution and fully support the multi-agency approach recommended by the report. We will continue to encourage all the agencies concerned to give a high priority to action to prevent the sexual exploitation of children and young people.

  Temporary and Part-time Staff
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff are currently employed in his Department and in related agencies on(a) temporary or casual employment contracts and (b) part-time employment contracts, given as an actual figure and as a proportion of the total work force; and what were the corresponding figures for five years ago. [41121]

  Mr. Howard
  Breakdowns by Department and executive agency for 1 April 1995 of the number of permanent staff, the number of casual staff—normally those engaged for a period of up to 12 months, but, exceptionally, up to two years—and the number of part-time staff are presented in the civil service staff in 826
  post summary table for 1 April 1995, a copy of which is in the Library. Estimates on a comparable basis for 1 April 1990 have also been placed in the Library.

  Crime, South Yorkshire
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the latest quarterly recorded crime figures for South Yorkshire metropolitan area; what the figures were one year ago; and if he will make a statement. [40978]

  Mr. Maclean
  There were 37,494 offences recorded in the South Yorkshire police force area in April to June 1995. This represents a fall of 3 per cent. over the April to June 1994 figure of 38,500 offences.

  HM Inspector of Prisons
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to announce the name of the new inspector of prisons. [40946]

  Mr. Howard
  In due course.

  Ministerial Transport
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the cost of ministerial transport in each of the past five years; what allowance has been paid to ministers who use their own vehicles; and what has been the cost in each of the past five years. [40738]

  Mr. Howard
  The information requested is as follows:

  1990–91: £210,096

  1991–92>: £170,903

  1992–93: £207,980

  1993–94: £233,916

  1994–95: £195,916

  Home Office Ministers do not use their own vehicles for official business.

  Prison Service Performance Indicators
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made with the seven key performance indicators since the appointment of Derek Lewis as Director General of the Prison Service. [39603]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Ms Janet Anderson, dated 7 November 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the Prison Service's progress against its Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) since April 1993.
  The attached table shows the Service's KPI performance in the first six months of 1995–96 and compares this performance to 1992–93.
  827

  Prison service performance against KPIs; April 1993-September 1995

  Key performance indicator (KPI)

  Performance: April to September 1995

  Comparison to 1992–93

  KPI1: Escapes

  64 escapes in total so far, including 15 which, in previous years, would have been the responsibility of the police, (annualised escape rate 0.19 per cent, of population)

  169 in same period 1992–93 (annualised rate of 0.74 per cent, of population):

  KPI2: Assaults

  2,739 assaults in total so far this year (annualised assault rate 10.7 per cent, of population)

  2,244 in same period 1992–93 (annualised rate 9.9 per cent, of population). 10 per cent, reduction on same period 1994–95

  KPI3: Overcrowding

  no prisoners held 3 to a cell for 1 so far this year

  average of 817 in same period 1992–93

  KPI4: Sanitation

  97 per cent of prisoners have 24 hour access to sanitation

  70 per cent in March 1992

  KPI5: Purposeful activity

  average of 25.5 hours per prisoner per week so far this year

  23.7 hours per prisoner per week in 1992–93

  KPI6: Time unlocked

  41 per cent, of prisoners unlocked 12+ hours at end of August

  24 per cent of prisoners unlocked 12+ hours at end March 1993

  KPI7: Minimum visits

  100 per cent of prisoners exceeding minimum visits so far this year

  90 per cent. at end March 1993

  KPI8: Cost per prison place

  in 1994–95, the average cost of a prison place was £22,037 (at 1992–93 prices

  in 1992–93, the average cost of a prison place was £22,588.

  1 Escapes which would, in previous years, have been the responsibility of the police, are shown separately, to ensure a like-for-like comparison, these are excluded in the year-to-year measurement of escapes as a percentage of the prison population.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated saving to the Exchequer by the repeal of each rule and regulation which has so far been the subject of a reference to the Deregulation Committee from his Department; and in how many cases a compliance cost assessment has been carried out.[41545]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 6 November 1995]: My Department has laid two draft deregulation proposals to date. The measures concerned are not expected to accrue any significant savings to the Exchequer, but certain benefits to business are expected. For example, in the case
  828
  of the draft Deregulation (Greyhound Racing) Order, the financial savings likely to accrue to the greyhound industry have been estimated at £260,000 per annum.

  The explanatory document which is presented to the Committee alongside each draft order is required to contain an assessment of the cost savings to business and any other persons whom the draft order is intended to benefit.

  Michael Hunt
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what conditions Michael Hunt is released from prison; and if he will make a statement. [41076]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 2 November 1995]: I will write to the hon. Member.

  Secure Training Centres
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now outline the measures he proposes to take following the court hearing of 26 September to ensure that the secure training centres conform to the Children Act 1989 and the volume 4 guidance and regulations. [41370]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 6 November 1995]: Secure training centres will be regulated by secure training centre rules as provided for in section 6 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, and contract terms. Secure training centre rules will be made by statutory instrument shortly before the first centres open, and it is intended that they will take account for the principles on which the Children Act 1989 is based.

  Volume 4 of the Children Act 1989 guidance and regulations produced by the Department of Health for children's homes will not apply to secure training centres. However, it is a source document for the development of the rules.

  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to complete the signing of the first two contracts for secure training centres; and if he will lodge the relevant documents in the Library, with particular reference to information which indicates how the contracts comply with the Children Act 1989. [41371]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 6 November 1995]: The signing of the first two contracts for the provision of secure training centres at Gringley, Nottinghamshire, and at Cookham Wood, Kent will take place as soon as possible after completion of negotiations with tenderers. The final signed contract documents will be placed in the Library. These documents will not contain commercially confidential information such as costs or prices.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to increase the security of the Needlewood centre in Barnsley to accommodate young offenders. [41366]

  Mr. Bowis
  I have been asked to reply.
  829
  Responsibility for the arrangements for the accommodation of young persons in the Needlewood centre, Barnsley, lies with Barnsley metropolitan borough council. The hon. Gentleman may wish to contact the chairman of the social services committee of the council.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support Agency
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many absent parents had their Child Support Agency assessments(a) increased and (b) decreased as a result of the changes introduced in April; and if he will provide a breakdown. [41038]

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

  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 6 November 1995:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary for Social Security about Child Support Agency assessments.
  It is estimated that no more than 150 absent parents have had their child maintenance assessments increased because of the April changes. We believe that nearly all these relate to cases where parents with care were awarded an allowance for travel to work costs.
  So far over 40,000 absent parents had their maintenance decreased because of the April changes. It is not possible to give a precise breakdown of this figure and cases are still being processed. It is estimated that almost 19,000 absent parents benefitted from the new 30% of net income limit on the amount of maintenance an absent parent is required to pay and 16,000 benefitted from the inclusion of all housing costs in exempt income. So far about 2,000 absent parent have benefitted from either the award of allowances of property and capital settlements or from the award of an allowance for travel to works costs. The balance of over 3,000 cases would have been reduced because they were affected by one or more of the other changes (e.g. reduction in the maximum amount paid under the formula; liability plus arrears to be a maximum 33% of absent parents earnings).

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will outline the specific changes that have recently been made to the accuracy measurements of the Child Support Agency to ensure that they align with the definition used by the National Audit Office. [41040]

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

  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 6 November 1995:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about accuracy measurements of the Child Support Agency.
  The Child Support Agency developed a definition to measure the accuracy of maintenance assessments, in liaison with the National Audit Office during 1994/95.
  The Agency asked the National Audit Office to examine how this definition worked in practice as part of the audit undertaken early in 1995. The National Audit Office concluded that we should alter our method of measuring the cash value of assessments in the following ways.
  We should exclude from the calculation any cases which were closed prior to assessment.
  830
  We should attempt to establish whether assessments made before all the evidence was gathered, were correct at the time of the assessment. If so these should be treated as correct, as the value of the assessment was not in error. Although procedures may not have been followed precisely, this will not have had an adverse impact on our clients. Other cases in this category, for instance where the missing evidence would result in a changed assessment, should be treated as errors.
  Both these changes were implemented from April 1995.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to establish an independent complaints adjudicator for the Child Support Agency. [41887]

  Mr. Mitchell
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked the chief executive to look at current complaints procedures and see how they might be improved. One of the options could be the establishment of a Child Support Agency complaints adjudicator. It is too soon to say whether such an arrangement could operate in the context of CSA business.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many of the cases assessed by the Child Support Agency would have had no opportunity to arrange a child maintenance agreement(a) because they are new separations or (b) for some other reasons. [41339]

  Mr. Mitchell
  All cases assessed by the Child Support Agency have had the opportunity to make a child maintenance agreement whether or not they are newly separated. However, if an agreement is made which is insufficient to remove the need for the parent with care to claim either income support, family credit or disability working allowance, the parent with care may be required to authorise the Secretary of State to take action to recover child support maintenance.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many of the absent parents who had previously paid no child maintenance at the time they were taken on by the Child Support Agency were on benefits. [41341]

  Mr. Mitchell
  The agency does not collect this information as there is no business need for it.

  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will report on the review of the arrangements for compensating clients who have a genuine grievance against the Child Support Agency. [42192]

  Mr. Mitchell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) on 17 July 1995,Official Report, column 1300.

  Since its inception, the agency has had the facility to consider special payments to compensate clients where a clear, unambiguous error or delay has been caused by the agency.

  Although each case is considered on its individual merits, the agency has now established clear criteria for deciding whether, and if so, how much, to pay in compensation.

  The details of this scheme, which is comparable to those operated by other DSS agencies, have now been

  831
  developed from experience of cases arising in this new and unique business. This will ensure that each case receives fair and consistent consideration.

  Claimants, Doncaster and Mexborough
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the number of current benefit claimants at each of his Department's benefit offices covering the Doncaster and Mexborough area; and what the figure was 12 months ago. [39483]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The administration of social security benefits is a matter for Mr. Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 6 November 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what is the number of current benefit claimants at each of his Department's benefit offices covering the Doncaster Mexborough area; and what was the comparable figure 12 months ago.
  The latest information for locally administered benefits (ie those benefits calculated and paid at the Benefit Agency's local offices) is provided in the enclosed Appendix A and includes the comparable figure for 12 months ago. You should note that more than one benefit can be payable to a customer at the same time.
  Information is usually collated at District level. On this occasion, however, I am able to give you details about incapacity benefits for Doncaster East, Doncaster West and Mexborough offices and details about Income Support for Doncaster East and Doncaster West. The Rother and Dearne District includes Mexborough, Goldthorpe, Rotherham South and Rotherham North offices. Information about Income Support is only available at District Level for Rother and Dearne.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  The latest available statistics for locally administered incapacity benefits are as follows:

  Appendix A—incapacity benefits

  Doncaster West BO

  Doncaster East BO

  Mexborough BO

  September 1994

  Invalidity Benefit

  7,457

  6,018

  4,025

  Sickness Benefit

  1,909

  1,354

  308

  Maternity Allowance

  24

  24

  11

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  1,095

  788

  577

  September 1995

  Incapacity Benefit1

  8,323

  7,000

  4,239

  Maternity Allowance

  41

  27

  11

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  1,231

  839

  597

  1From 13 April 1995 Invalidity Benefit and Sickness Benefit were replaced by Incapacity Benefit.

  Income Support

  August 1994

  August 1995

  Doncaster East BO

  13,039

  13,054

  Doncaster West BO

  17,397

  17,664

  Rother & Dearne District Office

  38,431

  38,686

  Note:

  More than one benefit can be payable to a customer at the same time.

  Grants
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for what grant-giving funds his Department is responsible requiring a private sector contribution where the use of national lottery funds is not allowed to count towards that private sector portion. [38608]

  Mr. Burt
  We have no schemes which seek exclusively non-public sector funding in partnership.

  Consultancy Costs
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the cost of the employment of Ernst and Young as consultants in two pilot areas commencing on 2 October in connection with the identification of benefit claimant fraud; and which two areas have been selected for this. [39973]

  Mr. Heald
  The estimated cost of the employment of Ernst and Young to work in partnership with fraud managers in the Benefits Agency for a period of 12 months is £525,000. The two areas taking part are West Mercia and Manchester. This partnership will examine work processes, information technology and management of fraud investigations. What we learn from this partnership will be applied across the whole of the Benefits Agency, helping further to increase the productivity of its fraud investigation services and to target resources more effectively.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security approximately how many blind or partially sighted people have appealed to the disability appeal tribunal against the disability living allowance unit's decision not to award them the middle rate of the DLA care component since 14 October 1994. [40892]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The information is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Temporary and Part-time Staff
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many staff are currently employed in his Department and in related agencies on(a) temporary or casual employment contracts and (b) part-time employment contracts, given as an actual figure and a proportion of the total workforce; and what were the corresponding figures for five years ago. [41122]

  Mr. Burt
  Breakdowns by Department and executive agency for 1 April 1995 of the number of permanent staff, the number of casual staff—normally those engaged for a period of up to 12 months, but, exceptionally, up to two years—and of the number of part-time staff are presented in the civil service staff in post summary table for 1 April 1995, a copy of which is in the Library. Estimates on a comparable basis for 1 April 1990 have also been placed in the Library.

  National Insurance Contributions
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the extra return to the Exchequer resulting from removing the upper limit on
  833
  employees' national insurance contributions; and what proportion of employers' national insurance contributions that would represent if their gross national insurance contributions were reduced by that amount overall. [40907]

  Mr. Heald
  The additional return and proportion of employers' national insurance contributions would be about £3.1 billion and 12.8 per cent. respectively in Great Britain for 1995–96 in a full year, if the upper limit on employees' NICs was removed, but an upper earnings limit at current levels remained in place for the purposes of calculating contracted-out rebates. Information for Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friend and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Source: Government Actuary's Department.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is his policy towards the introduction of exemptions from national insurance contributions for employers of seafarers; [41596]

  (2) if he will list the European countries which (a) exempt and (b) do not exempt seafarers employers from national insurance contributions. [41597]

  Mr. Heald
  Exemptions for this or any other group of employers would be contrary to the principle of universal contribution liability for universal benefit coverage on which the national insurance scheme is based. The information in the table shows that most European countries do not exempt seafarers' employers from contribution liability. We are, however, aware of the concerns expressed by the shipping industry about their national insurance position and these are being considered.

  European Countries which (a) exempt and (b) do not exempt seafarers employers from national insurance contributions

  (a) Exempt

  Denmark1

  Portugal1

  (b) Not exempt

  Belgium

  Luxembourg

  Finland2

  France

  Germany

  Greece

  Ireland

  Italy

  Netherlands

  Norway

  Spain

  Switzerland

  United Kingdom

  Notes:

  1. Exemption applies only in respect of crews of ships on the second register.

  2. Contributions are refunded to employers in respect of crews of ships on the second register.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total weekly cost of benefits paid to those awaiting determination of their application for asylum in the United Kingdom as at 12 October. [41497]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The latest figures available are in the November 1994 quarterly statistical inquiry. This indicates there were about 42,000 asylum seekers in 834
  receipt of income support. The estimated cost of income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit payments to those people was about £5 million per week. The information is not available for other benefits.

  Parliamentary Ombudsman
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in how many cases his Department or its agencies has been criticised by the parliamentary ombudsman since 1979. [41253]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the table.

  Year

  Complaints upheld

  Complaints not upheld but department criticised

  Total

  1979

  42

  15

  57

  1980

  50

  9

  59

  1981

  53

  16

  69

  1982

  26

  34

  60

  1983

  29

  44

  73

  1984

  38

  41

  79

  1985

  42

  29

  71

  1986

  48

  33

  81

  1987

  40

  37

  77

  1988

  33

  25

  58

  1989

  36

  23

  59

  1990

  38

  47

  85

  1991

  48

  32

  80

  1992

  52

  36

  88

  1993

  68

  19

  87

  1994

  62

  25

  87

  Widow's Benefit
  Sir Anthony Durant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the number of widows in receipt of widow's benefit excluding those receiving widow's bereavement allowance as at March. [41612]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available in the format requested. The number of widows in receipt of widow's benefit at March 1995 is 290,0001. The number of widows in receipt of widow's bereavement allowance in the 1995–96 tax year is 70,0002.

  Source:

  1. DSS Statistics

  2. Inland Revenue Statistics

  War Pensions
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list those councils in Norfolk which allow war pensioners and war widows to keep all their war pension even if they are receiving benefits and those which do not. [40114]

  Mr. Heald
  The following local authorities in Norfolk have advised me that they operate local schemes which disregard war pensions in full when calculating entitlement to housing benefit and council tax benefit: North Norfolk, King's Lynn and West Norfolk, Breckland and Broadland.

  Great Yarmouth, South Norfolk and Norwich city have advised that they do not operate such a local scheme.
  835
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much, on average, war pensions have changed in real value since the new guidelines for determining housing and council tax benefit were introduced. [41605]

  Mr. Heald
  Since the introduction of the revised housing benefit scheme in April 1988, the basic weekly rate of war disablement pension payable in respect of a 100 per cent. disabled private soldier, and equivalent, has increased from £67.20 to £101.10. If increased only in line with the retail prices index, the estimated current rate would be £95.30 per week.

  The basic weekly rate of war widow's pension payable to the widow of a private soldier, and equivalent, has increased from £67.20 to £76.35. Increases in line with RPI alone would have produced an estimated current rate of £75.85 a week.

  In addition, since April 1990, most war widows have received a fully upratable supplementary pension—originally £40 a week, currently £49.77—which is totally disregarded for housing benefit and council tax benefit purposes.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of Social Security what extra provision is and will be provided for the existing claimants who will lose benefit due to the change to incapacity benefit from invalidity benefit over the first three years in which incapacity benefit is paid. [41962]

  Mr. Burt
  Unemployment benefit and income-related benefits such as income support are available to those who are no longer incapable of work and who are seeking and available for employment. In addition, significant extra resources have been made available to the Employment Service over the first three years to fund back-to-work help for those leaving incapacity benefit.

  Disability Discrimination
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if children with learning difficulties who are currently attending special schools for children with learning difficulties will be automatically protected under the disability discrimination legislation. [41340]

  Mr. Burt
  The definition of disability in the Disability Discrimination Bill, subject to the provisions of schedule 1, provides that a person has a disability for the purposes of the Act if he has or has had a physical or mental impairment which has or had a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. Children who meet this definition will be protected by the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Bill and by complementary provisions of the Education Act 1993.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many children with learning difficulties are estimated to be covered under the Disability Discrimination Bill. [41343]

  Mr. Burt
  Centrally maintained statistics are not kept in a form that will provide this information. The definition of disability in the Disability Discrimination Bill does not correlate directly with information held by the Department of Health about children who have learning disabilities,836
  or to definitions used by the Department for Education and Employment to collect information about children with learning difficulties.

  Evidence from epidemiological studies suggest that there are about 30,000 children under the age of 16 in England with severe or profound learning disabilities, but others with a mild or moderate degree of learning disability.

  Under the Education Act 1993, a child has special educational needs if he or she has a significantly greater difficulty in learning than the majority of children of that age. This difficulty in learning may be entirely unrelated to any disability. It has been estimated that up to one in five children may have special educational needs at some time in his or her school career.

  In view of the existing comprehensive protection under the 1993 Act and code of practice on the identification and assessment of special educational needs, the House has agreed that education should be excluded from the scope of part III of the Bill. Subject to that, the other relevant provisions of the Disability Discrimination Bill will apply equally to children with special educational needs as to all other people.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what financial assistance will be available for children with learning difficulties to enable legal action to be taken on their behalf under the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Bill. [41345]

  Mr. Burt
  The majority of actions taken under the new right of access will be via the small claims procedure, where the proceedings are informal, legal representation is not required and no costs can be awarded. Where actions are taken in open court of proceed to higher courts, legal aid will be available to children with learning disabilities provided they meet the normal means and merits tests. Children are assessed for legal aid according to their own means and not their parents. A child is therefore more likely to be financial eligible than an adult.

  Child Support
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement in respect of the operational policy of the Department of Social Security liable relatives unit and the child support unit when arranging child maintenance from liable parents. [41779]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  There was no liable relative unit as such: liable relative work formed part of the operation of DSS local offices. The aim of liable relative sections in those offices was to ensure that people liable to maintain their spouse, child or sponsored immigrant did so to the best of their ability, where possible removing the need for income support. The child support unit had similar aims but relating to child maintenance only.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by how much the combined value of child benefit and child dependency increases would have to be raised in April 1996, in cash and percentage terms to restore them to their November 1979 values relative to prices and average earnings for(a) war widows and (b) other widows. [41640]

  Mr. Mitchell
  The information for values relative to prices is set out in the table.
  837
  The same information for value relative to average earnings is not yet available.

  War widows

  Cash rise

  Percentage rise

  Eldest qualifying child

  £10.60

  43.4

  Other children

  £11.35

  48

  Other widows

  Eldest qualifying child

  £7.50

  37

  Other children

  £8.25

  42.3

  Notes:

  1. A higher rate of child benefit for the eldest child was introduced in April 1991. Prior to that date all children were paid at the same rate.

  2. Figures have been rounded to the nearest 5p.

  3. The retail prices index, all items, as published by the Central Statistical Office was used in the calculation.

  Lone Parents
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much his Department has spent on research into(a) lone-parent families and (b) absent parents, in each year since 1989. [41800]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The Department's research programme is announced each year. Details and overall costs of all projects are set out in the Department's research yearbook, published annually by HMSO, copies of which are available in the Library. Previous editions cover projects from 1989 onwards; the yearbook for 1994–95 will contain details of projects currently under way and will be published in December.

  Income Support (Young People)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the cost in a full year of reintroducing income support payments for 16 to 17-year-olds. [41867]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Information is not available to calculate the cost of reintroducing income support payments for 16 to 17-year-olds within normal estimating margins. The behaviourial factors are difficult to estimate; however, illustrative costs, based on a range of assumptions, are in the table:

  Cost of restoring income support to 16 and 17-year-olds

  £ million

  Assumptions

  Benefits costs1996–97

  10 per cent. move from Education to Income Support

  340

  20 per cent. move from Education to Income Support

  550

  40 per cent. move from Education to Income Support

  975

  Notes:

  1. Costs are derived from the movement of young people from education to income support plus the cost of those who claim income support while waiting for a youth training placement plus the costs of those who claim income support who are not in education, training, nor employment.

  2. In addition to assumptions regarding the movement from education to income support, it is assumed that: all 16 and 17-year-olds move on to income support from day one of the policy change; 15 per cent. of the families of 16 and 17-year-olds in education are on income support; this assumption is the basis for an
  838
  estimate of reduction in cost as a result of families losing entitlement to dependency and other family benefits; half of the 16 and 17-year-olds who claim income support move away from home and live independently and so receive housing benefit; and half of the 16 and 17-year-olds are the only children in their families.

  3. The numbers of education and youth training are based on projections for 1996–97.

  4. The numbers not in education, training or employment are based on information from the spring labour force survey and DSS benefit statistics.

  5. Costs have been rounded to nearest million but are not accurate to that degree.

  Medical Reports
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to apply(a) the commitment given by his predecessor on 8 July 1988, Official Report, column 1355, during the passage of the Access to Medical Reports Act and (b) the provisions of the Access to Health Records Act 1990 to medical reports prepared by the Benefits Agency for its own use or that of an equivalent authority overseas; and if they will be available to, and may be corrected by, the subject of the report. [41997]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  It has for many years been the practice of the Department of Social Security to supply copies of medical reports in connection with claims to benefit at the request of the claimant, subject to any information which could be detrimental to the claimant's well-being removed.

  In the event of an appeal against a decision made by the independent adjudicating authorities, copies of all reports are supplied to the claimant, again subject to withholding information as described above. If the claimant disagrees with the information in the reports, an appeal to the relevant tribunal is the means by which they can express their disagreement.

  Nursing Home Residents
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the annual cost of higher level income support payments to nursing home residents with preserved rights in each of the last three years(a) nationally, (b) regionally and (c) by area. [41943]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out in the table:

  Annual cost of income support limits for nursing home residents

  £ million

  1992

  1993

  1994

  England

  1,071

  1,184

  916

  Scotland

  127

  132

  104

  Wales

  106

  100

  78

  Great Britain

  1,300

  1,416

  1,097

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the million. Due to rounding some of the totals may not tally.

  2. Estimated annual expenditure is calculated by multiplying the number of cases in May of each year by the average weekly income support at the enquiry date and then multiplying by 52.

  Source:

  Income support statistics residential care/nursing home quarterly inquiries May 1992–1994.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Apprenticeships
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans the Government have to increase apprenticeships for school leavers. [40047]

  Mr. Paice
  The Government welcome employers' enthusiastic response to the modern apprenticeships initiative. We hope that approaching 30,000 trainees will be recruited in the current year.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many pupils are currently educated in grant-maintained schools. [40049]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  More than 680,000 pupils are currently being educated in grant-maintained schools in England.

  Primary School Class Sizes
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many primary school pupils in England are taught in classes of 36 or more; and if she will make a statement. [40051]

  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many primary school children are currently being taught in class sizes of more than 35. [40055]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  In January 1995 there were 108,000 primary school pupils taught in classes of 36 or more in England.

  Economic Regeneration, Workington
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what contribution her Department is able to make to local economic regeneration in Workington. [40052]

  Mr. Forth
  This Department makes a major contribution to the development of Workington through the activities of the Employment Service and Cumbria training and enterprise council.

  Grammar Schools, Kent
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many grammar schools there are in Kent. [40053]

  Mrs Gillan
  Thirty-nine.

  School Repairs
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to deal with the backlog of repairs to schools. [40054]

  Mrs. Gillan
  It is up to individual local education authorities and governors to make their own plans for any repairs to schools.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make it her policy to ensure that education standard spending assessments are adjusted fully to take into account increases in pay and prices and demographic changes. [40056]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  When determining the level of resourcing for education, the Government take into account the pressures on the education service, including projected trends in pupil numbers and inflation. But we also look at the scope which local authorities have for making efficiency savings and consider what the country can afford given the continuing need for restraint in public expenditure.

  Primary School Standards
  Sir Malcolm Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action she is taking to raise standards in primary schools. [40117]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The national curriculum and its assessment, national tests, regular inspections, improvements to teacher training and our improving schools programme all act to raise standards in primary schools. The chief inspector of schools has confirmed that our reforms are improving the quality of education.

  Higher Education Review
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress has been made on her review of higher education. [40118]

  Mr. Forth
  We consulted earlier in the year on the purpose of higher education and its future shape and size. Around 100 responses were received: copies have been placed in the Library. As my right hon. Friend announced at the beginning of July, a further consultative paper will be issued around the turn of the year.

  Work Experience
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to give pupils at secondary schools the opportunity for direct experience in the workplace. [40119]

  Mr. Paice
  We have asked training and enterprise councils and their local partners to encourage work experience for pupils and have made funds available specifically to support it for all in their last year of compulsory schooling. The need for further action is being kept under review.

  School Discipline
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures the Government have taken to promote good discipline in school classrooms. [40120]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend announced on 27 September a range of initiatives to help schools combat the problem of disruptive pupils. These initiatives build on guidance on pupil behaviour and discipline sent to all schools, as part of the "Pupils with Problems" pack in May last year. We have also asked the consultative
  841
  group on school standards to advise the Department on what else can be done to help schools maintain and improve discipline.

  Access to Work
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what are her plans for the access to work programme once Royal Assent has been given to the Disability Discrimination Bill. [40121]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The access to work programme is being reviewed following its first year of operation, as we announced would happen when it was launched. We intend to continue providing help under the programme, and the review is therefore taking account of the experience of its operation so far, and of the implications of the Disability Discrimination Bill. We intend to announce details of any changes to the programme before the Act comes into force.

  Remploy
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement about the future of Remploy. [40122]

  Mrs Gillan
  I am not aware of any developments that would warrant a statement.

  Unemployment (Teenagers)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what factors she has assessed as having the greatest impact on the levels of unemployment among(a) teenage women and (b) teenage men. [40123]

  Mr. Forth
  The acquisition of relevant qualifications and work-related skills, and the creation of a competitive, efficient and flexible labour market, are particularly important in keeping unemployment low among both teenage men and teenage women.

  Whithinfields School
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will visit Halifax to inspect working conditions at Withinfields school, Southowram. [40124]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to visit Withinfields school. I visited the school on 21 April 1995.

  Further Education Colleges (Funding)
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent representations she has received regarding the funding of further education colleges. [40125]

  Mr. Paice
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received some 20 representations regarding the funding of further education colleges since colleges' 1995–96 allocations were announced by the Further Education Funding Council at the end of May.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is her policy on the optimum class size in primary and secondary schools. [40126]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  It is for the governors and headteachers of individual schools to decide how to organise their classes.

  Jobfinder's Grant
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many unemployed people in each region and in Great Britain as a whole have applied for a jobfinder's grant and(a) received a grant and (b) not received a grant since April; what is the means-tested savings limit in each region; what procedures are in place for appeals for people whose grant applications are turned down; if she will provide a breakdown of recipients of the jobfinder's grant by their gross weekly wage level; and if she will make a statement. [41918]

  Mr. Forth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Terry Rooney, dated 7 November 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the Jobfinder's Grant.
  The attached table (Annex 1) shows the number of Jobfinder's Grants applied for and awarded nationally and by region since the programme was introduced on 18 April (22 May in Yorkshire and Humberside region, where a more flexible variant to the programme is being piloted) up to 6 October, which is the latest date for which figures are available.
  The table also shows the gross weekly wage level of grant recipients. To be eligible for the grant, applicants must take jobs paying £150 gross per week or less (£250 per week gross or less in Yorkshire and Humberside region).
  The savings limit for the grant is £2,800 in all regions except Yorkshire and Humberside and the South West, where it is £2,600. (In these two regions, pilot variants to the programme allow grants of up to £400, which is double the £200 flat rate grant in the rest of the country.)
  The grant has been made available to help jobseekers who have been unemployed for a very long time to overcome the barrier, perceived or otherwise, of the transitional phase from losing benefits to receiving their first wage. It is not a benefit and there is no statutory right to the grant. Therefore, there is no formal appeals procedure for applications which are turned down.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Annex 1: Jobfinder's grant

  Grants applied for (up to 6 October)

  Grants awarded (up to 6 October)

  National total

  9,128

  5,478

  London and South East

  1,289

  745

  South West

  751

  426

  Wales

  563

  369

  West Midlands

  1,328

  814

  North West

  1,252

  826

  Scotland

  782

  377

  Northern

  718

  446

  843

  Annex 1: Jobfinder's grant

  Grants applied for (up to 6 October)

  Grants awarded (up to 6 October)

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  734

  526

  East Midlands and Eastern

  1,711

  949

  Gross weekly wage level

  Number of grant recipients

  £200+ gross per week

  30

  £150-£199 gross per week

  320

  £100-£149 gross per week

  3,691

  Less than £100 gross per week

  794

  Wage not known

  18

  Note:

  This information is from a database held by the company contracted to evaluate the Jobfinder's Grant, on the basis of 4,853 grant recipients inputted to the database up to the end of October.

  Nursery Voucher Scheme
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what is the cash value of the contract awarded to Capita Managed Services Ltd. to administer the nursery voucher scheme in the financial years(a) 1995–96 and (b) 1996–97; [42034]

  (2) what estimate was given by Capita Managed Services Ltd. for the cost of administering the nursery voucher scheme. [42035]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The financial details of the Government's contract with Capita Managed Services Ltd. to administer the nursery voucher scheme are commercially confidential, but the contract was awarded by competitive tender from a short list of 10 companies.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what budget has been allocated for the nursery voucher information campaign in(a) Norfolk, (b) Kensington and Chelsea, (c) Wandsworth and (d) Westminster. [42033]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The total budget allocated to inform parents and providers about the first phase of the nursery voucher scheme in voluntary local education authorities, is £750,000. It is not possible to break this down for individual voluntary areas.

  European Funds
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what element of European social funds is restricted solely to objective 4; and when the Government intend to draw up an objective 4 programme.[41981]

  Mr. Forth
  The Government have not allocated any European social fund money to objective 4 and have no plans to draw up a programme for that objective.

  Training and Employment, Sheffield
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will encourage the development of a local training and employment plan in the Darnall 844
  area of Sheffield following the publication of the Darnall review. [40037]

  Mr. Paice
  I know that the local training and enterprise council is taking a keen interest in the Darnall review. I fully support sensible initiatives to revitalise disadvantaged areas.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action she is taking to safeguard existing nursery education places for three and four-year-olds under her proposed national voucher scheme for all four-year-olds; and if she will make a statement. [40298]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The parents of every four-year-old will receive a nursery education voucher which they can redeem for three terms of good quality nursery education in the state, private or voluntary sector. In exercising the choice which the voucher scheme provides, parents are likely to continue to make use of places which meet the needs of them and their children.

  The voucher scheme should not affect existing places for three-year-olds. The proposed funding mechanism will allow local authorities to continue to spend on such places as they judge appropriate.

  Student Loans Company
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what discussions she has had with the Student Loans Company regarding levels of debt experienced by students. [40050]

  Mr. Forth
  I have had a number of discussions with senior executives at the Student Loans Company. It is entirely right that graduates should contribute towards the cost of their higher education. The loans scheme is fair and generous.

  Skills Training Agency Sites
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which of the former sites occupied by the Skills Training Agency have been disposed of and which remain for disposal; who have been appointed to advise on the disposal, what fees they have been paid to date; and what is the amount so far received from the sale of the sites. [40939]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The following former Skills Training Agency sites have been disposed of:

  Leicester; East Lancashire; Chelmsford; Leeds; Wakefield;

  Edinburgh; Southampton; Slough; Reading; Twickenham;

  Portsmouth; St. Helens; Cardiff and Deptford.

  The sites remaining for disposal are as follows:

  Letchworth; Swindon; Northampton; Ipswich and Skyline

  House.

  Chartered surveyors King and Co—now Kings Sturge and Co—were appointed to advise on the disposal. Its fees are determined, under their contract with the Department, using different percentage figures according to the method of disposal—that is, sale of freehold or assignment of leasehold interest.
  845
  The net amount so far received from the sale of sites is £14,731,372.

  Disability Discrimination
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if children with learning difficulties who have received a statement of special educational needs under the provisions of the 1981 and 1993 Education Acts will be automatically protected by the Disability Discrimination Bill. [41342]

  Mr. Forth
  Under the Education Act 1993 local education authorities have a statutory duty to arrange the provision specified in a statement of special educational needs. In view of the existing comprehensive protection under that Act, the House has agreed that education should be excluded from the scope of part III of the Bill. Subject to that, the other relevant provisions of the disability Discrimination Bill will apply equally to children with statements as to all other people.

  Access to Work Scheme
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if she will list the employers contacted by her Department during the last three months in respect of providing voluntary funding for adaptations for disabled employees under the access to work scheme; [41794]

  (2) how many employers have been contacted by letter by her Department during the last three months concerning the voluntary payment of adaptations for disabled employees undertaken under the access to work scheme; and if she will indicate the number of employers who (a) offered to pay voluntary contribution in full, (b) offered to part-fund costs and (c) expressed objections to paying any costs in part or in full. [41793]

  Mr. Forth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 7 November 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions about employers contacted by letter concerning voluntary contributions towards adaptations for disabled people undertaken under the Access to Work programme.
  The information you ask for is not kept centrally, but it is our policy to ask every employer to consider whether they are able to make a contribution.
  The Government launched the Access to Work programme in June 1994 without a requirement by employers to contribute towards the cost of help. However, it has always been our practice to seek voluntary contributions from employers. There are also some cases where the help we provide for individual disabled people clearly gives additional benefits to the employer's business. In those cases, we negotiate what it is reasonable for the taxpayer to pay and we expect the employer to pay the rest.
  The number of applications made under Access to Work and the scale and the costs of help are increasing. We therefore decided that all Placing, Assessment and Counselling Teams (PACTs) should adopt a common approach to employers to ensure that the approach was made at the appropriate level within companies. Local PACT managers are responsible for administering the Access to Work programme, including asking employers for contributions toward the cost of help.
  I am sorry I cannot be more helpful.
  846
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many payments of(a) £100 or less, (b) between £100 and £250, (c) between £250 and £500, (d) between £500 and £1,000 (e) between £1,000 and £5,000 and (f) over £5,000 have been made under the access to work scheme since June 1994. [41798]

  Mr. Forth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 7 November 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the distribution of payments made under the Access to Work programme since June 1994.
  We do not regularly gather details of the distribution of the cost of help given under Access to Work and do not therefore have the information you ask for. However, we have recently received sample information of spend during the first 3 months of the current year, and I can say that the cost of providing special aids and equipment, which amounts to around 70% of the total cost of the programme, fell within the following bands:

  Cost of providing special aids and equipment

  Percentage of people assisted

  Under £100

  19

  £101 to £259

  14

  £251 to £500

  22

  £501 to £1,000

  20

  £1,001 to £5,000

  23

  Over £5,000

  4

  In 1994/95, the first year of Access to Work, 10,349 people wer helped and so far this year about 6,000 new people have benefited.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she expects to receive recommendations from her departmental review team regarding the future of the access to work scheme. [41797]

  Mr. Forth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 7 November 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the timing of the departmental review of Access to Work.
  I expect the review to be completed and a report and recommendations presented to the Secretary of State by the end of December 1995.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will indicate how many applications for assistance under the access to work scheme have exceeded the £21,000 ceiling since June 1994; and what proportion that represents of the total number of applications made for assistance under the scheme. [41791]
  847
  Mr. Forth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 7 November 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the number of applications for help under the Access to Work programme since June 1994 that have exceeded £21,000. The information you have requested is not available.
  While there is a ceiling of £21,000 on Access to Work help for an individual over a 5 year period, Regional Directors have authority to exceed this limit in exceptional circumstances. We do not maintain records on applications for help which exceed this ceiling but information gathered in June this year showed that we had agreed packages of help of over £21,000 for 70 people. This figure is included in the total of 10,023 people helped by Access to Work, in the period from 6 June 1994 to 31 May 1995.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if she will list the research commissioned by her Department during the last six months as part of her Department's review into the access to work scheme; [41795]

  (2) if she will make it her policy to publish the results of all research undertaken or commissioned by her Department as part of the departmental review into access to work. [41796]

  Mr. Forth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 7 November 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the research undertaken and commissioned for the review of Access to Work.
  We have commissioned Social and Community Planning Research to undertake research to feed into the Access to Work review. As an independent organisation they will be free to publish their research in due course. We expect that a report of the review will be published after it has been presented to the Secretary of State.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list by type of project(a) how many schemes have been approved to date under the private finance initiative, (b) what is the value of those schemes and (c) what public sector contribution will be required both initially and as revenue support during the lifetime of the schemes. [41738]

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has only a limited role in approving projects under the private finance initiative in the education sectors. Individual institutions, and local education authorities in the case of county and voluntary controlled schools, are free to enter into contracts with private sector bodies without recourse to her. She expects them to make full use of the freedoms and opportunities the private finance initiative offers to achieve best value for money.
  848
  The Employment Service has procured a personnel administration system under the private finance initiative. The value of the project, over seven years, is £3.2 million. This represents the contract costs over the life of the project which will be met by the Employment Service.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to consult with(a) disability organisations, (b) the Employers Forum on Disability, (c) the Confederation of British Industry, (d) the Institute of Directors and (e) the Federation of Small Businesses prior to the publication of recommendations concerning the departmental review of the access to work scheme. [41792]

  Mr. Forth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 7 November 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about plans to consult certain organisations about the review of Access to Work.
  The review is a Departmental study of the operation of Access to Work after its first year. We have no plans to request formal contributions from external bodies prior to publication although some organisations and individuals have given their views.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Pupil Costs
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the percentage change in real terms in expenditure per child in(a) primary an (b) secondary education between 1979 and the current year. [41875]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I will write my right hon. Friend as soon as possible and place a copy of the reply in the Library.

  Employment Schemes
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many unemployed people have been referred to restart courses by Employment Service counsellors since April in each region and in Great Britain as a whole; how many of them were unemployed for over two years; how many attended and completed the course; what were the outcomes of the participants; how many had their income support reduced for not attending or failing to complete their attendance at the restart course; if she will break down this information by(a) ethnicity, (b) disability and (c) gender; and if she will make a statement; [41912]

  (2) how many unemployed people have been referred to jobplan workshops by Employment Service counsellors since April in each region and in Great Britain as a whole; how many of them were unemployed for over one year; how many attended and completed the workshop; what were the outcomes of the participants; how many had their income support reduced for not attending or failing to complete their attendance at the jobplan workshop; if she will break down this information by (a) ethnicity, (b) disability and (c) gender; and if she will make a statement; [41913]
  849
  (3) how many unemployed people have been referred to workwise and worklink by Employment Service counsellors since April in each region and in Great Britain as a whole; how many were referred direct from restart interviews and how many were referred from the 1–2–1 programme; how many attended and completed the courses; what were the outcomes of the participants; how many had their income support reduced for not attending or failing to complete their attendance at the workwise and worklink course; if she will break down this information by (a) ethnicity (b) disability and (c) gender; and if she will make a statement; [41914]

  (4) how many people have joined (a) jobclubs, (b) jobsearch seminars and (c) job review workshops in each region and in Great Britain as a whole since April; how many have left each programme during this period; what were the outcomes of the participants; if she will break down this information by (i) ethnicity, (ii) disability and (iii) gender; and if she will make a statement. [41916]

  Mr. Forth
  Responsibility for the subject of the questions has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Terry Rooney, dated 7 November 1995:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions to him about Workwise/Worklink and 1–2–1, Jobclubs, job search seminars, Job Review Workshops, Restart Courses and Jobplan Workshops. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  The attached tables show for each region and nationally programme performance information and participant characteristics from April 1995 to September 1995 as follows:

  Table 1: Workwise/worklink management information April-September 1995

  Northern

  Y&H

  EM&E

  L&SE

  SW

  Wales

  WM

  NW

  Scotland

  National

  Number referred to programme

  2,161

  1,011

  2,166

  7,263

  2,158

  528

  1,848

  1,675

  2,850

  21,660

  Starters on programme

  1,094

  505

  886

  2,894

  1,119

  254

  836

  724

  1,149

  9,461

  Completers on programme

  833

  347

  605

  2,135

  853

  175

  600

  508

  771

  6,827

  Outcomes—Jobcentre Job

  38

  8

  17

  56

  38

  18

  29

  13

  29

  246

  —Non Jobcentre Job

  71

  29

  57

  204

  113

  18

  93

  36

  49

  670

  —ES TEC/LEC programmes

  261

  93

  152

  648

  225

  69

  200

  159

  296

  2,103

  —Other

  86

  30

  28

  231

  71

  12

  60

  22

  35

  575

  —Total Outcomes

  456

  160

  254

  1,139

  447

  117

  382

  230

  409

  3,594

  Number of Benefits Agency decisions made for clients failing to start or complete

  418

  170

  402

  1,173

  368

  73

  279

  367

  724

  3,974

  The above data can not be broken down by characteristics for each data item but information is collected by participants as follows:

  Northern

  Y&H

  EM&E

  L&SE

  SW

  Wales

  WM

  NW

  Scotland

  National

  Starters Ethnic Group 1 (White)

  1,055

  431

  776

  2,039

  1,050

  244

  651

  668

  1,121

  8,035

  —Ethnic Group 2 (Black/African)

  3

  9

  37

  474

  22

  4

  42

  17

  2

  610

  —Ethnic Group 3 (Asian)

  17

  59

  53

  200

  9

  5

  125

  26

  13

  506

  —Ethnic Group 4 (None of above)

  4

  3

  6

  83

  6

  0

  9

  4

  2

  117

  —Ethnic Group 5 (Not any)

  15

  3

  14

  98

  32

  1

  9

  10

  11

  193

  Starters Male

  908

  395

  714

  2,138

  874

  211

  633

  550

  906

  7,329

  —Female

  186

  110

  172

  756

  245

  43

  203

  174

  243

  2,132

  Starters Health Problem

  94

  47

  94

  249

  115

  14

  65

  54

  62

  794

  850

  Table 1 — Workwise and Worklink

  Table 2 — Jobclubs

  Table 3 — Job search seminars

  Table 4 — Job Review Workshops

  Table 5 — Restart Courses

  Table 6 — Jobplan Workshops

  Information is not routinely collected in respect of outcomes by individual characteristics of leavers. However information on characteristics is collected when participants join a programme, except for job search seminars, and this data has been included in the tables.

  For job search seminars information about the numbers joining the programme is provided, but details about those not completing the programme are not routinely collected. In addition details about client characteristics and numbers entering non-job outcomes is not routinely collected.

  Job Review Workshops are targeted mainly at unemployed professional and executive people and help individuals identify transferable skills so that they are able to consider a wider range of occupations. Information about outcomes which participants may enter during or following the two day workshop is not routinely collected.

  Information about the number of attenders who have had their Income Support reduced for failing to attend or complete a programme is not routinely collected. The Benefits Agency (BA) provide the Employment Service with the number of decisions made on referrals to them for benefit sanctions. These decisions include both the numbers having their income support reduced and the numbers referred to them who do not have any sanction imposed. I have therefore provided information about the number of BA decisions made in respect of Workwise, Restart Courses and Jobplan Workshops.

  The number of people helped by attending the programmes mentioned have been 318,737 so far this year. Over 116,000 people have taken up positive outcomes as a result of their attendance, including over 64,000 unemployed people who have entered jobs.

  I hope this is helpful.
  851

  Table 2: Jobclub Management Information April-September 1995

  Northern

  Y&H

  EM&E

  L&SE

  SW

  WALES

  WM

  NW

  Scotland

  National

  Number Entrants

  7,170

  10,625

  10,593

  39,749

  10,040

  5,753

  12,252

  14,238

  12,105

  122,525

  Number Leavers

  7,845

  10,504

  12,410

  46,542

  10,576

  6,255

  12,160

  15,530

  11,900

  133,722

  Outcomes

  Jobcentre Job

  890

  874

  852

  2,614

  898

  844

  866

  874

  1,959

  10,671

  Non Jobcentre Job

  2,264

  3,544

  3,511

  14,393

  3,843

  2,157

  3,993

  4,761

  3,858

  42,324

  Other Positive Outcomes

  632

  1,045

  1,179

  4,090

  1,271

  740

  1,347

  1,196

  1,435

  12,935

  Total Outcomes

  3,786

  5,463

  5,542

  21,097

  6,012

  3,741

  6,206

  6,831

  7,252

  65,930

  Northern

  Y&H

  EM&E

  L&SE

  SW

  Wales

  WM

  NW

  Scotland

  National

  Leavers—Ethnic Group 1 (White)

  7,695

  9,607

  11,506

  34,158

  10,225

  6,066

  9,954

  14,065

  11,696

  11,5512

  —Ethnic Group 2 (Black African)

  27

  195

  220

  5,718

  128

  48

  565

  259

  19

  7,179

  —Ethnic Group 3 (Asian)

  47

  559

  493

  3,764

  75

  61

  1,452

  434

  80

  6,965

  —Ethnic Group 4 (None of above)

  36

  63

  62

  1,500

  47

  26

  75

  104

  37

  1,950

  —Ethnic Group 5 (Not say)

  40

  80

  129

  1,402

  101

  54

  114

  128

  68

  2,116

  Leavers—Male

  6,552

  8,355

  9,937

  34,894

  8,259

  4,967

  9,287

  12,443

  9,604

  104,298

  —Female

  1,293

  2,149

  2,473

  11,648

  2,317

  1,288

  2,873

  3,087

  2,296

  29,424

  Leavers—Health Problem

  609

  908

  1,731

  4,285

  1,384

  793

  986

  994

  1,141

  12,831

  Table 3: Job Search Seminar Management Information April—September 1995

  Northern

  Y&H

  EM&E

  L&SE

  SW

  Wales

  WM

  NW

  Scotland

  National

  Total Attenders

  2,332

  3,909

  2,255

  10,051

  2,685

  823

  2,653

  2,612

  2,462

  29,782

  Outcomes—Jobcentre Job

  49

  88

  29

  140

  42

  25

  34

  44

  94

  545

  —Non Jobcentre Job

  193

  546

  216

  1,428

  385

  111

  236

  263

  223

  3601

  —Total Placings

  242

  634

  245

  1,568

  427

  136

  270

  307

  317

  4146

  The above data can not be broken down by characteristics.

  Table 4: Job review workshops management information April-September 1996

  Northern

  Y&H

  EM&E

  L&SE

  SW

  Wales

  WM

  NW

  Scotland

  National

  Total Starters

  751

  1,718

  1,219

  5,422

  1,899

  499

  1,268

  1,305

  1,437

  15,508

  Total Completers

  694

  1,589

  1,144

  5,032

  1,763

  471

  1,133

  1,206

  1,322

  14,354

  Starters—Ethnic Group 1 (White)

  725

  1,626

  1,137

  4,511

  1,848

  486

  1,124

  1,235

  1,388

  14,080

  —Ethnic Group 2 (Black/African)

  9

  13

  14

  331

  13

  1

  36

  10

  0

  427

  —Ethnic Group 3 (Asian)

  8

  51

  37

  307

  10

  8

  77

  34

  12

  544

  —Ethnic Group 4 (none of above)

  4

  10

  8

  103

  8

  2

  7

  7

  4

  153

  —Ethnic Group 5 (Not say)

  5

  18

  23

  170

  20

  2

  14

  19

  33

  304

  Starters—Male

  573

  1,289

  944

  4,068

  1,482

  388

  934

  1,019

  1,067

  11,764

  —Female

  178

  429

  275

  1,354

  417

  111

  324

  286

  370

  3,744

  Starters-Health Problem

  91

  229

  192

  583

  272

  47

  141

  168

  116

  1,839

  The above date can not be broken down by characteristics for each data Item but information is collected by participants as above:

  Table 5: Restart courses management information April—September 1995

  Northern

  Y&H

  EM&E

  L&SE

  SW

  Wales

  WM

  NW

  Scotland

  National

  Number referred to programme

  5,217

  9,459

  10,087

  36,147

  6,054

  4,420

  8,746

  11,644

  9,628

  101,402

  Starters on programme

  3,297

  5,482

  5,435

  18,733

  3,179

  2,421

  4,977

  6,269

  5,011

  55,344

  Completers on programme

  2,938

  4,441

  4,651

  16,021

  3,220

  2,072

  4,238

  5,217

  4,239

  47,037

  Outcomes—Jobcentre Job

  19

  44

  44

  150

  42

  44

  65

  40

  95

  543

  —Non Jobcentre Job

  51

  163

  150

  587

  169

  72

  143

  158

  139

  1,632

  —ES TEC/LEC programmes

  458

  691

  778

  3,991

  622

  400

  1,239

  1,203

  1,359

  10,741

  —Other

  114

  285

  195

  941

  169

  60

  226

  163

  67

  2,220

  —Total outcomes

  642

  1,183

  1,167

  5,669

  1,002

  576

  1,673

  1,564

  1,660

  15,136

  Number of Benefits Agency decisions made for clients failing to start or complete

  657

  1,167

  1,248

  3,614

  741

  636

  776

  2,062

  1,839

  12,740

  The above date can not be broken down by characteristics for each data Item but information is collected by participants as above:
  852 853

  Northern

  Y&H

  EM&E

  L&SE

  SW

  Wales

  WM

  NW

  Scotland

  National

  Starters—Ethnic group 1 (white)

  3,199

  4,841

  4,805

  14,268

  3,464

  2,306

  4,004

  5,704

  4,825

  47,416

  Ethnic group 2 (black/african)

  14

  127

  206

  1,950

  45

  20

  280

  142

  6

  2,790

  Ethnic group 3 (asian)

  30

  350

  207

  1,290

  23

  19

  567

  236

  29

  2,751

  Ethnic group 4 (none of the above)

  14

  49

  44

  411

  34

  12

  36

  50

  29

  679

  Ethnic group 5 (not say)

  40

  115

  173

  814

  153

  64

  90

  137

  122

  1,708

  Starters—male

  2,884

  4,769

  4,679

  15,815

  3,147

  2,129

  4,272

  5,426

  4,346

  47,467

  —Female

  413

  713

  756

  2,918

  572

  292

  705

  843

  665

  7,877

  Starters—health problem

  396

  884

  884

  2,433

  680

  333

  762

  721

  586

  7,679

  Starters—U/E for 24 months+

  2,870

  4,178

  4,565

  14,452

  3,119

  1,758

  4,077

  5,153

  4,315

  44,487

  Table 6: Jobplan management information April-September 1995

  Northern

  Y&H

  EM&E

  L&SE

  SW

  Wales

  WM

  NW

  Scotland

  National

  Number referred to programme

  9,161

  14,877

  14,833

  59,290

  14,790

  7,551

  15,717

  21,629

  19,438

  177,286

  Starters on programme

  5,445

  7,371

  7,208

  27,437

  7,994

  3,683

  7,909

  9,876

  9,194

  86,117

  Completers on programme

  5,149

  6,803

  6,648

  25,528

  7,416

  3,395

  7,314

  9,124

  8,442

  79,819

  Outcomes—jobcentre job

  47

  48

  86

  242

  102

  40

  123

  90

  222

  1,000

  —Non jobcentre job

  145

  341

  226

  805

  269

  124

  315

  290

  263

  2,778

  —ES TEC/LEC programmes

  1,142

  1,463

  1,177

  6,668

  1,581

  864

  2,247

  1,805

  2,837

  19,784

  —Other

  312

  514

  285

  1,184

  253

  105

  514

  294

  197

  3,658

  —Total outcomes

  1,646

  2,366

  1,774

  8,899

  2,205

  1,133

  3,199

  2,479

  3,519

  27,220

  Number of Benefits Agency decisions made for clients failing to start or complete

  1,192

  1,848

  1,979

  5,939

  1,993

  983

  1,494

  3,591

  3,562

  22,581

  The above data can not be broken down by characteristics for each data item but information is collected by participants as follows:

  Northern

  Y&H

  EM&E

  L&SE

  SW

  Wales

  WM

  NW

  Scotland

  National

  Starters—Ethnic group 1 (white)

  5,230

  6,578

  6,424

  20,522

  7,411

  3,454

  6,485

  8,982

  8,813

  73,899

  —Ethnic group 2 (black/african)

  25

  150

  188

  2,991

  166

  40

  412

  224

  27

  4,223

  —Ethnic group 3 (asian)

  70

  415

  336

  2,202

  76

  40

  786

  366

  114

  4,405

  —Ethnic group 4 (none of the above)

  33

  54

  58

  602

  55

  37

  65

  76

  37

  1,017

  —Ethnic group 5 (not say)

  87

  174

  202

  1,120

  286

  112

  161

  228

  203

  2,573

  Starters—male

  4,718

  6,236

  5,969

  22,071

  6,492

  3,088

  6,509

  8,293

  7,798

  71,174

  —Female

  727

  1,135

  1,239

  5,366

  1,502

  595

  1,400

  1,583

  1,396

  14,943

  Starters—health problem

  708

  1,156

  1,261

  3,506

  1,340

  512

  1,308

  1,101

  1,047

  11,939

  Starters—U/E for 24 months+

  5,392

  7,146

  7,130

  25,976

  7,353

  3,167

  7,655

  9,731

  9,009

  82,559

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if she will set out, according to the results from the youth training leavers survey, the number and level of NVQs or credits towards NVQs or other qualifications gained by people leaving YT in the period April 1994 to December 1994, for each region and for England and Wales as a whole, for all leavers and by ethnic group, disability and gender showing male, female and all; and if she will make a statement; [41922]

  (2) if she will set out, according to the results from the training for work leavers survey, the number and level of NVQs or credits towards NVQs or other qualifications gained by people leaving training for work in the period April 1994 to December 1994, for each region and for England and Wales as a whole, for all leavers and by ethnic group, disability and gender showing male, female and all; and if she will make a statement; [41924]

  (3) what are the results of the youth training leavers survey for the period April 1994 to December 1994, for each TEC area in England and Wales and for each region
  854
  and for England and Wales as a whole, broken down to show the number and proportion of leavers who were (a) in full-time work with the same employer, (b) in full-time work with a different employer, (c) in part-time work, (d) on a full-time course at a college or training centre, (e) on another YT scheme, (f) doing something else, (g) unemployed and (h) had obtained a vocational qualification; what was (i) the number of questionnaires issued, (ii) the usable percentage response rate and (iii) the percentage of respondents who were early leavers and the reasons stated for leaving training early; and if she will make a statement. [41996]

  Mr. Paice
  As the information requested is contained in a large number of tables, I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my reply in the Library.

  Travel-to-Interview Scheme
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will place in the Library a copy of the report of the evaluation of the
  855
  travel-to-interview scheme pilot in the north-west region; and if she will make a statement. [41917]

  Mr. Forth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Terry Rooney, dated 7 November 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the evaluation report of the Travel to Interview Scheme.
  The findings of the evaluation are still under discussion. I anticipate the report will be available in the next few weeks and a copy will be placed in the Library.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Consultancy Costs
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the full cost to her Department of the evaluation carried out by Coopers and Lybrand of the training for work starts and outcomes funding pilots; and if she will make a statement. [41919]

  Mr. Forth
  The report provides a thorough analysis of the funding pilots. The findings were considered carefully when the funding arrangements for training for work in 1995–96 were decided. The covering note which accompanies the consultants' report explains the background to those decisions.

  Long-Term Unemployment
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what new measures she will bring forth to counter long-term unemployment. [40138]

  Mr. Forth
  We have a very wide range of programmes which are bringing long-term unemployment down. Their success is demonstrated by the fact that it has been falling now for six quarters in a row.

  Schools Budget
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will show for each local education authority for the year 1995–96 the element of the potential schools budget which is not delegated to schools through the aggregated schools budget, expressed(a) as a percentage of the potential schools budget and (b) as a sum of money per pupil in schools covered by the LMS scheme. [25037]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [pursuant to his reply, 18 October 1995, c. 299–300]: The following revised and updated table, setting out the percentage of the potential schools budget not delegated by each LEA for 1995–96, should be substituted for the table contained in the answer given to the hon. member on 24 May 1995, Official Report, columns 614–15.

  Local Education Authority

  Percentage not delegated

  Avon

  11.9

  Barking and Dagenham

  10.9

  Barnet

  9.8

  Barnsley

  10.9

  Bedfordshire

  8.8

  Berkshire

  6.9

  Bexley

  8.8

  856

  Local Education Authority

  Percentage not delegated

  Birmingham

  9.7

  Bolton

  11.1

  Bradford

  12.0

  Brent

  6.5

  Bromley

  12.2

  Buckinghamshire

  11.6

  Bury

  8.2

  Calderdale

  10.9

  Cambridgeshire

  10.7

  Camden

  12.6

  Cheshire

  9.1

  City

  11.1

  Cleveland

  10.6

  Cornwall

  11.0

  Coventry

  8.7

  Croydon

  10.0

  Cumbria

  8.2

  Derbyshire

  10.7

  Devon

  8.1

  Doncaster

  10.3

  Dorset

  10.3

  Dudley

  4.2

  Durham

  11.5

  Ealing

  10.1

  East Sussex

  11.1

  Enfield

  10.6

  Essex

  11.0

  Gateshead

  13.4

  Gloucestershire

  8.9

  Greenwich

  7.4

  Hackney

  13.1

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  9.2

  Hampshire

  11.4

  Haringey

  12.8

  Harrow

  9.9

  Havering

  8.3

  Hereford & Worcester

  9.2

  Hertfordshire

  5.9

  Hillingdon

  10.1

  Hounslow

  11.2

  Humberside

  11.3

  Isle of Wight

  9.8

  Isles of Scilly

  14.9

  Islington

  6.1

  Kensington and Chelsea

  10.0

  Kent

  12.5

  Kingston

  10.8

  Kirklees

  12.9

  Knowsley

  6.1

  Lambeth

  13.6

  Lancashire

  12.3

  Leeds

  6.6

  Leicestershire

  11.6

  Lewisham

  12.4

  Lincolnshire

  10.5

  Liverpool

  7.5

  Manchester

  8.0

  Merton

  10.8

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  11.8

  Newham

  13.5

  Norfolk

  8.6

  North Tyneside

  8.2

  North Yorkshire

  10.2

  Northamptonshire

  7.1

  Northumberland

  9.2

  Nottinghamshire

  11.2

  Oldham

  9.4

  Oxfordshire

  8.4

  Redbridge

  9.4

  Richmond

  9.6

  Rochdale

  7.1

  Rotherham

  10.6

  Salford

  9.3

  Sandwell

  11.9

  857

  Local Education Authority

  Percentage not delegated

  Sefton

  11.3

  Sheffield

  12.2

  Shropshire

  11.8

  Solihull

  6.0

  Somerset

  8.9

  South Tyneside

  10.8

  Southwark

  12.0

  St. Helens

  10.5

  Staffordshire

  7.2

  Stockport

  9.1

  Suffolk

  9.4

  Sunderland

  7.7

  Surrey

  10.2

  Sutton

  9.8

  858

  Local Education Authority

  Percentage not delegated

  Tameside

  10.7

  Tower Hamlets

  9.1

  Trafford

  11.4

  Wakefield

  12.1

  Walsall

  9.7

  Waltham Forest

  6.1

  Wandsworth

  14.6

  Warwickshire

  11.6

  West Sussex

  11.1

  Westminster

  9.8

  Wigan

  7.3

  Wiltshire

  10.4

  Wirral

  9.7

  Wolverhampton

  8.1

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark
Lord Norton Lord Norton—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

EC Committee System
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the activities, broad areas of competence, legal basis and annual cost of the committees established by the European Commission and whether they will report to Parliament on these matters.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, the system of committees, which was established by a Council decision in 1987, ensures that the member states can oversee and influence the exercise by the Commission of implementing powers delegated to it under Article 145 of the EC treaty. The Government consider that there may be scope for procedural and other improvements. That is being reviewed in advance of the Inter-Governmental Conference.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. Is he aware that there are no fewer than 424 such committees at present and that they operate at an annual cost of £15 million? There is no indication in the budget for 1995 as to whether the committees—they are all listed between pages 197 and 213—are consultative, advisory, regulatory or management. In short, no one knows anything about them. Will the noble Lord undertake to inform the House as to the real nature and function of the committees and who appoints them? Alternatively, are we in for a series of everlasting quangos?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Lord asks a number of questions. There are three principal kinds of committees: advisory, management and regulatory. All the committees are chaired by a member of the Commission and all the member states have a representative on the committees—often officials—depending on the subject matter before that committee. As the noble Lord said, there are a good many committees although I cannot confirm the exact number. Very many exist to manage, for example, various parts of the common agricultural policy and to regulate important aspects of the Single European Act.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister further aware that the regulatory committees have powers which have been delegated to them by someone—either the Council or the Commission—to bring into operation laws that do not even go before the European Parliament, let alone the national parliaments?
1624
Will he please look into the matter again? In addition, will he say whether the expenditure by the Commission in the current year's budget of £400 million on propaganda to inform the public in Europe of the advantages of a single currency will be administered by a committee? Will the Minister give further details in the interests of greater transparency— the "Eurospeak" term, I believe?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, again the noble Lord asks a number of questions. I cannot confirm that £400 million—it seems an amazing amount of money—has been set aside to try to persuade us of the merits of a single currency. We do not need to be persuaded about the problem because my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has taken steps to ensure that we will only involve ourselves in it if we decide to do so at the time. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, will talk to his own party about its need to have matters explained.
As to other aspects of his question, the committees can only act on the basis of secondary legislation under the instructions of the primary legislation agreed by the Council of Ministers. The committees are there in an advisory, management or regulatory capacity, based on the primary legislation passed by the Council of Ministers.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, if the common agricultural policy were to be abolished, can my noble friend say how many committees it would save and how much agony it would spare the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, in having to ask questions.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not know whether it would spare the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, much agony because he would probably find some other matter on which to expend it. I understand that something like 70 per cent. of the committees are involved with the common agricultural policy. As I said, when one considers that each product—sheep meat, for example—has a committee to manage the regime which has been set up, one can easily understand why a fair number of committees is needed to run the common agricultural policy.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is my noble friend not right to agonise about these matters? Does he not do a great service to this House and the country by bringing these matters before the Chamber? Is it correct that these kinds of committees cause great difficulties by introducing regulations—regulations which make things difficult for British industry, close down abattoirs, make it difficult for growers of lettuce and other vegetables and indeed close down cheesemakers who have been in operation for many hundreds of years in this country?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the answers to the first two questions of the noble Lord are yes and yes. With regard to the last question, we come to some of the fables that are put about concerning the European Community. We must bear in mind that, as a country, we want a single market where rules and regulations are not used by one particular country in order to keep out the products of another. It is in our interests as a great trading nation to have that single

1625
market in Europe and, whether or not we like it, those committees are part of the structure for making sure that rules and regulations run that important single market.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us how many quangos there are in this country? Can he also say how the number of civil servants in Brussels compares with the number in this country?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, that is a long way from the committees and the original Question.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the difficulties about the committee structure of the Commission and indeed the structure of the European Parliament is that there are 15 countries involved and 10 or 11 different languages? Is he aware that it is extremely difficult to operate a single market with so many different languages, involving rather heavy costs in interpretation and translation? Is there any chance that the European Union might move towards adopting, say, three basic languages for its working practices?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, here, too, the noble Lord moves away from the original Question but not so far as did the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. There is no doubt that one of the problems in producing the various proposals that go to the committees is, as my noble friend Lady Chalker mentioned yesterday, that of having to translate them into all the languages of the Community. Some of my noble friends behind me appear to be suggesting that I should go further than the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and go for one language; namely, English.

Sudan: Human Rights
2.47 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their latest estimate of the human rights situation in Sudan and its effect on the well-being and development of the people; and what action they are taking in international fora to ensure that any problems are effectively addressed.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, we continue to express our concerns about the abysmal human rights situation in Sudan to the Sudanese Government bilaterally, with EU partners and through the United Nations. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary raised the subject with the Sudanese ambassador on 13th September.
Lord Judd: My Lords, have the Government had time to read the disturbing reports by the noble Baroness and most courageous lady, Lady Cox, following her recent visits to that country? Does the Minister agree that, while there is still too much evidence of brutality on all sides, not least in the south and the Nuba mountains, it largely negates any prospect of effective humanitarian or development programmes? Can he
1626
assure the House that the Government are working together with other governments in the European Union and the UN to persuade the parties to the conflict to invite a human rights monitoring team to go unimpeded to that country to watch the situation and safeguard the interests of the ordinary people?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, there are disturbing reports continuing to emerge from southern Sudan and the Nuba mountains about the bombing of civilian settlements, massacres of civilians and systematic slavery. We are concerned about the continued obstruction by the Sudanese Government of humanitarian aid to areas of Sudan, including the Nuba mountains. We shall continue to push bilaterally, through the EU and through the UN, to increase humanitarian access to those Sudanese in need.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, do Her Majesty's Government recognise that the continuing extreme poverty of a great many Sudanese people—poverty recently seen by the Archbishop of Canterbury when he visited the area—can create a fertile seedbed for Islamic extremism? Can the Minister say whether the Government will allow non-governmental organisations to engage in development rather than just supplying emergency aid?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, the visit by the Archbishop of Canterbury was a great success and he was extremely candid in his views on the situation in Sudan. We are concerned about the situation. Where blocks are being placed on humanitarian aid, we are doing everything we can to free them up. The first thing we must do is to ensure that the aid reaches the people who need it.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there are increasing reports, not only of widespread slavery as such, but that the Sudanese Government are actively encouraging the enslavement of African women and children while at the same time denying that it exists? Will my noble friend reiterate his assurance that the Government will put pressure on the regime in Khartoum to allow access by human rights monitors to all parts of Sudan, with particular reference to ascertaining whether or not slavery exists? If it exists, will the Government press for the urgent release of all people who are enslaved at the present time?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I can only reiterate that we are applying as much pressure as possible to lessen this terrible situation. We are not holding back in any way from applying such pressure.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, though the authorities in Khartoum continue to pay lip service to the IGADD process, does not the Minister agree that the ability of neighbouring countries to play any role in solving the conflict in the south has been seriously undermined by Sudanese aggression, particularly against Uganda and Eritrea? As a permanent member of the Security Council, will the United Kingdom consult with its

1627
colleagues on the Security Council to ascertain what additional measures of preventive diplomacy may be taken outside the framework of IGADD?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, we have not ruled out action at the Security Council. However, we must be certain of total support. If divisions occurred in the Security Council or efforts to agree a resolution failed, it would be to Khartoum's benefit.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, does the pressure to which the noble Lord referred include an arms embargo?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I shall have to consult on that question and write to the noble Lord.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that we are dealing with one of the most wicked and cruel regimes in the world today? The noble Lord said that the Government are taking what action they can. Will he tell the House precisely what they are doing to bring an end to this dreadful regime?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I can only repeat my original Answer. We are continuing to express our concerns directly with the Sudanese Government bilaterally, with our European Union partners and through the United Nations.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that as with all Commonwealth affairs, rhetoric on human rights without effective action begins to diminish human rights themselves? Can he therefore at least assure the House that the Government will be tireless in their commitment to gaining access for monitoring teams to Sudan on behalf of its people?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, that is exactly what I have been saying all the way through this debate.

Newbury Bypass
2.54 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
When it is intended to start work on the Newbury bypass, and when it is expected that the work on it will be completed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, it is intended to commence the main works on the Newbury bypass as early as possible in 1996 with some site clearance work in advance of that. Construction work is expected to take two years to complete.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is he aware of the urgency of dealing with the appalling traffic situation in Newbury? It was demonstrated last week when two people were killed and a number injured when the traffic got together in the middle of Newbury and overwhelmed a car and its occupants.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we are aware of the urgency for putting this scheme in place. That is why
1628
we have taken rapid action. We undertook some site clearance and are pursuing the initial work as we speak. It is an important scheme. It has been clearly shown that there is a great deal of support for it in the local region and that is why we give it priority.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, bearing in mind the recent press reports that there will be savage cuts in the road construction programme, can the Minister tell the House what criteria will be used for making such cuts? We do not want all the cuts to occur in one place, such as the North West, where I come from.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, whenever we consider the road programme, we look at each scheme on its merits; we establish our priorities and of course pay due regard to keeping public expenditure under proper control.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, bearing in mind that the Government have asserted over and over again that their bypass programme plays a major role in improving conditions in towns and villages, can he indicate how many bypass schemes which had been planned were abandoned over the course of the past 12 months, and whether there is any indication as to how many will be abandoned in the coming 12 months?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord the information he requests. We consider our programme of expenditure in the light of the money available. We shall be considering carefully which schemes should be given top priority. The noble Lord is right that we believe that bypasses provide good value for money; they target our resources into relieving congestion where it is at its worst and produce considerable safety benefits. We shall continue to give bypasses top priority.

Drivers' Hours: Enforcement
2.57 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they propose to take steps to ensure that the existing regulations covering driving hours for road haulage and for coach drivers respectively are more strictly enforced.
Viscount GoschenMy Lords, the Government take drivers' hours enforcement extremely seriously. We already exceed the EEC tachograph requirements. In July 1993 the Vehicle Inspectorate's traffic examiner effort on drivers' hours enforcement was increased. In addition, funding for the inspectorate's investigative work was increased this year by £350,000. A significant proportion of that additional funding will be spent on drivers' hours enforcement.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree with the conclusion reached by Loughborough University recently, that driver fatigue accounts for at least 20 per cent. of accidents involving heavy goods vehicles and coaches on British roads? Does he agree also that the European

1629
regulations on which our regulations are based were adopted against the advice of the European Commission and in accord with the unanimous view of the member states? They were rejected because the Commission considered them to be too lax and difficult to enforce. Those rules are now being flouted across the whole of the European Union and need to be made much more vigorous as I, as Commissioner, suggested back in 1987.
Viscount GoschenMy Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that fatigue is an important factor in road accidents. It is extremely difficult to quantify and I therefore do not take issue with his figures. I dare say that considerable research went into producing them. We must concentrate on the enforcement of the rules. They provide good standards. We must put all our efforts into making sure that those standards are upheld. That is why, as I said in my original Answer, Her Majesty's Government put considerable resources into the Vehicle Inspectorate to ensure that the rules are complied with.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me how often the police and the Ministry of Transport inspectors examine the tachographs? Is it the case that tachographs are not being inspected sufficiently or that they are frequently altered? I should like to know the answer to that.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the answer is that we put considerable effort into checking tachographs. The suggested level across the Community is to inspect 1 per cent. We inspect somewhere in the region of 1.5 per cent., which equates to about 1.7 million checks. The tachograph is extremely important, but my noble friend is quite right to identify the fact that we are battling against the issue of tampering. Some road operators and drivers have been known to tamper with their equipment. That is why we are taking forward research on producing better types of tachograph.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, would it not be worth while for representatives of the road haulage industry and representatives of the police, who know this subject inside out and know how conditions vary in different parts of the country, to get together to try to resolve this problem? That would be a very good job done for the country.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I take the important point made by the noble Lord. I do not think it would be appropriate to leave out the role of the Vehicle Inspectorate, which is the primary body involved with the police in checking tachographs. Most operators take this issue and their responsibilities extremely seriously, but there is a body of road operators and drivers who do not.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, does my noble friend have any figures for fatal accidents involving road haulage and PSV drivers? I should be grateful to have any such figures.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I regret that I did not hear the last part of my noble friend's question.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, I was perhaps not as articulate as I should have been. Does my noble friend
1630
have any figures for drivers who, having exceeded their permitted hours, have been involved in serious or fatal accidents?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, in 1994–95 there were 2,835 drivers' hours prosecutions. I hope that that figure is of some use to my noble friend. I can also tell him that the number of HGV accidents is falling. However, this is still a serious problem and my noble friend is right to identify the issue of driver fatigue.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some areas of commercial driving do not appear to be covered by restrictions on the number of hours at the wheel? In particular, is he aware that the get-you-home services provided by organisations such as the AA and RAC are not covered by drivers' hours regulations? Will the Minister undertake to investigate that and ensure that some action is taken in that area?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct to say that the drivers of recovery vehicles are outside the scope of the European rules on drivers' hours. However, they are subject to separate UK rules which specify a 10-hour daily driving limit and an 11-hour duty limit. I can tell the noble Lord that those rules are enforced through log books.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is it not abundantly plain from the Minister's own answers that there have been grave difficulties in enforcing these rules, and that this is consistent with the view I expressed a long time ago that they were not capable of proper enforcement? Is there not a case therefore for urging the Commission to look carefully at these regulations? Finally, where road hauliers have been guilty of serious breaches of these regulations, will the Minister consider the confiscation of their lorries?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I can tell the noble Lord that serious action is taken against operators and not just drivers. The Vehicle Inspectorate works closely with the police to develop intelligence on where operators are clearly acting well outside the law on this subject. The rules are stringent. The noble Lord is quite right to say that the difficulty comes with enforcement. With the advent of the newer technology involved in the tachographs, we can see significant benefits for enforcement. From January 1996 new vehicles must be fitted with a tachograph which automatically records on the chart any interruption to the power supply. That makes it much more difficult to tamper with it. The Europeans have taken forward considerable research which we have supported in identifying so-called smart card systems which, again, provide further protection against tampering.

Procedure of the House
3.5 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. This is the first of two Motions for the purpose of implementing

1631
the recommendations of the sub-committee on the Declaration and Registration of Interests, chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths. As I said when winding up the debate in your Lordships' House last Wednesday, it appeared that the consensus in the House was that we should proceed with those recommendations, and so I hope that I am carrying out the wishes of your Lordships in bringing forward these two Motions today.
The second Motion, which I shall move separately, is concerned with the introduction of a register. If the first resolution is agreed by your Lordships, it will in due course be incorporated into The Companion to the Standing Orders in place of the existing guidelines. I believe that a resolution of the House will carry even greater weight with your Lordships than the guidance which has been deemed sufficient until now.
Moved, to resolve, That the practice of the House in relation to Lords' interests should be governed by the following principles:

(1) Lords should act always on their personal honour;

and

(2) Lords should never accept any financial inducement as an incentive or reward for exercising parliamentary influence.

Thus Lords who accept payment or other incentive or reward for providing parliamentary advice or services, or who have any financial interest in a business involved in parliamentary lobbying on behalf of clients, should not speak, vote, lobby or otherwise take advantage of their position as Members of the House on behalf of their clients. This restriction does not extend to matters relating to Lords' outside employment or directorships, where the interest does not arise from membership of the House. Lords should, however, be especially cautious in deciding whether to speak or vote in relation to interests that are direct, pecuniary and shared by few others.
In relation to private Bills, Lords should not speak or vote on Bills in which they have a direct pecuniary interest.
The above guidance cannot cover all eventualities, and therefore the decision ultimately rests with Lords themselves whether it is proper to take part in a debate or a vote in which they have a personal interest.
Lords who have a direct financial interest in a subject on which they speak should declare it, making clear that it is a financial interest. They should also declare any non-financial interest of which their audience should be aware in order to form a balanced judgment of their arguments. Such interests may be indirect or non-pecuniary, for example the interest of a relation or friend, hospitality or gifts received, trusteeship, or unpaid membership of an interested organisation, and they may include past and future interests. This rule also applies where Lords are using their influence as a Member of the House in communication with a Minister, Government Department, local authority or other public body outside the House.
On certain occasions such as Starred Questions and the various stages of a bill following Second Reading, it may be for the convenience of the House that Lords should not take up time by repeating declarations of interest but Lords should make a declaration whenever they are in doubt. The nature of the interest should be made clear notwithstanding that it may be well known to most other Lords present in the Chamber.
Similar principles apply to proceedings in committees off the floor of the House.
The Clerk of the Parliaments is available to advise on the interpretation of this guidance in a case of uncertainty.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, before the debate on this matter proceeds, I wonder whether the House will allow me to ask my noble friend the Chairman of Committees whether these two Motions were drafted before the decision taken in another place. While there is no necessity for the two Chambers to work in the same direction on these matters, it is at least desirable that we should take into consideration what has happened elsewhere. We have had no opportunity to consider how these Motions go alongside the proceedings elsewhere. In those circumstances, are we not taking action rather quickly? Does my noble friend still wish to proceed with the Motions?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, if it is in order for me to do so, and with the leave of the House, I would simply point out that noble Lords in all parts of the House would regard themselves as in charge of their own proceedings quite independently of what might or might not happen in another place. On the question of knowledge about these two Motions, it is the case, as I might have said when we embarked on the debate this afternoon, if there is to be one, that the terms of the Motions have been familiar to your Lordships since the Procedure Committee's reports. So that goes back to July of this year.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank rose to move as an amendment to the above Motion, in line 30 leave out ("repeating") and insert ("repeated") and in line 31 after ("doubt") insert ("although not less than each day and at each stage of a Bill").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to seek clarification. The substance of it is directed to the purport, the meaning or the significance of the word "repeating" in line 30 of the resolution before the House. I raise this question because of my understanding of the intention of the Griffiths Committee, of which I was a member. It has become clear to me, as I think the Chairman of Committees will himself confirm, that there is a possibility of some different alternative interpretation of what the word "repeating" means within the context of that sentence. My wish is no more than to enable the Chairman of Committees, if he so chooses, to make clear that the meaning of that word in the sentence is precisely what the Griffiths Committee had in mind as expressed in paragraph 34 of its report, published, as the noble Lord said, in the proceedings of the Procedure Committee.
The sentence in the resolution to which I refer states that at,
"the various stages of a Bill following Second Reading, it may be for the convenience of the House that Lords should not take up time by repeating declarations of interest".
That has been taken to mean, at least in one case and maybe in others, that once a declaration has been made at Second Reading there is no need to repeat it later. I believe that such an interpretation is not what the Griffiths sub-committee had in mind and that is why I referred earlier to paragraph 34. I can well understand that "repeating" within that context could lead some noble Lords to believe that once they had made a declaration at Second Reading, it was not necessary to repeat it later.
As I believe that the House is disposed to accept the recommendations of the Griffiths sub-committee and no doubt the reasoning behind them, I have no wish to detain it with a lengthy explanation of why it is so important that the House understands and accepts the intentions behind the Griffiths recommendations. However, perhaps I may say this. Yesterday afternoon we completed a short and relatively uncontroversial Criminal Injuries Compensation Bill. We completed it on 6th November. The Bill had its Second Reading on 17th July. Plainly, a declaration of interest made in July could not be expected to carry over and run until November. That is the point I want to make and it is one which was very much in the mind of the Griffiths sub-committee. If that is the case with a relatively uncontroversial and short Bill, how much more would it be the case with a complex, controversial and perhaps mainly commercial Bill like the legislation as regards Sunday trading or deregulation and contracting out which we considered two or three years ago, or indeed the environment or the gas Bills which we have discussed this Session.
Some Members do not attend every stage of a Bill; some do not attend every debate on an amendment. A Committee stage may go over one or more days. We should not overlook the fact that in each parliamentary Session as many as 50 new Peers may be introduced. Therefore, a Member may not have been eligible to attend Second Reading before the Committee stage, Report stage or Third Reading is reached.
I have no wish to labour the point; I make it only in case the full implications of the Griffiths Report have not been understood. It is—I say this to those Members who may feel that I am repeating myself—a simple point. As I understand it, it is the intention of the Griffiths sub-committee and, I hope, the intention of the House that declarations should occur on every day of a Bill and at every stage of it because only in that way can we be sure that Members will be aware of the need for it.
I have chosen the words,
"not less than each day and at each stage of a Bill",
but I find better expressed,
"at least on the occasion of the first intervention on any day",
which is the form of words adopted by the Griffiths sub-committee.
As I made clear in our debate on Wednesday last week, I have at all stages been in favour of belt and braces. I mean by that that the declaration which a noble Lord may make shall be accompanied by a comprehensive register of interests. I shall not pursue that point further now, but what I have said about clarification of this sentence is relevant to the fact that if we do not have a comprehensive declaration of interest it is even more important that there should be no doubt at all where noble Lords stand on matters of concern to them. If the Chairman of Committees says that I am right—in other words, that his understanding is that paragraph 34 of the Procedure Committee report is incorporated within the Motion before us—I shall take matters no further. But it is important to be quite clear about the matter before the House today. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, is he assuming that we can hear but cannot read? There is a publication called Hansard. Although I do not disagree with the fact that we have to have this matter in the open, the precision which the noble Lord is putting forward really assumes that no one ever reads Hansard, including newcomers to the House.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord. I do not believe that anyone participating in yesterday's debate could be expected during the course of that debate either to have the speeches at Second Reading with him or indeed to be aware of what was said on that occasion. If we have a more complex Bill there may be many days of Committee stage, plus the Report stage and Third Reading. Of course, noble Lords may read Hansard. The noble Lord appears to be disagreeing with the Procedure Committee report. I would have thought that what it recommends is plain common sense, and that is all I am asking the House to recognise.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly and respectfully oppose this amendment, which seeks to perfect the imperfectible. The noble Lord must appreciate—
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I understood the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, to be simply asking a question. If we are proceeding to debate the amendment, I shall put the Motion to the House.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble and learned friend. I apologise for having usurped the order. The noble Lord must realise far better than I that any codification of conduct of acting and speaking on honour will give rise inevitably to practical problems of interpretation. Here we have but one. Are we going to start picking at it today and say, "Here is one", or are we to say, "Here is another. What is the difference between advocacy and advice?"; or are we to find another? Is this the time really for us to entertain a nit-picking exercise of this order? I suggest that it clearly is not.
I understand that these matters will be resolved by advice from the Table and no doubt—although I have not been told so—in consultation with the Procedure

1635
Committee. Let us get on with it now. That is the will of the House. Let us see how it works out and do not let us try to tinker with it at this stage.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, I hesitate to incur the wrath of the noble Lord opposite in the use of the word "tinker". Perhaps the Chairman of Committees can help me. Paragraph (2) of the First Motion states:
"Lords should never accept any financial inducement".
Later on, and in a different context, the description goes slightly wider and refers to hospitality, gifts, etc. The real question is whether it might have been better to have removed the word "financial" and just had the word "inducement". I ask that question because I can foresee that certain Members perhaps not present today may think that "financial inducement" is that which is received by cheque whereas it may be perfectly all right for one's wife to accept a holiday in Australia. I say to the noble Lord that I am not nit-picking, but I wonder whether it would have been better for the word ''inducement" to have stood on its own.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I intervene not to comment on the merits of the two Motions—the broad thrust of which I wholeheartedly endorse—nor to comment on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, except to say that I am not very enthusiastic about it. I seek clarification of one important aspect of the first Motion. In last Wednesday's debate many noble Lords declared themselves puzzled as to exactly where the line should be drawn in deciding whether to declare non-financial interests and in particular those involving mere membership of a group or organisation. At the end of the day, we were little the wiser, and a grey area remains.
Most of us happen to be members of a large number of clubs, societies and organisations. Some of us are members of groups within political parties, such as the No Turning Back Group within the Conservative Party or the Tribune Group, if it still exists, within the Labour Party. A few of us may decide temporarily to join ad hoc groups set up, for example, to oppose the building of motorways across places such as Twyford Down or the Naseby battlefield. If whenever we rose to speak we had to declare our membership or even our unpaid patronage of every organisation that might be remotely relevant, not only would our proceedings be up to 25 per cent. lengthier than they are already, but the impact of the declarations would be blunted by constant repetition, to the extent that the declaration of a really substantial and significant financial interest could be submerged beneath a welter of declarations of unimportant, non-financial interests.
Therefore, I wonder whether the Chairman of Committees could kindly say whether the following common-sense compromise is acceptable in his view. Where a particular argument is advanced by a noble Lord as a result of suggestions or requests by officers or members of any organisation, or where the line taken in a debate is inspired or modified as a result of membership of that organisation, the non-financial interest should clearly be declared; on the other hand, where membership of an organisation has no bearing whatever on one's parliamentary conduct and where the
1636
arguments advanced and the amendments tabled would be identical whether or not one happened to be a member of a particular organisation, there should be no need to declare the interest. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could confirm whether that is a correct interpretation of the recommendations.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am a little confused about when one should speak in this debate. It appears now that we are speaking not simply to the amendment, but to the two Motions plus the amendment, so that this is a general discussion. I hope that I am right and that I am not out of order. I have now had some indication that that is so, so I shall proceed.
Last Thursday I raised the question of undue haste in the tabling of these resolutions and in implementing the proposals of the Griffiths Committee. Indeed, I implored the usual channels not to act with undue haste and to defer consideration until after Prorogation, in the new Session. Unfortunately, they did not listen to my appeal. Therefore, we are discussing the matter today. I think that that is most unfortunate because I do not think that we should be driven to over-hasty action in such an important matter as this. The House has managed without such a policy for the past 600 or 700 years, so a few days extra to consider the implications would have done no harm.
We are faced today with an important amendment with far-reaching consequences, but it appeared on the Order Paper only today. Therefore, noble Lords could not possibly have had an opportunity to consider all the implications. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, has just spoken about certain worries that he has. He is entitled to have those worries. He is entitled to have them properly considered and he is entitled to time to consider them himself.
On Thursday, when I raised the question, my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney got to his feet, as he is entitled to do, and said that I spoke only for myself. I took that as implied criticism and as showing that my noble friend agreed that we should move quickly towards a decision on the matter. Today my noble friend has clearly had second thoughts. When he got to his feet today he asked whether we should not take into account what happened in the Commons yesterday. Already, apparently, we have conversions. Already people are beginning to wonder whether we should discuss the matter with such undue haste and whether we are being driven to do something which we may regret in the future. It is too late for me to hope that that is not the case. However, I shall give my opinion as to the wrongfulness of our being driven in such a way.
We should remember that the Prime Minister was driven perhaps too quickly along the course which has led to us facing this decision today. Was it right that the Nolan Committee should have been under instructions to report within six months? Was it not a matter that should have received longer consideration? By acting in haste, we may very well arrive at the wrong decisions and at the wrong time—and those decisions may have an adverse effect on Parliament and parliamentarians.

1637
I can only address these remarks to the Nolan Committee, the press, the media and everybody else who has done their best over the past few weeks and months to denigrate and criticise Members of the House of Commons in particular. In my experience, Members of another place are at least as good, if not better in many instances, than those they represent. I have been in this place for 25 years and have mixed with Members of both Houses and all political parties. In general, they are decent people who believe in their fellow men. They come into politics because they want to do something useful for their fellow men. They are not greedy in the general sense of that word. They are concerned about the country and the people they represent. I wanted to say that because I think that it is important that it should be said and that it should be said in this place and in defence of the House of Commons and of Parliament itself. I very much regret that we are dealing with this matter in such a hasty fashion. I sincerely hope that we shall not come to regret any decisions which we may take today.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, perhaps I may clarify just one point. There is no connection whatever between what I said on Thursday and what has been said today. Today we are discussing procedure; on Thursday we were discussing substance. I still disagree with my noble friend on substance although I may agree with him on procedure.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, following the line of thought presented by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, perhaps I may ask my noble friend who is to reply to this short debate whether, if we decided not to pass his Motion, that would mean that we would revert to the position which existed previously, which has served us well and done its work effectively and to the highest standard for so long. If that would be the result of not passing the Motion, is not that course of action worth a second thought and might it not be the line to follow?
Lord Richard: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Stoddart said that certain people had been "converted", as he put it, from their views of last week. Perhaps I may advise him that I have not been converted. My views remain the same today as they were last Thursday. If he had wanted to, my noble friend Lord Stoddart could have made his speech in the debate on the Griffiths report. If he had wanted to, the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, could have said exactly what he has said today—but no doubt at much greater length—in the debate on the Griffiths report. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, could have made his points in the debate on the Griffiths report also.
Perhaps I may make just two points. In the debate on the Griffiths report, the House was virtually unanimous in saying that this is a matter that the House should get on with. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, was the only dissenter. We are getting on with it.
A Noble Lord: Lord Campbell of Alloway?
Lord Richard: And the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, my Lords, but I remember that at the end,
1638
with his customary grace and courtesy, he said that in view of what he had heard he would defer to the views of the rest of the House. So perhaps he is half a dissentient. Perhaps he is a converted dissentient, I do not know, but I do know that if the House this afternoon is going to pick at these resolutions in a textual way, then, frankly, we are defeating the whole object of the exercise, and we shall be defeating the whole thrust of the debate on the report itself that took place last Wednesday.
I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, said. He may, or he may not, have a point. With great respect I do not think that it has helped the Business of the House to put it down as a formal amendment this afternoon, and I hope that he will not press it. My plea this afternoon is the same as it was before: that the House having willed the principle, it is right that this afternoon we should will the means.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, for notifying me before he tabled his amendment that he was thinking of doing so along these lines. I should like to thank him also for the way in which he proposed his amendment. For one thing, it provides an opportunity for clarification on this point, if there is a need for clarification. I am happy to confirm that his interpretation of what is in the first of the Motions is correct, and that was the intention also of the sub-committee chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, of which of course the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, was a member. It is the case, as he said, that in taking part in various stages of a Bill a Member who has an interest to declare should declare that interest at each stage.
The question of avoiding unnecessary repetition comes in for example—and I instance this as only an example—if a Member of your Lordships' House has several amendments tabled at, say, the Committee stage of a Bill. In that case he would not be expected to declare an interest each time he moved one of his amendments, unless perhaps they occurred on different days. That is where the avoidance of unnecessary duplication comes in. As I said, I am happy to confirm that the interpretation and explanation that the noble Lord gave is correct.
Perhaps I may deal briefly with certain other points which have been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, raised a point on financial matters and so on. The intention here has been to follow as closely as possible the wording used by the report of the sub-committee chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, and that is why we have stuck to that. If in the light of experience, changes in future years—if your Lordships pass the Motions this afternoon—become necessary, no doubt they can be attended to. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for nodding his head in, I hope, acceptance of that explanation.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, raised a point about groups and other matters. If he and your Lordships will forgive me, I do not believe that I should venture this afternoon into questions of individual interpretation of

1639
particular examples. As the resolutions themselves make clear, if the need arises, and as it arises, it will be for the Clerk of the Parliaments to guide noble Lords in relation to particular problems of interpretation. No doubt if they arise, they can be dealt with very well in that way.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, raised a matter to which he referred in your Lordships' House last Thursday. I understand his point. He is not completely alone in raising that point, but I feel that I should remind your Lordships that in our debate last Wednesday there was an overwhelming preponderance of feeling in support of these proposals and recommendations. Indeed, by the end of the debate 23 out of the 24 noble Lords who took part supported the principle of these resolutions. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, in what I thought was his most generous intervention towards the end of the debate, just as his noble friend the Government Chief Whip had completed his remarks, indicated, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said this afternoon, that he was prepared to defer to the views as he—if I may say so—so elegantly put it of your Lordships' House.
There was that remarkable consensus of feeling in favour of these proposals. Let me say something else which I hope will bring some comfort, although I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is not likely to depart from his point—the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, raised a similar point. The terms of these proposed resolutions have been known to your Lordships since 17th July, which was the date of the Procedure Committee's last meeting before we rose for the Summer Recess, and since the meeting of the Procedure Committee on 16th October—the day we resumed. I take the noble Lord's point about the amendment of course, but the terms of these proposals have been well known to your Lordships for quite a period of time. That has enabled us all to get to grips with our thoughts and reactions to these proposals.
The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, raised a slightly different point. He asked whether, if your Lordships decided not to pass these resolutions, we would return to the previous position. That would be the case, subject of course to the views expressed in your Lordships' debate last Wednesday. We should be left with the guidelines and other rules of order which we now have. I would hesitate to repeat the remarks, but I would briefly remind the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, that in view of the strong, widespread and overwhelming reactions of noble Lords in all parts of your Lordships' House in favour of the proposals, I believe the will of the House is probably, as indicated last Wednesday, to proceed with them with all speed. I hope that I have answered sufficient of your Lordships' points to satisfy your Lordships, so far as your Lordships can be satisfied. I hope that what I have said in answer to the moving of the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, will satisfy him.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Chairman of Committees for that helpful reply. I had no wish to cause a fuss in your Lordships' House, and I strongly support the course
1640
which has been followed in bringing these resolutions before the House at an early date. It seemed important to me that we should have a clear interpretation of this resolution at a significant point and that the matter should not merely be clear but on the official record as well. I am content, and therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Registration of Interests
3.38 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, during the first part of the proceedings on these matters we seem to have drifted to some extent over both Motions. However, it is probably necessary for me to say a word or two in explanation of this Motion. Without wishing to attempt in any way to suggest to your Lordships that your Lordships should stifle any remarks that you may wish to make, perhaps this Motion, as we have drifted across parts of it, might be taken relatively shortly.
The purpose of this Motion is to establish a register of interests in accordance with the recommendations of the sub-committee chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths. The text of the Motion is substantially that which appeared in the annex to the fifth report from the Procedure Committee with only minor drafting changes. As recommended by the sub-committee, the Motion gives to the Committee for Privileges the task of overseeing the registration arrangements. If your Lordships agree to the Motion today, that committee will be invited at the beginning of the new Session to approve the detailed arrangements for the establishment and operation of the register. It will of course be up to the committee to determine what those arrangements should be but it may be helpful if at this stage I say that it is likely that your Lordships will in due course be sent a notice explaining the detailed arrangements for initial registration and giving a date by which existing interests should be registered. After that, as stated in the Motion, your Lordships will be expected to register within one month any new interests which are required to be registered.
If your Lordships agree to this Motion today, I should tell the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments has it in mind to appoint as registrar Mr. James Valiance White, the Fourth Clerk at the Table and Principal Clerk in the Judicial Office. In moving the Motion, perhaps I may take the opportunity of thanking the noble Lords, Lord Williams of Elvel and Lord Cockfield, for their helpful suggestions. As I have indicated, small changes to the texts have been put forward and it is those that I have in mind when thanking the two noble Lords.
I believe that it is the general wish of your Lordships that the register should be introduced without delay and I am sure that the Committee for Privileges will deal with the matter as expeditiously as possible.
Moved, That there shall be established a register of:

(1) consultancies, or any similar arrangements, whereby members of the House accept payment or other incentive or reward for providing parliamentary advice or services;

(2) any financial interests of members of the House in businesses involved in parliamentary lobbying on behalf of clients; and

(3) any other particulars which members of the House wish to register relating to matters which they consider may affect the public perception of the way in which they discharge their parliamentary duties.

The register shall be maintained under the authority of the Clerk of the Parliaments by a Registrar appointed by him.
Existing arrangements falling within categories (1) and (2) above shall be registered within one month of the register being established. Subsequent arrangements falling within those categories shall be registered within one month of their being made.
The register shall be available for public inspection in accordance with arrangements to be made by the Registrar. The register shall also be published annually. The annual edition shall include all arrangements registered since the previous edition; and all continuing arrangements unless their termination has been notified to the Registrar.
The operation of the register shall be overseen by the Committee for Privileges.
The Committee for Privileges shall investigate, and report to the House on, any allegation of failure to register interests within categories (1) and (2); provided that the Committee shall first satisfy itself that an allegation has sufficient substance to warrant investigation.
The Committee may remit any or all of the matters covered by this order to a sub-committee.
In considering any allegation of failure to register interests, the Committee and any sub-committee shall not sit unless three Lords of Appeal be present.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Mental Health (Patients in the Community) Bill [H.L.]
3.42 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments he now considered.—(Baroness Cumberlege.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 44. The amendment removes the privilege amendment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 44.—(Baroness Cumberlege.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 45. This is a technical amendment which removes an unnecessary reference to new Sections 35C to 351 in paragraph 5 of the schedule. These new sections apply only once the community care order has been made. New Sections 35A and 35B allow a community care order to be made in respect of an unrestricted hospital order patient. The reference to Sections 35C to 351 here is therefore not necessary.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 45. —(The Earl of Courtown.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Mental Health (Patients in the Community) Bill [H.L.]

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  [The page and line refer to Bill (122) as first printed by the Commons.]
  1 Clause 1, page 3, line 37, leave out 'unless the patient has otherwise requested,'.
  2 Page 3, line 44, at end insert—
  '(2A)Where the patient has requested that paragraph (b) of subsection (2) above should not apply, that paragraph shall not apply unless—

  (a) the patient has a propensity to violent or dangerous behaviour towards others, and

  (b) the responsible medical officer considers that it is appropriate for steps such as are mentioned in that paragraph to be taken.'.

  3 Page 8, line 19, at end insert 'who is (or is to be)'.
  4 Page 8, line 34, leave out 'unless the patient has otherwise requested,'.
  5 Page 8, line 41, at end insert—
  '(6A) Where the patient has requested that paragraph (c) of subsection (6) above should not apply, that paragraph shall not apply unless—

  (a) the patient has a propensity to violent or dangerous behaviour towards others, and

  (b) the community responsible medical officer (or the person who is to be the community responsible medical officer) considers that it is appropriate for steps such as are mentioned in that paragraph to be taken.'.

  6 Page 8, line 42, leave out after such consultation,'.
  7 Page 11, line 31, leave out 'except where the patient has otherwise requested,'.
  8 Page 11, line 38, at end insert—
  '(5A) Where the patient has requested that paragraph (b) of subsection (5) above should not apply, that paragraph shall not apply unless

  (a) the patient has a propensity to violent or dangerous behaviour towards others, and

  (b) the community responsible medical officer considers that it is appropriate for steps such as are mentioned in that paragraph to be taken.'.

  9 Page 12, line 46, leave out 'unless the patient has otherwise requested,'.
  10 Page 13, line 3, at end insert—
  '(3A) Where the patient has requested that paragraph (b) of subsection (3) above should not apply, that paragraph shall not apply unless—

  (a) the patient has a propensity to violent or dangerous behaviour towards others, and

  (b) the community responsible medical officer considers that it is appropriate for steps such as are mentioned in that paragraph to be taken.'.

  Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 10 en bloc. Perhaps I may speak also to Amendments Nos. 12 and 13.
  Your Lordships will remember that the rights of nearest relatives to be consulted about supervised discharge were an important theme of our debates on the Bill. The amendments introduced in the other place are intended to complete the process which began on the Floor of this House. In particular, they respond to a point which was raised at the Report stage by my noble friend Lord Mottistone. I am glad to put on record again how grateful we are to him and to the National

  1643
  Schizophrenia Fellowship, which has been working with him, for the highly constructive contribution that they have made.
  The issue of consultation with nearest relatives was first raised by my noble friend in Committee. Although we did not accept the precise words that he proposed then we accepted the general principle and brought forward our own amendments on Report. Broadly speaking, the effect of these is that the responsible medical officer must consult the patient's nearest relative unless the patient objects.
  My noble friend's further amendment on Report would have allowed the responsible medical officer to consult the nearest relative in spite of the patient's objection, particularly where the patient had a history of violence. In responding to him then I said that the wording of the Bill as it then stood would not prevent the responsible medical officer from consulting the nearest relative against the patient's wishes if there was an overriding public interest. We have considered this further and have concluded that if the patient has a propensity to violence, to avoid any possible doubt there ought to be a clear statutory provision for the nearest relative to be consulted even if the patient objects. This is the effect of the amendments introduced in the other place.
  The amendments define two tests which must be satisfied if a patient's objection is to be overridden. First, the patient must have a propensity to violent or dangerous behaviour towards other people. Secondly, the responsible medical officer must believe that it is appropriate for the nearest relative to be consulted.
  A patient objecting to his or her nearest relative being consulted is a serious matter which ought not to be set aside unless there are compelling reasons. I believe that the amendments strike the right balance between the rights and interests of patients and those of other people, and meet the concern which has been expressed by my noble friend and other noble Lords. I commend the amendments to the House.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 10 en bloc.—(Baroness Cumberlege.)
  Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for progressing the matter a step further and I also thank Members of another place. The matter was not completed here and it is now in a much better state. I hope that your Lordships agree with me.
  Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I supported my noble friend Lord Mottistone in Committee. I shall not repeat the arguments which were cogent and appear to have been persuasive. My noble friend Lady Cumberlege undertook further examination of the issue. I am sure that the amendments will be welcomed by the National Schizophrenia Fellowship. Indeed, I am patron of the National Schizophrenia Fellowship (Scotland) which, among other things, brings together relatives and friends of sufferers of the disease. It will be pleased to
  1644
  hear about these changes and I am glad that the Government have considered the matter and taken action.
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I too thank the Minister for explaining the amendments so clearly. They relate to the rights and responsibilities of patients and their relatives in relation to this complex legislation, which has been the subject of many debates in your Lordships' House. At this stage, we on these Benches will not oppose any of the amendments, but I wish to question the definition of patients with a propensity to violent or dangerous behaviour.
  The Minister, in her explanation of the amendments, gave some definitions but I am anxious that there appears to be an almost self-defeating aspect to the concern about people with a propensity to dangerous behaviour. Presumably the whole understanding of the legislation is that people who could be identified as having such a behavioural problem would not be subject to release into the community. If people are identified as having a propensity to violent or dangerous behaviour they would appear, prima facie, to be unsuitable for such release.
  Although I completely understand the narrow terms of the amendment—that in those circumstances their relatives should be consulted against their specific request—I do not yet understand how they fall into the category of those who would be appropriately released into the community under the terms of the legislation. Perhaps the Minister could help the House.
  I am aware of the fact that some voluntary organisations which have been particularly helpful in the passage of the Bill—the National Schizophrenia Fellowship has already been mentioned—support the amendment. That is a significant factor as regards its continuing support. However, that fellowship and many other voluntary organisations working in the field have once again, even at this late stage, drawn my attention to their concerns that the Bill's financial memorandum indicates that it will not give rise to additional costs for health or local authorities. That remains a major concern.
  Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lord Mottistone and Lord Campbell of Croy for their support.
  Perhaps I may address the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, on the definition of dangerous behaviour. As regards the interpretation of this provision, I am advised that the word "propensity" would bear its ordinary dictionary meaning of an inclination, bent, tendency or disposition. It is not possible to say in general terms how strong that propensity would need to be because the Bill deliberately leaves that to the judgment of the responsible medical officer. Clearly the RMO would wish to consider, for example, what was known about the patient's history; the seriousness of any past violence; against whom it had been directed; how the patient had responded to treatment; and how much light consultation with the nearest relative was likely to shed on the assessment of the patient's present condition and needs.

  1645
  But the amendment does not prescribe how that judgment should be exercised and that is quite consistent with the existing provisions of the Act which require the RMO to decide, for example, whether it is necessary for the health or safety of the patient or for the protection of other persons that he or she should be detained in hospital.
  We have discussed very fully the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, about resources. I believe that she knows the answers that I am likely to give. In the interests of brevity, I shall let the subject rest.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  11 Page 13, line 7, leave out from 'treatment' to '; or' in line 9.
  Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 14 to 18.
  These amendments, though minor in drafting terms, are important for the small number of patients they are likely to affect. Those are patients who, being subject to after-care under supervision, are readmitted to hospital under Section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983 for assessment. This may follow an initial emergency admission under Section 4. Under the Bill as it stood when your Lordships last considered it, supervision would then lapse. The patient could then be discharged within days if he or she did not need treatment in hospital, and without the protection of supervision.
  While it is true that readmission for treatment under Section 3 of the Act has the effect of ending supervision, this is different because a fresh supervision application can then he made when the patient is to be discharged. But an application cannot be made when the patient has been admitted under Section 2 for assessment and not subsequently detained for treatment. That leaves an unintended gap which the amendments fill.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11.—(Baroness Cumberlege.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  12 Page 13, line 20, leave out 'unless the patient otherwise requests,'.
  13 Page 13, line 24, at end insert—
  '(6) Where the patient has requested that paragraph (c) of subsection (5) above should not apply, that paragraph shall not apply unless subsection (3)(b) above applied in his case by virtue of subsection (3A) above.'.
  14 Page 13, line 26, after 'supervision' insert '—
  (a)'.
  15 Page 13, line 29, at end insert '; or
  (b) is detained in hospital in pursuance of an application for admission for assessment.'.
  16 Page 13, line 30, leave out `so detained' and insert 'detained as mentioned in subsection (1)(a) or (b) above'.
  17 Page 13, line 36, leave out 'so detained' and insert 'detained as mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) above'.
  18 Page 13, line 38, after 'less' insert ', or is detained as mentioned in paragraph (b) of that subsection,'.
  Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 12 to 18 to which I have spoken in dealing with Amendments Nos. 1 and 11.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 12 to 18 en bloc.—(Baroness Cumberlege.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  19 Clause 4, Page 20, line 29, after '(3)(a)' insert 'or (f) or (3A)'.
  20 Page 20, line 46, after '(3)(a)' insert 'or (3A)'.
  21 Page 21, line 33, at end insert—
  '(3A) If the patient has a propensity to violent or dangerous behaviour the responsible medical officer may consult the patient's nearest relative notwithstanding any objection by the patient to such consultation under subsection (3)(a) above.'.
  22 Page 23, line 20, after '(3)(a)' insert 'or (3A)'.
  23 Page 24, line 5, at end insert—
  '(3A) If the patient has a propensity to violent or dangerous behaviour the responsible medical officer may consult the patient's nearest relative notwithstanding any objection by the patient to such consultation under subsection (3)(b)(i) above.'.
  24 Page 24, line 7, after 'above' insert 'and any consultation under subsection (3A) above'.
  25 Page 24, line 16, after '(3)(b)(i)' insert 'or (iv) or (3A)'.
  26 Page 24, line 24, leave out from first 'of to 'of in line 25 and insert 'references to subsections (3)(b)(i) and (3A) of this section for the references to subsections (3)(a) and (3A)'.
  27 Page 24, line 43, at end insert—
  '(1A) If the patient has a propensity to violent or dangerous behaviour the special medical officer may consult the patient's nearest relative notwithstanding any objection by the patient to such consultation under subsection (1)(a) above.'.
  28 Page 24, line 49, after '(1)(a)' insert 'or (1A)'.
  29 Page 25, line 19, after '(1)(a)' insert 'or (e) or (1A)'.
  30 Page 25, line 26, leave out from first 'of to 'of in line 27 and insert 'references to subsections (1)(a) and (IA) of this section for the references to subsections (3)(a) and (3A)'.
  31 Page 26, line 34, at end insert—
  '(4A) If the patient has a propensity to violent or dangerous behaviour the special medical officer or, as the case may be, the after-care officer may consult the patient's nearest relative notwithstanding any objection by the patient to such consultation under subsection (3)(a) or, as the case may be, (4)(a) above.'.
  32 Page 26, line 42, after '(a)' insert 'or (e)'.
  33 Page 26, line 43, at end insert 'or subsection (4A) above'.
  34 Page 28, line 12, at end insert—
  '(2A) If the patient has a propensity to violent or dangerous behaviour the special medical officer may consult the patient's nearest relative notwithstanding any objection by the patient to such consultation under subsection (2)(a) above.'.
  35 Page 28, line 43, after '(2)(a)' insert 'or (e) or (2A)'.
  36 Page 30, line 26, after 'officer' insert any person falling within subsection (2)(e) below'.
  37 Page 30, line 41, at end insert—
  '(2A) If the patient has a propensity to violent or dangerous behaviour the special medical officer may consult

  1647
  the patient's nearest relative notwithstanding any objection by the patient to such consultation under subsection (2)(a) above.'.
  38 Page 31, line 4, leave out from second 'the' to end of line 6 and insert 'persons mentioned in subsection (4) below of the revocation.

  (4) The persons to be notified under subsection (3) above are—

  (a) the patient and (if practicable) his nearest relative;

  (b) the patient's special medical officer;

  (c) the patient's after-care officer; and

  (d) any person who the Mental Welfare Commission believes plays a substantial part in the care of the patient but is not professionally concerned with the after-care services provided for the patient under section 8 of this Act.'.

  The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, with the leave of the House I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 19 to 38 en bloc.
  These amendments provide for communication with and intimation to informal carers and, in certain circumstances, the nearest relative. They provide that those who give informal care to the patient are informed of various stages in connection with a community care order—the making, renewal, or revocation of the order, variation of its conditions, change of special medical officer, or after-care officer, or re-assessment in hospital.
  They also enable the responsible medical officer, or the special medical officer, or the after-care officer, as appropriate, to consult at these various stages with the patient's nearest relative where a patient has a history of violence, despite the patient's objections. The right to over-ride the patient's wish would allow those caring for a patient to obtain information from the nearest relative which might be essential to an assessment of the risk which the patient poses to himself or others. That is in the light of an amendment to the English provisions sponsored by the National Schizophrenia Fellowship.
  These amendments ensure that the Scottish provisions are in line with the proposals for supervised discharge in England and Wales and I commend them to your Lordships.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 19 to 38 en bloc. —(The Earl of Courtown.)
  Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I should like again to lend my support to these amendments which very much follow what I was advocating at earlier stages of the Bill. I am grateful to the Government for taking this action.
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I have no wish to detain the House and I am most grateful to the Minister for accepting some of the ideas put forward in amendments at earlier stages of the Bill. However, I should be failing in my duty if I did not comment on the meaning of the amendments, and my noble friend Lady Jay has already made some comments in this regard.
  I have received correspondence from two organisations in Scotland which have been closely involved with this Bill. Have the Law Society of
  1648
  Scotland and the Scottish Association for Mental Health been consulted on the amendments? I realise that it is too late to do anything now. However, those organisations which have been closely and continuously involved with the legislation find that it is difficult to understand what will be the ultimate effect of the amendments. For example, the word "propensity" is used. What does that mean? When a community care order is being considered, will the relatives be involved?
  I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify a few points in regard to the interpretation of the legislation. As I say, I have no intention of delaying the House but I should make these points.
  For example, it had been assumed that community care orders were not for such patients who would qualify for continued detention under the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 but for patients who were well, not considered a risk to society and who were made subject to the order in an attempt to keep them that way.
  We can well understand the wish of relatives to be kept involved. It is the view of the Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Association for Mental Health that relatives should be kept involved but it would be preferable if all nearest relatives were involved. That may be clumsy but I hope the Minister may be able to help with an explanation. That would fit in with the framework within the Mental Health (Scotland) Act and would not admit in legislation the possibility of violent or dangerous people being discharged into the community.
  I am not an expert in these matters but I understand that with some relatives a patient may always be calm and reasonable, while with other relatives a breaking point may be reached. Therefore, it may be necessary to consider all rather than merely some relatives. Those views are shared by the Scottish Association for Mental Health and the Law Society of Scotland. I do not ask the Minister to give an answer now but perhaps he will reassure me that those points have been taken into consideration. If anything that I have said is really important and there is a misunderstanding, it may be that a minor amendment is needed to put that right.
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, this group of amendments to the Scottish part of the Bill will allow the RMO, the SMO and the after-care officer to consult the nearest relative in a particular case where the patient has requested that that should not be done. It is wholly reasonable that the nearest relative should be informed when the patient has a history of violence or dangerous behaviour. Not to do so would be an infringement of the nearest relative's civil rights, not to mention being a breach of common sense.
  The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, for the matters that he raised. I shall try to answer some of them at this point. The two organisations to which the noble Lord referred—namely, the Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Association for Mental Health—were initially consulted on the Bill. Both will be consulted on the drafting of the guidance which will be issued to clarify the amendments. In addition, so far as concerns the nearest relative, the Mental Welfare Commission will

  1649
  advise on the question of people who are informally involved in the care of the patient. All relevant individuals will be consulted.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  4 p.m.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  39 Clause 4, page 31, line 8, after 'order' insert '—
  (a)'.
  40 Page 31, line 11, at end insert '; or
  (b) is detained in a hospital under section 24, 26 or 26A of this Act.'.
  41 Page 31, line 12, leave out 'so detained' and insert 'detained as mentioned in subsection (1)(a) or (b) above'.
  42 Page 31, line 17, leave out 'so detained' and insert 'detained as mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) above'.
  43 Page 31, line 19, after 'less' insert or is detained as mentioned in paragraph (b) of that subsection,'.
  The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 39 to 43 en bloc. When the Bill was being considered in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, urged us to clarify the relationship between community care orders and emergency detention under Section 24 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984. At that time, my noble friend Lord Lindsay indicated that our consideration of the matter was still continuing. We have now reached a conclusion, as your Lordships will be aware from the discussion of the amendment to Clause 1.
  The amendments provide that if a person subject to a community care order is detained in hospital under the emergency or short term detention provisions of the 1984 Act, then the community care order continues to run, but the conditions are suspended while he is in hospital. If he is discharged from detention in hospital under those provisions, then the conditions re-enter into force.
  If a community care order is due to expire while a person is detained in hospital under those provisions, or within 28 days of his release following detention under those sections, then the community care order will be deemed to expire 28 days after his discharge. That will allow a renewal of that order to take place, if necessary. We believe that that is the best way to deal with the detention in an emergency of a community care order patient. An application for a community care order cannot he made while a person is detained under only the emergency provisions, but we believe that we should not deny the special framework to people already subject to community' care orders simply because they are detained briefly under the emergency provisions.
  It is clear that the emergency provisions are for use only in an emergency. The normal route of a community care order patient into hospital if his condition deteriorates should most definitely be by the reassessment procedure set out in new Section 35G.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 39 to 43 en bloc.—(The Earl of Courtown.)
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, the amendments are the Scottish version of extending the community care order by 28 days in the unfortunate event of the patient being imprisoned or detained in hospital at the end point of his or her order. That extension will ensure a minimum time to achieve resettlement in the community and to assess the needs or otherwise for a further community care order. As the amendments, and the English ones, probably started with a suggestion made by myself, I am wholly satisfied that they have been sensibly extended by the other place.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  44 Clause 7, page 38, leave out lines 30 to 33.
  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  45 Schedule 2, page 44, line 5, leave out '35C to 351,'.

The Countryside
4.5 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers)The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers) rose to move, That this House take note of Rural England A Nation committed to a Living Countryside(Cm 3016).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I believe that your Lordships will welcome the opportunity to debate the Government's new rural White Paper, Rural England, which was published on 17th October. I also believe that the White Paper will affect in some way or other almost everyone in the country. It is the first time ever that a government have produced a White Paper on the countryside intended to touch upon almost all the activities which take place in the countryside. It has been quite a magnum opus and I hope that your Lordships will approve of the result.
The first thing I would like to emphasise is that the White Paper is not a document which imposes the Government's will on the countryside. Any government of whatever party would be more than stupid if they tried to do that. We have certainly highlighted some of the problems which face the countryside and which exist in the countryside, and we have put forward some possible solutions which the Government think may be appropriate. Many of the measures suggested will require consultation on the details, and that will be held.
We have been lucky enough to inherit a wonderful country within which is a glorious countryside. It is our duty not to ruin it. But we cannot stand still. There must be progress and development. Yet we have to try to accommodate—as far as we can—all the variety of issues and attitudes which prevail about the countryside and within it.
In view of the Motions which your Lordships passed earlier today, I suppose that I should declare my interests. I live in the country where I have agricultural interests which have a financial interest attached to them. I also live in the town where I have political interests which have a financial interest attached to them. Moreover, I travel between the two where I have an interest in trying to remain within the speed limit which itself would have a financial interest attached to it if I did not do so.
Having got that lot off my chest, perhaps I may return to the substance of the debate. In considering the totality of the countryside, one has to realise that, whatever one's own view may be over some of the details of what is in and what goes on in the countryside, someone will almost certainly hold a diametrically opposed view. Wherever we stand in this mêlée of conflicting views, we have to be big enough to work with the warp and the weft of opinion, and not take the rather selfish view that, "I am right".
If we are all to live on an island, the extent of which is finite, some pretty difficult decisions are bound to have to be made. The countryside, and the people who live there, have seen many changes over the past 50 years or so. Patterns of employment have changed. Even in the most rural areas, only about 6 per cent. of employed people are now employed in agriculture. Of course, in the whole of England the figure is only 1.3 per cent. The countryside is under increasing pressure from day visitors. Many of our smaller villages no longer have a village shop and some villages are no longer able to sustain the village school.
All those things can be sad, but change is not always bad. It can be for the better. Already changing patterns of employment mean that the countryside has an increasingly diverse economy. For example, more people are likely in the future to run their business from their homes in the country, due to the modern technology of faxes, computers, telephones, the Internet and so on. People in the Untied Kingdom are now leaving the towns in order to live in the countryside. Oddly enough, that is in contrast to what has happened in the rest of Europe where the reverse is taking place. People there are leaving the countryside in order to live in the cities. However, this exodus from the cities to the
1652
countryside in England brings pressures upon the land and upon traditional country folk. We have to look carefully at those pressures and changes in order that we can take the right action to ensure the well-being both of the countryside and of the people who live in it well into the next century. The White Paper is the start of that process.
When we started on this venture some 12 months ago we undertook to consider together the economic, social and environmental aspects of country life. We began by holding an open consultation exercise. We received about 380 responses which reflected the views of academics, local government, many different interest groups, and, of course, the people in the countryside themselves. One of the themes which kept recurring was that rural problems are often best dealt with locally in a way which suits that locality and not as a result of some diktat from Whitehall or even from a town hall. That is a message we have tried to reflect in the White Paper. Local problems need local solutions and local action.
The White Paper is founded on the principle of sustainable development. A short while ago some people tended to talk purely about protecting the environment. However, that has a negative ring to it, implying that development in the countryside must be—as they would say in 1066 and All That—a bad thing. Of course that is not the case. Now we talk about sustainable development. That is a perfectly awful expression but in reality a good concept. What it means, quite simply, is ensuring that the economic and the social needs of people who live and work in the countryside are met without wrecking the countryside for future generations. It also means that rural enterprise and development must respect and, if possible, enhance the environment. That is quite a mouthful for a description, and that is why I use the more abrupt phrase, "sustainable development".
Our rural areas have many advantages: quality of life, peace, beauty and rural pursuits, as well as a sense of belonging to a community. Those are cherished assets. In rural areas—people often do not realise this—the economy has generally performed well. In fact, the economy of most of our rural areas has fared better than the economy of our urban areas in recent years. The growth of small businesses and self-employed people is greater in the countryside than it is in urban areas. Unemployment in the countryside is lower than for England as a whole. In 1994, 7 per cent. of people of working age were unemployed in the whole of England, but in the countryside only 5.1 per cent. were unemployed. The countryside has always been a place of work and it must remain so. We want to see rural businesses enjoy the freedom to grow and to prosper. We want them to seize new opportunities and to compete effectively with businesses elsewhere. With today's modern technology, rural businesses are now able to trade across not just regional frontiers but also international boundaries.
The rural White Paper does not imply that there is a single rural economy. The rural economy is different in different parts of the country. Those parts of the countryside which are close to large towns have generally done better than those in more remote areas. However, they have also experienced the pressures of

1653
growth: higher house prices; intrusive road traffic; demands for retail development and so forth. Remoter areas, on the contrary, face different problems. Small communities often do not have access to good roads or railways which may make it more difficult for manufacturers to run their businesses there. Sudden changes, for example, the closure of a large local employer, may leave no alternative employment for the majority of the local community, which means they are forced to look further afield for jobs or training.
Some areas with special needs have programmes which are aimed specifically at them, for example, those funded by the Rural Development Commission of which my noble friend Lord Shuttleworth is the distinguished chairman. We must not forget either that the attractiveness of the English countryside has a major part to play in its economic prosperity. Many rural businesses regard a pleasant working environment as a fundamental asset. Indeed, it is often one of the reasons why they moved there in the first place. Rural tourism, which also relies heavily on the attractiveness of the countryside, is estimated to account for an expenditure of about £8,000 million a year and provides about 400,000 jobs in England.
It goes without saying—but for that reason it is necessary to say it—that any new development in the countryside should be designed and located sensitively. In order to encourage that we will be revising Planning Policy Guidance Note 1 This should enable local authorities to recognise and value what is distinctive in their area and so try to guide new development accordingly.
Agriculture still lies at the heart of the countryside. The White Paper states that we want to safeguard a viable and a competitive agriculture. Although it is no longer the predominant rural employer, farming remains a thriving and essential industry and many industries—let us never forget this—both local and national, are dependent on it. Some 76 per cent. of the land in England is farmed and agriculture has the most important influence on the appearance of the countryside. The continuing viability of agriculture is a vital factor if we are to achieve many of our conservation objectives. The White Paper makes clear that we want to see further reform of the common agricultural policy in the direction of freer markets, at the same time as ensuring that care for the environment is a central concern.
We would also like to see the expansion of forestry in England and a doubling of woodland over the next half century. That should be possible given the various incentives for forestry which are available and the changes we would like to see made to the common agricultural policy. If we achieve that, we will make the countryside better for the people who live in the town; better for the people who live in the countryside; better for wildlife; and better for children who will be able to learn and to appreciate the value of the countryside.
In many rural areas there are particular difficulties in securing an adequate supply of land for affordable housing. The White Paper confirms that we will continue with the "exceptions" policy which was
1654
introduced in 1989 and which enables affordable housing to be built on land which is not allocated for development. We want to encourage landowners to bring forward new sites for the development of affordable housing by exempting villages of fewer than 3,000 people—including those which are in national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty—from the proposed purchase grant scheme. We have agreed that the Housing Corporation should introduce, from 1996-97, a rural village "enhancement factor" to its grants to housing associations and to other providers of low cost housing to take account of the increased costs of developing small housing schemes in villages. That will increase by up to 25 per cent. the amount of government subsidy to individual schemes in settlements of up to 3,000 people, and it will encourage local authorities and housing associations to give priority to village housing.
People live longer now—and, if I might say so, thank heavens for that—and they live in smaller units. Regrettably, however, there are more single parent families now which means that more units of housing have to be provided than was the case a generation or so ago. Those factors have all increased the demand for housing which, in turn, has put great pressure on the countryside. The Government's view is that wherever possible new development ought to be aimed at the existing centres of population. We will produce a discussion paper in the New Year which will consider the possibilities for providing this necessary housing development.
We must also not forget the need for essential services. In areas where there are few houses and where the population is widely dispersed, it can be difficult to provide a full range of services, let alone provide the sort of choice which many city dwellers take for granted. New approaches are necessary. Post buses are an excellent example of sharing facilities. School facilities might also be used for a variety of purposes such as sport, adult education and indeed parish meetings. The village shop can be a lifeline for people who do not have access to a car as well as being a centre for the local community.
Many small shopkeepers often find that the burden of non-domestic rates is the greatest single threat to their viability. Therefore, we have decided to introduce legislation at a suitable opportunity to provide rate relief for general stores and post offices in villages.
The Government believe that local authorities, because they know the local area and because they represent local people, are often best able to respond to local needs. Parish councils, in particular, are an excellent vehicle for responding to those needs. They are based in the locality, with members drawn from the locality and they know the problems of the locality. We would like parish councils to take on more responsibilities and to become more involved in their local communities. Therefore, the White Paper states that legislation will be introduced at the earliest opportunity to provide arrangements whereby formal consultation can take place between town and parish councils and the principal authorities. We would particularly like to see parishes take on a wider role in

1655
crime prevention and community transport. That would require legislation, and we have invited comments on the suggestion.
Then there is planning. We intend to revise Planning Policy Guidance Note 7 on the countryside, and we shall issue a draft revised version for public consultation next year. We propose to allow greater discrimination in favour of the re-use of rural buildings for business rather than for residential purposes.
Some local authorities may be reluctant to grant planning permission for new businesses or new business uses which they fear may intensify beyond that which is appropriate for a rural location. We are therefore considering the possibility of introducing a new rural business use class which will enable planning authorities to impose limitations on the traffic which is generated and so control the rate of expansion of the business. We shall shortly issue a consultation paper on that, and we shall be publishing in the near future a guide for local authorities on how to promote good practice in planning for rural diversification.
The countryside is, of course, the home of much of England's flora and fauna, and we all have a responsibility to see that they are not destroyed. Over the past 50 years our conservation efforts have concentrated on the most important areas and sites—the national parks, the special protection areas, the sites of special scientific interest, and so forth. Designating special areas such as these has helped to conserve features which might otherwise have been lost. However, we do not want to make the existing system of designations any more complex. In future our priority will be to complement the present system of designations with new ways of enriching the wider countryside. We do not intend to introduce further classes of statutory designation.
We all value the English countryside for its own distinctive and unique environment and for the rural communities living there which are smaller and more closely knit than those found in towns. Those qualities must not be allowed to become submerged by our predominantly urban culture. Nor must the voice of the countryside be overwhelmed or drowned out by the clamour of the towns and cities. Rural people have as much right to their lives and their style of life as do urban dwellers to theirs. We want to ensure that rural people have a say in their lives and in their livelihoods.
The White Paper announced that we would give the EDE Cabinet Committee a new role, which will be specifically to consider rural affairs. That should ensure that proper progress is made on the implementation of the commitments made in the White Paper. We shall publish a progress report next year.
The Government offices for the regions will be building on the success of their regional rural White Paper seminars and will continue to meet regularly with representatives of rural communities. We also want the government offices to work much more closely with the regional offices of the Ministry of Agriculture, the Forestry Commission and the countryside agencies.
The White Paper tries to set out how we feel that the role of government should fit in with the many other organisations, such as the local authorities, the voluntary sector and so on, which have an influence over the future of rural life. It tries to strike a balance between the many competing pressures on our rural life, its wildlife and landscape. Running through the White Paper is our determination not to allow the countryside to be turned into a museum piece. It is a living, working place, and it must be allowed to move with the times. It must not be allowed to fossilise. Nor must it be allowed to be ruined.
It is not the duty only of government to look after the countryside. Nor is it the duty only of local authorities. At the end of the day, it is the duty of people. After all, local authorities and government are only made up of people. It is people who matter. It is people who give meaning to life and who create the driving forces. And it is the people who will continue to make the countryside the lovely and loved place it is, or who will ruin it. If we are careful, we can ensure that it remains the lovely and loved place it is. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House take note of Rural England: A Nation committed to a Living Countryside (Cm 3016).—(Earl Ferrers.)
4.25 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, the whole House will be grateful to the noble Earl for the comprehensive way in which he introduced the White Paper. If his reasonable and positive approach can be carried forward into the consultation and the action programme then we shall not have a problem. I did not disagree with anything that the noble Earl had to say.
I too welcome the White Paper. The relationship between farming, forestry, landscape, wildlife and urban development has always been close, but in recent years the destructive effect of human activity on the countryside has grown dramatically. At the same time, rural communities are suffering social and economic hardship. Therefore, such a comprehensive review of the problem is necessary. Public concern has grown, and with it the desire to protect what is best in our countryside. I am sure that what the noble Earl said will move us along that path.
The White Paper represents a first step towards a co-ordinated approach to the various problems. I have one or two criticisms of the paper, but they are minor criticisms.
The paper is short of specific targets. Therefore, it is difficult to see how progress is to be measured, even if there is real co-operation between all the government departments concerned.
The paper is a long and glossy production, which perhaps makes it more enjoyable to read. However, there is a considerable amount of repetition in the various sections, which suggests that there are different authors of the different sections who perhaps did not talk to each other very much.
It might have been better to have had more substance and less bulk, and to have reduced the price of the document. It is meant to be a working document, but at

1657
£18.50 many interested parties will find it too expensive. At a time when we are trying to reduce the cost of government publications—and I understand that even the price of Hansard is coming down—it seems a pity that the new policy was not applied to this one.
If the list of speakers were shorter I should have liked to comment on much more of what is in the paper. My particular interest is in the penultimate section, which is entitled "A Green and Pleasant Land". I shall concentrate on that today. However, before I do so I have one question on an earlier part of the document.
On page 26 it is proposed that in future local authorities should be allowed to spend 90 per cent. of their receipts from the sale of their farms on improving rural conditions. Can the Minister say whether it is intended that any money gained in that way is to be additional to the standard spending assessment, or will it result in a cut in the grant that the local authority could have expected?
I turn now to the section entitled "A Green and Pleasant Land". First, I welcome the recognition of the work of the non-governmental organisations. Organisations such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the British Trust for Ornithology, the CPRE, the CPRW and many others make invaluable contributions to the work of maintaining biodiversity. Their contribution to research and monitoring is very important. Through their large and growing memberships they educate and involve thousands of people. I noted the emphasis which the noble Earl placed on the involvement of people. Those organisations have a large role to play in that regard.
I welcome the section on the value of hedgerows and the need to maintain and, where appropriate, replace them. However, it is necessary to seek agreement on what constitutes an "important" hedgerow so that local disputes are kept to a minimum. I understand that difficulties are being caused already regarding that definition. We had considerable discussion on that issue during the passage of the Act.
I welcome, too, the suggestion that dry-stone walls could perhaps be included in incentive schemes. It might be more encouraging if the word "perhaps" could be omitted; it was a passing remark. But dry-stone walls are as important to the landscape as hedgerows.
The reference to the role of national parks as defined in the Environment Act 1995 is encouraging. It reminds us that there is now a duty on all public bodies to have regard to national park purposes when carrying out activities in the parks. Does that reference include the Ministry of Defence? The Council for National Parks believes that there is a need for a better balance between the needs of military training and the environmental sustainability of the countryside. It is suggested that the Ministry of Defence could make wider use of strategic environmental assessment to avoid some of the more damaging decisions. The struggle to achieve sustainable development, to which we all subscribe, should surely not exclude military training activities. Perhaps I may emphasise that there is no suggestion that military training should cease. We all recognise its importance
1658
and the vital role it plays in the local economy of the areas in which it takes place. But sensitivity to particular locations is not an unreasonable request.
I note with some unease the comments on common land. This may be the first time that the Government have stated publicly that they have discarded the recommendations of the Common Land Forum. I have a long history of being interested in common land. It is almost 10 years since the forum report was acclaimed as offering solutions to the problems caused by the existing defective common land legislation. In 1987 the proposals were part of the Conservative election manifesto. The Moorlands Association was formed specifically to resist that manifesto commitment, and so nothing was done. However, in meeting the concerns of the Moorlands Association—it is arguable whether or not they should have been met—the Government have sacrificed many of the small commons near urban centres which were and are so important to local people.
Losses continue year by year. I have had private conversations on several occasions with members of the Moorlands Association. It is quite clear from their attitude that they did not wish the effect of their action to wash off on to the small urban common lands. Even at this late stage, I beg the Government to produce legislation which will protect those commons. The grass moors are not in the least affected, but those small common lands are valuable to urban people.
For example, a long battle is in process over Spring Common in Huntingdon, the Prime Minister's own constituency. The local authority seems bent on allowing development against the wishes of local people. The bland statement in the White Paper is not reassuring. The tone of the remarks suggests that only the concerns of landowners and commoners will be considered and not the interests of the general public.
There is much more to discuss, but there are 30-odd speakers—there are 32 speakers; they are not particularly odd! —and I hope that we may return to the subject on other occasions. I am glad to give a welcome to the White Paper although it may be a cautious welcome in some respects.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I, too, welcome the opportunity to discuss this welcome White Paper. I was sad that we did not have the opportunity to comment on it when it was first published. I understand that the official Opposition did not wish to discuss it at the time; but we have been paid off well by being given this full day. We have a long list of speakers. The usual suspects all appear to have been rounded up, and among them we welcome—as some relief presumably, and certainly as an addition to our numbers—the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hambro, to which we all look forward.
The White Paper has been described as the longest unpriced menu in the world. I believe that we should concentrate on the unpriced part. It is in part a succulent menu and much to be welcomed. However, although I do not often visit places where such menus are available, those noble Lords who visit Wiltons will know that one

1659
receives a very succulent bill of fare and a fairly nasty surprise at the end of the day. I do not believe that most of us would mind paying a fair price for what is on this menu. However, we wish to ensure that the Government will be able to afford to produce it.
My party controls most of the local government in the rural parts of the South of England. I think that probably everyone is looking forward to a change of government in the fairly near future. Therefore one of the more useful things that I can now do—I was tempted to produce a number of what my noble friend Lord Mackie has referred to as my own eccentric ideas—is to lay before your Lordships as briefly as I can my party's proposals on this subject, having in the recent past produced its own White Paper.
As everyone agrees, the key to rural affairs is the common agricultural policy. We look for a much more broadly based common rural policy throughout the European Union. I think that we underrate the future of agriculture in this country. I suspect that over the next 20 years we shall see a large increase in world prices of agricultural products. I believe that we are at the bottom of one of those periodic troughs about which every student of the history of English rural life knows, and are on our way up. Nevertheless, we have to come to terms with the situation as it is—with the lack of money as it is.
We believe that the common agricultural policy must cease to be a system of indirect price management and become a programme of direct payments for economic, environmental and social goals which befit the wider community as well as those directly involved. Such a market-based rural economy, besides avoiding the building up of surpluses, will enable farmers to become more competitive within the EU and beyond. By targeting support, the current leakage of huge sums of public money can be turned round and invested to maximum effect, meeting specific natural, regional and local objectives.
We see no reason why there should not be a new system of countryside management contracts, whereby every farmer or land manager has a contract with the Government and with the common agricultural policy as to how the money which goes to him should be spent. Everyone would be able to choose from a menu of options. In the past it would have proved bureaucratically impossible and an intolerable burden upon individuals, but in these days of computers, it is easily conceivable and fairly practical. Indeed, over the past few years we have been progressing along that path with more and more welcome regional local variations from the broad aims.
One of the aims must be greater environmental sustainability, encouraging agricultural systems which are cyclical in nature, less reliant on inputs of fuel, fertiliser and pesticides and less prone to degrade and deplete soil and water resources. We ought also to encourage as much as possible the processing of farm produce locally. Producers' marketing strength should be supported, and in that we must support the tenanted farm sector. That is important. I am not happy about what the Government say in the White Paper about local
1660
government owned farms. It seems to me that they ought to be encouraged, rather than the opposite; they are an important step on the farming ladder.
The development of telecommunications is, of course, reinvigorating the countryside. Without our believing that everyone in the countryside will control the financial markets of the world from Little Snodbury, nevertheless there is great ability for distance working which should be encouraged. It is part of the reason the countryside is so flourishing at the moment. The time has passed when, as one postman used to say, "By 8 o'clock I have counted them all out and by 6 o'clock I have counted them all back; and God knows what they got up to in the meantime". People are now spending more time in the country and working there far more.
The protection of the physical environment is an important element in our system of countryside management contracts which will conserve the maintenance of wildlife habitats. I very much welcome the fact that the Government have come clean about the way in which wildlife habitats have deteriorated in the past. I hope that they will produce rather more definite objectives for dealing with the problem than they have so far put on paper.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, commented on the lack of targets and I believe that is right: we need more targets. She and I, among others, worked on the Committee on Sustainable Development of your Lordships' House where we learnt the importance of setting absolute targets. The rural paper should be gone through with a fine-toothed comb and targets set and produced to Parliament before too long.
There must be a basic minimum level of services to rural communities; there must be more and better transport. Only this week, Transport 2000 produced an interesting document about the £1 billion which it says is lost per year to the Treasury by the wrongful use of company cars. That excludes the rightful use of company cars. The organisation produced a detailed and interesting paper on it. With £1 billion, the Treasury could do much to help the rural transport of the country; some subsidy will be needed in the first instance, but we must have it. A situation where over 40 per cent. of the parishes of this country do not even have a daily bus service is not one which we should tolerate for long if we want a healthy rural community.
I very much welcome the proposal for rate rebates for post offices and local stores; it is tremendously important and something which we also had on our menu. I welcome the fact that the Government intend to produce it. We need to support rural post offices, not only by granting exemption from business rates but also encouraging them to develop a role as community offices, with a wide range of services. We need to encourage support for local shops and library services.
Government structure is important and it is a disadvantage that in the White Paper we do not have much about pricing or objectives. We probably also need more structure. As regards pricing, as the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, suggested, we must ensure that new money is provided for what the NGOs and all the people outside government are asked to do. At the

1661
moment they do valiant work in the countryside. They should not be asked to give up some of their extremely valuable work—and that applies to councils as well as NGOs—in order to do what the Government now suggest. That is the trouble with the non-priced nature of the menu.
The magazine, the Economist, comments on the paper, describing the suggestions as a motley collection of little ideas. To a certain extent, that was correct. However, the article went on to say that two of the reasons for that are that the countryside is in considerably better heart than it was thought to be a few years ago; and, partly as a result of that, it is showing considerable ingenuity in solving its own problems. In various parts, the White Paper has good instances of the way in which that is happening.
I suggest that the best way of going about the matter is to give greater freedom to local government at all levels to set about doing the job which it can do best and to provide the finance for it. If that is done, then the White Paper, which is full of excellent ideas, will be a good thing. If it is not done, if the Government insist on keeping everything in their own hands and the proposals are throttled by the Treasury's desire not to produce any money ever for anything, then the White Paper and this debate will not have been worth while.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Hambro: My Lords, it is clearly a privilege for me to address your Lordships this afternoon and I hope that the courtesies which the House traditionally extends to novices will also be extended to me. I enter the debate with considerable anxiety, as I am well aware that there are many of your Lordships who have much greater knowledge of countryside matters than I ever shall. But I can assure noble Lords that it is a subject which is very close to my heart.
I welcome the White Paper which is a clear and well-documented publication. When I read it, I found that it contained information which I had no idea existed. The countryside consists of such varied occupations that it is obviously impossible to cover it all in the short time I have available.
The White Paper gives welcome support to both new and traditional activities in rural England and I note with pleasure that it gives firm support to the traditional activities, including all the field sports.
Running through the theme of the report is a sense of encouragement and co-operation, of listening, dialogue and understanding. I fear that inevitably from time to time conflicts of interest will develop with the agencies involved in countryside matters in monitoring and making sure that the environment and its protection is indeed being carried out correctly. Those agencies, which are commonly termed quangos—that rather unattractive word which has emerged from the quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations—have in fact considerable powers. There may be a suspicion abroad that on occasion they appear to have not too much public accountability attached to them.
1662
Perhaps I may give your Lordships an illustration of that. When English Nature wishes to create a new area of special scientific interest, usually—certainly quite correctly—it enters into informal talks with all those concerned before going on to a more formal consultative and legal position. If no agreement can be reached at that stage, those concerned have the right, which they exercise from time to time, to appeal to English Nature's Council. I cannot help feeling that when those concerned reach that position, they feel that not only are they appealing to the prosecutor, in a sense, but also to the judge.
Due largely to your Lordships' endeavours, in Scotland legislation has been enacted which allows for a final appeal to be made to an independent committee. I feel that that gives considerable comfort to those who may be involved in arguing their case. I wonder whether it would be possible for that arrangement to be extended to the rest of the United Kingdom.
In the atmosphere of encouragement which the White Paper so ably offers, it is obviously vitally important that those bodies who become involved in administering the protection of our beautiful land carry with them the farmers, landowners, people who live and dwell throughout rural England and those who own houses and all forms of dwelling there. After all, it is their property that is involved. It is important that they feel that they are being carried along with the arguments before final decisions are taken.
I believe that this House above all has a great knowledge and understanding of the countryside and its stewardship, which stretches back many centuries. I know that your Lordships will always act as the guardian of our unique and beautiful land and those who live and work in it.
4.54 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I know that the whole House will wish me to offer the noble Lord, Lord Hambro, our warmest congratulations on a splendid maiden speech.
Some people may ask why on earth the Bishop of Southwark should join in a debate about rural England. Let me offer two points in justification. First, the diocese of Southwark stretches far to the south of the London conurbation and encompasses many a hill, woodland and glade. My previous diocese of Bradford also included moors, forests and dales. Secondly, and more importantly, the condition of rural England is a subject of enormous importance to the vast majority of our population who live in urban areas. Not only do we like eating the food that is grown there but, as the White Paper points out, the Countryside Commission has discovered that 93 per cent. of those whom it interviewed, who came from all kinds of backgrounds, considered that the countryside was valuable to them. Ninety one per cent. believed that society has a moral duty to protect the countryside for future generations.
Indeed people's feelings about the countryside run very deep and cross the boundary between material and spiritual concerns. We read in the White Paper that the most common benefits from visiting the countryside

1663
were seen to be a sense of relaxation and well-being, fresh air, peace and quiet. That is a good enough reason for a bishop to make a speech.
I should like to associate the Church of England with the warm welcome that the White Paper has received. It is beautifully written and presented. It strikes an admirable balance between the many different interests and concerns that different people have when it comes to the future of the countryside. Too often, rural society fragments into interest groups which do not necessarily talk very much to each other. Often, environmentalists, farming interests, developers, incomers and those concerned with rural poverty and services form separate organisations and even sub-cultures and pursue their particular interests in isolation from others. That may well be healthy up to a point, so long as it is done within a framework of shared values and shared inspirations and so long as it is always borne in mind that, in the end, we all depend upon each other and must build on what we have in common.
The institutions that bind us together across the boundaries of class, sub-culture and interests are not as strong as they were. To build a sturdy framework of shared values and human contacts which is ultimately stronger than many conflicts of interest over the countryside, is one of the key challenges to the community and civic organisations, not least the Churches themselves. It is also a vital role for government. I believe that the White Paper holds the ring between potentially conflicting interests and draws out sentiments, principles and aspirations behind which the great majority of different people can unite.
I am particularly grateful for the generous references in the White Paper to the work of the Churches as a central focus of spiritual and community life in many of our small rural communities. In line with what I have just said, I am delighted to be able to take this opportunity to give your Lordships an assurance that the Churches take most seriously their role in building bridges between the different sections of the rural community and in drawing people together, for the sake of the truly important things, across the boundaries which so often divide them.
The White Paper recognises its debt to the report Faith in the Countryside, produced by the Archbishop's Commission on Rural Areas. There is a great deal in common between that document and the White Paper. I can assure your Lordships that we are ready to respond most warmly to the proposal in the White Paper that the Government should consult with the Churches on ways of working more closely in the countryside.
I am also impressed by the candour of a number of passages in the White Paper. There is no attempt made to gloss over the deterioration of many rural services and in particular the huge problems which the growth of private car use has caused to community services and to rural public transport. The serious difficulties which that brings to poorer people who do not have cars are emphasised with great honesty, and I applaud the resolution in principle to reverse the general decline in rural services; to sustain a balanced social mix and to
1664
tackle some of the special handicaps of isolation, which are in some ways worse in many rural areas than in our towns and cities.
Similarly, I warmly endorse the objective of encouraging a wide range of housing options to maintain balanced living communities and to take specific measures to secure the provision of affordable housing. Again, I am sure that, potentially, many Churches have an important role to play in that regard. There are already a number of significant initiatives in which Churches, sometimes using glebe land, are one of the partners in sponsoring new housing provision for the less well off.
A further candid and potentially significant statement in the White Paper is that,
"the long tradition of unpaid stewardship by farmers and landowners is not always sufficient to ensure that they deliver all the environmental benefits that society now wants and expects".
The truth is that there is no private market mechanism through which farmers and landowners can be properly rewarded for the enormous environmental blessings that they bring to the nation. The only adequate way of achieving that is through public expenditure.
The taxpayer has become accustomed to enjoying incomparable environmental blessings on the cheap, and that must inevitably change if the countryside is to remain properly managed for its environmental and recreational benefits as well as for the food it can supply. That is a far-reaching, even radical, principle to appear in a White Paper and I congratulate the Department of the Environment on getting it past the Treasury!
That brings me to the one cautionary note I want to strike. I have just given examples of some fundamentally important and excellent policy objectives. But the brutal truth is that most of them cost money and require political will to make available resources through the tax system to support objectives which are widely endorsed by the public at large. If our political culture slides back into the simplistic mindset that spending public money is bad, that taxes are bad and that the common interest is OK as long as we do not have to pay for it, most of the White Paper will be a dead duck.
Nevertheless, one of the points that delights me about the White Paper is that there is a commitment to establish an inter-departmental mechanism within the Government which will keep all the recommendations of the White Paper under review and report back publicly on what has been done. That is extremely valuable. If nothing has been done to forward the splendid objectives set out in the White Paper, the Government will have to say so and pay a political price. I feel sure that this House is one of the places where the Government can be certain that they will be brought to account, using the White Paper as a series of benchmarks against which to measure their performance. Frankly, to issue publicly what are known in effect in Whitehall as "hostages to fortune" takes some courage, and I sincerely thank the Government for it.
5.4 p.m.
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, I too join in congratulating my noble friend Lord Hambro on his maiden speech. I hope he will speak frequently on these subjects so that he soon qualifies as one of the "usual suspects" of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont.
I declare that I am a farmer and chairman of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, a statutory committee of English Nature, and I am also chairman of the Committee for Rural Hampshire about which I shall say more in a moment.
Everyone so far has welcomed this wide-ranging review of countryside matters and I do also. As my noble friend the Minister reminded us, we received over 300 responses. When one bears in mind that those are responses on environmental, social and economic issues, one sees that an enormously wide range of views are correctly woven into this document. We have heard already that there is a request for more and firmer targets. I hope some precise targets will be set and that there will be close monitoring of those targets; but not yet please.
We heard from the Minister, which I entirely endorse, that we need to give back to the rural interests some degree of control over their own affairs. We have had enough of central organisations, of quangos and so forth, setting the targets for us. The Government have done right to set out this extremely far-ranging document and then to say, "What do you think about it? Go back and talk about it on a regional and local level and by all means inform us of your response".
The document does not contain many targets, but let us take one of them, which I believe to be misplaced. I refer to the target for doubling the amount of woodland over the next 50 years or so. That may or may not be right. However, before we know whether the target is right or that it is simply something dreamt up in Whitehall, we need to ask each county and perhaps each parish whether it wants to double its woodland. Who will do it? How will they do it? Why should they want to do it? Those questions need to be answered, amalgamated and then a decision can be taken as to whether the figures make sense. Therefore those who ask for targets and for local say should think through the consequences of the two. But we will move to targets and it will be important that the Cabinet committee enforces those targets not just on government, but also on other sectors.
Why do local interests, particularly rural interests, appear to have lost out to the centre? It is partly because of the enormous economic pressures—land use pressures—imposed on the countryside from urban areas. In the 1960s we were losing 21,000 hectares a year. It is now much better; around 5,000 hectares a year are being lost to urban development in the 1990s. But that is still an alarming amount and much of it is going to housing.
With that amount of imposition on rural areas it is clear that, however much rural areas may wish to try and influence those tendencies, they are being swamped by pressures from outside. Clearly if one is looking at rural interests and how to protect this green and pleasant
1666
land, if we want to ensure that we have a dynamic rural economy, we must look at the urban economies as well. If we are not making proper use of brown sites, clearly we will make inappropriate use of green sites in the countryside; the two are closely interlinked.
There is nothing inherently worse or better about either urban or rural areas. Many people prefer to live in urban areas for obvious reasons. But if an inequity arises between the two, if the inner cities are run down and deprived, then clearly the pressure on rural areas will increase to their detriment.
I participated in a modest way in something of a "top down" process of planning in Hampshire. Hampshire took up the challenge set by the Countryside Commission, with which I suspect the noble Lord, Lord Barber, was involved. In 1987 it was suggested that counties should develop their own rural development strategies, which was an excellent idea. It came from the Countryside Commission. The rural development strategy was taken up by the county council and very much owned by the county council. It took three years to prepare and involved a lot of people in annual conferences and working groups. It was excellent. I ended up as chairman of the Committee for Rural Hampshire which was asked by all those who participated to ensure that the county council did not put the report on a shelf and forget about it. In other words, we had to keep the momentum going.
The problem with that plan and with all plans based on land use is that there was not a strong sense of local identity. The district councils in particular felt that they did not own it. There is now a greater realisation that community strategies need to be much more "bottom up". Of course there must be a contribution from the Countryside Commission and from the county council, but if we are to obtain a rural community strategy with which people can identify at parish council level or even at the level of local groups within the parish, there must be input from informal fora or groups which need to be encouraged and made to feel that they can make a major contribution.
Another point, referring to the Hampshire rural development strategy, which surprised us all was that, despite all the great care and time that was taken in preparing it, within two or three years it was more or less out of date. There was no further input to it. There was no real ability, apart from our committee of a dozen people or so, meeting three times a year, to revise the plan as situations changed rapidly, as indeed they always do. We continue to meet as a committee for rural Hampshire. We still believe that we serve a useful purpose in bringing together the diverse interests of rural Hampshire to talk about our problems and ensure that we do not unduly antagonise each other. That is helpful. But it is a wholly modest agenda. Local initiatives are needed; we need rural community strategies; and we need to devise systems where anyone, whether on a parish council or not, can feel that he has a contribution to make.
Very often the first requirement is to identify local needs. It may seem obvious that there is a local transport need or a local health or community care need. But until

1667
you sit down and ask people what they really want and how they would like to achieve it, and indeed share information as to what is available and do so in an accessible form, it is sometimes rather surprising to find that the strategy for that area is remarkably defective. Very often that will lead to the need for a part-time information co-ordinator. That is simple but, of course, it implies expenses for the telephone, because people will be ringing up the whole time, or probably, more realistically, it implies a part-time salary. A charge on the parish council may be possible if the funding is to be put in place from the parish council. That is an essential building block. Plans which lack this ability to identify on the ground what people really want and how they are going to set about providing it for themselves and with help from others will not get very far.
The White Paper correctly identifies rural transport as one of the almost intractable problems. It is, and we all recognise that we are becoming more and more dependent on cars. The deprivation of those who do not have cars, or whose breadwinner takes the car away all day leaving the rest of the family isolated, is becoming a serious problem. Yet, much as we recognise that that is an almost intractable problem, I do not think that the White Paper gets very far in the lateral thinking that will be required to resolve the problem. If there are cars and there is a shortage of buses—it is unlikely that the bus network will ever be as extensive as we would wish—perhaps we need to try to devise a system where private cars can participate in public transport itself. That means changing the law, changing insurance practice and so on.
There are many speakers and I do not wish to say anything more except to welcome the emphasis throughout the report on problem-solving at a local level, identifying the local character and identifying local priorities. That surely must be what we are all looking for.
5.13 p.m.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, I must begin by recording that I am the chairman of the National Trust. I say this, not so much in the sense of declaring an interest as that the trust's estates are now rather more than 1 per cent. of England's total countryside. That is a considerable responsibility. Moreover, our interests are wider than the ownership of land per se; for example, we own some 60 villages and thousands of buildings. It follows that the White Paper—that is to say, the Government's policies as they exist today and as they may now be modified—are highly relevant to us.
If I may sound a note of slight complaint, it is that a mere three weeks between publication and debate is too short a period for the examination and reflection on a commendably wide-ranging document. Having said that, we warmly welcome the White Paper. There are, of course, many areas of detail where we will need to reflect and, indeed, some proposals, one or two of which I will come on to, which concern us. I congratulate the Secretary of State for the Environment. I do not wish to belittle MAFF's contribution but the White Paper is very much a DoE document. Nevertheless, the need effectively to co-ordinate the policies and activities of
1668
the many other Departments of State with a strong but indirect influence in the countryside is considerable. The role of the co-ordinating Cabinet committee will be of crucial importance. I welcome, too, the commitment to report on progress. I hope that will happen regularly, year by year.
I find it convenient to divide the subject into two broad areas. First, the need to conserve, and I quote here from page 10 of the report,
"the character of the countryside—its landscape, wildlife, agricultural, recreational and natural resource value—for the benefit of present and future generations",
phraseology which is remarkably similar to the trust's own statutory purposes. It carries with it the implicit need to resist more strongly the relentless pressure of land loss, to which the CPRE has drawn our attention in a well-researched document. The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, also referred to it.
However, on this occasion I do not want to pursue the question of landscape conservation, recreation and so on, except to note, and indeed welcome, the proposal to enhance the very successful countryside stewardship scheme, which was the brainchild of my noble friend Lord Barber. This, together with the increasingly useful environmentally sensitive areas schemes—rifle and scattergun respectively—are the main measures to deliver environmental land management. I have one question: how much extra funding will there be? And one observation: I hope MAFF, in enhancing stewardship, will take note of the lessons of the successful whole-farm management scheme, the so-called Tir Cymen scheme, of the Countryside Council for Wales. I am delighted, incidentally, to note—the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, mentioned it—that the enhanced stewardship scheme may target traditional stone walls and banks.
The second broad area, and the area I wish to concentrate on, is the future of our country villages. I mentioned that the National Trust owns 60 or so villages, so we have what one might call a vested interest. I believe that they are the key to a thriving rural economy and social community. Healthy village communities depend primarily on the right mix of economically active people and young people. Whether we successfully achieve this can, I suspect, be measured by whether or not we succeed in retaining the village school. When a village loses its school the heart goes out of it. That, in turn, depends, I believe, on affordable housing with a strong rented element, together with local policies which seek to ensure that through renting there is the right age distribution in the village community. I suspect that if a village, or a cluster of hamlets, can support a school, then it will also be able to support those other key elements, a shop and a post office. The White Paper devotes considerable space to this and to related issues. The question we have to ask ourselves is whether it succeeds.
I should like therefore to make six short points. First, affordable housing, to which I have already referred. One can welcome the proposed rural village "enhancement factor" to give extra grants for small village schemes and the recognition of the importance of the private rented sector. Equally, one can welcome the exclusion from the

1669
purchase grant scheme of communities of fewer than 3,000. But why restrict this to fewer than 3,000? What is the magic about that figure?
Secondly, homes. These are not apparently thought to be a problem. That may be so in terms of overall national averages, but as the White Paper says, they "can be significant in particular areas". This is a clear case where a national generalisation is pernicious. There are many villages—for example, in national parks—where over 30 per cent. of the houses are now second homes. In those cases they are a huge impediment to a thriving community.
Thirdly, schools. One would have liked to see a more proactive policy. Why not a rural village school enhancement factor, as with housing? Does one detect a rather indifferent attitude of the Education Department, in contrast to the DoE? Fourthly, shops and post offices. We welcome the proposed rate relief. Fifthly, employment. It is noteworthy that, notwithstanding the reduction in agricultural employment, there has been a 13 per cent. increase in overall rural employment between 1981 and 1991. The Minister referred to that.
He also referred to the fact that rural unemployment was much lower. Why is there a need to boost employment? We may need more housing in the countryside, but we certainly do not need more people. We need to halt the steady drift of people who live in the country but commute to the city and the attendant effect on house prices. The employment must be local employment. As the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, said, cities have to be made more attractive places in which people can live and work to redress the balance. It is against that background that there is a need to encourage truly local employment. I find it difficult to judge whether these measures are sufficient, especially on the school and housing front, and whether new housing can be accommodated without a further loss of green fields.
All of that brings me to my final point: planning. The White Paper commits the Government to increased protection of the wider countryside, but I am bound to say that the detail tends to work in the opposite direction. I take as an example the proposals regarding Grade IIIA land or the proposal to introduce a new business use class. On the face of it, these weaken protection. Given the acknowledged huge pressures from developers, I find this worrying. Consultations are proposed, including a draft revision of PPG7. I welcome that, provided the starting point is that there is a need for less rather than more development. Above all, we need discriminating development; that is to say unambiguous guidance which strengthens the commitment to the environment and the protection of landscape quality.
There is a very long list of speakers, and I will therefore end by repeating my welcome for the White Paper. If it is followed through with vigour, determination and, I hope, cross-party support—which I believe to be a reasonable hope—it will be a milestone in the protection of the cinderella of our incomparable landscape.
5.22 p.m.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, the excellent speech of my noble friend Lord Hambro forces from me a small political confession. When he was a director of the Guardian & Royal Exchange Assurance Company for many years he farmed the southernmost tip of my Lincolnshire constituency. Like all good organisations, he was kind enough to ask the local Member of Parliament to shoot. Such is the relaxed life of politics in Lincolnshire that in previous by-elections and six general elections his particular polling station had been omitted from the Gainsborough constituency register. It was only when he was kind enough to ask the Member of Parliament to shoot that we appreciated he was our constituent.
The countryside, as always, is experiencing great change. I wish to deal briefly with three important changes as I see them: agriculture and employment; housing and the motorcar; and recreation, both new and traditional. The figure for the decline in the number of people in agriculture is irrelevant to the importance of agriculture to the countryside. Whatever may be said about the number of people employed, farming is the still the lifeblood of the countryside. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, that the Minister of Agriculture should be seen as the lead Minister in the Cabinet Co-ordinating Committee. I have nothing against the Department of the Environment, but agriculture is more important in the countryside. The future of agriculture is linked to the reforms of the CAP, but in the end we will have to face up to agriculture surviving in terms of the world market.
The White Paper deals with the business of telling planners to be more sensible about other uses for old and out of date agricultural buildings. I believe we should say quite clearly that in the first instance these buildings should be used for developments that add to the value of locally produced products. Certainly, in the East Midlands at the moment many businesses start up in villages but the people who run them want to move to another group of villages where there are others who are developing similar enterprises. It is not just the business of getting away from home for lunch, but one cannot develop unless one is living in an atmosphere where other people are also developing rural ideas. There is a cross-fertilisation of ideas.
I am particularly pleased that in the White Paper a major contribution has been made to the question of rural housing by two of the districts from my old constituency. I refer to the county district of Lincolnshire and, in particular, the Lincolnshire Rural Housing Association and the West Lindsay Rural Housing Enabler. But there is another important point about rural housing that is not covered in the White Paper. We all know that in small towns many small businesses are going bust. If we want to have good, affordable rural housing, the time has come when buildings which in the past century have been turned into shops should be turned back into residences for people to bring life back into small market towns. The idea of placing restrictions on out-of-town shopping is unrealistic and impracticable. As politicians, it is our job to give people what they want. People want to get into

1671
their cars and go to the best area for out-of-town shopping. Unless out-of-town shopping is developed in conjunction with small market towns, people will go to areas where there is out-of-town shopping which will further increase the decline of small market towns. I welcome the idea that we want more homes in the high street. Those homes will ensure that within the high street a certain number of what may be called top-up shopping areas will survive.
I deal finally with the question of recreation in the countryside. The White Paper highlights the importance of recreation as part of working in the countryside. It goes on to say that field sports represent £2.7 billion a year of expenditure in the countryside. I wish that the number of people employed could be quoted. I hate to think of sport and leisure only in terms of money. The White Paper goes on to make a special plea for a greater need for tolerance and understanding of those who wish to enjoy the countryside in this way. Those of us who enjoy the countryside in this way should appreciate the serious problem which exists today of misperception of our activities. That is something that we must put right. I thought it very significant that at the time of the Labour Government in the 1960s the coursing community found themselves in difficulty and there was no understanding of their sport. They asked Mr. Stable, QC, to look at the conduct of their sport. With the help of a distinguished Fabian, who had been his secretary and who had previously written the Fabian Society pamphlet on the right to roam, he produced the Stable Report on the conduct of coursing. That was accepted and acted upon by the coursing fraternity.
I am a great admirer of what the National Trust has done in the West Country. I believe that the document which it produced in March 1993 on the conservation and management of red deer in the west country was a masterly way of dealing with the misperceptions about that particular subject. I believe that some of the other rural sports should take those two reports as an example. Those who fox hunt must look at some parts of the country where developments make the continuation of that sport an irritant. I also believe that the hunting community must look at some of the grounds for misperception of the conduct of their sport. The shooting community is very lucky because it has the Game Conservancy. But we will have to face up to the problem of the control and management of both avian and mammalian predators in future. There is a need to clip the wings of some birds of prey, particularly the sparrowhawk and the peregrine. From the anglers' point of view something has to be done about the cormorant in the future. The expansion of the polecat and the pine marten beyond their particular natural habitat in Wales and the West Highlands is unacceptable. Why is it acceptable to run the Red Alert scheme between the Tweed and the Tyne and eradicate the grey squirrel in that area in order to encourage the red squirrel? Surely the same policies will have to be introduced in areas where the pine marten and the polecat are now spreading and becoming very serious predators in an area to which they are not natural.
1672
As I have said, the countryside is always changing. I believe that all countrymen would agree that change is their ally. It is only by change that they will have a prosperous and vibrant countryside. That is what we all want to see and the White Paper is the basis on which we should proceed.
5.30p.m.
Lord Barber of Tewkesbury: My Lords, I wish—in fact, I hasten—to disclose a pecuniary interest in commercial farming and forestry. I was reminded during a debate in your Lordships' House a few days ago that I should also disclose that I was once chairman of the Countryside Commission and of the council of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.
I have sat on no end of groups and committees during the past 10 months, some official, some informal, some formal and some indeed secret. They were to feed information and views into the Government in order to produce their White Paper. I am bound to say that, half-way through, I came to a state of despair because I could not really see how anything constructive was capable of being fashioned out of what we had got, given the fact that resources were not going to be available. I am bound to say, however, that the Government, with very little straw, have produced some really good and workmanlike bricks, producing a broad lurch forward. We can mount action on what we have got. I congratulate the Government most warmly on what they have done.
I anticipated that 30-odd speakers after the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, might be speaking today. Therefore, if noble Lords will allow me, I have decided to offer some thoughts on issues in the White Paper with which I have been personally involved rather than comment on the broad sweep of policies.
Inevitably, in all this agreeable ointment, there are one or two flies. I have to say that at least part of the forestry with which I am associated—a forestry management company—although I believe I reflect the views of the whole private forestry industry, were deeply pained to find that our beloved industry was denied a place in the section entitled "Working in the Countryside" and was confined to the one called "A Green and Pleasant Land". The implication is obvious. Forestry is regarded as far more important as a decorative part of the countryside, its ecology and access than as a hard core national industry supplying commercial softwood to the pulp mills and other processing outlets. From getting the balance wrong one way, I believe that we are now getting it wrong the other way, with all the consequences for rural jobs and full exploitation of our enormous processing investment.
This is not an occasion for a dissertation on forestry, but surely the days of the rape of the flow country, bathmat planting designs and all the rest of it, are long gone. We need to rehabilitate conifers in the eyes of the public and indeed in the eyes of the Government, if I may dare say so. What we have now is an imbalance growing ever greater with no prospect of the matured forest fellings of the next 20 years being adequately replenished. From private coniferous plantings of some

1673
23,000 hectares in 1989 we are down now to some 2,500 hectares. It is not a bit of good arguing that the conifer content of mixed woodland in such as the farm woodland scheme means very much. It is in small parcels, and little will be managed commercially. One report we studied referred to forestry policy rather cynically and harshly as producing the most decorative and expensive firewood in the world.
I turn to some less contentious but still argumentative issues arising from the document. I quote roughly that the Government propose to give increased funding to countryside stewardship. How splendid! That may well prove to be the most influential piece of policy to have emerged from the Countryside Commission in the past 25 years. I am pleased that the present chairman of the Countryside Commission is listening to our debate this evening.
An adjoining paragraph engenders sharper question marks:
"The Government will work in Europe to make the environment a central objective of the Common Agricultural Policy".
That is splendid again, one might say, bearing in mind always the need for balance between profitable food production and greenery. But how much do we really know about some of the issues if we are preparing for an eventual major switch of funding from production support to environmental "good things"? If the taxpayer sees him or herself increasingly as providing funds for the countryside, what sort of countryside does he or she really want? We have very little idea, because I suspect that public tastes change as they become more familiarised and sophisticated.
We know even less about another central issue—the relationship between the withdrawal of agricultural subsidies and the consequent effect on farmland appearance, its ecology and the rest. Professor George Peters, a sage voice from the world of agricultural economics, picked up the issue in a letter to The Times a few days ago. He argued,
"It is easy to describe potential gains and losses, but the potential effects of a change in broad agricultural policy are beyond anyone's ability to visualise".
I agree wholeheartedly. Clearly, we need further investigation. For myself, I wonder, when we are involved in all this forward policy thinking, whether we are all inclined to overlook the sharp and growing dichotomy of English agriculture; the 10,000 to 20,000 large-scale entrepreneurs producing most of our food on the one hand, and the rest on the other. As rationalisation continues so do the patterns of potential change in ways we do not properly understand. It is absurd to discuss the farming industry, as we do, as if we did not have a developing two-tier structure raising such questions as whether one directs the largest tranches of new environmental money more specifically where the investment pays off best in the public interest.
Professor Peters picks up another point and prays in aid the late Dr. C.S. Orwin, one-time director of the Oxford University Institute of Agricultural Economics, to argue that the withdrawal of subsidies will inevitably result in a distasteful, depressed-looking countryside,
1674
citing 1930s agriculture as an example. He quotes Dr. Orwin as referring to the dire appearance of broken down gates, men working in "muck and mire", unrepaired buildings and so on. Both in farming and in environmental terms, this really is part nonsense, which has been accepted truth for the reason that nearly all descriptions of 1930s farming came from urban academics and fanner journalists like the late Arthur Street to whom a manicured countryside was the only acceptable one.
Those of us who are old enough to have farmed in that decade, as I did, know differently. The parts of Oxfordshire I have known—the Windrush Valley and later the Cotswolds—were incomparably more beautiful farmland landscapes than they are today. If the public had seen them in the flesh, as it were, I suspect that the mellow, shaggy vistas filled with features and the semi-wilderness aspects of the less productive land are what they would have wished to see in coming years.
I make another point. I am absolutely certain that the public will want more and more wilderness areas. That is surely something that we must bear in mind when we think in terms of CAP reform and what is to happen over the next 20 or 30 years. There is much to learn on this front. One needs to be open-minded for the time being about public choice. How the Minister's group on the CAP review dared be so dogmatic as to write,
"On the one hand, reducing support should relieve pressure of intensive use of land"
and later to assert that environmental gains from reduced support would outweigh the negative effects is beyond comprehension. We simply do not know.
The White Paper refers to joint working between the Countryside Commission and the Rural Development Commission to develop initiatives which enhance environmental quality and economic opportunity, which is surely long overdue. A former Cabinet Minister who was a personal and good friend of mine and a Member of your Lordships' House, sadly no longer with us, once summoned me in 1987, I think it was, to discuss future countryside quango relationships. He anticipated events in his usual clear-sighted way and saw that the green political bandwagon might run a good deal faster than had been anticipated, with the effect of influencing economic development. He believed that the future lay with the Rural Development Commission being the bedmate of the Countryside Commission rather than what was then the Nature Conservancy Council. He saw the two cultures becoming progressively more interdependent. I agreed wholeheartedly and I understand that plans for a more formalised relationship were started but that they fell somewhere along the way. A better and more intimate relationship can now go forward, I hope. Perhaps I may say how relieved many of us are that the Countryside Commission and English Nature are not now sharing the marriage bed which was designed for them at one time last year.
I turn now to village greens—not, I am sad to note, a proposal contained in the document. A scheme was submitted by one of the groups on which I served whereby greens would be created within villages as a result of fiscal reliefs for landowners. The instrument suggested was Gift Aid with a target of 2,000 greens,

1675
each of two hectares. That would have cost the Treasury, on our calculations, some £25 million over five years. Maybe it will all be resurrected. Happily, the Countryside Commission, I understand, is now looking to millenium money for this most admirable purpose. I emphasise that it would be one of the speediest ways of bringing character back to villages that have become totally characterless under the relentless flood of executive homes and the like, smothering the last vestiges of open land within the settlement boundaries. The creation of areas of common land might also fit into a scheme of that kind.
Finally, there is a wealth of many positive initiatives to be taken to fruition, referred to in Rural England and emanating from the Countryside Commission. Perhaps I may list just a few of them. They are so important that we should bear them in mind all the time because they are things to cherish and to try to push forward. I refer to the development of quiet roads, a new designation, whereby vehicles have secondary rights, and to wider use of village design statements to massage new development into the essence of individual villages. I wholly accept what the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, said about the Hampshire plan. We did not get far enough down to the grassroots. With a village design statement, the parish council is involved and can have its say. I refer also to research into means of reducing light pollution from road lighting, a matter about which people are becoming more and more restive. More attention should also be given to that marvellous feature, our river landscapes. Those are but one or two examples of a whole battery of not too costly initiatives that are needed to keep the balance in tune, as we move, I hope, to a more economically dynamic rural scene.
I think that the Government have done rather well in providing a fresh and imaginative framework. All of us should try to carry the whole thing forward with imagination and enthusiasm.
5.42 p.m.
Lord Shuttleworth: My Lords, as always in our debates on rural affairs, I must declare an interest as paid chairman of the Rural Development Commission, the government agency concerned with people in the countryside. Much as I enjoyed the speech of my noble friend Lord Hambro, I breathed a sigh of relief, sitting as close to him as I am, that his swipe at quangos was aimed elsewhere. I suppose that I must also declare an interest as someone who lives and farms in the countryside although the latter in the high Pennines tends to be a somewhat negative financial interest.
Welcome attention has been given to rural issues in the six months since we last debated them in this House. Most of that attention involved the wide-ranging considerations and consultations which were part of the formulation of the White Paper. The Secretary of State, and indeed the Prime Minister in his foreword to the document, made it clear that the White Paper was part of a process, the starting point in the identification and development of further detailed policies. I hope that we can keep the spotlight shining purposefully while that debate develops.
1676
In a debate such as this it is inevitable that there will be some repetition and I apologise in advance for my contribution to that. I shall be as brief as possible in view of the list of speakers, but this White Paper is very significant to the commission's remit. In contrast to some noble Lords who have talked about specific matters of detail, I want to refer to its general thrust, to the climate that it sets for the countryside.
The main concern of the Rural Development Commission was that the White Paper should put the people who live and work in the countryside at its heart. It does so unequivocally and I welcome that. It gives a very clear message that the people in the countryside matter and that their need for jobs, homes and services are important and must not be overlooked. It also emphasises that we need a working countryside; and that a profitable and diverse countryside is of benefit not only to the local rural economy, but to the nation as a whole. At the same time it makes clear that a living, working countryside is not incompatible with a respect for the environment and that the two can, and indeed do, go hand in hand.
The White Paper also recognises the diversity of the countryside and its economy and the differences as well as the similarities. Some areas of rural England are buoyant, but others are suffering the effects of structural change. Some people in the countryside enjoy a splendid quality of life, but others are disadvantaged and in danger of becoming marginalised by a lack of suitable jobs, homes and services. For some people the countryside is a playground, but for many others it is their livelihood.
The White Paper recognises that the countryside cannot stand still, but will be affected by what is happening. I refer to transport policy and pressures to reduce environmental damage and reliance on the motor car; the projected major growth in households, not only from people moving in, but in new household formation, much of which will occur among those already living in rural areas; the almost inevitable reform of the CAP and the impact on fanning incomes and practices; the growth of the information highway and its effect on businesses and service provision; and the challenge for very small firms of competing in an increasingly global economy.
The White Paper makes clear the need to strike a balance between competing, sometimes opposing interests; it acknowledges the interdependence of economy and environment; it recognises that sustainable development is about the right way in which to achieve development, not about stopping it.
The White Paper emphasises—the Minister chose to emphasise this also—that it is the rural voice, not the voice from the city nor necessarily the voices of national lobby groups, which needs to be better heeded on rural issues.
The White Paper sets out a strategic framework which is clear, realistic and entirely appropriate as a backcloth against which to develop more detailed policy. With a firm welcome, therefore, for the framework, I should also like to welcome much of the detail—there is a great deal of it—while recognising that there is much further work to do.

1677
I was pleased to see the recognition that local communities and parish councils should play a greater part in deciding and shaping their own futures. As I have said, country people should, wherever possible, have the greatest influence on matters that affect them. As Professor Howard Newby said at a White Paper conference last week:
"it is at this level that the integration of development policies, the protection of cherished values and ways of life and the maintenance of diversity are best guaranteed".
Rural services rightly figure prominently in the White Paper, but there are no simple solutions to their provision. There are a number of policies on individual services which I am sure we all welcome. As other noble Lords have noted, the Government have decided to exempt small rural settlements from the scheme to enable housing association tenants to buy their homes. I also welcome the intention to look at ways of assisting more local transport provision. Incidentally, in that context, I thought that I heard a very expensive dish on the menu of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. I welcome also other ways of providing help for village shops and post offices and of ensuring that education, health and other policies reflect rural needs and circumstances.
There are a number of proposals in the White Paper under the heading "planning". Planning plays a central part in ensuring a healthy rural economy and viable rural services. We shall have to wait to see how it is proposed to revise PPG7, the planning guidance note for the rural economy, and how a new rural "business use" class might work. I was not at all persuaded by what I thought were the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, on PPG7 although I shall study his comments with care in Hansard tomorrow. It is essential that PPG7 and use classes are considered within the overall framework provided by the White Paper and thereby help to foster a living and working countryside, and not detract from it.
The White Paper contains a commitment to a more strategic approach nationally and a higher profile for rural issues generally. Responsibility for the rural dimension of policies across government has, as we have heard, been given to an existing Cabinet committee, but there will need to be a continuing political commitment at the highest level to ensure that departments and others keep rural issues on their agenda and co-operate on them.
One of the tests of this White Paper will be that policy proposals do not emerge in future which appear to ignore the rural viewpoint. The housing association right to buy is perhaps a case in point. Another test will be about future resources. The White Paper is right to emphasise the part that flexible delivery arrangements and new technology, joint use of facilities, and the contribution of volunteers, can play in stretching the resources that are available. However, and to its credit, the White Paper recognises problems and needs in rural areas that have barely been previously acknowledged by government. Simply redirecting existing resources is unlikely to provide the solutions.
Of course, the ultimate test is the impact on the ground. After all the analysis, and the setting of the framework, there must be some real benefit. How do
1678
we turn commitments in this White Paper into reality? I welcome the undertaking that there will be an annual report on progress, but a list of statements made, policies reviewed, guidelines published, will only be a sign of continuing good intention. My noble friend Lord Selborne was cautious about targets, emphasising the need for local contribution to them, but eventually the work will have to be done—the identification of the right indicators, proper targets, measurable outputs—so that we will know what is actually happening in future, and whether the policies are working.
There are some statistics upon which to build; for example, the Rural Development Commissions biennial survey on availability of rural services, and the statistics on unemployment in our priority rural development areas.
But while we have the baseline indicators for rural deprivation taken from the 1991 census, which we used in identifying rural development areas, there is no system for updating that particular information in the 10 years between each census.
I return to the point that I made at the beginning. One of the best things about the White Paper is that it has happened. It has stimulated debate; it has set a framework; it states clearly the need for balance; and it should ensure that no single interest achieves a disproportionate influence. It has moved the debate on from one simply dominated by conservationist issues to one more directly concerned with a broader range of more fundamental issues.
As I have said, the White Paper recognises problems in the countryside as well as successes. It shows also that government understand that the countryside wants less government, less regulation, less interference from without, and that it will be better for it. Above all, it places at the heart of countryside policy the needs and the views of the people who live and work there.
There is much to do in developing the detail within the framework, and of course the development commission looks forward to working on that with all other interested parties, particularly local partners in the rural areas. As I have said, the White Paper has some tests ahead of it. I believe that it can pass those tests, and I warmly welcome it.
5.53 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, in what is an extensive and comprehensive White Paper, I propose to restrict what I have to say to the paragraph on health and social care. I promise not to mention organophosphates. The author of this paper has painted a picture in words which I, as patron of the Dispensing Doctors' Association and a patient of a dispensing doctor, find hard to recognise. About 10 per cent. of GPs dispense NHS prescriptions from their surgeries in rural areas where the provision of such services by a pharmacist in a chemist's shop would not be viable. Unlike pharmacists, doctors can be compelled by the FHSA to dispense.
The commitment to the improvements in healthcare across the country is not reaching the community served by dispensing doctors. The writer of the report

1679
recognises that rural doctors can have small practices with branch surgeries and that they may need additional financial support. There is a global sum paid by the Department of Health generally known as the "pool". The rural practice payments scheme is part of that "pool", and any allocation from it means that less is available for another purpose. The result is that the scheme is poorly targeted and few doctors' practices benefit.
Payments for associate doctors are made only in the remotest parts of the United Kingdom. Most doctors in rural areas have worked at least alternate nights and alternate weekends on call for many years. They receive no reimbursement for locum payments and do not expect to benefit from the latest out-of-hours scheme which appears to be weighted towards co-operatives.
The allowance paid to GPs for training courses is much less than the cost of a locum doctor who would have to be employed while the dispensing doctor is away on a course. That means that he or she must try to keep up with new developments by attending evening meetings, often held many miles from home.
I am puzzled by the statement:
"11 out of 19 Family Health Services Authorities with over 50 per cent. of their population registered with fundholding practices are shire counties and include substantial rural populations".
Shire counties also have substantial urban populations, and I suspect that very few, if any, of those patients are registered with a dispensing doctor, for fundholding is beyond the reach of the small, totally rural practice. Just because fundholders are able to commandeer the services of consultants for special clinics, and physiotherapists for their practices, the patients in rural areas must wait longer for hospital appointments and, in many cases, are unable to benefit from the services of a physiotherapist as hospital departments suffer staff shortages.
The financial incentives, following the implementation of the 1990 contract, to provide special clinics such as asthma or diabetic clinics, do not benefit rural patients as the population is too sparse and scattered for the clinics to be viable. Dispensing doctors find it difficult to increase their income from capitation fees as the population in their catchment areas is largely static. They are expected to increase their doctor/staff ratio in the face of increasingly stringent financial restrictions on staff reimbursement imposed by the FHSAs. Some FHSAs are now reported to be refusing to reimburse for dispensers or replacement staff such as receptionists or secretaries.
Rural general practice survives upon the good will of the doctors and their staff. It is increasingly obvious that it will not be viable unless the Government take remedial action very soon. The Department of Health has consistently failed to recognise that the Clothier Regulations which govern the provision of doctor and pharmacist dispensing of NHS prescriptions in rural areas are not safeguarding the position of the services that rural patients want and need. These patients are not being listened to.
Before the courts at present there are a number of applications from pharmacists to provide dispensing services in rural areas. The expenditure of time, money
1680
and effort involved is vast and would not have been necessary had the Government acknowledged the lacuna in Section 12 of the regulations and amended it. It is the patients of dispensing practices affected who will suffer, for without their dispensing income doctors will have to take measures to ensure their practice viability by reducing the number of partners in the practice, for example, or closing branch surgeries.
Even if their dispensing is secure, the income derived from it is under constant downward pressure. Without consulting dispensing doctors, the Department of Health, with the tacit agreement of the General Medical Services Committee of the BMA, imposed a clawback of up 14.2 per cent. on the discounts dispensing doctors were assumed to be able to obtain from their drugs suppliers from 1st April this year.
After an outcry from the affected doctors, the discount abatement scale was revised in October, when the maximum clawback was set at 9.5 per cent., with those doctors who make fewer monthly drug purchases suffering adversely. That clawback was imposed several years ago because dispensing doctors were assumed to be the "fat cats" who were pocketing the discounts at the expense of their prescribing colleagues, another example of the operation of the "pool". In fact most of those profits were ploughed back into the provision of improved services for patients. The department has decided that those doctors are receiving £9 million too much from the "pool", and that they must repay it.
Compare that with the sums reported to be between £68 million and £100 million not spent by fundholders in the last financial year which those doctors are allowed to retain ostensibly for improvements to patient services but often spent on building improvements which will ultimately benefit the doctors themselves when they retire and are paid their share of the valuation of the practice.
I know that life is unfair but it seems to me to be manifestly unjust that rural doctors and ultimately their patients should be penalised simply because they are a minority group without a voice. The best dispensing practices are a fine example of one-stop primary care. Dr. Steven Ford of Hayden Bridge and Dr. Kevin Jones of the University of Newcastle-Upon-Tyne have made an excellent proposal for integrating pharmacy fully into the primary care team. They believe that their proposal could save the National Health Service £1 billion per year. It is a saving—for a change, I am not asking anyone to spend anything.
Time does not allow me to go into their proposals in detail. However, perhaps I may recommend to the Minister that he and his noble friends read the article published in the British Medical Journal on 24th June 1995. I refer to volume 310, pages 1620 to 1621. The proposals of those doctors could easily be piloted in existing dispensing practices and many of the problems encountered by rural doctors and their patients would, I am sure, be overcome.
I would have liked to have had the time to talk about the functioning of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 in rural areas but I am most

1681
conscious of the long list of speakers who are to follow me. No doubt there will be another occasion when I can raise the matter.
6.2 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, the depth of the White Paper extends the declaration of interests which we are now required to make. Therefore, I declare a financial interest as the owner of an agricultural estate in Suffolk. I also declare an interest as the chairman of the Council for the Protection of Rural England, which is unpaid, and certainly not least as chairman of the Marlesford Parish Council, which is also unpaid. As we are exhorted to declare relevant past interests, I declare that I served for 12 years on the Countryside Commission under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Barber, and for eight years on the Rural Development Commission under the chairmanships of my noble friends Lord Vinson and Lord Shuttleworth. Finally, I should declare that I am a constituent of Mr. John Gummer, who wrote the White Paper, on which I congratulate him. I felt that if I did not declare that he was my MP I may be doing the wrong thing.
The White Paper is good in many ways. I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, that it is rather expensive and long. However, it is well worth reading. I am a slow reader but I read it in six hours; that is, in three bites of two hours. I found it well worth reading. The Labour Party should be most grateful for it because it has done any work that they may have needed to do in this area to prepare themselves for eventual government. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, holds up a document about which he and I have previously exchanged words. However, I believe that the White Paper has proved to be the last word and that it takes us forward for a long time as regards many crucial areas of policy. I believe that it should be read widely in Europe because what we do in the rural areas of England can be learnt by many countries in the EU.
There is much to be welcomed in the White Paper, but I refer quickly to the need for a flourishing rural economy. As was stated in the Economist, it shows that, economically, things are good in the countryside. The excellent paper, Unemployment by Constituency, which one can obtain from the Library, gives a snapshot of monthly unemployment throughout the United Kingdom in 650 discrete parts. It shows how relatively low unemployment is in almost all the rural constituencies. The White Paper's attitude to jobs, in particular as regards the encouragement of self employment, is thoroughly to be commended. Having advocated that in a small way for many years, I am delighted that it is seen that the grass roots of parish councils can have a greater scope in ensuring that the right policies emerge bottom up.
There was a worry that the White Paper, with certain Members of the Government in their seats in Cabinet, might damage the planning system. That certainly has not been the case. The planning system has not only survived intact but is to be enhanced. When I think of the planning system I pay tribute to the post-war Labour Government which put it in place. That was necessary
1682
because of the appalling loss of agricultural land before the war. One of the good things about the planning system was that after the 1947 Act the loss of agricultural land was halved as compared with before the war. That is a big plus.
I am pleased that the business rate was referred to. Business rates have killed and, I am afraid, may well continue to kill many small businesses in the countryside, not only village post offices. I was shattered to read page 88 of the White Paper, indicating that for a long time machinery has existed to ameliorate business rates on small rural businesses but that that has not been put into practice. I hope that it will be.
I believe that as regards roads, the balance is about right. Today the emphasis is on bypasses to relieve small communities whose quality of life has been made intolerable. There is much less emphasis on trunk roads. No doubt Mr. Waldegrave will have seen to that recently and we shall hear about it in the Budget. I am also delighted that there is a reference to the intrusive nature of lighting and the need to reduce it. Of course, I am not sorry that cycling has been referred to.
I wish to focus on what I believe to be a crucial point for the future; that is the provision of housing in rural areas. I shall not talk so much about the need for housing as about the damaging effect it could have on rural England. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, we are moving away from food surpluses to food shortages. There are several reasons for that. The first is the huge increase in productivity; for instance, the new rice varieties and so forth. We would be sanguine to assume that science will continue to provide such increases in the magnitude of yields. We should not assume that that will continue to be the case; certainly, wheat yields have been on a plateau for five or six years. Secondly, populations continue to increase in spite of what is done by the biggest countries. We must not forget that the population of China is almost double that of Africa and four times that of Latin America.
In China alone enormous areas of land are being lost, and some of the best land too, because development around Canton and Shanghai is taking away some of the most productive land in the world. Thousands of acres of silt land are being covered with rock. I have seen it for myself because I was in China this summer. It is a depressing sight. The Chinese do not have a word for topsoil, neither do they realise that if one wants to build on agricultural land it is possible to pick up the topsoil and put it somewhere else. If any noble Lords are able to give them that message it would be relevant to everyone in the world, certainly to everyone in this country.
The prices of agricultural products are increasing rapidly. Indeed, the price of wheat is now high, but nothing like as high as it was in the 1980s. In the mid-1980s the price of wheat was the equivalent of £200 per tonne. Today it is about £124 a tonne and if one adds on the CAP area payment it is about £150 per tonne. There is some way still to go but we are moving to a state in which land for agricultural production will again be needed. It would be a great mistake not to assume that.

1683
There was a period when the survival of rural England depended on—I use Nicholas Ridley's phrase—preserving the countryside for its own sake. That was a useful stopgap at a time when people had the misapprehension that land almost had no agricultural relevance and could be sacrificed to an unlimited extent for housing. We really are threatened with housing demands on the countryside which cannot be sustained if we are to retain a rural England anything like that which we wish to have.
There is a prediction that something like 4.4 million new houses will be built by the year 2016. One reason for that is neglect of our cities. Also, in this country there is what Professor Howard Newby described, at the conference to which my noble friend referred, as the anti-urbanism of the English. Basically, the English like to move into the countryside. That will produce enormous pressures. Part of that is neglect of the cities which has been lamentable ever since the war, and possibly even before it. Certainly if we allow developers a free hand, they will always prefer to build on a green site because it is much easier and cheaper. Therefore, the more that is allowed, the more the brown sites, to which my noble friend Lord Selborne referred, will be neglected.
There are areas where the situation is particularly serious. My noble friend Lord Selborne has referred already to Hampshire. It is predicted that Oxfordshire will have 47,000 new houses by the year 2001; Gloucestershire will have a further 53,000; and in the counties around Liverpool and Manchester, Cheshire will have 64,000, Lancashire 78,000 and Cumbria 30,000. Those figures are not sustainable. What is more, if the Government allow a policy of predict and provide to be paramount, that will discourage those who are trying to improve our inner cities. It is not good enough to encourage people to move out of the cities. That is a really serious threat to the countryside.
We are now at a turning point and a point at which we must recognise the real limits imposed by the character, beauty and the need for agricultural production in England. Tough decisions are needed. Such decisions are extremely tough because, in the short term, they may be unpopular. There are two moments at which it is good for a government to make unpopular decisions or take tough decisions: first, when they have just been elected; and secondly, when they are extremely unpopular. I am very serious about this. At that moment the decision to do the right thing, even though it is unpopular rather than politically expedient, may be politically rewarding. Certainly I am optimistic that in view of the quality of thought that there is in the White Paper, we may begin a move in that direction.
6.13 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I too was astonished at how good the White Paper is, coming from this Government. I was very pleased indeed to see that it has a nice-looking cover. There is an upright chap with a stick in a green jacket who I am sure was modelled on the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, perhaps when he was a little younger. Nevertheless, it is a White Paper
1684
about rural England and I do not feel qualified to comment on rural England, coming as I do from Scotland. However, the White Paper contains a great deal of information and many good ideas and is extremely useful.
This evening I should like to comment on the section on agriculture. That is extremely interesting and the figures are extraordinarily well put. We all know what is the trend as regards agriculture. I should dearly like to believe what the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and my noble friend Lord Beaumont have said: that we are entering a period of shortage of food; that prices will be high; and in a free market, that will produce prosperous agriculture in Britain as a whole and in England.
But I have seen, as have many other noble Lords, the lands of Eastern Europe—Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary and above all Russia. There the potential is totally unexploited. At present in Poland a man may be employed for something longer than two months for the price paid there for a ton of barley. Therefore, it is obvious that for many years, it will be difficult to produce food competitively in this country.
We are going a long way towards tremendous efficiency in the countryside, which is not good socially. The figures show that very clearly. Production of wheat in tonnes per hectare has increased from 4.37 in 1973 to 7.35 in 1994. That is a large increase. That has not yet stopped and it must be maintained.
Figures for agricultural holdings are even more interesting. They show that the total of other workers, who obviously are employed workers, has declined by 40 per cent. but the number of part-time farmers, partners and active directors has increased by 76 per cent. We all know that those figures are correct and that farming is becoming more and more mechanised and efficient in technical aspects. In my area in Scotland three farmers, brothers, are producing practically all the peas for canning because they take the land and they have the machinery. People are willing to let the land to them. The same is true as regards many small farms where the farmer stays on the farm, lives in the house and lets the land on a yearly basis. That is going on all over the country and the farming must be carried out efficiently.
In my view there is too much talk of the harm done by intensive farming. Without intensive farming in the growing of crops, we could not compete. We cannot compete with the prairies or the low labour costs in the lands of eastern Europe. Therefore, as regards sustainability in agriculture, we must concentrate on seeing that the use of fertilisers, big machines and pesticides is monitored and that research is done to keep it safe. Tests should be carried out all the time. In other words, those tools for the production of food which we badly need and will badly need at a reasonable price must be used properly and without danger to either the land or the people. It cannot depend on the hope expressed in the White Paper that more extensive farming will be the order of the day and that pesticides will not be needed. That is not on. Farming must be efficient, competent and must use the modern age if it is to survive in a free market. The Government must bear that in mind.
6.19 p.m.
The Earl of Macclesfield: My Lords, I too start by declaring interests. I have lived on the family estate in Oxfordshire all my life, partly on the Chilterns and the Oxfordshire Vale. I have farmed beef and sheep in the Chilterns for 25 years. I managed to give that up just about the right time when the paperwork load on farmers had become intolerable. At least, that is my opinion. I have now retired gracefully to the flatlands where it is a little warmer and have become involved in running the estate in general.
My second interest is that the estate has been a focal point for ramblers during the past five or six years in their attempt to get the right to roam. That is encapsulated in a proposition from Oxfordshire County Council that there should be an access agreement. No one seems to understand the problems that would accrue to the countryside in general should that occur.
I begin with forestry. The noble Earl's remarks about increased afforestation were most welcome. It is, however, awkward that forestry land is deemed to be uncultivated. If the noble Earl were to have a word with any forester and suggest that all the trees were on uncultivated land, he might be the recipient of uncomplimentary remarks about men from the Ministry. It could be helpful if a slightly different view were taken of that type of land and it was accepted that the growing of young trees is an agricultural task. The vast bulk come from the planting of young trees—seedlings—and not from natural regeneration. It would be nice to have natural regeneration back, but I suppose that it has gone for all time. We now use tractors on tracks to pull out trees. A horse pulled out one tree at a time but harrowed in the seed while doing so. We had a wonderful beech mast this year. A horse walking about pulling a log out would harrow the seed in; now the seed seems to get stuck in the leaf mould and does not go down to the ground. Therefore, we lose the next crop.
Whichever way we slice it, the human is simply another predator in the woodlands. Of course, there are others; for example, deer. Woodland owners have contracts with the Forestry Commission. The latter's side of the bargain is that it provides grants: our side is that we grow decent timber which means controlling the vermin. If we start with deer, that means the use of high-powered rifles. To have humans wandering about when high-powered rifles are going off is not entirely acceptable, at least not for those people who will be at risk. I understand that there have been fatal accidents in Germany. It would be preferable that such things do not happen here. All that would happen is that the culling operations would be curtailed. At present, we have deer uncontrolled naturally because we have done away with the wolf and the bear. Therefore, it is necessary for humans to control the numbers, otherwise we would simply not have the trees. If we do not control the numbers and do not have trees, we would lose the grants from the Forestry Commission.
If you have an access agreement and the right to roam, precisely who will repay those grants when the trouble starts? There are other aspects which are not necessarily seen by the general public. There are other
1686
predators in the woods which, in turn, have predators of their own. That is the way the food chain works. We have mice wandering around the tree roots. Most of the trees are in guards and the mice have to make their way in. But if the hawks are not there to control them, the numbers of mice and other tree predators increase. The hawks fly about in the open over the trees looking for their prey. Indeed, we have all seen them from the roads. They will not be terribly happy running into haphazard human beings. If we start to drive them from their feeding habitat, that will drive them from their breeding habitat and thus the numbers will be reduced. We will have yet another imbalance created by the human.
We have reintroduced certain species. The Red Kites have come back. I am not quite sure why we lost them at the end of the last century, but they, among others, are very sensitive to interference from human beings. Certainly, one pair of birds lost their site by simply being foolhardy enough to build their nest next to a footpath. But any species can stand that type of loss. Another lost its site on farmland simply because a man doing his job had not been told to keep away from the area. That is all very fine. It can be tolerated on the grounds, "He will learn; he won't do it again".
The right to roam simply means that there would be people wandering about and, of course, they would do so in the spring and summer because that is a happier time for people to be out in the countryside. We would see that disturbance again and the loss of species. I saw the loss of buzzards in the Chilterns during—and this is, I suppose, an unfortunate term—the reign of the didicois that we had for about five years before the county council was finally able to remove them. Originally, when I first moved to the area, there was one pair of buzzards in the summer which reared their nest. One could see the old and young birds floating about in the skies above. Then they vanished; but we got the kites back.
I prefer not to lose that type of bird simply because humans want to walk about. All those birds can be seen either from roads or footpaths. Wild animals of whatever sort can see a threat to their security from a footpath. They avoid it, and anyone on it is no longer a menace to them. That is another reason why I feel that we should keep the law as it is and that the Government, with their remarks encouraging access to woodland, have got things slightly wrong because of the problems that will occur.
We still have the behaviour of the human to consider. Basically, human beings damage and vandalise property. We have that throughout the country. It is no different in the countryside. We have it at home. I have known a big straining post to be uprooted. It required a good deal of effort by two reasonably-sized men. Way markers have been ripped up and thrown into the bushes by someone walking on the footpath. I have even known rabbit netting to be pulled up; indeed, we have even suffered sugar being put in a tractor's tank and tyres being let down. Some of it is vandalism; some of it the result of boredom. You name it, it is there.
It would be nice to see a healthy respect for the countryside before we ever consider letting people loose in it. I believe that there is scope for doing so. But when

1687
I come to town I have to pay car parking fees. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Forestry Commission provides free car parking for those visiting the countryside. It would be helpful if the public at large appreciated the operational costs incurred by the Forestry Commission in looking after the public and providing such facilities. It might also be useful for the public to see an estimate of the cost of vandalism on Forestry Commission land. I can quote one such example from memory. There was a warden, or ranger, walking about keeping the peace over a weekend who found himself having to threaten the public with the police in order to stop them cutting down young beech trees of about 2 inches diameter for firewood. Why landowners should accept that type of person—and we are talking about human beings, not just ramblers—is something I just do not understand.
If we are to get people out into the countryside, apart from making them pay for car parking there could well be different areas of land designated by agreement. I have in mind forestry land and set-aside land; indeed, mature trees can take a certain amount of interference. But if the Countryside Commission is to be involved in developing such schemes, I do not see why any arrangement of that nature should be free to the general public. After all, it is a recreational facility. One has to pay to go to the theatre or the cinema. If people come to the countryside they should pay for that recreational facility. It would encourage them to value such facilities. It is much the same as the need for cheap food and subsidised bread which occurred after the war. If it did not cost the housewife, there was more likely to be waste than if she suddenly found herself paying the full cost, even if she was reimbursed by family allowance. At least she understood the cost of the product. In exactly the same way the public might realise that there are costs incurred in the upkeep of the countryside.
Somehow the White Paper gives the impression that there are no costs incurred in the countryside and that, because it does not cost, it is available and should be free to the public. I do not accept that concept. Indeed, I do not think that anyone in the countryside does so. It seems to me that the way forward is to encourage respect and responsibility for the countryside, not just for the humans who live there but also for all the other species for which, on the whole, the human has precious little regard.
We should encourage the public to understand that they should pay for whatever recreational facilities are provided for them. It is preferable that these facilities should be paid for by the public who use them and not by the general taxpayer. Before anyone refers to my next point, I accept that one cannot charge someone for using footpaths but I do not see why a farmer should pay half the cost of maintaining stiles and the local authority—which is a rural authority to which the farmer contributes through local taxation—should pay the other half. That seems to be a case of lumbering the poor old countryside again. I hope that the Minister will consider that matter and the fact that the public should be encouraged to pay for recreational facilities which are provided for them.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I welcome this White Paper, not least because it gives a strategic plan which spells out broad principles and has resisted the temptation to spell out the nitty-gritty. That is the job of individuals, government departments and indeed your Lordships who have to make sure that the strategy which the Government have proposed is pushed forward.
I shall mention just two areas which interest me. The first is the Government's proposal to exclude the right to buy from housing associations in communities of fewer than 3,000 people. This was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Ferrers. I hope that when my noble friend replies to the debate he may be able to say how alterations—if any—to this scheme can be made. Will that be done by ministerial direction, by order or by primary legislation? I am, however, much relieved that your Lordships will not have to repeat the "staircasing" amendment that occurred in your Lordships' House on 25th October 1989. I do not always agree with my noble friend Lord Marlesford—in fact, it almost disappoints me to say tonight that I agree with him strongly on this occasion—but I hope that he is right about food shortages. However, as a cynical, avaricious farmer I rather doubt that that will happen.
Secondly, I welcome the proposal to consult on and then revise PPG7. That point was mentioned by my noble friend on the Front Bench and by many other noble Lords. If the rural economy is to prosper, it is essential that firm guidelines are given so that both developers and indeed planning authorities know what sort of development should take place and where it should be sited. I was somewhat perplexed by the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. He said that he wanted local jobs but then I thought he said that he wanted less development. However, I may have misheard him. I sided rather with my noble friend Lord Shuttleworth on that matter. I believe that there can be suitable and sympathetic development in the countryside provided there are good guidelines. The snag is that when one listens to local people—which all your Lordships suggest that we should—one finds there are more "NIMBYs" than those who work in the countryside and want it developed. That is a problem. The problem is making guidelines stick. I hope that my noble friend will consider Circular 23/93 which determines how costs should or should not be awarded.
My concern is that when a local planning authority disregards a planning guideline—and on appeal the inspector may well state that the council had acted unreasonably—costs should go against the local planning authority. At the moment the inspector is tied too tightly by Circular 23/93. I believe that councillors and council officials, whoever they may be, should be made accountable, just as I am when I make a mistake. My other suggestion on PPG7 is that matters that concern local planning authorities giving permission for the improvement or movement of farm buildings for environmental or animal welfare reasons—these are contained mainly in the annex to the document at paragraph B3.5 or B3.6—should be moved to a more prominent position in the main body of PPG7.

1689
I believe it is most important that safety should be included as a factor to be taken into account by planners. I speak with feeling on that matter. Farms are now dangerous places. Farms now have 40-tonne articulated lorries, not horses and carts. Planners should take that into account when planning permission is sought to move farm buildings to a new site. I mentioned that matter in your Lordships' House on 13th June 1989 and the Minister agreed that local planning authorities did not seem to have received the message despite the fact that farming is now the most dangerous of all industries.
Finally, I follow the example of my noble friend Lord Ferrers and declare an interest in that I have been involved in both the matters to which I have referred. Indeed I only speak in your Lordships' House on matters I have knowledge of but I never have, nor ever will, accept any remuneration for so doing. In any case I doubt very much whether "they"—whoever they may be—would ever get value for money.
6.36 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I feel strange as, like the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, I am one of the few women to speak in this debate. I cannot even declare a financial interest in the countryside. I only speak tonight because I have a deep love for the countryside in which I was fortunate enough not only to be born but also to be brought up.
I listened to the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Macclesfield, about kites and various other birds. That brought back many memories for me. This report was ably and helpfully discussed by my noble friend Lord Ferrers. It has been an eye-opener for me. However, I have not been able to stay awake reading it at night as it is so heavy. I could not even support it. However, the report contains much information for which most of us—certainly myself—are most grateful. The report certainly helped me to appreciate not only the present but also the future of the countryside.
I wish briefly to mention three subjects which are aligned—the green belt, housing and transport. I believe that they all hang together. I have discovered that there are 1.5 million hectares of Green Belt in England; that is, 12 per cent. of the whole of England. There are 39 areas of outstanding natural beauty in England and Wales excluding the parks. Some 13 per cent. of the English and Welsh areas overlap. Although the green belt is expanding most of it was declared 40 years ago. In my view the area of Green Belt needs to be revised and reviewed in the light of the need for housing. Many noble Lords have referred to housing but I have to deal, in a charitable capacity, with people who are without homes. I always feel that we could do much more to help them and to give them a chance. I refer not only to the homeless in towns but also to those in the rural areas.
Living in the country as I do, I see the results of the decisions of planning committees, many of whose members have very little idea as to what the end product of their planning will be. I feel that many of them should have training before being appointed to planning
1690
committees. I realise that a great deal is done by civil servants, but I do not think that many of them, either, can foresee how their decisions will turn out in the end.
When thinking about what I should say today, I rang up the new rector of the parish in Worcestershire where I was brought up. I asked him what was changing. To my surprise, he said that nothing has changed. This afternoon noble Lords have said that change is our ally, that we must move forward and we must change. When you go to a beautiful parish like mine in the middle of Worcestershire and are told that nothing has changed, you realise that we must do as much as possible to keep the beautiful countryside that we have now.
Two parishes have amalgamated. The right reverend Prelate will be pleased to hear that the rector told me that he now has 330 parishioners. The church is known to have one of the most beautiful peals of bells in the country. The bells are rung by hand before every service. That was always the case in my time, too. There is a choir of at least a dozen people. It is in the heart of the country.
The Church of England school has 75 pupils, two-thirds of whom come from outside the parish by car from towns which are at least five miles away. Therefore, parents, having the choice of whether to send their children to the local school in town or to drive them to the Church of England school in the middle of the countryside, have chosen to do just that.
There is no policeman in the village as there was in my day. The nearest police are five miles away. Unfortunately, I have to report that the shop closed two years ago, and with it the post office. Therefore, one has to buy one's butter from the petrol station. I hope that it does not smell of petrol. There is a Women's Institute, as there always was. There is a big hall, which belongs to the National Trust and is kept impeccably. There is a hunt, with which I used to hunt, which hunts through the parish.
That is a sketch of the countryside as some of us are fortunate enough to know it. Once countryside becomes urbanised, it ceases to be country and that is a great loss to everyone who wants to live in the countryside.
I was delighted to hear again from the Minister that there will be rate relief for shopkeepers and post offices. I am sure that that will encourage people to stay and to run shops in the local community. It is very sad when a shop closes. There is nobody to gossip with or to spread the news of the parish.
The provision of housing is particularly difficult when there is so little land that is not restricted by the green belt. I asked the new rector about the green belt land and the need for housing. He said that he wanted more housing but the only plot of land that was not green belt land was at the bottom of his rectory garden, and of course/he does not want new houses at the bottom of his rectory garden. That is an issue that needs to be looked at. I believe that some of the green belt land might be made available for houses without undue difficulty and without having to go to the department for permission.

1691
One noble Lord said that housing was not being built for people who needed it. How right he was. It does not appear that housing—whether in the countryside or elsewhere—is geared for the people who need houses. I have figures—with which I shall not weary the House tonight—and I know of people who need houses desperately, but nobody asks them what they want. That applies both in the country and in urban areas. I gather that 75 per cent. of rural housing is owner-occupied and 64 per cent. is in urban areas.
As noble Lords have said, if you live in the country you need transport. It is very difficult if, as in my parish, there is only one bus per week. I hope that, as they did many years ago, the Government will encourage more people to start their own bus companies to meet the needs of people who live in the countryside.
To me, the country is life. I could not live in the town. I did so for two years when my husband died, but I found it impossible as I could not see from my flat either a blade of grass or a green tree. Now I have gone back to the country, and I am surrounded by cattle, sheep, horses, hedges and everything that makes life worth living.
6.47 p.m.
Lord Vernon: My Lords, I must first declare an interest as a farmer and landowner in Derbyshire. I, too, welcome the White Paper as a basis for discussion. I hope that it will stimulate action, which is what we all want. I shall confine my remarks to two particular aspects: planning and transport.
First, the first paragraph on page 69 of the White Paper suggests that local authorities should encourage the building of new housing in villages near to where people work and thus reduce the need for them to travel long distances. That would also ensure that the countryside would be protected from development. That is an admirable idea in theory, but not always quite so admirable in practice. One can see villages in different parts of the country where a large number of soulless, almost identical, red-brick houses are being built at the back of an existing old village for the benefit of workers in nearby industries. If the development had been treated with sensitivity by the planners—if, for example there were more variety in the type of houses and materials used for their construction, if there had been provision for perhaps a village green (a matter referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Barber) or such like—some of the character of those old villages might have been retained; or at least some new character added. The fact that that so seldom seems to occur is due, I believe, to lack of imagination by the planners, and by the architects whom they so often employ.
I sometimes wonder whether the existing planning procedures, with so much power in the hands of local authority committees which are inevitably bound by financial restraints, are adequate for the important and responsible planning decisions which are required at this critical time when so many people are moving from the towns to the countryside.
I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, said. It is difficult to see how the amount of housing which it is stated will be required by the end of the
1692
century and early into the next can be sustained without total damage to the countryside. Much more thought should be given to the use of urban areas which are under-used, in particular for industries which are springing up in the countryside alongside motorways, and so on.
I believe that I swim rather against the remarks made by some noble Lords by saying this. Are members of local planning committees, some of whom have vested interests in their own areas, best qualified for taking these decisions? They are advised by their own planning officers, but the planning officers can also be overruled. The present system may be cheap, but is it the right one, and can we afford it if the quality of the countryside development is to proceed satisfactorily? Those are some of the questions that we should be asking ourselves.
Secondly, I wish to say something about transport. We are told that an adequate trunk road network is as important to the inhabitants of areas as it is to businesses and farms. It is my submission that too much money has been spent on the trunk roads and not enough on providing bypasses for small country towns. It is intolerable that in 1995 heavy articulated lorries, belching filthy exhaust fumes, should have to pass through the narrow roads of small towns where pavements are sometimes four feet wide. It is a blot on our society, and I believe that it compares unfavourably with the treatment that similar towns receive in other EC countries.
I read with much interest the paragraph on page 77 on branch railway lines. It appears that once the railways have been privatised, old stations will be reopened, fares will be reduced and everything in the garden will be lovely. I am afraid that I remain totally sceptical. It is stated, for instance, that private sector operators will have the flexibility to increase service provision where they judge it in their interests to do so. But what if they decide that that is not in their interests and yet it may be in the public interest? Their lies the basic fault with privatisation of the railways. What we need in this country is a modern, reliable and efficient railway network, and that will come only from investing public money on a large scale. What this Government have failed to appreciate is that a growing number of people want better quality public transport, both buses and railways. Here I endorse what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark said about old people. There are people in this country who do not have cars. They cannot drive for many reasons. They are totally isolated without public transport.
6.55 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, perhaps I may start by apologising to the House and to my noble friend on the Front Bench. I may not be present at the end of the debate. I have a long-standing dinner engagement which I ought to attend. Perhaps I, too, may congratulate my noble friend Lord Hambro on his excellent maiden speech. It was a modest speech. He said that he did not know as much about countryside matters as other Members of your Lordships' House. I can assure your

1693
Lordships that he does. He is not only a man of finance but of agriculture too. We look forward very much to hearing him again in the future.
Like virtually every other noble Lord who has spoken, I welcome the White Paper. I congratulate the Government on their extensive consultation. I believe that every interested party had a chance of proper input into it. That is reflected in the final outcome.
I believe that a significant part of the report lies in the subtitle: A nation committed to a living countryside That surely is one of the great keys of this White Paper. Living represents people; people mean jobs. That theme extends throughout the White Paper, and I welcome it.
My noble friend Lord Marlesford quite rightly identified that although agriculture may be going through a prosperous stage at present, it may face difficulties in the future. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, referred to that and to the competition from Europe. Clearly we cannot be complacent. If agriculture or rural jobs are to survive, it is clear that farmers must take every opportunity to diversify wherever possible. Clearly that has been happening. However, as other noble Lords have identified, some of the planning restrictions have been such that diversification has not been encouraged in quite the way that it might. One of the great difficulties that we face is that planners are intrinsically negative people. I wish that there could be greater encouragement to regard planning in a more positive way. Therefore I welcome the review of PPG7. As my noble friend Lord Stanley, said, it is absolutely right that we consider carefully how the guidelines will work. At the end of the day, that is the key to how successful those guidelines will be.
One should also give credit for much of the development that has taken place in rural areas to those who have come from the urban environment. In a recent lecture to the National Farmers' Union my noble friend Lord Shuttleworth made the point clearly; it is one that we should not forget. Those people also need encouragement. Any opportunity which will further development and jobs in the countryside must be welcomed.
That leads me to housing. It is absolutely clear that we need a reasonable level of affordable rented accommodation through the exclusion of a right to buy. That is absolutely crucial in certain areas. I hope that the Government will not be too rigid about this. I am not absolutely certain why we have a population community figure of 3,000; I am sure that there is a good reason underlying it. But let us not be too rigid. Let us keep a degree of flexibility. I am sure that the principle is absolutely right.
I much welcome the new rate relief scheme for general stores. Every encouragement must be given to keep the village shop intact and trading. My noble friend Lord Kimball was right when he said that we shall not stop people from going to the superstores. Apart from anything else, for people living in remote rural areas it is a day out. Any help that can be given to the local shop is welcome, but at the end of the day it is very much up to the people who live in rural areas and the
1694
visitors who go there to use the local facilities. At a dinner the other night I was sitting next to a nice lady who happens to be a farmer's wife. We were talking about this subject and she said: "I give my local shop 100 per cent. support—when I use it". That says it all. Unless there is a positive move by people to use local stores, with all the help in the world I am afraid that they are likely to continue to be on the demise. That would be regrettable.
Before I move on to the wider countryside, perhaps I may pick up one point on the White Paper. I am pleased to see that the Government have come out against the right to roam. I realise that it is a contentious issue, but I believe that such a policy would be very irresponsible indeed. It would undermine the ability to manage and at the end of the day it is management that makes the countryside what it is. If we lose management, we lose the ability to deliver the whole range of countryside attributes that we wish to see.
The White Paper clearly identifies the many environmental difficulties that we face. Whereas considerable strides have been made over the past decades to rectify some of the excesses of overproduction—if I may call it that—and attempts have been made to restore more traditional and beneficial management systems, there is a long way to go. Most of the environmental initiatives have come through a range of designations. Here I must declare an interest in that I am a member of the Nature Conservancy Council. Admirable though the designations have been in the case of English Nature and the SSSIs—and we have had a whole raft of others—we are in danger of ignoring the wider countryside. I shall come to that in a moment, but what leads to the confusion that abounds now in the countryside is the enormous number of interested groups involved in trying to deliver nature conservation. There are far too many of them. My noble friend Lord Hambro referred to it in his maiden speech. We are inundated with far too many people chasing the same objectives, far too many people doing the same job. I urge my noble friend and the Government to look again, in a comprehensive way, at trying to streamline the way in which we deliver countryside initiatives in this country.
I must pay tribute to one particular countryside conservation vehicle, if I may call it that—the countryside stewardship scheme. I am aware that the noble Lord, Lord Barber, was chairman of the Countryside Commission when the scheme was initiated. It has now gone over to MAFF. I welcome that because MAFF is the right vehicle to exercise control of many of the schemes. It is a flexible scheme which can meet the specialist requirements that a particular countryside area demands. MAFF officers have the expertise to deliver, but they also understand the needs of farmers. The combination of those two factors, I believe, leads to the most successful of the countryside conservation schemes that we have. I urge the Government to build on the initiative, not just for the sake of simplicity but of effectiveness as well.
Perhaps I may urge my noble friend and the Government specifically to look seriously at the expansion of the stewardship scheme to the urgent implementation of what is a costed action plan for low

1695
input arable field margins, agreed by the UK Biodiversity Action Steering Group earlier this year and to be published in December. I believe that such action would quickly benefit many species of birds, insects and wild flowers which are still declining on British farmland. It is an area which has been sadly neglected by nature conservation initiatives to date.
Like my noble friend Lord Kimball, I was pleased to see that field sports have been fully recognised in the White Paper and in particular the work of the Game Conservancy, of which I have the honour to be chairman. The Government have recognised that our research into game birds and their habitat has had a real benefit to other species besides game throughout the wider countryside. I am delighted to see that recognition.
That brings me to my final point and the one which I regard as the most important for the British countryside. It revolves around a simple question: what steps are proposed to address the decline in habitat and species brought about by the incentives for agricultural development since the war? I believe that that is the greatest challenge the Government have to face. We have already identified that agriculture is likely to change, that competition will increase and demands on our landscape from agricultural output may well increase. Yet at the moment only 2 per cent. of the common agricultural policy is being spent on agro-environment schemes. In my view, that is simply not enough. We must get a proper framework in place to allow agricultural development, but at the same time maintain our wildlife base and increase it before we see a further surge of agricultural output in the countryside. If we fail to do that, we fail in every way to achieve any degree of sustainability within the countryside.
This is an extremely good and wide ranging White Paper. I am certain that if it is implemented, the people who live in rural Britain will rise to it and benefit from it.
7.7 p.m.
Lord Vinson: My Lords, I have the good fortune to be a hill farmer in the north of England, where there are more sheep than people. I declare that interest and also that I had the privilege of being the chairman of the Rural Development Commission immediately prior to my distinguished successor, Lord Shuttleworth, between the years of 1980 and 1990. It is a great delight to me and to my fellow commissioners to see so many of the policy initiatives that we helped to start then beginning to blossom and be picked up and adopted by the White Paper. So in general I applaud and welcome it; it is a fine document on which future rural policy can and should be based. I particularly welcome the fact that behind the scenes there will be a Cabinet committee to ensure that the appropriate measures are taken and appropriate balance given.
The balance between the economy of rural areas and their ecology is a fine one. It is easy to fall into the trap of talking about rural England as though there were just one type of countryside. There are such diverse parts of rural England, some parts are near-urban and some are desperately rural with people having to go a distance of
1696
over 40 miles to hospital. In framing policy it is important to recognise the huge differences in types of rural England that we have.
In our debate this afternoon, I have listened to some marvellous and excellent contributions. I hope I may be forgiven if perhaps I am a little contrary. I said to myself, "Perhaps there are other aspects which need bringing out and some counterbalance might be added". As a farmer, naturally I am keen to see the land promoted, but perhaps we have taken too easily for granted the fact that for 40 years food has been "coming out of our ears". We forget perhaps why other countries, particularly those on the Continent, which starved to a great extent during the last World War when we did not, understand that perhaps it is better to rely on your own home produced foodstuffs than on what could be the fickle nature of imports.
However, this is a difficult argument to sustain if one cannot produce food cheaply. On the other hand, such have been the advances in agriculture that we in this country can compete on equal terms with anybody—certainly in terms of the world median cost of growing wheat and the world median cost of dairy products—if agriculture is not undermined by excessive dumping. So in agriculture we have a huge resource which is the backbone of the economy of many parts of rural England. It produces an economic output greater than that of Australia and New Zealand put together and has done so for years. People should remember the scale of it. It is quintessentially important to the more rural parts of the British Isles and it can hold its own internationally. So, when there is talk of subsidy and subsidising, the British farmer can compete with anybody on most of our land.
I should like also to touch on the question of cars. Nowadays there is a tendency to denigrate the car and say how awful it is and so on. But the car has emancipated the rural dweller. People who live in rural areas will give up eating meat and almost everything before they give up their car. It is their source of freedom and recreation. In framing policies which are anti-car—I find it politically extraordinary, bearing in mind the number of pressure groups which are so anti-car, that the Government do not look over their shoulder at the 10 million motorists who are very pro-car—we must remember that they will hit rural people particularly hard. Whatever the pleasures of postbuses and alternative forms of subsidised transport, there is no way that a public sector transport system can work for deep rural areas. They have to rely on the car. The more cars there are, the more people have them and the more people who have cars, the more neighbours are able to give lifts to those who do not have a car.
I hope therefore that we can stop running down the car. It is the most marvellous form of transport, not only for rural dwellers but for urban dwellers also. I feel that the Government made a great mistake in cutting back so severely on their road building programme, particularly on bypasses, which are essential for rural areas. Also, the trunk road system in this country has not by any means been finished, as anyone who has recently struggled up the A1 will know.

1697
The next rather contrariant point that I should like to pick up is the excellent point made by the noble Lord, Lord Barber, concerning our current forestry policy. It is indeed in a real muddle. We are all in favour of planting trees but we do not know what the hell we want the trees for when we have planted them. Trees can be a crop but they can also be planted just to beautify the countryside. There is plenty of room for both. But, if we are interested in having trees as a crop, we certainly must have our aftercare thoroughly well organised. The thinning, pruning and trimming of trees throughout their life is essential to make good mill wood, and a good product which in turn can sustain many rural jobs is certainly not being looked at as part of the present policy. I hope this matter can be addressed again.
I am loath to pick an argument with my dear friend, the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, over houses. But for me, the one priority of housing is to make it affordable, so that all those people who do not have houses can have them. If there is a demand for millions of houses, it means that millions of people want houses. It is fine for those of us who live in rural areas; we can say "Let them live in the towns. We can live in the country". But the cost of urban building is high, the cost of rural building is high and the cost of land rationing is very high. Planning has a consequence. We are all in favour of the green belt but there is a consequence. In this country the land cost of a house is roughly 40 per cent.—it depends on the location. In France, the land cost of a house is roughly 20 per cent. That means that in this country we are increasing our housing costs by a factor of 20 per cent. through the rationing of land. We may want to ration land; but there is a consequence, which is that many people who would have been able to afford a house are now priced out of the market. Many people live in the most difficult and dire conditions, and we have a housing subsidy problem which is getting out of hand. The side consequence of land rationing by planning is homelessness.
My last point was not touched on in the White Paper. The best way to help rural areas is to build on their indigenous advantage. Indeed, we may propose plans, but 95 per cent. of what happens in rural areas will probably happen anyway. Policies only tweak the edge of the underlying social and economic forces.
But there is one small measure that could bring immense benefit. A few years ago the Rural Development Commission carried out a comprehensive survey on the effect of extending daylight hours into the afternoon—having continuous British summer time; in other words, having European time, as we would see it now. It meant that the tourist season went on for longer, golf courses made more money, farmers—I am one myself—could plough into the evenings and have more work activity, and small outdoor builders and fencers—all those who cannot work under artificial light—could carry on. The economy was greatly stimulated and it cost not a penny. Indeed, there was a positive benefit.
The reasons for that measure were supported by not only the CBI, the tourist boards and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (because many fewer people overall would be killed through the extension of
1698
daylight hours into the evenings) but also Age Concern. Age Concern supported the measure because nowadays old people are under curfew when the sun goes down. Old people cannot get around in the dark. Old people get up later and would have a whole hour more of daylight. So I propose one factor which was not mentioned at all in the White Paper; namely, that the adoption of continuous summer time, or European time, would be of immense economic and social advantage to rural areas. I hope that the various Cabinet committees and others who will address the problems of rural areas in the future will pick up that idea, which has not been mentioned at all to date.
I welcome hugely the White Paper. It flags up the inevitable dichotomy between those who regard rural areas as places of recreation and those who have to live and work there, and whose priorities as regards jobs and houses are just the same as those who live in the towns. There is a great mutuality of interest between the two. That is the basis on which, I am sure, the White Paper is founded and which we must all develop.
7.16 p.m.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I too welcome the White Paper. One could perhaps even say that it was a little overdue. Like other noble Lords, I should like to declare a number of interests. I am a hill farmer, like the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, in an area where the sheep outnumber the people. In my case, the sheep are heavily outnumbered by pheasants, which says something about the diversified economy of which I find it necessary to take advantage. I am also a chartered surveyor and a member of various committees of the Country Landowners' Association and a member of the National Farmers' Union. I also sit on a West Sussex rural strategy group which sets out to look at the way in which planning interacts with land use. Therefore I offer my remarks from the standpoint of land use management.
I detected, as did other noble Lords, that the White Paper sports the hallmark of the Department of the Environment rather than the Ministry of Agriculture. I hope that that is an illusion. The White Paper itself seemed to me to be a little long on public expectations and land use planning and a little short on economic reality and land use management. But I trust that that will be rectified and that the Ministry of Agriculture, through the government offices of the regions and the co-ordinating procedure, will be a co-equal partner.
There are many points that I welcome, which have been covered in some areas by other noble Lords and not at all in others. Reference was made by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, to consultation in the context of PPG7. I am a strong believer in a sound consultation process, provided that the views of those who are affected by proposals are genuinely taken into account and that there is real consultation and not just a paper formality.
The problems of the common agricultural policy have been well argued and spoken to by other noble Lords. There is one point that I should like to raise; namely, that environmental considerations are not simply a

1699
transferable option, as an opportunity cost against agriculture. Nor are all sectors of agriculture doing well, as I certainly know from my own experiences as a hill farmer on Exmoor. Hill farms in that particular area are often extremely marginal, despite high levels of support. That was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shuttleworth.
If there are no profits, there is nothing to put into environmental work. The high landscape values that are attached to these areas by the general public are not matched by secure rural businesses. That is a structural mistake which has to be addressed at the earliest possible moment, because in those areas crops compliance is an empty principle. It ignores the fact that environmental support has to stand on its own two feet as a separate entity and that it may well, in difficult areas where there are steep slopes and awkward terrain, be much more costly than agricultural support itself.
I have a strong interest in jobs in rural areas and rural business. I applaud the contents of the White Paper and what has been welcomed by other noble Lords. But we must not destabilise land management by bidding away the labour force; nor must we salve our consciences by putting businesses in rural areas that are quite unrelated to rural land management and do not support its purposes. We need small scale processing, slaughtering, adding value to food and fibre—a point very well made by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont—and in addition we need planning policies that will permit those to take place.
Environmental advice is referred to in the White Paper. That is a very welcome mention. But, at the moment, it is very often only free for an initial cursory inspection. That needs to be extended if the Government's policies are really to bear fruit in this area. I applaud the incentive schemes and the commitment to enhance them. As a member of a stewardship scheme, I can speak highly of that scheme pioneered by the Countryside Commission; but it must he genuinely voluntary and it must not be coercive. I have concerns about tying land managers into long-term plans where they cannot possibly foretell whether they will make profits or losses in the next year or two, let alone what will happen after five.
The concept of a countryside valuable for its own sake has to mean that it is worthwhile and valuable in the hands of those responsible for the direct management, just as much as it is for the general public. It is a matter of balance.
The Minister made welcome reference to the concept of the rural business unit. That should be looked at very seriously. I gather that it was a suggestion made by the Country Landowners' Association. My particular reason for supporting it is that it is the only proposal in the White Paper that makes this direct causal link between land use management and land use planning. It should he followed up.
Reference is also made in the White Paper to the value of field sports. Here I must declare an interest. Again, it makes the link between rural economics and conservation, particularly at times of the year when tourists are all safely tucked up in front of their
1700
televisions in their easy chairs. It is very important that field sports, in terms of their input into the rural economy, are not underestimated. They are a recreational facility as well. They bring people together when there are not football grounds down the road or cinemas in the vicinity.
I particularly welcome the White Paper's comments on access, especially the reference to the balance of obligations and freedoms. That is a very important principle. Another principle is that there needs to be fair treatment to the various parties involved, as between the public and landowners and land managers. I commend to the Government the principles in paragraph 65 of circular 476. That reaffirmed the question of balance in national parks between the competing interests and made it clear, nearly 10 years ago, how much there was to play for and how much gain there is to be made for the general public interest and the needs of farming communities. But it needs resources, and those resources are not evident as being committed in the White Paper.
Reference is made to rural businesses and overzealous enforcement action. I would like to add one point to the list of bullet points in the White Paper; and that is to plead that there should in all cases be a full, reasoned and clear explanation of the matter complained of. There should be no fishing expeditions by local planning authorities and no facility, particularly for mischief-making by members of the public, protected by anonymity, save in exceptional cases where criminal proceedings are in prospect.
The comment on page 35 of the White Paper regarding applicants being told after their application has failed what consent would perhaps have been granted is wrong. Applicants should be entitled to know beforehand what is acceptable. There should be a requirement to set out the principles in local development plans. That cannot be avoided. It is a cardinal principle in all planning policy guidance. There should be clear indications as to what is acceptable and what is not. So that provision is putting the cart before the horse.
On page 34 of the White Paper, where there is reference to a best practice guide, I hope that that will reinforce the need for a positive informative approach throughout every stage, preapplication and during the application, of seeking planning consent. There should not be a precondition of exceptional charges which are sometimes imposed by local planning authorities. In many instances, particularly with relatively low value rural activities, such charges can be a real tax on access to planning officers.
I wish to make one or two more points. Page 107, on regulation, was a disappointment. The noble Earl, Lord Peel, made the point very well. There are too many designations which are often overlapping and confusing. That creates prolonged consultation which is unintegrated and has different agendas and priorities. More to the point, it is difficult to see the out-turn of all this in terms of the product at the end of the day. Are we dealing with regulation in order to keep regulators in business or are we having it for the benefit of adding

1701
value to rural areas? In terms of the pound on the ground, it is not making sense at the moment. Therefore, a government commitment to reducing regulation would be extremely welcome.
On that point, adding value to the countryside for its own sake means a partnership of sharing risks as well as achieving rewards. You cannot have a cost benefit where the public are deemed to benefit but the cost is borne privately. So agencies and regulators have to make themselves useful in the countryside. They need to have the principles of proportionality and we may need to have higher standards of proficiency. I should like a reassurance from the Minister—a confirmation—that it is no accident that the "enabling rural business" reference on page 145 comes first in the proposed national government framework. I hope that he will be able to give that reassurance.
Finally, our maiden speaker today, the noble Lord, Lord Hambro, in a careful and well considered maiden speech, raised a very important point about independent rights of appeal and impartial adjudication. Economically and socially, that is extremely important and it has the added benefit that it makes people talk to each other. After all, the great merit of this White Paper is that it is starting the talking process going.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, the White Paper sets out an easy-to-read and clear analysis of the social, economic and environmental challenges facing rural areas. I am pleased that it recognises the importance of the environment and acknowledges that a beautiful and healthy countryside is important for nature conservation, landscape and recreational purposes. I am equally pleased that it acknowledges the economic importance of the rural environment for significant industries such as leisure and tourism.
One aspect which my noble friend the Minister alluded to in his opening remarks was the Government's commitment to extending to the wider countryside those principles of environmental protection which already apply in designated areas. That is breaking new ground for government policy and I welcome it wholeheartedly. It reflects the concept of using areas such as national parks as "greenprints" which can then be applied to other parts of the countryside. The idea of the parks as greenprints is something I mentioned in our debate on sustainable development two weeks ago. It is such an important role for national parks to play that it is worth re-emphasising it again tonight. The parks are ideally placed to put the principles of sustainable development into practice and both they and the wider countryside will benefit as a result.
What is crucial to this debate, as many speakers have indicated, is the announcement that Planning Policy Guidance Note 7, covering "The Countryside and the Rural Economy", is to be revised. It sets the framework for local authority development plans and planning decisions. In my view the current guidance does not give adequate weight to the protection of the whole countryside and the revised version needs to include a
1702
clear statement that, while in no way weakening the protection of designated areas, increased weight should be attached to the non-designated countryside in respect of development plans and development control. Only such a statement will demonstrate the strength of the Government's commitment to the countryside as a whole. I hope that the review of PPG7 will provide an opportunity to safeguard against the worst aspects of development in the countryside in general and in national parks in particular.
I want to make three observations which deal specifically with national parks. First, in setting out its objectives for the countryside in section 1, the Government demote the environment into third place after sections on "Changing Patterns of Work" and "Changing Communities". I suggest that in national parks those priorities should be shifted. I would be happier if the White Paper placed more emphasis on the inter relationships between the environment and the economy and also recognised that the environment should be the overriding concern in national parks, setting the framework for all other activities.
Secondly, I want to sound a cautious welcome for the Government's proposal to allow greater discrimination in favour of re-use of rural buildings for business rather than residential purposes. While I fully recognise the need to create a diverse and sustainable rural economy, we must be careful not to destroy the fabric of the national parks. The re-use of redundant agricultural buildings for commercial purposes can be very productive, but the potential environmental impact should not be underestimated. Will the Minister therefore reassure me today that the emphasis on commercial redevelopment will not be interpreted as a signal that all such development will be acceptable in planning terms?
Thirdly, I welcome the Government's intention to develop collaborative programmes between the Countryside Commission, the Rural Development Commission, the Sports Council and the English Tourist Board. That is especially important in national parks where recreational pressures are at their most acute. I hope that such work will result in the publication of regional recreation strategies which would go some way to resolving some of the conflicts which may arise between the different types of recreational activity. In that context I am pleased that the Government intend to examine the implications of rapidly growing noisy and obtrusive leisure activities in the countryside.
There is one more general point which is close to my heart and which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Shuttleworth, the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. I am particularly happy that the role of volunteers and the voluntary sector has been highlighted and that successful programmes such as Rural Action and the Parish Paths Partnership will continue to be developed. I add some words of caution on the use of volunteers. The increased participation of volunteers is not necessarily a cheaper method of getting things done. However, it is sometimes a better one.

1703
In conclusion, while I would prefer a greater commitment to protect special areas such as national parks and more recognition of the important role which such special areas have to play in taking forward the principles of sustainable development, I welcome the rural White Paper as a step in the right direction in recognising the value of the countryside as a whole. As my noble friend Lord Hambro said in his excellent maiden speech, it is a clear and well documented publication. For that the Government should be congratulated.
7.36 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I congratulate Her Majesty's Government on an excellent White Paper which should reassure most country dwellers that the Government recognise their concerns. Having said that, my one disappointment relates to the section on forestry. In that regard I must declare an interest as a small woodland owner and as vice-president (unpaid) of the Tree Council whose aim is to promote the planting and conservation of trees and woods throughout the United Kingdom.
The doubling of English woodland over the next 50 years is a worthy objective. Sadly, the White Paper is largely silent on new incentives and the timber production needed to pay for that target, which I fear will simply not happen. At the current rate of planting the target will be reached in 170 years.
Like my noble friend Lord Vinson I feel that the Government have missed a golden opportunity to encourage forestry and, with it, jobs. We need an effective incentive framework and a streamlined regulatory system which cuts red tape and bureaucratic delays to a minimum, such as the scrapping of the ministerial directive of 1984. That removed from the Forestry Commission the ability to decide upon applications and left it in the role of umpire rather than authority. After all, forestry is a business. Woodlands produce timber in the same way that wheatfields produce wheat and car factories, motor cars. Tree planting is the least attractive land-cropping option in most situations and there is no level playing field in the grant equation.
Administrative regulations restrict the uptake of the farm woodland premium scheme and planting will undoubtedly decline unless alterations are made. Interestingly, the scheme was underspent in the past two years in both England and Wales. Last year in England the underspend was £483,000 and the year before, £555,000, out of a cash limit of only £1.2 million each year. Furthermore, last year the Forestry Commission underspent its total grant from the Exchequer of £88 million by a whopping £11.5 million. However, it managed to spend £23 million on its pension fund.
The Irish experience is an example of how planting can be encouraged. Given similar terrain, climate and land holding structures, why is there an astonishing difference in the size of areas planted in the United Kingdom and in Eire under schemes which are not dissimilar in the amounts of money offered to farmers? The difference is most obvious when one compares
1704
Northern Ireland, which achieved only 322 hectares last year, as against Eire's 19,600. I hold a copy of the Irish scheme; it is obvious that it is much more encouraging, user friendly and simple to apply for. It is only one document. Our arrangements are a progressive series of hurdles to be surmounted to unlock payments which are guarded by three successive layers of bureaucracies, each applying different sets of criteria and rules. The simplest difference is the division of applicants into full-time, part-time and non-farmers. In Ireland 1,800 owners in total planted 12,800 hectares. In addition, Kilture planted 6,400 hectares, mostly by leasing land from farmers and paying them the annual premia. Kilture is equivalent to our Forest Enterprise, had it been privatised, and in two years has rapidly become a highly profitable organisation as opposed to a loss-making drain on the Irish Treasury.
The main financial benefit is that full-time farmers receive annual premia for 20 years and part-time and non-farmers for 15 years only. Higher afforestation payments are absorbed by higher stocking densities. That fact will make conifers an economic option, which they are not here. I agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Barber, in regard to conifers. The more equal Irish treatment is confirmed by the 70 per cent. conifer share of Irish planting. Our grant structure restricts, and in lowland England has virtually eliminated, the conifer option. Likewise, the planting of large areas (more than three hectares) is much less economic because of the new requirement to plant double the number of trees, which effectively halves the amount of WGS establishment grant. The planting statistics bear that out.
In addition, our landowner restrictions are too narrow. There are two types of landowner: the hands-on working farmer and the hands-off landowner who "share farms" or lets his land. The hands-on farmer does not want to plant his better land but is an agricultural unit. The hands-off farmer is prepared to plant his better land but often is not a defined agricultural unit. Large numbers of landowners are ruled out by one or other of these restricting criteria. The Irish have got it just right and we have got it just wrong. Our afforestation and premia are too low to bring landowners in to make the everlasting commitment, bearing in mind that the felling licence regulation to replant means that the land will probably never be allowed to be taken out of forestry and returned to other use. The long-term nature of the crop, together with cutting off the grant at year 15, makes a convincing case for not committing arable or improved grassland to trees. To take better land out of agriculture for forestry is a flawed concept. I hope that MAFF can be made to ditch these restrictions.
I should like to say a final word on the administration of the FWPS. Can we have a citizen's charter with a clear timescale for acknowledgement, inspection and approval? If the agent is named, can all correspondence not be routed through him or her?
7.44 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, I welcome the White Paper which appears to be a comprehensive report on rural

1705
England. Having lived a great deal of my life in rural areas, I realise that no village or hamlet is a static place and is changing constantly. There are many and varied reasons why a rural community can change. The loss of a school may be followed by a reduced population. People find that they are able to move nearer to another school and perhaps to shops. A change to a smaller community can have a knock-on effect. The village shop, or post office with a shop attached, may be unable to stay open. That may be a serious blow to a village where a post office-cum-shop or a village store often forms a focal point of a small community. If there is no post office often the village shop will act as a post office, grocers or newsagents. That is very important for those who have no transport.
I am glad to see from page 89 of the report that it is intended to introduce, at a suitable legislative opportunity, a new rate relief scheme that is targeted specifically on general stores and post offices in villages. There is already an existing scheme of hardship relief, and I understand that there is to be a review of how it is working. Can the Minister tell the House how long it will be before the new scheme can come into effect? The White Paper says that it will take some time, but timing is very important to small village shops.
There is a wide variety of measures in the White Paper which affect many people in rural communities, not only local authorities but rural employers, landowners, and not only residents of the countryside but those who enjoy the countryside. The White Paper points to a need for all those who are involved in the countryside to work together in preparing a co-ordinated and effective strategy, which must be for the good of rural areas. I know of one rural district council which interviewed people for the post of planning officer. They invited the applicants—I do not know how many, but quite a few—to read the White Paper and give their views and thoughts upon it. Almost all of them had quite different views. That is an interesting result, which may show how difficult it will be in some rural communities to devise a co-ordinated and effective strategy.
One area in which co-ordination can be effective is the planning and building of houses. There is an increased demand for houses. In part, this is caused by single-person households, which include elderly people who live alone and apart from their families. There are retired people who wish to live in the countryside and those with jobs in towns or cities who prefer to live in rural areas.
On page 67 of the White Paper it is said that the Government wish to make sure that local people are not priced out of the market and that the right type of housing is built for those who wish to rent, for first time buyers and those on low incomes. This is very important for agricultural workers and others who work in the countryside, for example those employed in forestry, hedging, dry-stone walling and much other work. They should be encouraged and enabled to buy their own homes. Sadly, over recent years there has been a decline in the services permanently based in villages. One reason is the increase in the number of private motorcars. This applies particularly to people who need
1706
them to get to work. People in rural areas are obviously more dependent on motorcars than those in urban areas. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, that cars are the one thing that people cling to in rural areas. For many people who live in the countryside a car is a necessity and no longer a luxury. The lack of public transport in many areas causes hardship to some. That group includes the young, sick or disabled people and, especially in the daytime, mothers with young children.
Schools and village stores are most important to village life and can form a focal point for many activities. I hope that all authorities concerned will be able to act upon many of the recommendations in this very good White Paper and will have the necessary resources to do so.
7.48 p.m.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, like all your Lordships who have spoken so far, I warmly welcome this White Paper. More than that, I welcome the Government's recognition implicit in their publication that the rural resource is faced with a number of problems. Quite rightly, the White Paper concedes that rural policy cannot be isolated from other policies, and the rural resource and its qualities must not be submerged in our predominately urban culture. Quite rightly, it promotes the concept that the vast majority of those who do not live and work in the countryside should respect the way of life of those who do and understand their different values and priorities. The corollary of these principles, that the rural resource should respect the urban, is equally true.
Why is it that at one level at least, in the face of these very worthy intentions, one cannot escape the feeling that the solutions, policies and initiatives that they promulgate—albeit one believes them to be very welcome as a first step—are but a tinkering with the margins of the problem rather than addressing its fundamentals?
I should emphasise that I pose this question in a spirit of helpfulness and not in any way as a criticism. Nor do I believe that we should perceive the ever-growing unease that is felt by country people, true country people, about their status in the scheme of things as the archetypal complaint of the errant husband that he is misunderstood by his wife. I should perhaps preface my further remarks with my conviction that I am very fortunate to be a simple country boy at heart. I am not enamoured of the urban environment and, in the main, feel somewhat uncomfortable with it. I make this point so that your Lordships are aware of the perspective from which I approach today's debate.
Additionally, and in the light of the current climate, I should perhaps advise your Lordships that I have an interest in land, albeit on the Isle of Man, and therefore perhaps somewhat outside the remit of a declarable interest. More tellingly, I also own a number of cottages in the south-east of England, which, incidentally, are all let to true country folk at less than market rents.
As I have already indicated, I sense that the White Paper, however welcome and well-meaning its intent, does little more than pay lip service to the underlying

1707
problems of the rural resource. I come to that conclusion because, in my belief, those problems have very much more to do with differences in attitude, in perception, in philosophy even, than with tangible substance. Indeed, the White Paper infers this concept on numerous occasions.
More than this, as evidenced by its very broad scope, the countryside faces this sort of dilemma; the simple problem of entrenched, and essentially urban attitudes, misconceiving its true character and needs over a multitude of issues, such as housing, transport, health care, education and so on. I go so far as to suggest that it is this more than anything else that poses the greatest threat to the survival of the rural resource. To my mind, this is also why the tragedy of rural decline, of rural malaise and discontent—and let no one doubt that these are very real phenomena—is such an intractable problem, because it is founded in individual perception and opinion rather than something more tangible and concrete, which could be addressed by the legislative process.
With your Lordships' leave, I would like to cite a small illustrative example. As your Lordships will be aware, I promoted the Dogs (Fouling of Land) Bill in this House; a measure which, incidentally, I remain convinced would make an admirable addition to the statute book. However, I do not believe that it stretches the point to suggest that, at Committee stage, I ran into a little local difficulty in persuading a number of your Lordships of its merits.
Why so? I have mulled that over in my mind, and, with the benefit of hindsight, have come to realise that the substantive objections to the Bill are to be found in its implicit presumption that urban solutions to essentially urban problems—in this particular case an attempt to protect the urban populace from the indignities to be found in encountering dog faeces—can be simultaneously applied to, even imposed on, the rural resource.
It is of course ironic that, with my stated rural credentials, I should have been, as it were, hoist with my own petard with respect to this measure. But I do not believe that that should blind me to the simple fact that such a legislative approach disallows the fundamental truth that the rural resource is different from its urban counterpart, and very different.
Recognition of this element of my little local difficulty has led me to a further conclusion. I suspect, although I am entirely happy to be disabused of this by those of your Lordships very much better versed in this area than me, that our legislative process, even the language of statute, is singularly ill-equipped to frame this fundamental distinction between town and country in law—that is to say, on the face of the Bills that are brought before Parliament. The implication of this is that there may be a very real and legitimate sense in which our democratic system is in fact failing our countryside and those who live and work in it.
I would like to expand this thought a little further. I make no bones about it. In my view, the single most destructive and most inimical influence that has preyed on the countryside in recent years is the planning
1708
system. Lest I be misunderstood, no one in their right mind would dispute the need for controls on the development in both urban and rural situations. However, the planning system has always been, and continues to be, an essentially urban-inspired and top-driven device designed to resolve essentially urban problems. In effect, the dichotomy that faces us is that, however worthy and worthwhile this need for restraint is, there is no escaping the fact that, of itself, it has done much to destroy the vibrancy of the very resource that it sought to protect.
Manifestly, in Chapter 3, Living in the Countryside, the White Paper recognises and acknowledges this. There would seem to be an acceptance that the rural planning system needs to be redefined so that the ways in which it has contrived—perhaps unwittingly and with no little help from a number of external factors, to denude the countryside of its continuity from generation to generation—can be reversed.
In this regard, talking to country folk in my own village, I can detect a restlessness; a hint that they perhaps feel in some way marginalised; perhaps even dispossessed or disenfranchised. There exists an undercurrent of opinion, albeit unstated, that they feel unrepresented. My own belief is that, were they but to express it thus, they would in fact have a wholly valid point. It is inescapable that the planning system, however strenuously it may attempt not to, tends to favour the urban at the expense of the rural.
Nor can it be said that this ethnocentric bias is confined to the planning system. It affects all aspects of rural life. Your Lordships will of course be aware of the seeming lunacy of incidents such as cockerels having noise abatement orders imposed on them and of farmers being prevented from spreading manure on their fields. Indeed, last Saturday's Daily Telegraph carried the front page headline "Moms dancers face noise ban". We can all sympathise with the concerns of the complainant in such cases, but surely it is incumbent upon our society not to sacrifice rural principles of tolerance and give-and-take so lightly on the altar of urban expediency.
There is no miracle cure for these problems. Of course I welcome the initiatives already in place and those proposed in the White Paper. However, as will be apparent from my comments, I do question whether these will address the fundaments of the dilemma facing us. The two resources, urban and rural, are of course contiguous, but I repeat that they are also distinct. It may therefore be that, as law is made in this House and in another place, we shall need to pay greater heed to the relevance and shape of such law as it affects each resource, even perhaps to the extent of enacting separate legislation to accommodate the unique characteristics of each: as it were, a Dogs (Fouling of Urban Land) Bill and a Dogs (Fouling of Rural Land) Bill.
Indeed, to a very major extent, many of the policies and initiatives of the White Paper have about them the seeds of such a strategy, as, for example, in the Government's very welcome proposal to introduce,
"a new rate relief scheme targeted specifically on general stores and post offices in villages".

1709
My personal hope, given the anxieties that I have expressed, is that the White Paper, notwithstanding the commitment with respect to PPG 7, is the precursor of a thoroughgoing review and radical rethink of the whole rural planning system, particularly towards housing and particularly in so far as it relates to the appeals procedure of, and applications from, individuals. I am also especially concerned about the methodologies that individual planning officers apply to their interpretations of general policy strands defined in structure plans and PPGs and that these often seem to reveal inconsistencies and contradictions in the decision-making process. Above all else, the planning system should pay due heed to the simple fact that the countryside is an evolutionary resource and that, in consequence, planning policies based on the more revolutionary impulses of the urban resource are antipathetic to it.
Of course, I can see that the establishment of dual threads of legislation for both the urban and the rural resource is, at many levels, far from ideal. Quite apart from any financial or definitional difficulties, it could have the effect of exacerbating the differences between town and country instead of reconciling them; of creating divisiveness where harmonious co-existence would be more appropriate. In that context there already exists an erroneous presumption that the concerns being expressed about our rural resource are simply the siren voices of vested interests pleading a special case. I repeat that it is much more fundamental than that. As the White Paper makes abundantly clear, our rural resource is our most prized national asset. We need to think very carefully about whether we want our relentless march towards an ever more urban society to damage it any more than it has already.
That brings my argument full circle. What I have endeavoured to convey today is my perception that what lies at the heart of the dilemma before us is an attitudinal impasse, the drawing of a line in the sand between the town and the country. Should our society fail to erase that line in the sand, to acknowledge and accept our rural resource for what it is—rather than for what urban perceptions and bias desire it to be—ultimately we will damage it irreparably. In some areas, such damage may already be irreversible.
In that context, I am reminded of the comments of my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal in last week's debate on the declaration and registration of interests. My noble friend intimated the sense in which your Lordships' House,
"relies on courtesy and give and take"—(Hansard, col. 1437.)
and so it is with the values of our rural resource. However redundant or unfashionable our modern world may perceive them to be, we do incalculable damage to the fabric of our society in dismissing them as an anachronistic idyll of some former age. Indeed, at this most fundamental of levels, we have very much more to learn (perhaps even relearn) from the countryside and its people than we could ever reap from the urban resource.
In conclusion, I pay tribute to the Government for having had the courage to publish the White Paper. It has been a long time coming. In common with many
1710
noble Lords, I earnestly hope that its provisions are indeed but a first step towards rethinking the position that our rural resource holds in our society. As future debate of the issue unwinds, perhaps I may express the simple and earnest plea to the nation as a whole—to paraphrase the popular song, "Please don't let our countryside be misunderstood".
8.1 p.m.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, perhaps I may echo the sentiments of many of the noble Lords who have spoken today. I am reminded of many of the points that were raised in our debate on sustainable development two weeks ago. These reflect the growing recognition that the environment is not to be regarded as a problem for one particular department or body. It should be seen as an opportunity where every government department can play an important role.
I welcome the Minister's statement during the sustainable development debate that green Ministers will take on a wider range of issues. This should identify the many opportunities that are available for different government departments to take more positive action to protect the rural environment in general, and national parks in particular.
I would like to make some brief points about the Government's approach to agriculture, especially in relation to national parks. The report mentions that MAFF will take over the countryside stewardship scheme. This scheme has proved to be very successful and like my noble friend Lord Peel I am sure that it will continue to flourish under its new managers. Nowhere is the ability to help farmers to manage the countryside positively, more important than in national parks. It is incongruous that not all farmers in national parks currently benefit from environmentally sensitive areas or countryside stewardship-style payments. I would very much welcome a commitment from the Minister that he will encourage MAFF to make all of each national park an ESA, and to ensure that the budget for stewardship (or other green farming schemes) enables all national parks to benefit.
National park authorities are ideally placed to act as one-stop shops for the delivery of agri-environment schemes. I would welcome such delegation of the running of the schemes to park authorities where this is appropriate, as has been successfully piloted in Wales. Such measures would be in line with the duty on government departments and public bodies to have regard to national park purposes under Section 62 of the Environment Act.
As a final point on agriculture, I very much welcome the Government's commitment to review the CAP in order to move away from payments for production to payments for positive environmental work. This would go a long way to enhance the quality of our national parks; for example, by reducing the damaging overgrazing which takes place in some upland areas.
To move on to the subject of rights of way, I note that page 125 of the White Paper refers to the target set out in This Common Inheritance of bringing the rights of way network into good order by the year 2000. A

1711
target which is not mentioned in the report is that of bringing the rights of way network in national parks into good order by the end of this year, and I would be grateful if the Minister could set out the action that he has taken to ensure that this target is met.
I welcome the undertaking to examine ways of dealing with the problem of four-wheel drive vehicles on byways. I fully support the Government's undertaking to take the action outlined on page 127.
Recreational use of four-wheel drive vehicles is a growing problem on byways in many national parks. National park authorities are not always able to deal with the problem effectively as some are not responsible for rights of way. The position varies between parks. In some, the highway authority (or authorities) has (or have) delegated rights of way powers; in others this has not happened. In some parks this has lead to a confusing situation; for instance, in the Peak National Park responsibility for rights of way is divided between no fewer than seven authorities.
During the passage of the Environment Act support was shown by all sides of the House for giving park authorities responsibility for rights of way. This would enable the authorities to map and manage rights of way, and to impose traffic regulation orders where this is deemed necessary due to inappropriate vehicular use. I would very much welcome a commitment from the Minister that the draft guidance which will accompany the Environment Act, will make it clear that highway authorities will be expected to delegate rights of way powers to national park authorities. While welcoming the proposals set out in the White Paper, I believe that the problem in national parks will not be solved until the park authorities are made responsible for rights of way.
On a final note, I was pleased to see reference to the fostering of understanding between urban and rural England. The second national park purpose is for the promotion of opportunities for understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the areas. I attach a great deal of importance to the word "understanding". Many of the pressures facing the national parks are due to a lack of understanding about the parks' environment and the purposes for which they are designated.
I have identified two aspects of "understanding" in the context of the parks. I refer first to the understanding of the physical environment; to answering the questions: what have we got? How does it work? What are its essential elements? Why is it important in a national or international context? Secondly, I refer to understanding the pressures that the parks face and the best ways of ensuring that the pressures are reduced. I very much hope that the Government will give the new national park authorities the necessary assistance as they continue to promote the understanding of their areas.
8.8 p.m.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, I too greatly welcome this White Paper and would like to add my congratulations to the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It much deserves the universal praise it has received.
1712
I will not detain your Lordships for long, but I should like to focus on one important issue which only gets a brief mention on page 51: alternative crops.
We all know that North Sea oil is not going to last for ever and international supplies, particularly from the Middle East, from a politically unstable source, must reinforce this Government's policy on future sources of fuel. Fuel security is vital for the prosperity of this country and therefore time and money spent on research and development for non-food arable crops is vital. We are at the moment lagging far behind our European partners in research and development. The production of bio-fuels from agricultural land must be one of the most exciting and challenging developments this century. Properly managed, it could and should make a vast difference to our balance of payments.
What must not be forgotten is that, in rotation, bio-fuels will never ever run out, as rape seed can be grown year in, year out. With proper research and development and with new varieties, the costs could be further reduced and yields increased.
I feel I, too, must declare an interest as a farmer who, for the past three years, has grown industrial oilseed rape on set-aside ground. I have to add that we get enormous pleasure out of growing a crop which is wanted and is so environmentally friendly.
Home grown bio-diesel could account for about 1 per cent. of UK diesel consumption and costs, when grown on set-aside land, 34 pence per litre to produce. If it were grown on non set-aside land, it would cost an extra 17 pence per litre; in other words, a total of 51 pence. In comparison, black diesel costs 11 pence per litre to produce before the Chancellor adds his 32 pence per litre tax, totalling 43 pence per litre. If the Chancellor were to increase the duty on black diesel tax by just 0.3 of a penny, he could then allow bio-diesel to be sold tax free and, most importantly, the Inland Revenue would be no worse off financially.
The market potential is enormous, particularly in such areas as urban taxis and buses. Indeed, my native town of Reading trialled buses on bio-diesel for four months. United Oilseeds ran three standard Rovers on bio-diesel for 12 months with amazing results. Nor must we forget the enormous advantage of the much cleaner and healthier urban environment bio-diesel could bring.
The Government have done little towards the promises they made at the Rio summit. Here is their chance. It is such a politically obvious move and one which would be extremely popular with the electorate. It seems extraordinary that the Government have not grasped this, and I just hope that they will now give it the due consideration it deserves.
8.12 p.m.
Lord Wise: My Lords, I, too, welcome this timely countryside White Paper, for it covers a wide range of rural issues, many of which have been commented upon today. However, there are one or two points that I should like to make. I share the concern expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, about the White Paper's proposal to allow councils to retain 90 per cent. of the receipts from sales of county farms. I appreciate that

1713
sitting tenants have the first option to buy, and if they are able so to do, good luck to them! They may not agree with me, but I feel that it would be a retrograde step if those farms were to be sold off to enable councils to use the assets for short-term purposes. That would undoubtedly result in a considerable reduction in the number of council holdings available to let, thereby seriously disadvantaging young farmers trying to make a start on their agriculture ladder.
I shall be grateful if my noble friend the Minister will tell me, not necessarily this evening, how many council holdings have been sold over the past few years and how many are still tenanted. I imagine that the number will vary considerably from county to county.
I turn to the environment and conservation. There is considerable concern over hedgerow removal. Most of the hedgerow removal has probably been in predominantly arable areas. By now I believe that most of the fields have been made sufficiently large to facilitate the economic use of modern machinery. There is probably little need for the removal of many more. Those that are left are essential for wind breaks and the prevention of soil erosion.
However, we must not lose sight of the necessity for good maintenance. It is essential that hedges in livestock areas especially are allowed from time to time to grow for a few years and are not trimmed continually, so that they can be expertly cut and laid. That is the only way to preserve their stockproof capabilities, something which eliminates the need to have a great deal of unsightly barbed wire all over the place. A well cut and laid thorn hedge is a truly lovely sight which greatly enhances the countryside. It also gives small birds an excellent opportunity to have safe and secure nesting places. We must accept that, as with the maintenance of drystone walls, that is a labour-intensive, costly and negative income exercise.
Hedge laying and drystone walling are both dying arts. For the preservation of our environment, which we all desire, it is essential that young people are trained in those arts. I am glad that that is happening. However, farmers cannot be expected to bear the whole cost, and that must be taken into account.
The White Paper states that rural businesses have been relatively successful over recent years and the growth of small firms higher than in urban areas, with rural unemployment generally lower than the national average. For that reason I am glad of the review of planning policy guidance to enable the re-use of rural buildings for business rather than solely for residential purposes. That view has been expressed on many occasions. Given adequate environmental safeguards, that must be a good thing, especially when it relates to rural enterprises.
Employment there will keep young people in the villages. Local communities will be alive and vibrant rather than just dormitories with daily commuting to urban areas. Village shops will continue to flourish. Long may they do so, because they are an essential part of village life. In my village the shops deliver free of charge groceries to elderly people who have difficulty
1714
getting to them. What supermarket in a town 20 miles away will do that? Our first-class local butcher used to do the same thing with his meat, but, alas, owing to some regulation from Brussels, he is now unable to do so. I can buy a joint of meat there, put it in the back of my car, and drive half-a-mile with it to my home. He is not now allowed to put a joint of meat in the back of his car and drive a quarter of a mile, or possibly less, to an elderly, disabled person. Oh no, Brussels says that he must have a refrigerated van.
I was most interested in the speech of the noble Countess, Lady Mar. We are truly fortunate to have a doctor's surgery with its own dispensary in our village. I do not know how the village would manage without it. I am grateful to it for so much. With my health problems, it does so much to keep me ticking over. I shudder to think that it may be under threat, as the noble Countess said.
My noble friends Lord Addison and Lord Norrie spoke about national parks. I welcome the Government's commitment to national parks in preparing park-wide transport management plans. A number of parks are already preparing such plans. They are a useful way of identifying priorities and setting out the kinds of actions needed to reduce the impact of traffic. Traffic congestion within the parks can be considerable, especially at peak holiday times.
I shall end by making a plea on behalf of caravanners. They desperately need to go from urban areas into the beauty of the parks. I acknowledge that at times they slow down the traffic flow, but not always continually. They arrive at their site where they stay for the whole weekend. Some national park authorities have in the past banned the use of certain sites for caravan rallies at peak times. I hope that in the new management plans that will not continue to be the case, for it seems grossly unfair. The traffic congestion remains even when the caravanners are quietly ensconced at the rally. At this stage I should perhaps declare an interest, for I have the honour to be vice-president of the Caravan Club of Great Britain. I hasten to add that that position is completely unpaid.
8.20 p.m.
Viscount De L'Isle: My Lords, at this late hour I shall not detain the House for long. Perhaps I should first declare an interest as a landowner and farmer and the fact that I derive some income as a rural sub-postmaster. I hope that in this House, as in my own, Postman Pat jokes are not permitted!
For 30 years after the end of the Second World War we suffered from a fragmented rural policy, resulting in considerable disintegration of rural communities. However, since the late 1970s we have seen a slow revival with the introduction of better planning policy, mobility of labour and new technology.
I, like so many other noble Lords, congratulate the Government on the "Rural England" White Paper since it recognises the needs and aspirations which many of us have sought for so long. My noble friend the Duke of Westminster with his report The Problems in Rural Areas addressed many of the issues now being tackled

1715
by the White Paper. We stand now at the end of the beginning and it is important that we build on the foundations set out in the White Paper and maintain the progress towards a vibrant rural economy which will help conserve and improve the English countryside for future generations.
The White Paper mentions many partnerships between private, public and voluntary sectors which have helped meet challenges. I believe that for far too long we have had the rural equivalent of megaphone diplomacy, with each sector talking loudly and mainly uncomplimentary about the others. By working in partnership we are able to resolve many challenges.
Planning is an area which inevitably creates many tensions, with those wishing to bring about change to benefits to the community being fought every inch of the way by those who are not fully aware of or who are unable to recognise the needs of the community.
Landowners should consider the voluntary introduction of a whole estate management plan which audits all the resources on their holding including, conservation, archaeology, landscape, agriculture, woodlands, housing, buildings, tourism, access and development and sets out the plan for the estate's management of these resources over a 10-year period, preferably to run in parallel with the local district plan. Consultation with the planning authority enables the officers and members to see the extent of the plans for conservation, agriculture and enabling development and to measure these against the district plan objectives. That gives all parties an overview rather than a snapshot, as happens when planning applications are produced in isolation. A whole estate management plan needs regular reviews throughout its life to take account of changes which are certain to occur. Initiatives such as this are a loose form of partnership which help to create an improved understanding and through this a better countryside.
The redrafting of Planning Policy Guidance Note 7 is welcome since there are ambiguities in the current PPG7. I refer in particular to the green belt, which enables many admirable and appropriate schemes reusing redundant buildings to be refused because they fall within the green belt. The creation of small business opportunities in the countryside will help to keep the green belt active and attractive while conserving the past in creating the future.
The changing needs of country dwellers and agricultural practices have modified the rural landscape and it will always go on evolving to meet the needs of successive generations. If it is to remain a living entity we must seek evolution not revolution. Throughout this constant change we must seek to adopt the best practices in the way in which we manage the land surface, our buildings and our work. The White Paper is illustrated with many projects set up by local people often assisted by the Rural Development Commission, which is chaired by my noble friend Lord Shuttleworth, local government private-sector companies and landowners. Those demonstrate what is achievable by communities working together. The projects, modified and replicated,
1716
are helping to transform the countryside. I very much hope that we can all build on this, helping to keep rural England a living countryside.
8.25 p.m.
Lord Dormer: My Lords, I must at the outset congratulate the Government on their excellent White Paper. It fills a great need with much ability. Also at the outset, I must declare an interest as a landowner and an owner of woodlands.
Tonight we debate something that is very precious to this country; the English countryside which, since the Enclosure Acts and the system of primogeniture in this country, has given us the unsurpassed vistas that we enjoy today. I intend to illustrate that by a new approach; that of overseas visitors to this country. What do they come to see? Certainly Buckingham Palace and Westminster Abbey and perhaps the Tower of London. But after that they visit a stately home. If it is surrounded by its own land and woods its attraction is greatly increased. It is this combination of centuries-old care and dedication on the part of the owners, together with a degree of modernisation to comply with present-day requirements, which gives it a character and beauty which is unsurpassed the world over and which brings back thousands of visitors to this country with all the revenue that that implies.
The question today is how long this wonderful position can be sustained in this century of change and development which today seeks to destroy those very characteristics which I have just mentioned. Motorway and road building are sadly at the top of the chief destroyers of the centuries-old care and maintenance of the history of this island. Once destroyed it can never be replaced.
But there is a brighter aspect. Electricity and roads have brought great benefit to our countryside and this factor must not be overlooked. However—and I say this with great emphasis—there must be a limit to both these enterprises in a sensible way if farming as we know it today is to survive. As we all know, farming brings great prosperity, contentment and peace. I beg the Government to bear that in mind before any further rape of prime agricultural land takes place, as has happened in the green belt, and to guarantee a reasonable degree of restraint in the countryside of this island, which alone can provide that perfect combination of peace, quiet and wholesome life which is the delight of those born and bred in it and which is also the delight and envy of all those who visit us in this country today.
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I hesitate to rise at the end of four and a half hours and add yet another speech for your Lordships' pleasure, I hope! I believe that I have hardly ever been present in the House when a White Paper on rural England has been so universally welcomed. That must augur well for its future, or at least I hope so. The Government must be congratulated on the first attempt by any government

1717
to review the policies affecting the countryside and the people who live and work in it. It has never been done before and it is long overdue.
In particular, I welcome the setting up of a sub-committee of the Cabinet which will be charged with ensuring steady progress in implementing the White Paper. That is a most important remit because, although the White Paper has been produced by MAFF and the Department of the Environment, it is obvious that its implementation will be of great importance to most government departments. They will all have a part to play in that implementation.
The underlying principle in the document is the acknowledgment that the most important aspect is the reform of the CAP. We all know that that is not likely to happen tomorrow; it will take some years. The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, seemed to be extremely optimistic about the future of agriculture in Europe. But my noble friend Lord Mackie voiced doubts about what will happen when the countries of eastern Europe go into production. As those countries used to supply practically the whole of Europe before the First World War, I have a feeling that they may do that again. Therefore, that will be a problem we must face.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark paid a great compliment to the farming industry. I should have declared an interest because I am a farmer and landowner in both England and Scotland. Farmers are really the gardeners of our countryside, responsible for creating the beauty we now see there. We cannot expect farmers to carry the countryside on their shoulders for our benefit. Therefore, it is right that changes should take place and that support for their environmental input should be forthcoming. But I should like that support to come from a pocket other than the pocket which supports the CAP. Support for the environment is not only support for the life and livelihood of farmers in the countryside; it is support for that which we are all able to enjoy when we go into the country.
Another matter which worries me is the fact that there is no indication in the White Paper as to where the resources are to come from. The change of emphasis to support for rural communities will not be achieved without additional finance. My noble friend Lord Beaumont called the White Paper the longest unpriced menu in the world. That is probably right. The money does not all have to come from the Government. But it is important that they should put resources behind the White Paper in order to enthuse others to collaborate.
There are aspects of the White Paper which we all welcome and which have been mentioned by many noble Lords. The proposal to allow business rate relief for village shops and rural post offices is welcome. I hope that that will apply also to farm shops and various other enterprises which take place in the countryside. But it is rather tragic that we stand here saying that we should help those businesses—village shops and post offices—when for the past 15 years government policies have resulted in the closure of such businesses which go hand in hand with each other. It is sad that the proposal
1718
did not come forward a few years ago; nevertheless, we welcome the Government's conversion to supporting those businesses.
The problem has been not only the expense of business rates but also a planning system which has allowed supermarkets to be created on green field sites. That is a tragedy. I realise that it is convenient for many people; it is however extremely inconvenient for those living in small villages who do not have a car and therefore cannot get to the supermarket.
The problem is not only one for small villages. Large supermarkets on green field sites have an affect on small towns in the countryside. There is no reason why planning should not operate on a different basis so that supermarkets are not built in green fields, taking up the countryside. They should be planned within the confines of smaller towns.
The encouragement in the White Paper for schools in rural areas to open their premises for other local activities also comes rather late. Many schools have already closed. I live in a village in Oxfordshire which had a wonderful local primary school. It has closed. While it existed it was the centre of village activity and every community organisation used it. In order for such schools to survive, it is important that the local community should make use of the premises as much as possible. It is not merely a question of small children going to their first school from the age of five until the age of 11. It is very much better for children to go to a local school as their first experience of school rather than have to go to a large school where there are several hundred children. Therefore, the community needs to use those premises. If that happened I am sure such schools could be saved.
Housing and transport in rural communities is very difficult. The White Paper highlights the problem of urban populations wishing to live in the countryside and thereby contributing not only to rising prices in housing in rural communities but also to the congestion on roads. I believe that it was the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, who mentioned that that trend does not apply in other countries but it has been so in England. The noble Lords, Lord Chorley and Lord Marlesford, mentioned that one of the reasons why people in conurbations wish to live in the countryside, apart from its beauty, is that we have not done enough to improve the cities and to make them more enjoyable places in which to live. That must be part of the whole equation because, given the choice, I am certain that there are many people, however much they like the countryside, who would prefer not to have to commute for one or two hours in the morning and again in the evening and, as a result, never see their children. The whole emphasis on reviving the rural community carries with it the need to revive also the urban community and to make use of all the possibilities that we have in the cities to improve the surroundings and to use the housing that is already there.
We very much welcome the announcement that housing associations in villages of below 3,000 population will be exempt from the need to sell to the sitting tenant. Like some other noble Lords, I question

1719
what is so sacrosanct about the figure of 3,000. I believe that it should be considered on a slightly more variable basis.
The other important fact in the White Paper is the re-use of rural buildings for businesses. We need new planning rules; we need to promote good practice; and we need to get the Department of Transport on board to ensure that access to those new businesses will not be prevented by a ban on lorries using a little side road. That has happened on many occasions about which I am aware.
The noble Countess, Lady Mar, talked about something quite different relating to rural life; namely, dispensing doctors and the problems of people living in remote, rural communities from a health service point of view. The noble Countess did not have time to talk about the impact of the new principle of community care instead of hospital care. For people in rural communities, community care means that there is no one except a member of your family to look after you. There is a very limited service. People who are looking after elderly or invalid relatives rarely get any respite or help. We are asking too much of those people. They are quite happy to do what they do but they need a break. We must make certain that that is available to them.
There was one other speech with which I was 100 per cent. in agreement. I refer to that of the noble Lord, Lord Vinson. He wanted British Summer Time to go on all through the winter. I would welcome that with open arms.
We have had a far-reaching debate today but debates do not necessarily achieve the desired goals. It all now depends on where we go from here. It is the responsibility of all of us to take the initiative that the Government have presented to us. I sincerely hope that the Government will fulfil the hopes that they have now raised in people for a future for rural England.
8.43 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, we have had a very good debate on an important subject with many excellent and well-informed speeches, none of which was better than the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hambro. I am very glad from these Benches to be able to welcome his contribution. We look forward to hearing more from the noble Lord in our future debates.
When the Government announced their intention to produce the White Paper, all of us with an interest in rural matters were enthused by the idea and looked forward with great anticipation to what we hoped would be a real understanding of real rural problems with firm proposals for future policy. However, I am afraid that I am not able to share in the encomiums which we have already heard in the debate for the White Paper.
My first reaction on reading the White Paper was to echo the immortal words of Snoopy in the Peanuts' Brown cartoon who wisely observed:
"No problem in this world is so big or so complicated that it can't be run away from".
What we actually have is a document of 146 pages with beautifully produced words and pictures, confirming in terms the Government's deeply-held belief in rural
1720
motherhood and apple pie. The Government's White Paper is, of course, not the only such document on rural policy which has been produced this year. Indeed, in April the Labour Party produced its own consultation paper, A Working Countryside. I shall return to the policy proposals of that paper a little later.
The general thrust of the White Paper can best be seen by analysing the way in which it is to be taken forward and by seeing how many firm policy commitments involving new resources are actually made. The White Paper contains a plethora of proposals to consult, discuss, invite comments upon and explore further. It also contains undertakings to review policy after further consultation and to undertake further research or surveys. I believe that those noble Lords were excessively polite who pointed out that there were no specific targets in the White Paper and that, therefore, it would be very difficult to measure progress—not accidental, I suggest.
However, I should like to congratulate the Government for producing a whole new growth industry. Many of us have retired exhausted from the seminars, the conferences and the colloquia on reform of the CAP, and those of us on the punditry circuit can see the roadshow starting again in discussions on the rural White Paper. But when it comes to firm policy commitments with a price tag attached, it is quite hard to find them. When the Minister replies to the debate, it would be helpful if he could indicate the nature of those commitments. Before the notes come from the Box, perhaps I may emphasise the importance of the words "with a price tag"; I mean real new money, not the reallocation of existing resources.
It is not possible with such a wide area of policy and in the time available to do more than comment on certain aspects. The omission of others does not mean that they are not important. Perhaps I may turn first to housing. I should declare an interest as a trustee of the Rural Housing Trust. I gave the Minister notice of the questions that I am about to ask. Obviously we welcome the proposal to exclude from the right-to-buy, or the purchase grant scheme, all housing in communities with fewer than 3,000 people. But exactly how is that to be implemented?
There is curious difference in the wording between the White Paper and the summary document. So far as I can see, the White Paper makes no mention of parliamentary approval, but that is expressly stated in the summary on page 9 which reads:
"exempt, subject to Parliamentary approval, villages of less than 3,000 from the proposed new Purchase Grant Scheme".
Do the Government intend to include appropriate clauses in the housing Bill which we are promised for the next Session? Alternatively, as the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, asked, is it to be a matter of a ministerial directive or will it require some primary or secondary legislation? On rural housing, we welcome the proposal for the village enhancement factor in housing corporation grants. But the final judgment must await the actual announcement of the grants which will show the effect of the current public expenditure round on housing expenditure generally. What we read in the press does indeed give real cause for concern.

1721
The White Paper contains some useful analysis of what might be termed the "rurality factor". To set alongside the arresting statement in Page 8 of the document that,
"There is hardly a place in [England] which would not fall within the city limits if it were in the United States",
there is the equally startling fact that, in the city state of Hong Kong, twice the percentage of the population work in agriculture as compared with Britain. Britain now has fewer people in farming than any other Western nation, with the paradox that less than 2 per cent. of the population is responsible for the upkeep of 80 per cent. of the landscape.
There is no need to labour the point regarding the changing nature of the countryside in terms of employment and those who live there. There is a great unfilled demand from those in the urban areas to move to the countryside. It is therefore essential that any government initiative affecting housing, planning, employment, education, healthcare, and the rest, should take fully into account the immense social changes that have taken place and will take place behind a deceptively placid and very beautiful landscape.
We must guard against the temptation to transpose urban life and values into the countryside. Rural areas are societies in their own right—they are not just nodes on the Internet where urban activities are conducted in pleasant rural surroundings.
The White Paper makes some interesting comments on health and social care in rural areas. In this context I draw your Lordships' attention to an excellent recent publication entitled Rural General Practice in the United Kingdom produced by the Royal College of General Practitioners. This document illustrates well the differing needs of rural communities as regards health care and draws attention to the indicators of rural deprivation which affect not only the health of the rural population but also what I would call the whole of the social matrix. Such factors as lack of local services; the high cost of living; transport problems; housing problems; and inadequate facilities produce just as many social problems in rural areas as in urban areas. All of this has an effect on the allocation of scarce resources, but the White Paper tends to steer round the problems rather than address them in depth.
The interrelationship of environmental concerns with other aspects of rural policy is a crucially important aspect of that policy. Our national parks are a fine example of protecting a national asset for quiet enjoyment by everyone. The proposed revision of PPG7 should take particular account of the need to strengthen and clarify our planning policies in rural areas, particularly in the national parks where development must be properly controlled. As the White Paper correctly states, the principles and practice learned in designated areas should be applied to the wider countryside. We can all agree that what is needed above all is proper and sensitive planning control.
I wish to discuss a few points made in the debate. I was extremely pleased to hear the warm words at the outset from the Minister as regards local authorities and
1722
the role of the parish councils. We welcome a conversion to appreciating the merits of local government after all local government has had to go through in the past 16 years. My noble friend Lady Nicol made a shrewd point when she asked about the effect of the 90 per cent. retention from sales of county farms on the spending assessment. This gives me an opportunity to make it clear that the Labour Party is opposed to the sale of local authority farms. We feel that that is a retrograde step.
The noble Lord, Lord Barber, referred to the important subject that we all discuss; namely, the major switch of funding from farm support to environmentally friendly activities. But do we know how to achieve it at farm level in a European context? One can see how to do it in this country, but I find it hard to envisage a major shift in support from commodity support to so-called environmentally friendly farming in certain other member states.
The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, said that the White Paper should be read widely in Europe. It is interesting to note that besides the expected call for reform of the CAP—with which we can all agree—there is not much mention of Europe in the White Paper. That indicates perhaps the need for subsidiarity as regards rural policy. I must declare another interest as regards the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. I am the vice chairman of the farmers' co-operative which buys the noble Lord's oilseed rape. I should add that we pay him a jolly good price for it. I agree with his remarks about bio-diesel. I believe that has great potential in crops grown for all forms of industrial use.
I referred earlier to what I described as the social matrix in the countryside. What are the facts in which this matrix is set? Between April 1990 and January 1995 the percentage increase in unemployment in urban Great Britain was 51 per cent. while in rural Great Britain it was 74 per cent. In England the percentage increase ranged from 54 per cent., in the north west to 171 per cent. in the south east. Between 1979 and 1993 homelessness more than doubled in rural Wales and rural England and increased nearly threefold in rural Scotland. In the rural part of Wiltshire where I live in the past two or three years between 215 and 260 families were classed as homeless and over 1,500 families are on the waiting list.
Recorded crime increased between 1979 and 1993 by 87 per cent. in the English and Welsh metropolitan counties compared with 144 per cent. in the English and Welsh shire counties. The deregulation of the bus service has been a disaster in rural areas. Passenger journeys have decreased by more than a quarter since 1985. I leave your Lordships to consider the likely effect of rail privatisation on rural transport and to set the statement in the White Paper that privatisation of British Rail will protect rural rail services against what has happened to rural bus services since deregulation.
I referred earlier to the Labour Party's consultation document A Working Countryside. There seems to be a curious idea in circulation that the Labour Party lacks ideas on policy. I should point out that a 26-page document with no pretty pictures contains no fewer than

1723
50 proposals for policy formulation, including a number of firm commitments. These include the phased release of the billions of pounds raised from council house sales to build more houses; full access to the information super highway for rural communities; nursery education for all three and four year-olds whose parents want it; and a national minimum wage to combat the scandal of low pay. We have of course had a minimum wage in agriculture for years. As we all know, the Government received a bloody nose when they tried to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board.
We further propose the re-regulation of the bus industry with strong licensing bodies and a system of target setting, of particular importance in rural areas; replacing GP fundholding with GP health commissioning (again this change would be particularly relevant to rural areas); the placing of a statutory responsibility on local authorities to develop policies for sport, arts and leisure; ending the sell-off of Forestry Commission woodland; and the right to roam, which is coupled with a duty of care for the countryside by all those who use it, recognising the need to protect valuable habitats, livestock and cultivated land. I find it slightly ironic that the biggest opposition to the right to roam comes from those whose personal roaming area covers many hectares.
I have listed only nine out of the 50 proposals and objectives in our paper. Time prevents me from listing the other 41. What our rural areas need is economic renewal to ensure a broad range of job opportunities; social and democratic renewal to strengthen rural communities; and the protection and enhancement of the countryside environment. The White Paper is long on analysis and short on commitment. The idea behind it was a good one but I am sorry to say that the White Paper represents an opportunity missed. However, there is a final and cheering thought. All the consultation and discussions on policy which are proposed will be translated into action by a Labour government.
8.57 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we have had an interesting debate. Many of your Lordships have made a number of interesting and pertinent suggestions and have asked a number of pertinent questions. It is remarkable that of the 35 or so speeches, almost all were in favour of the measure. The exception was the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carter who made an unnecessarily party political speech which was uncharacteristic of him. It was a snide speech denigrating all that the Government have done on this matter.
The noble Lord said that the document constituted 146 pages of rural motherhood and apple pie. The noble Lord must try better than that if he is to criticise a document which examines the subject as deeply as the one we are discussing. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said that the measure was overdue and my noble friend Lord Northesk said it was a long time coming. He was correct to say that it has been a long time coming because it has never been produced before. The fact that it has never been produced before means that the document should receive a little more commendation from the noble Lord,
1724
Lord Carter, even if that is difficult for him as I know that he must put forward the Labour Party's point of view. I do not blame him for that. But it was curious that he ended his speech by telling us what the Labour Party was going to do and mentioned its own document.
It is also strange that the one proposal for which the Labour Party document has come under appalling criticism is the right to roam. We do not believe that a right to roam is appropriate. It conflicts with other uses of land and elevates one interest above all others. As I watched the noble Lord, Lord Carter, doing sterling work on the Labour Front Bench, assisted occasionally by one or two others and at the moment by three others—I thought the Labour Party had more interest in the countryside than that—I wondered whether his colleagues had elected to exercise their right to roam already and left him on his own. Our emphasis is on bringing rights of way into good order by the year 2000. A great deal of progress has been made, especially in national parks.
I was greatly heartened by the fact that everyone welcomed the White Paper, apart from the noble Lord, Lord Carter. Even the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, welcomed it but, in passing, saying that even for this Government it was a good document. I accept that as the best that he can do in saying that it is a good publication. I was happy that he said that he recognised me on the front cover. I would have been far less happy if he had said that the lady was my wife.
A highlight of the debate was the speech of my noble friend Lord Hambro, who brought to the debate all his considerable business and agricultural experience. He spoke in most measured tones, and I hope that we shall hear him on a number of occasions in the future. He said that quangos must carry people with them. He is quite right. They must carry people with them.
I hope that your Lordships will. understand that I cannot reply to everything that has been said today. I shall try to pick out one or two of the more salient points which some noble Lords raised and answer some of the questions I was asked.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, talked about a glossy document. I make no apology for that. If one is to get anything over nowadays, when people are presented with so much information, the first thing one has to do is make a document readable. If the document is not attractive to readers it does not matter what the contents are, one does not get over the first hurdle of attracting their interest. I believe that it is right that the document is glossy.
The noble Baroness complained about the document costing £18.50. There is a less expensive summary, which has also been published by the Department of the Environment. It can be obtained from the department. It has been sent to everyone who responded to the consultation exercise and to all local authorities and parish councils. Many people have telephoned and asked for copies. So there is that alternative.
I was glad to hear the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, about bio-fuels. There is great potential there. The White Paper recognises that potential, but

1725
there is a good deal of research and development still to be done. Many people say that these things do not work. I happen to heat my house with straw. Everyone said that that would not work, but all I can say is that it jolly well does work. Therefore, I have a great deal of sympathy for the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, who hopes to pursue that aspect.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark said that the White Paper holds the ring of conflicting interests. That was a good way of putting it, because there are conflicting interests. Anything concerned with the countryside, or indeed the nation, is stuffed full of conflicting interests. We have to try to get over that problem. Therefore, I was glad when the right reverend Prelate said that the Churches will take the need to build bridges seriously. The Churches have a great part to play in rural communities. I am sure that the right reverend Prelate and his brother bishops will do the best they can in that respect.
My noble friend Lord Shuttleworth said that the White Paper moved away from conservation only into dealing with the countryside as a whole. He is right. My noble friend Lord Kimball said that change is an ally, but my noble friend Lady Macleod said that there has been no change in the village in which she was brought up. It is possible for both to be right. People do not like any change from what they have known, but over the years in the village in which my noble friend was brought up there have obviously been changes, such as the introduction of motor cars, telephones, central heating and so on. However, because change has occurred gradually one tends to take it for granted.
A number of your Lordships referred to money. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, said that there was no money. The right reverend Prelate said the same, as did the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, who described the White Paper as the largest unpriced menu in the world. So did the noble Baroness, Lady Robson. I make no apology for that. The document is an indication of the way in which the nation's efforts in respect of the rural countryside ought to develop. Enormous sums of money are being spent in the countryside at present, and indeed in the towns, whether on houses, roads or hospitals. We say that perhaps there ought to be a redirection of effort. To suggest that all this will tot up to a large bill of extra money is entirely wrong. It is the wrong way to look at this major document.
The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, asked about stewardship. Additional funding will be determined, like all expenditure, in the public expenditure survey. However, the White Paper commits us to making additional funding for countryside stewardship a priority. Two new options will be added, one targeting traditional stone walls and banks and the second targeting unimproved meadows on neutral and acid soil in lowland England.
My noble friend Lord Marlesford said that business rates will kill small businesses and that we had the ability to ameliorate the problem but had not done so. For most businesses rate bills are small in relation to total turnover but they impose a more substantial burden on the smallest businesses, in particular retail
1726
businesses. Parliament has given local authorities the discretion to reduce or remit rates where they are satisfied that the ratepayer would otherwise sustain hardship. But the practice of local authorities in operating hardship relief varies greatly. Many local authorities in rural areas give none at all. The Government will review the way in which local authorities operate the scheme and will issue fresh guidance.
My noble friend Lord Marlesford referred to the protection of agricultural land. I agree that present conditions may not last and that it is right to protect high-grade farm land from irreversible development. In individual cases it may be better to allow development on that land rather than on lower quality agricultural land which is of significance for wildlife, landscape or amenity.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and my noble friend Lord Selborne, stated that no targets were set. The White Paper sets out a strategic framework. I agree with my noble friend Lord Selborne that targets should now be developed, where appropriate, as part of the implementation of the White Paper. Next month we shall receive the report of a steering group on biodiversity and will consider its proposals including the proposed targets for improving conservation. Over the coming months we shall also consider the potential for setting targets in other areas as well.
I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and my noble friend, Lord Selborne, approved of action being undertaken at local level. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said that if local people took more responsibility, and the Government less, the White Paper will work. I believe that it requires everyone to make an effort—local authorities, local people, and Government, in their individual areas.
The noble Lord, Lord Barber, said that the pendulum had swung too far as regards trees: that we need to plant more conifers. The White Paper reasserts our commitment to multipurpose forestry including conifers as well as broadleaved woodland. The national forest, which the noble Lord, Lord Barber, proposed to the Government, will contain both. Last year's review of forestry incentives gave additional encouragement to conifer planting. That point disturbed my noble friend, Lord Astor of Hever. He said that at the present rate of planting we shall not double our woodland cover for more than 100 years. The key to a major expansion of forestry lies in changes to the common agricultural policy. Forestry needs to be able to compete for land use on more equal terms with farming. The doubling of woodland in 50 years should be possible when the necessary future changes to the common agricultural policy are made.
My noble friend Lord Kimball referred to cormorants. I sympathise with the view that he put forward. However, we are constrained by the birds directive in the Wildlife and Countryside Act. Licences can be issued only to scare and not to cull, and then only when there is clear evidence that damage is caused by

1727
cormorants. The Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of the Environment have engaged in an R&D project on whether cormorants are really a problem and, if so, how that problem can best be dealt with having full regard to all the interests concerned.
The majority of the points of concern expressed by your Lordships referred in different ways to housing, shops and planning. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, asked whether the funds from the sale of farms—it is about 90 per cent.—will result in any cut in the standard spending assessment. Any money from the sale of county farms will be treated as a capital receipt and will not affect the SSA.
My noble friend Lord Kimball said that the redundant shops in village main streets should be converted and used as housing. The new rural enhancement factor for housing association grants for rural schemes will increase the maximum costs allowable for developments. That may well encourage housing associations to consider more costly developments such as conversion of other properties for housing use. But the associations will still have to bid competitively for grants, and schemes will have to represent value for money.
The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, asked whether we could halt the drift of people away from cities into the country. I do not know what kind of dictator he thinks we are, but people have the right to go where they wish. It is not for the Government to tell people where they should or should not live. Our aim is to enable local people to remain in the countryside, to maintain balanced communities. My noble friend Lord Selborne was right to draw attention to links between the urban and rural areas. That is why we give high priority to making our cities more attractive places in which to live and so to relieve the pressure on the countryside. The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, also made that point.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, and the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, welcomed the enhancement factor and the exclusion of rural villages with a population below 3,000 from the purchase grant scheme. They wondered why there was a limit of 3,000. Our aim is to protect the supply of social housing in small rural settlements, where the cost of small scale developments is generally higher—that is why we have the enhancement factor—and also where there is the greatest difficulty in securing land for development. Hence the exclusion from the purchase grants, one of the key aims of which is also to provide replacement properties for those sold. The limit of 3,000 is consistent with the Government's and the Housing Corporation's existing rural housing programmes and it is accepted and understood for those purposes. Any increase in the population limit would have to be balanced against the interests of those tenants who would be deprived of their right to purchase their home.
The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, was concerned about the proposal for the rural business class. Local planning authorities often refuse planning applications because they fear that the business will grow and create unacceptable environmental pressures, especially from heavy goods transport. We will consult on a proposed
1728
rural business class order. This would enable local authorities to allow a planning application, subject to limitations on the transport which it generates. It should give local authorities more confidence in allowing rural enterprise to diversify.
The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, was also concerned about the flexibility on grade IIIA land and whether it would weaken its position. Grade IIIA land is protected because of its agricultural value. That can sometimes push developments on to other land which is of high environmental value. What we want is a more flexible approach so that we can take fuller account of the environmental consequences of development.
My noble friend Lord Stanley asked what mechanism we would use if we wished to allow rural housing association tenants to "staircase up"—another awful jargon word—to 100 per cent. I am sure that my noble friend knows exactly what "staircasing up" is, I think that you staircase up in the same way as you "ratchet". The phrase means to increase from the shared ownership of, say, 60 per cent. by the tenant and 40 per cent. by the housing association to sole ownership; in other words, a 100 per cent. by the tenant, in a series of small steps. At present, the staircase stops at 80 per cent. As my noble friend Lord Stanley—who is a wag—would say, you then come to the landing. I can assure my noble friend that we have no proposals to allow rural housing association tenants to increase the amount from which they can staircase up, from 80 per cent. to 100 per cent.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, and my noble friends Lord Stanley and Lord Peel were concerned about how the 3,000 settlement exclusion would work and how it could be altered. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, rightly surmised, the housing Bill will include a provision for the Secretary of State to designate rural areas by order. We will want to consult local councils and housing associations before the statutory instrument is made. Defining the areas will be a challenge. In identifying the settlements we will start with the Housing Corporation's Rural Gazetteer, based on the 1991 census material. In putting that into clear geographical terms for the order we will probably list parishes containing settlements of fewer than 3,000 and include maps, where necessary. We realise that the order will need periodic updating.
My noble friend Lord Peel mentioned local shops, and the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, said that government policies have closed the shops down in the villages. I thought that that was a remarkable suggestion. In fact, the shops were closed down because people do not use them, as my noble friend Lord Peel said. They like to go off to the supermarkets and do all their buying there because it is quicker and cheaper. They like to go to the village shop to buy the loaf of bread that they have forgotten, but they find that the village shop is not there because they did not support it. I do not believe that government policies closed the shops down but government policies have tried to enable them to live on in a better condition.
My noble friend Lord Norrie asked that the revised PPG7 should include a clear statement that the wider countryside should be given greater weight in the consideration of development plans and development

1729
control. The rural White Paper states that we need to find new ways of enriching the quality of the wider countryside. Local planning authorities should place more emphasis on identifying the particular characteristics of the local countryside which need to be respected or enhanced. We will incorporate that approach in the revised Planning Policy Guidance Note 7.
My noble friend Lord Nome asked that the proposed emphasis on commercial re-use of redundant agricultural buildings would not be interpreted as a signal that all such developments would be acceptable in planning terms. The position is that the existing Planning Policy Guidance Note 7 makes it clear that proposals for the re-use of rural buildings may not be acceptable, if their form, bulk and general design are not in keeping with their surroundings or if there are legitimate objections on environmental or traffic grounds. We intend to include similar safeguards in the revised Planning Policy Guidance Note 7.
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, asked whether it was an accident that the first reference under "sustainable Development" on page 145 was to:
"enable rural businesses to develop and contribute to the national economy".
I can tell him that it is no accident. Page 9 also makes it clear that:
"meeting the economic and social needs of people who live and work in rural areas, ensuring that rural businesses are as efficient and competitive as they can be"
is an essential and vital ingredient of sustainable development.
The noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, asked when would we introduce the rate relief for village shops. I was glad that she supported that move. We shall consult as soon as possible on the detail of those proposals and bring legislation in front of Parliament in due course.
My noble friend Lord Northesk asked about the planning system. He said that it marginalised country people and that the decisions were inconsistent. The planning system is operated at local level by local authorities. The planning system provides full opportunities for public participation in preparing the development plans. Those who live in the countryside should take full advantage of these opportunities. The development plan provides the framework for consistent
1730
planning decisions. We have made it mandatory for local authorities to prepare development plans for their areas.
My noble friend Lord De L'Isle said that it was too difficult to obtain planning permission for re-use of buildings in the green belt. Noble Lords will find that the revised version of Planning Policy Guidance Note 2, which we published earlier this year, makes it easier to obtain planning permission to reuse existing buildings in the green belt.
There have been a number of quite detailed questions and I may not have answered all of them, in which case I shall look through them and if necessary write to noble Lords. But it is a fact that we live in one of the most urban countries in Europe. In fact, only the Netherlands has a greater proportion of urban areas than we have. Therefore it can be very easy to forget that about 20 per cent. of England's population lives in the countryside. In the White Paper we have tried to recognise the needs and aspirations of rural England and put into place policies which will secure a good quality of life for people in the countryside today.
This is the beginning. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, said that it was all full of consultations and discussions. My word! He would not half have given me stick if I had said that there were going to be no consultations and no discussions and that the Government would plonk it all on top of Parliament and the countryside whether or not they liked it. I realise that his speech had a twist in the tail. He could not help that. After all, it is his business.
I am grateful to noble Lords for the support in general—very much in general—which has been given to this Motion. It is a very important area. We want to try to get the matter right. Governments do not have all the solutions. In the end, it is up to people to make it right. I commend the Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Medical (Professional Performance) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.

Criminal Injuries Compensation Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes past nine o'clock.

  Sri Lanka
  Sri Lanka
  Overseas Development Administration: Education Expenditure
  Overseas Development Administration: Education Expenditure
  Ascension Island and Diego Garcia
  Ascension Island and Diego Garcia
  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
  European Convention on Human Rights: Protocol No. 9
  European Convention on Human Rights: Protocol No. 9
  Council of Europe and WEU Assemblies: Report of UK Delegation
  Council of Europe and WEU Assemblies: Report of UK Delegation
  Paternity Leave in the EU
  Paternity Leave in the EU
  Overseas Development Administration: Cash Limit
  Overseas Development Administration: Cash Limit
  Human Rights Treaties: Duty of Compliance
  Human Rights Treaties: Duty of Compliance
  Lloyd's Solvency
  Lloyd's Solvency
  Oxford Prison
  Oxford Prison
  Asylum Applications: Short Procedure Pilot Scheme
  Asylum Applications: Short Procedure Pilot Scheme
  Asylum Applications from Nigerians: Refugee Council Report
  Asylum Applications from Nigerians: Refugee Council Report
  Asylum Applications: Refusals
  Asylum Applications: Refusals
  Charity Commissioners
  Charity Commissioners
  Citizens of Former Yugoslavia: Temporary Protection Places
  Citizens of Former Yugoslavia: Temporary Protection Places
  Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme: Structured Settlements
  Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme: Structured Settlements
  Electronic Monitoring
  Electronic Monitoring
  Organophosphates: Chronic Toxicity
  Organophosphates: Chronic Toxicity
  Hypothermia
  Hypothermia
  Prostate Cancer: NHS Research Priorities
  Prostate Cancer: NHS Research Priorities
  US War Loan: Repayments
  US War Loan: Repayments
  Social Security Expenditure: Effects of Policy Change
  Social Security Expenditure: Effects of Policy Change
  "Budgeting for Food on Benefits"
  "Budgeting for Food on Benefits"
  Asylum Seekers: Welfare Benefits
  Asylum Seekers: Welfare Benefits
  Average Earnings and Pensions: Increases since 1980
  Average Earnings and Pensions: Increases since 1980
  Meat and Live Animal Exports
  Meat and Live Animal Exports
  European Council, 26 October
  European Council, 26 October
  Reserve Forces: Doctors and Consultants
  Reserve Forces: Doctors and Consultants
  HELIOS II Programme
  HELIOS II Programme
  Anglo-American Mutual Defence Assistance Agreement
  Anglo-American Mutual Defence Assistance Agreement
  "No Day Named" Motions and Questions
  "No Day Named" Motions and Questions
  Armed Service: Medical Staff
  Armed Service: Medical Staff
  Stirling Corporation (Water etc.) Order Confirmation Act 1922
  Stirling Corporation (Water etc.) Order Confirmation Act 1922
  Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993: Releases
  Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993: Releases
  Seat Belt Wearing
  Seat Belt Wearing
  Dover, Ipswich and Tyne: Privatisation
  Dover, Ipswich and Tyne: Privatisation