Sitting of 26 October 1995

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

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [26 June]
  Debate to be resumed on Thursday 2 November

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Interviews (Tape Recording)
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to require that all interviews between police and suspects should be tape recorded; and if he will make a statement. [36899]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): All interviews in police stations in Northern Ireland designated in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 are tape-recorded where the facility is available. Electronic recording of interviews with terrorist suspects is currently being considered following my right hon. and learned Friend's announcement on 12 June in the debate on the renewal of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991.
    Mr. Mullin: I am glad to hear that some progress is being made. I know that the Royal Ulster Constabulary is not keen on tape recording, but it is about time the Minister stood up to it. If he is looking for some sort of concession that shows a return to normality in Northern Ireland and that would enjoy the support of all reasonable people of all political persuasions, is not the tape recording of interviews with suspects, whether terrorist or otherwise, an obvious one?
    Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has pursued that issue consistently for some time. I fully understand the nature of his concern. There is much merit in proceeding with that development. As I have said, it is being considered, and I hope that good progress will be made in due course.
    Mr. Worthington: The Minister will agree that it is very important to keep up the momentum of the peace process. The lack of progress on all-party talks is frustrating, but there are other tracks that we should be pursuing, including the justice system. Before the recess, the Minister announced a review of the emergency legislation, but we still do not know who is to head it or
    1128
    the terms of reference. There was also a statement about a White Paper on the police. On both those points, could the Minister tell us what progress is being made and what time scales are involved?
    Sir John Wheeler: I am glad to be able to tell the House that the Government are aiming to start the independent review of the continuing need for anti-terrorist legislation in the United Kingdom, including the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act and the Prevention of Terrorism Act, as soon as possible. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is taking the lead in this, but I hope that it will be possible to announce the name of the reviewer and the commencement date in the very near future.
    On the hon. Gentleman's second point, I very much hope that the White Paper on the tripartite structure of the policing system in Northern Ireland will be published before Christmas.

    Inward Investment and Tourism
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of investment inquiries and tourist statistics since the ceasefire. [36900]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Ancram): The statistics are most encouraging. They show a threefold increase in the number of United States investors visiting Northern Ireland since the ceasefires. Tourism figures are even better now than we estimated at the end of June: the first eight months of 1995 saw a 68 per cent. increase in holiday visitors compared with the same period in 1994.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: I am delighted to welcome those agreeable trends, which are clearly the direct result of the brave initiative taken by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. Relative tranquillity has now been restored, a tranquillity that those of us who served in Northern Ireland in the early part of the 1970s, the bad old days, doubted would ever come about. Although the House will recognise that it is a sensitive issue, does my hon. Friend agree that any significant dilution of the pre-conditions for the next stage of peace talks could put these marvellous achievements at risk?
    Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments and very much take his points, given his experience in Northern Ireland. I certainly agree that prosperity, and increases in prosperity, both in terms of inward investment and tourism, will greatly depend on stability in the Province. At the end of the day, that stability can be underpinned only by confidence. Of course we will take seriously any areas where confidence has to be created or could be diminished by other actions.
    Mr. Clifford Forsythe: The Minister is aware that all visitors to Northern Ireland are given a warm welcome. Does he agree that it would be a good idea for the Department of Economic Development, the tourist board and others, including the planning service, to co-operate with one another to provide more accommodation? Will he investigate allegations that Department of the

    1129
    Environment plants are discharging pollution into rivers, which is certainly discouraging fishermen from visiting Northern Ireland as tourists?
    Mr. Ancram: On the last point, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary responsible for the Department of the Environment is sitting on the Front Bench and I am sure that he will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said. Talking about the need to look at providing further accommodation in Northern Ireland is indeed a problem of success. It is also indicative that the tourist board estimates a doubling of holiday visits by 1997, possibly creating as many as 8,000 additional jobs by 1997–98. Some 30 projects to do with accommodation are currently being assisted by the Northern Ireland tourist board and another 24 are in an advanced state of negotiation, totalling £62 million of investment. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will see that, while the problems of success are hard, they are meetable.
    Mr. Tim Smith: Does my hon. Friend support the ambitious targets set by the Northern Ireland Growth Challenge of achieving a 10 per cent. growth in exports, a 5 per cent. growth in gross domestic product and 60,000 new jobs in Northern Ireland by 2000? If so, will the Government work with the private sector to achieve those objectives?
    Mr. Ancram: Certainly, the Government will work closely with the private sector to try to achieve not only those objectives but the best objectives possible. It is interesting to note that the Coopers and Lybrand review published on Tuesday showed that the Northern Ireland economy had out-performed most other regions in the United Kingdom, and predicted that if the ceasefires hold, the potential for Northern Ireland's economy will be higher than it has been for three decades.
    Mr. McGrady: We all share the Minister's delight at the tourist boom with the first summer season of the ceasefire. He is possibly well aware that a gross under-provision of beds and accommodation requires urgent attention. What specific action do the Minister and the Department intend to take to eradicate the enormous amount of red tape and raise the low level of bed and breakfast provision? Will he provide some additional resources—human and financial—to the Northern Ireland tourist board in order to expedite the other projects that he has mentioned, which very often in my experience are bogged down in negotiation? Could he in some way streamline the process? Next summer we hope to have twice as many visitors, and where will they sleep?
    Mr. Ancram: As the hon. Gentleman has heard, we are very much aware of the nature of the problem, which is caused by success. One of the problems that has arisen as a result of growth in Northern Ireland is pressure of applications on Departments and agencies, which has increased commensurately. Obviously, steps are being taken to try to ensure that applications are dealt with as speedily as possible. Wherever possible, the Northern Ireland tourist board is trying to help facilitate such developments.
    Mr. Viggers: Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the increased investment intention of Montupet, which intends to expand its factory in west Belfast? Does he agree that that is a justification of a
    1130
    brave decision and that in the calmer climate in Northern Ireland, there are now excellent investment opportunities throughout the Province?
    Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and would certainly give the same words of encouragement. Indeed, in March the Secretary of State visited Montupet in France. Montupet and others, such as Daewoo Seagate, Dae Ryung industries, from Korea, and Fruit of the Loom have between them created an enormous amount of inward investment over the past nine years, totalling more than £1,678 million in Northern Ireland alone. I certainly support and encourage such investment—the more the better.
    Mr. Dowd: I, too, welcome the improvements suggested by the figures that the Minister has given. It is common ground that economic development is a parallel strand of the peace process and is critical if we are to ensure that any settlement will endure. As the role of the Government is vital in sustaining and promoting that development, will the Minister assure the House that he and his colleagues will do all that they can to protect their departmental budgets from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's frantic attempts to find spending cuts, in the vain hope of bribing people with their own money in advance of the next election, and that Northern Ireland Ministers will continue to support that essential investment in peace?
    Mr. Ancram: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his elevation to the Front Bench, and welcome him on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box. We look forward to many more such appearances. On behalf of both myself and my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office, I can assure him that we are always anxious to ensure not only that we secure adequate resources but that we use them in the best practical way for the benefit of the people of Northern Ireland.

    Paramilitary Groups
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on disarming the paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland. [36902]
    Mr. Ancram: No arms or equipment in the hands of paramilitary groups have been decommissioned to date. There is, however, no place for unlawfully held arms in a democratic society. In order to create the necessary trust and confidence for all-party talks to proceed, the Government believe that progress on the issue is essential. I believe that that progress can and will be made.
    Mr. Townsend: Can the Minister assure the House that the sensible suggestions about decommissioning made by the Secretary of State in his Washington speech earlier this year have not been watered down in any way by the events of the summer? Will he tell us what international support he expects for the decommissioning process at present?
    Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I can certainly assure him that the so-called three Washington criteria not only remain in place but represent the only way that the Government can see of creating the confidence to enable all-party talks to proceed. That, after all, is the bottom line. We are now considering, with the

    1131
    Irish Government in what is known as a twin-track initiative, the setting up of an international body to examine the ways in which decommissioning might take place. International influence would, of course, be present there.
    Mr. Maginnis: Is it not a major hindrance that the IRA approaches disarmament merely in terms of its guns and explosives, totally failing to address the moral and ethical aspects of the issue? Can the Minister reassure us that his approach clearly reflects society's justifiable expectations, or is there a danger that he is restrained within the parameters that dictate IRA-Sinn Fein's approach?
    Mr. Ancram: We are talking not only about the IRA arms but about unlawfully held weapons in the hands of all paramilitaries, from whichever part of the spectrum they come. The hon. Gentleman will have heard me say in my original answer that there is no place for unlawfully held arms in a democratic society. The security forces continue to search out, and where possible recover, such weapons. If the hon. Gentleman needs what he said about the morality of the position to be underlined, I can tell him that the vast majority of people not only in Northern Ireland but in the Republic of Ireland, have expressed in survey after survey their desire to see the arms taken out of the equation.
    Rev. William McCrea: Bearing in mind the terrorist credentials of Adams, McGuinness and McLoughlin and their refusal to condemn IRA violence, does the Minister have any firm foundation for believing that the IRA ever intends to surrender its arsenal of weapons of murder and destruction? Far from disarming, is it not true that the IRA is regrouping, recruiting, and restocking, and that it is training its forces? Surely such actions speak volumes about IRA intentions—much more than their propaganda soundbites for American consumption. Who is being fooled by the whole exercise?
    Mr. Ancram: I fully appreciate the hon. Gentleman's personal experience of IRA violence—the whole House is conscious of it. The bottom line is that we must have a situation in which all parties can come together to discuss and negotiate the future of Northern Ireland. To achieve that, we must create an environment of confidence that will allow all parties to come to the table. We have made it clear that we do not believe that those circumstances of confidence will exist until the question s of decommissioning arms has been addressed in the way set out by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State in Washington.
    Dr. Hendron: An integral part of the problem of disarming paramilitaries is the question of prisoners. The Secretary of State will understand that there cannot be meaningful discussion of the peace process while the plight of prisoners is ignored—whether they be loyalist or republican, in Belmarsh, the Maze or Magilligan. I therefore ask him, and the Home Secretary, to give urgent consideration to the plight of prisoners. I can assure him that thousands of people in west Belfast, in the Catholic Falls road and in the Unionist Shankill road, would be very grateful for such action.
    Mr. Ancram: I hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say. As he knows, I do not have responsibility for prisoners, but my right hon. and learned Friend and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will have heard the
    1132
    hon. Gentleman's remarks. He must accept, however, as we have said many times, that there are no such things as political prisoners in any part of the United Kingdom. Those in prison are serving terms of imprisonment for committing crimes.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: In addition to the issue of arms, will the Minister confirm that it is about time that the paramilitary groups dealt with the question of beatings and bodies? They should stop going in for vigilante justice and say where the bodies of people whom they have murdered are, so that the victims' families can know where to find them.
    Mr. Ancram: I very much support what my hon. Friend has said. There is genuine resentment and grievance about the fact that relatives and friends have disappeared with no account of where their bodies are—that must certainly be dealt with. A question that we may reach later today relates to punishment beatings, so I shall leave it to the Minister of State to respond in due course.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Has the purchasing of decommissioned equipment from the paramilitary forces ever been considered? I understand that there has been a great deal of experience of that in various parts of the world.
    Mr. Ancram: What is important is not how weapons are disposed of but the fact that they are disposed of. The British Government have made it clear that we want those weapons taken out of commission in a way that will prevent their being used for political ends in future. In the course of that process, all ways of disposing of the weapons which can achieve that objective can be considered.

    Peace Process
    Sir Thomas Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the peace process in Northern Ireland. [36903]
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are his intentions for the next stage of the peace process. [36904]
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his latest assessment of the prospects for peace. [36908]
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: Northern Ireland continues its welcome return towards normality. There is still a long way to go before a true peace and a democratic settlement are reached. The Government intend, however, to develop the substantial progress already made by steadfastly pursuing their policies, which are already well known to this House.
    Sir Thomas Arnold: Will my right hon. and learned Friend now take further steps to reassure the Unionist parties of the integrity of the Government's intentions?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I hope that no further reassurance on that is necessary. The Government's position has been made consistently and abundantly clear over a long time. I have just given an undertaking of our steadfast determination to pursue it.
    Mr. Hughes: On a specific point, given the good reputation of the five education and library boards for

    1133
    promoting co-operation across the community boundaries, can the Secretary of State assure the House that consideration has been given to whether the proposal to reduce the number of boards to four—for financial reasons, as I understand it—will not have the disadvantage of making the boards far more segregated and far less able to do the very good job that they have done in the past?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: The proposal is under discussion with the parties. That is the first way in which the matter should be examined, and that is what has happened.
    Mr. Hain: Does the Secretary of State agree that prison issues are important in building the trust and confidence needed to carry forward the peace process? Given the new arrangements from 1 November, will he specifically urge the Home Secretary to expedite prison transfer requests so that they go through without unnecessary bureaucratic delay? Will the Secretary of State examine, on compassionate grounds, the case of Patrick Kelly, who is in Whitemoor? He is seriously ill with cancer and wishes to transfer to the Irish Republic, where he can be near his family.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: The offender whose name has just been mentioned is within the jurisdiction of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, as the hon. Gentleman knows. My right hon. and learned Friend will have heard what the hon. Gentleman says. It is worth reminding the House that ratification by the Irish Government of the European convention will take effect only from 1 November. Our own country ratified it several years ago—I think in 1984. Thereafter, it has to be a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to consider,, in the light of individual circumstances, whether it is appropriate to repatriate, if that is requested, a prisoner to the Republic of Ireland, where he or she is domiciled. I am certain that those matters will be examined by the two relevant Ministers in Dublin and London.
    Mr. Bellingham: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the peace process is not helped by crimes such as the one that took place today, in which a 16-year-old girl was dragged out of her house by paramilitaries in Twinbrook, beaten up and covered in paint? Will he condemn that crime and make every effort to ensure that the perpetrators are brought to justice?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I condemn that, as everyone in the House will condemn similar brutal beatings. There is no need for the Royal Ulster Constabulary to be encouraged to try to bring those people to justice and to prevent similar crimes from taking place. I agree with the words with which my hon. Friend began his question.
    Mr. Trimble: Is it not the case that, following the action by the Irish Republic last month in giving way to the threats of violence from Sinn Fein-IRA, it is extremely unlikely that the necessary confidence can be created for talks in the near future? In the light of that, is not the best way forward to take up the suggestion made by Unionist parties that there be an elected body so that parties to any future negotiations can obtain a mandate and, in the interval, debate and investigate issues relevant to future negotiations?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his accession to the leadership of his party.
    1134
    This is the first time that we have had the occasion to do that and to say that his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), was held in great affection by all in the House. We do not doubt that the hon. Gentleman's tenure will be just as distinguished.
    I do not accept the words with which the hon. Gentleman began his question. I do not accept the conclusion that he drew from them. I should like to assure him that the Government are committed, with the Irish Government, to promoting the concept of a twin track or parallel approach. We believe that it is important that all relevant parties and future participants in the negotiations to which we all look forward should have the opportunity to sit down and talk. One of the solutions that the hon. Gentleman and his party hold to is a form of assembly. It is an interesting solution and one which we hope could usefully be discussed in the talks which form the political track. So I hope that that may be a means by which that interesting and possibly fruitful suggestion may be ventilated and explored.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that it is Government policy shortly to introduce remission of 50 per cent. on prison sentences for terrorist offences? If that is so, how can he square it with the life sentences that are served on grieving relatives, for whom there can never be any remission?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the continuing effects of such serious crimes. I thought it right to point that out when I made a speech at Queen's university Belfast on 25 August, setting out the Government's policy on restoring to pre-1989 levels the point in sentence at which an offender is released, if he or she is convicted of a scheduled—that is to say a terrorist—offence and sentenced to five years' imprisonment or more. In 1989, that category of prisoner had entitlement to remission reduced from 50 per cent. to one third, by reason of the need at that time for a greater deterrent factor. As I said in August, the Government believe that current circumstances warrant a restoration of that pre-1989 position. I believe that to be the case and I shall be recommending it to the House. We shall have to see what it has to say.
    Mr. Mallon: I also congratulate the new leader of the Ulster Unionist party, the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and wish him well, as I wish his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), a happy retirement.
    Does the Secretary of State agree when I say that I hope that the semantic phase of the peace process will soon be over, and we will stop worrying to death words such as clarification, permanence and decommissioning, as they have clouded the issue and the two central problems? The first is how we rid Northern Ireland politics of arms for ever and the second is how we set up the type of political arrangements and structures upon which to build a peaceful future.
    Will the Secretary of State accept from me that most people who share those objectives fully support the twin-track approach as being the only viable way to deal with those two objectives? Will he also tell the House what alternatives have been presented to him by others who might disagree with that twin-track approach?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the twin-track approach, which represents

    1135
    perhaps not the only but the best way forward in this difficult position. I very much agree with what my hon. Friend the Minister of State said about the overriding necessity of confidence being established. There is no point in calling a conference to negotiate the political future of Northern Ireland, when it is certain that a number of chairs will be empty. That would destroy the very process on which all future progress depends.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. and learned Friend understand that he enjoys massive support on the Conservative Benches for the firm line that he and his team have taken on the decommissioning of arms? Is he aware that that sends messages to all those throughout the United Kingdom who may be tempted into that kind of activity, particularly the lunatic fringe of the narrow nationalists in Scotland?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's expression of support. It is necessary to hold to a proper analysis of a very difficult problem and to hold steadfastly to a properly formulated policy for dealing with it. That is what the Government intend to do and I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support.
    Ms Mowlam: As the House has shown, we are at a delicate time in the peace process. The Secretary of State has just argued that building trust and confidence is central to the process, which is why we support the remission legislation on Monday as timely and why paramilitary decommissioning must be addressed. However, can the Secretary of State do all that he can to encourage the implementation of Government policy on prisoner transfers and will he consider expanding the twin-track approach to add a track on reconciliation, focusing on a bill of rights?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I think I should rather leave the question of a Bill of Rights until later: there are interesting arguments to be advanced on both sides.
    Prisoners who commit serious offences in a particular jurisdiction must normally expect to serve their sentences within that jurisdiction according to law. Where there is an international conference or a European convention, it depends on the individual circumstances whether a prisoner will be transferred in accordance with that convention. I have already said that the jurisdiction over a number of prisoners whose names are in the news at the moment rests with the Home Secretary.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Further to the remarks of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the vast majority of those of us who believe in the historic integrity of the United Kingdom have enormous admiration for the courageous initiative and persistence of the Prime Minister and for the diligence and patience that my right hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend the Minister of State have been showing over many months?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: We are all grateful for anything of that character passed our way.
    Mr. McNamara: I join the House in welcoming the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) to his new position. He has a difficult act to follow. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) is no longer leading his party.
    1136
    Will the Secretary of State give the House the terms of reference of the new international commission that is to police the problem of decommissioning, and has he now secured the full agreement of all the main parties to the twin-track approach?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: Both Governments consider that there is a lot of promise in the idea of an international commission, comprised as it has been suggested, as forming the first of the two twin tracks that have been mentioned several times today. The terms of reference are not yet formulated. I believe that there is a wide body of support for this approach.

    Paramilitary Groups
    Mr. Connarty: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what actions are being taken to stop paramilitary groups acting in a policing role in the communities of Northern Ireland. [36905]
    Sir John Wheeler: Savage assaults, expulsions and intimidation by terrorist thugs have nothing to do with policing, or justice or democracy. Such actions are against the law and are wholly unacceptable to the Government and to the community at large. The Royal Ulster Constabulary will investigate all such cases, and when evidence is available place offenders before the courts.
    Mr. Connarty: I thank the Minister for that partial reply. Does he accept there have been at least 200 beatings by the IRA and the Ulster Volunteer Force in Northern Ireland since the ceasefire? Is he aware that last Wednesday the Northern Ireland youth parliament voted that men of peace should be prepared to discuss and negotiate with the men of violence? Many people gave the impression that rather than decommissioning being the problem, paramilitary beatings were the symbol of the lack of peace in their communities.
    Will the Government point out to the paramilitaries that the beatings go on in contravention of paragraph 10 of the Downing street declaration? Will the Minister demand from the IRA and the Progressive Unionist Party a condemnation of such beatings before any further progress is made in talks with those groups? Will he take seriously the suggestions for curtailing beatings made by Families Against Intimidation and Terror in Northern Ireland?
    Sir John Wheeler: Between 1 September 1994 and 15 October 1995, 218 so-called punishment beatings have taken place, attributed on the basis of 85 to the so-called loyalist gangs and 133 to Republican groups. I endorse what the hon. Gentleman said. There is no case for this tide of violence in Northern Ireland. It robs the community of confidence in the peace process and it stops the political development of the process. I use this opportunity once again to call on all who have influence over those matters to condemn it and to see that it is stopped.
    Mr. Illsley: Labour, too, condemns the so-called punishment beatings, particularly the most recent action, which has already been referred to. Does the Minister agree that, if the responsible organisations were to put a stop to those beatings, it would reinforce their democratic credentials? Does he believe that he is doing all that he can to stop these appalling attacks?
    Sir John Wheeler: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment to the Labour Front Bench as a

    1137
    shadow Northern Ireland Office spokesman. I endorse what he says: there is no excuse for expulsions, punishment beatings, racketeering and intimidation. They are against the rule of law and I assure the House that the Royal Ulster Constabulary will do its utmost to investigate such crime and bring offenders before the courts. Arrests are being made but the hon. Gentleman is right to say that those who have influence must bring that influence to bear if that evil tide is to end.

    Security Situation
    Mr. Molyneaux: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland. [36906]
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I shall continue to be advised by the Chief Constable on the security response warranted by a reduced but continuing threat of violence, and I shall act on that advice. Proscribed paramilitary organisations continue in active existence. Brutal beatings and arson attacks remain a cause of particular concern.
    Mr. Molyneaux: As Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary concluded this week that the Royal Ulster Constabulary "is efficient and effective", will the Secretary of State assure us that resources will be made available to counter general serious crime, which can be expected to increase following the reduction in terrorist crime?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I have always made it clear, as has my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, that appropriate resources must be made available to the RUC. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, a fundamental review is in progress and it is important that sufficient resources should be made available to counter non-terrorist crime, which, in some categories, is rising.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, given the markedly improved security situation, it would be ironic, to say the least, if Queen's university air squadron, Belfast, the town headquarters of which were destroyed at the height of the troubles, should now be closed? In considering representations, will he bear in mind that it would be wrong for that university air squadron and the Air Experience Flight to be closed uniquely among such institutions in the country?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I know my hon. Friend's association with the Royal Air Force and the regard in which those units are held, but this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, who must take some harsh decisions in difficult economic circumstances.

    Marches and Parades
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will take steps routinely to reroute marches and parades where these are to go through areas where the residents do not wish them. [36907]
    Sir John Wheeler: The routing of parades is an operational matter for the police, who are best placed to make decisions. They do so in consultation with parade organisers and local people, and significant progress has been made over recent years in eliminating the problems arising from certain controversial parades. Of more than
    1138
    3,000 parades so far this year, only 11–0.3 per cent.—were classified by the RUC as having resulted in disorder, while just over 20 have been subject to rerouting requirements or had other conditions imposed by the police.
    Mr. Prentice: The Minister admits that at least some marches are provocative, triumphalist and put communities under siege. What happened in July at Portadown was an absolute disgrace. How can the peace process survive such atavism, blood-curdling speeches and calls to arms by the Ulster Unionists?
    Sir John Wheeler: Some parades—very few—result in controversy and difficulty. It must be said that some of those difficulties arise because of the activities of Provisional Sinn Fein and others. It is the duty of the police to keep the peace and the function of the police to negotiate with the local community to ensure that the peace prevails.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister accept that a degree of ignorance was manifested in that question? Does he recognise and agree that the troubles come from those people who sought to turn Northern Ireland upside-down this year, beginning with the attacks during the Prime Minister's visit to Londonderry? Will he acknowledge that there was no parade on the Ormeau road when Mrs. Hughes and others were intimidated disastrously as a result of the actions of elements in that community?
    Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. There is no excuse whatsoever for any violence or criminal wrongdoing, as the House agreed earlier regarding the so-called punishment beatings. It is also true, as the hon. Gentleman says, that some people have a vested interest in trouble.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Lidington: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 26 October. [36929]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Lidington: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to reaffirm his opposition to terrorism and, in doing so, make it his policy to condemn unreservedly the selection by the Labour party in Exeter of a self-confessed terrorist as its candidate? Does not that action illustrate most clearly that the Labour party is utterly unfit fix. government?
    The Prime Minister: I am wholly opposed to any act of terrorism, and I have no doubt that the majority of people in Exeter will feel the same.
    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister confirm that the changes in housing benefit revealed today will mean that thousands of vulnerable people—pensioners, disabled people and families with young children—will lose help

    1139
    and be confronted with poverty or eviction? How can that possibly be fair? Is it not the clearest evidence of the Conservative party's lurch to the right and the death of one nation conservatism?
    The Prime Minister: Indeed it is not. My party remains in the centre of politics, and that is where it will always be. The right hon. Gentleman's outrage is rather artificial because he obviously believes that this morning's story was a leaked document: in fact, it relates to measures approved by the House last July.
    Mr. Blair: The question is whether the measures are right. If the problem is the soaring housing benefit bill, does the Prime Minister accept that that bill has increased under his Government as a result of Government policy? Housing benefit has increased as housing investment has been slashed.
    If the problem, as was suggested by the Secretary of State for Social Security, is private landlords charging excessive rent, is not it sensible to tackle that problem head-on instead of using vulnerable and innocent tenants as pawns to clear up a mess of the Government's own making?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. If he had spent one single day in government, he would know that the Government have to take difficult decisions to control expenditure throughout the budget. This is the Labour leader who said that he was in favour of hand-ups, not handouts; this is the party that has said that it wants to take a very radical look at the whole system of social security to try to ensure that money is spent in the best possible way; yet, whatever Labour Members may say about fiscal control, whenever there is a difficult decision to be taken they will oppose it. That is why they will spend on every occasion and tax on every occasion. If they had had their way, public spending would be half national income and tax would be where it was when they left office.
    Mr. Blair: If we had had our way, we would not have slashed housing investment, which has produced the rise in housing benefit. The Prime Minister is perfectly justified in saying that; if there is a problem, it should be tackled. I have given him a specific way of tackling it. Why does not he tackle directly the excessive rents being charged by private landlords rather than make tenants the victims?
    The Prime Minister: I am pleased to see the right hon. Gentleman commit himself—I hope that the whole country heard it—to rent control. That is what the right hon. Gentleman has done—
    Mr. Blair indicated dissent.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, he has—he cannot shake his head. What he has just said is a Labour commitment to rent control—presumably in the private sector, which would mean no more available lettings. Presumably, in the public sector he would hold down rents artificially and push up the amount of borrowing and tax. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to know how to deal with housing and matters of that sort he should look at some of his own boroughs such as Hackney, Lambeth, Tower Hamlets, Greenwich, Southwark and Islington, which among them have 6,000 empty council houses. They are all in good
    1140
    repair and ready to be let out, but none is available because of the chronic inefficiency and stupidity of Labour local authorities.
    Mr. Viggers: Has my right hon. Friend had time today to see the report of the chief inspector of constabulary which, for the first time, includes some national indicators of the performance of the local, county police establishments? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the report contains some useful ideas, including the use of advanced technology, the increased use of community resources and better targeting of resources? Does he agree that that is a matter on which we can assist the police to be more efficient?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I have no doubt about that. I have not yet seen that report in detail, but I have asked my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to study it and report to me on its contents.
    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister realise that the number of primary school pupils in classes of more than 40 has risen by 30 per cent. in the past year? Does he understand why parents and governors are deeply concerned about that? Does he still believe that class sizes do not matter?
    The Prime Minister: Of course every aspect of education matters, but what matters most is the quality of teaching, which we are seeking to improve. We have introduced a series of measures to do that in recent years, most of which have been visibly and volubly opposed by the right hon. Gentleman and his party.
    Mr. Nicholls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the assisted places scheme and grammar schools are immensely popular with parents? What conclusions does he think parents should draw from the fact that, although the Labour party is committed to the abolition of the assisted places scheme and grammar schools, 19 out of 24 members of the shadow Cabinet attended grammar schools or exclusive fee-paying schools?
    The Prime Minister: Extending choice and opportunity is central to our education policy—it is what we believe parents want and we are delivering it. The Labour party's policies are yet another case of double-think: Labour Members go to good schools, but want to abolish them; they send their children to good schools, but want to abolish them. I read that the shadow Cabinet is now going to Templeton college for the weekend—it had better watch out for its future.
    Mr. Gerrard: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 26 October. [36930]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Gerrard: How can the Prime Minister justify his earlier answers, which defended housing benefit cuts that will attack some of the most vulnerable and poorest people? Does he believe that they should be forced to make up the short-fall in their rent from money that they need to survive—even using money such as their war pensions? Does it not show the Government's complete abandonment of any sense of social justice or priority?

    1141
    The Prime Minister today attacks poor people, but only two weeks ago he stood at the Tory party conference promising to abolish inheritance tax and capital gains tax.
    The Prime Minister: The cheap insults from the Labour party are becoming increasingly silly. I shall tell the hon. Gentleman something about protecting the vulnerable: low-income families with children have received extra help—now worth more than £1 billion a year—since 1988. Extra help for poor pensioners has increased to £1.2 billion since 1988. In the past two years we have introduced help with child care worth up to £38 per week for the least well-off in work. We have introduced jobseeker's agreements that are tailored to individual needs and a package of work incentives worth £700 million. All those initiatives are targeted to the people who are most in need in this country. It is about time that the hon. Gentleman saw what is really being done to help those in need and recognised that that sort of help is possible only if Governments resist some other elements of expenditure.
    Mr. David Evans: May I tell my right hon. Friend that, unlike Labour Members, we on this side are totally united behind our leader? Will my right hon. Friend confirm whether in five years at the Dispatch Box he has ever had to bail out one of his Front Bench spokesmen for total incompetence? Is he aware that last Thursday Bambi, the leader of the Labour party, showed the nation on live television what Conservative Members have known for years: Labour Members are all totally incompetent? In other words, they are men of straw.
    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I do not have the same gift for understatement as my hon. Friend. We all noticed the Leader of the Opposition trying to rescue the shadow Home Secretary last Thursday—and we all noticed that he failed.
    Mr. Watson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 26 October. [36931]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Watson: The Prime Minister will be aware of the recent announcement by the Secretaries of State for Health and for Scotland of the ban on general practitioners prescribing the drug Temazepam in gel-filled capsules. Contrary to the advice of almost all statutory and non-statutory agencies, including the Standing Conference on Drug Abuse and the Scottish drugs forum, the drug remains available in other forms simply to save about £15 million in public expenditure—the cost of prescribing alternatives.
    Does the Prime Minister believe that the loss of young lives, which will continue to occur—particularly in Glasgow, but also in every other major city in the country—as a result of the availability of Temazepam, is a price worth paying for the short-term advantage of the Government's desperate search for pre-election tax cuts?
    The Prime Minister: The depths to which some Labour Members sometimes sink in their questions helps me to understand why the public have such a low opinion of politicians generally. My right hon. Friend the
    1142
    secretary of State for Scotland acted on the medical advice that he received and he will continue to do so in the future.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the proportion of asylum seekers who come to Britain is rising, whereas the number is falling in other European countries? Is that not precisely because this country is not the clapped-out, impoverished nation that the Labour party pretends it is? Is it not time to strengthen our protection against those who have no right to be in this country?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. and learned Friend is right about the proportion of asylum seekers in this country. Other countries have tightened their asylum procedures and we think that we should re-examine them as well. However, some of the stories that I have seen in the last 24 hours and some of the comments that I have heard from Opposition Front Bench spokesmen are entirely absurd. They are inaccurate and misleading and they would better not have been made.
    There is no doubt that we will honour our United Nations convention obligations and there is no doubt that claims will be considered individually. I hope that the activities of the shadow Home Secretary have not raised too many fears.
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 26 October. [36933]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Winnick: Can the Prime Minister explain the purpose of setting up the Nolan committee if one of its main recommendations—the disclosure of outside financial interests—is rubbished and rejected by Tory Members of Parliament? Does not the Prime Minister understand that the general public will contrast the rejection of the Nolan committee's very important recommendation with the way in which Tory Members of Parliament vote time and again to undermine the position of the poorest people in our society?
    The Prime Minister: As I told the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), we set out innumerable ways—and I will give the hon. Gentleman a much longer list if he wishes—of helping people in great need in this country, and that will continue to be the case.
    The Nolan committee was established to report to the House and did so. A Select Committee is considering its report, and we will consider and vote on the Select Committee's report shortly.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Having known Sir John Templeton well for many years, and having attended the launch of the Templeton college in Oxford, I share my right hon. Friend's sentiments about the dangers of a visit by Labour Members to that college. Does not my right hon. Friend think it extraordinary that the Labour party should accuse the Conservative party of being uncaring when, with unemployment dropping in this country—

    1143
    unlike in most other countries in Europe—we are increasing our social security year by year? Is that the sign of an uncaring Government?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes his point most forcefully. Unemployment has dropped more dramatically here than in any other major country of western Europe. Unemployment is also below the level of other countries and our degree of social security
    1144
    protection is above it. As my hon. Friend said, Templeton college is a centre of excellence. Therefore, with this Labour party, it must be in danger.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I will take points of order after we have taken the business statement and questions on it.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: May I ask the Leader of the House the details of future business?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week and until prorogation will be as follows. I should make it clear that the business for Monday 30 October is different from that which I announced last week.
MONDAY 30 OCTOBER—Proceedings on the Northern Ireland (Remission of Sentences) Bill.
TUESDAY 31 OCTOBER—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Disability Discrimination Bill.
Proceedings on the following Bills, which are consolidation measures Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Bill [Lords] Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Bill [Lords] Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Bill [Lords] Criminal Procedure (Consequential Provisions) (Scotland) Bill [Lords] Statute Law (Repeals) Bill [Lords]
Remaining stages of the Law Reform (Succession) Bill [Lords], the Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [Lords] and the Civil Evidence Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 1 NOVEMBER—Until 2.30 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Gas Bill.
Motion to suspend further proceedings on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill until the next Session of Parliament.
Motion to provide an instruction to the Select Committee on the consideration of additional provisions to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill.
THURSDAY 2 NOVEMBER—Motions on parliamentary procedure.
Debate on the Government response to the first report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 3 NOVEMBER—Debate on fundholding in a primary care-led national health service on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
MONDAY 6 NOVEMBER—Debate on the second report which is expected to be received from the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life.
TUESDAY 7 NOVEMBER—Consideration of any Lords amendments that may be received to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Bill, followed by consideration of any Lords amendments that may be received to the Medical (Professional Performance) Bill.
Motions relating to Select Committees.
The House may be asked to consider any Lords messages that may be received.
WEDNESDAY 8 NOVEMBER—Subject to the progress of business, the House is expected to be prorogued.
The House will also wish to know that the following European Standing Committees will meet at 10.30 am to consider European Community documents as follows:
[Tuesday 31 October:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community Document: 7942/95, Television. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 70-xxv (1994–95).
1146
Wednesday 1 November:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community Documents: (a) 9532/95, Reform of Regime, (b) 9379/95, Reform of the Rice Regime: Standard Quality of Rice. Relevant European Legislation Committee Reports: HC 70-xxv (1994–95), HC 70-xxv (1994–95).
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community Documents: (a) 5663/95, Promotion of Employment, (b) 6827/95, Social Action Programme 1995–1997. Relevant European Legislation Committee Reports: HC 70-xiii (1994–95) and HC 70-xviii (1994–95).]
Mrs. Ann Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for that information. Is he aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), the promoter of the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill, has now agreed a set of amendments with the Bill's opponents? In the light of the support that the amended Bill now commands in all quarters—both in this House and in the other place—will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the very small amount of time that is needed will be found to allow a Bill that has widespread public support to become law?
Let me now ask about Government business. Will the Leader of the House clarify the position of the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill? Will he confirm that the Bill was introduced by a Minister—the Lord Chancellor—under the "fast track" Jellicoe procedure, as non-contentious legislation, and has completed nearly all its stages in both Houses? Is a long-overdue measure to tackle domestic violence being destroyed by the extreme wing of the Conservative party?
Will the Leader of the House find time, in the very near future, for a debate on nursery vouchers? Does he recall that, in July, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment undertook to consult and to report back in the autumn? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, so far, public opinion has been almost universally opposed to the voucher scheme; that there is widespread support for properly funded quality nursery education; and that even the few remaining Tory local education authorities are against the scheme? May we have a debate very soon to discuss who is correct—Conservative councillors in Solihull, or the Secretary of State?
Finally, will the Leader of the House take up the points that were raised earlier in Prime Minister's Question Time, and ensure that we have an opportunity to debate the serious public concern about the changes to housing benefits payments, which Opposition Members voted against? They constitute a miserable attack on a very vulnerable group, which is alarming many people in the House and the country.
Are all those developments—the handling of the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill, the nursery voucher scheme and the cuts in housing benefit—simply more signals of the Government's dangerous lurch to the right?
Mr. Newton: There seems to be a common script for the periods before and after 3.30 pm nowadays.
Let me take the hon. Lady's points in reverse order. Her question appeared to confirm what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in response to her right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—that, far from having been leaked, the proposals were discussed openly and agreed by the House.

1147
I need hardly say that I do not recognise the hon. Lady's description of the position relating to nursery vouchers. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment announced the names of three authorities that will participate in the pilot schemes in phase 1, and others are still considering whether to participate.
A number of points have been made to my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor about the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill, which he has undertaken to consider. I think that entirely appropriate.
It is, I think, well known in the House that the amount of time for private Members' Bills is clearly established at the beginning of each Session, and that is the position in the current Session.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): May I remind my right hon. Friend that the very important air service agreement negotiations between the United Kingdom and the United States of America failed at the end of last week and that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport was not able to come to the House to make a statement about that matter? Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that at an early date Her Majesty's Government will introduce a full debate on civil air transport, which is of particular importance to the Heathrow area and many other areas in this country?
Mr. Newton: I cannot give my hon. Friend that complete undertaking, but I will bear his request in mind. He well knows, and by implication acknowledged, the importance that the British Government attach to these matters.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Recognising that the Leader of the House has had quite a lot of his time tied up in the Nolan Committee, for which we are grateful, does he expect that he will be able to make an announcement about the disposition of the new Select Committees before the new Session starts? I refer him briefly to the two statutory instruments standing in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends, on probation and optical charges regulations. If it is possible before the end of the Session, it would certainly benefit the House if we could have Committee stage debates on both.
Mr. Newton: I note the hon. Gentleman's latter point. In answer to the first half of the hon. Gentleman's question, amidst the profusion of business that I announced, which perhaps indicates the difficulties of fitting in further business, was a reference to the fact that I hoped to be debating motions relating to Select Committees on Tuesday 7 November.
Mr. Tim Devlin: In view of the fact that President Yeltsin has died, would it be possible for us to have a debate, or at least a statement, next week if there are any ramifications for this country's foreign policy?
Mr. Newton: I have myself only just heard what I am sure will be news greeted with sadness and shock in the House. Although I note and understand why my hon. Friend raised the matter, he will understand that I would not wish to comment in quite the way in which he invites me to.
Mr. Ray Powell: Will the Leader of the House read column 713 of Hansard of 23 October, in
1148
which my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) raised a point of order with Madam Speaker regarding Asda and its decision to stop paying enhanced payments for Sunday work in its shops? Will the Leader of the House find time next week, or between now and prorogation, to debate not only Asda but a number of other retailers who promised the House, when we were discussing the Sunday Trading Bill, that they would agree to pay double time on Sunday and that they would enhance payments? Only 18 months have passed since the Act was introduced, but they are reneging on promises that they made to a number of hon. Members, who would not have gone into the Lobby and voted as they did if they had known that this would happen. Some of us took a principled stand and did not vote. We might have lost jobs in the Whips Office as a result, but nevertheless we took that principled stand.
I think that the Leader of the House should find time for this matter, which is urgent, because in addition to that—I am on my last point, Madam Speaker—Burger King is paying young workers £5 for five hours' work. It is time that the whole question of shopworkers' employment in this country was given time in the House for a full debate.
Mr. Newton: I do not immediately recall the exchanges to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I am sure that his remarks will be examined carefully by those at whom they are directed.
Sir Anthony Grant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that when the quality and the price in defence contracts are roughly equal they should go to the home industry rather than abroad? Will there be an opportunity before the House rises to debate that policy, when some of us will be able to point out that the 700 military ambulances that are required by the Ministry of Defence can be supplied in excellent quality by the firm of Marshalls of Cambridge, in conjunction with Landrover, and costing £10.5 million less than the Austrian competition?
Mr. Newton: Subject to the rules—national and international—about public procurement, I hope that I may be allowed to wish my hon. Friend's constituents well.
Mr. Thomas McAvoy: I wish to raise the fact that Post Office Counters Ltd. has decreed that it will downgrade Cambuslang Crown post office in my constituency to the status of an agency post office. It has said that it will not consult on the matter and that the public are to have no say. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement next week by a Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry to explain why a public service, under the control of the Government, can act unilaterally and refuse to consult the public on a change that will have a grave effect on the public?
Mr. Newton: I should point out that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will be answering questions on Wednesday 1 November. I shall bring that putative question to his attention.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Did my right hon. Friend notice that when the shadow Leader of the House raised the matter of nursery education, she did not say a word about the families whose children have not gained a local government nursery place, nor about the families

1149
whose children attend private nurseries, nor about the families whose children are at playgroups, all of whom will be helped by nursery vouchers? Does not that prove yet again that the Labour party is concerned only with producer interests, especially in local government?
Mr. Newton: I did indeed notice that omission from the hon. Lady's remarks, and I am glad that my hon. Friend has been able to rectify it.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: You may recall, Madam Speaker, that on 13 March this year I requested a statement from the Secretary of State for Health about the little girl formerly known as Child B who is now publicly known as Jaymee. Will he grant time for a debate on who gets treated under the national health service? Has not this gutsy little girl shown that she deserves treatment? Her chances of survival are now much better. Should she and her family be going around with a begging bowl? Should not we have a debate and give hon. Members the opportunity to vote on whether she should get treatment under the NHS?
Mr. Newton: Everyone will understand why the hon. Lady has raised this matter and will want to wish the little girl well. The hon. Lady may have the opportunity to raise the matter again during Health Questions next week, but I must emphasise that it is always for clinicians to decide on appropriate treatment in individual cases. Had the doctors treating Jaymee at Addenbrooke's and the Royal Marsden recommended treatment, it would have been given.
Mr. Harold Elletson: May I join the calls for an urgent debate on Britain's relations with Russia in view of the news of President Yeltsin's death and the fact that there is now a power vacuum at the heart of one of the world's super-powers? May I ask my right hon. Friend to take this opportunity to express the House's condolences to those members of the Russian Duma who were visiting the House and were in the Gallery when news of his death came through?
Mr. Newton: I can certainly accede to my hon. Friend's latter question. As for my hon. Friend's first question, I would not wish to add anything to what I said earlier.
Mr. Thomas Graham: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the appropriate Minister to make a statement on the barbaric killing of one of my constituents and the fact that the two killers received only a three-year sentence? Will he do so as a matter of urgency?
Mr. Newton: I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's request to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and, I suppose, that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and, indeed, that of my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear his question in mind when the House comes to consider the recently announced proposals on sentencing policy.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate on membership of the House so that we have some idea of who is acceptable as a candidate for the various parties and who is not? Perhaps
1150
we would then have an explanation of why someone implicated in the murder of a 77-year-old woman in Johannesburg is acceptable as a Labour candidate but someone who holds the views of many Labour Members, especially those below the Gangway, is not.
Mr. Newton: I am left to answer a fair number of questions on behalf of the Government, but that appears to be a question directed at the Opposition. I am not even sure that the hon. Member for Dewsbury heard it, but I shall ensure that it is brought to her attention.
Mr. Mike Hall: I refer the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1486:
[That this House demands that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry refers the impending merger of North West Water and Norweb to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.]
Many hon. Members who represent the north-west are concerned that a takeover will have major implications such as job losses, service reductions and increasing prices. It is confirmation of a botched privatisation. Will he find Government time to debate this important issue so that we can ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to refer the takeover bid to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission? Quite straightforwardly, electricity and water are a lethal combination.
Mr. Newton: The proposed merger is of course subject to the usual procedures: the Director General of Fair Trading advises my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, who then decides whether to make a reference to the MMC. In those circumstances, it would be quite difficult for my right hon. Friend to make further comment, but, as I have already said, he will be answering questions in the House next week.
Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on local government in London? Is he aware that Hackney council has now been forced to reinstate its corruption-busting director of housing, who should never have been suspended? Does he not agree that Hackney, Lambeth and Islington are a good advertisement for what new Labour stands for?
Mr. Newton: They are certainly not a good advertisement for the Labour party.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I bite your hand, Madam Speaker, which has fed me on Wednesday mornings in the past in relation to Libyan sanctions, Iraq sanctions and Lockerbie? I refer to Thursday's business. Could we have a statement on the gradual erosion of Back Benchers' rights? What has happened to those Friday debates? The Minister with responsibility for science said rightly on Friday that we had had an excellent and useful debate, yet there are now very few Back-Bench debates. How by some alchemy do we no longer get second Adjournment debates? Frankly, on Wednesday mornings, the debates have become Speaker's choice rather than any pretence of balloting. The balloting motion is something of the past. Although often it could be very inconvenient. Everything now seems to be run for the convenience of the Front-Bench teams. Some Back Benchers think that the inconveniences of balloting ought to come back to us and we will be voting against the Jopling arrangements and all the works of the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling).
Mr. Newton: There appear to be one or two points that might be thought to be directed at you, Madam Speaker,

1151
rather than me. I have no doubt that you too will reflect on them. I would make three points. First, the changes have been made in response to recommendations from Select Committees, agreed by large majorities in the House. Secondly, in my judgment at least, the Wednesday morning debates have provided a welcome opportunity for many hon. Members to raise more subjects than they used to have the opportunity to do. Thirdly, elaborating on the second point, if the hon. Gentleman looks at the figures, he will find that infinitely more people have had a chance to raise subjects as a result of the changes than were ever able to under the previous arrangements.
Madam Speaker: Hear, hear.
Mr. Harry Greenway: It is so nice to hear you speak, Madam Speaker. Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate or a statement early next week on the projected strike on London Underground—which will so exacerbate the problems that my constituents have in getting to and from work and, indeed, cause the whole of London to suffer greatly—noting that the people concerned are asking for twice the pay increase which has already been accepted by two unions? Is not that a disgrace and very unfair to the people of London?
Mr. Newton: I very much share the hope that my hon. Friend by implication expressed—that the action will be reconsidered. I shall bring his request for a statement to the attention of my right hon. Friend. Perhaps I might also take the opportunity, Madam Speaker, to thank you warmly for giving me your support, just as I always seek to give you mine.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us a forewarning of when the House may rise. I also thank him for the progress that has been made this year on dealing with Northern Ireland business in the House. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that further progress will be made in the forthcoming Session, and that we shall legislate more through Bills and less through Orders in Council?
Mr. Newton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging the progress made this year, and I hope that he will accept that, although I make no further specific commitments, what has happened this year is an earnest of my good faith in hoping to make further progress next Session.
Madam Speaker: Mr. Patrick Jenkin—[Interruption.] Sorry, Mr. Bernard Jenkin.
Mr. Tony Banks: He is the ugly one.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Will my right hon. Friend provide time for a debate that would graphically demonstrate that the Labour party is, always has been and always will be the party that it always was? I ask for a debate on the way in which the Labour party has handled social services in Essex. First it promised the earth, then it made a complete hash of the policy, and finally the Labour chairman is resigning his post because he wants nothing to do with the measures now needed to bring the policy back on course.
Mr. Newton: No debate is required to establish the first of my hon. Friend's propositions, which is clearly proved by almost every utterance from the Opposition Benches.
1152
As for my hon. Friend's second point, as his immediate constituency neighbour I am myself conscious of the problems. A most unhappy situation has arisen concerning Essex social services, and I hope that it will be properly and quickly dealt with. Finally, Madam Speaker, may I add that my hon. Friend's right honourable father might be rather disturbed by my hon. Friend's having been mistaken for him.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: As the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) has raised the idea of vetting parliamentary candidates, will the Leader of the House extend that idea and make a statement along those lines, so that every parliamentary candidate, from every party, will be vetted by a kind of toughened-up Nolan committee? In that case, no future candidates would be allowed to enter Parliament with conflicts of interest, or if they were making money on the side and had directorships coming out of their earholes, like the 200 current Tory Members of Parliament who have 550 directorships between them. If candidates were vetted in that way, the House of Commons would be a lot cleaner, and there would be no more conflicts of interest. The people outside would support that.
Mr. Newton: That sounds like a plea for a House of Commons consisting of 651 Bolsovers. The mind boggles.
Sir Patrick Cormack: As one who is not, I believe, an extreme right-winger, may I say how glad I was to hear what my right hon. Friend said about the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill? Will he confirm that it has been dropped for this Session? And if that is the case, and we therefore have a little spare time, may we at least have a statement from the Foreign Secretary on Monday about our relations with Russia?
Mr. Newton: I note my hon. Friend's second suggestion and shall bring it to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend. As for his first question, I confirm what I said. I do not have a script in front of me, but I think that that was to the effect that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor was considering the arguments that have been put to him.
Mr. Paul Flynn: When can we have a debate on the need for electoral reform to control the total sums spent by political parties at national level during general elections? I have introduced two Bills that sought to make that change, and I argued that there was a grave danger that a malign millionaire could spend huge sums in support of an extremist cause. That has now happened. A millionaire is threatening to spend more than all the parties at the previous general election, in support of an extremist right-wing cause. Although the Government previously failed to support my two Bills, will they do so now to save their own skin, and for the sake of the integrity and good reputation of our electoral system?
Mr. Newton: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I do not really think that we need the help of his Bills to make sure that our sensible policies are put across to, and accepted by, the electorate.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Representing, as I do, Macclesfield in the county of Cheshire may I tell the Leader of the House that there is concern in all political parties in that county about the resources for

1153
education allocated under our standard spending assessment? We are not criticising the Government for singling out Cheshire as an example; we are, however, worried about the area cost adjustment, which does not properly take into account the costs incurred by Cheshire in providing a good quality of education.
Will my right hon. Friend find time, if not before we prorogue then perhaps early in the next Session, for a debate on this matter? In it, Members of Parliament who share the concerns of all political parties in Cheshire about the way the county is treated under the standard spending assessment formula can express their views.
Mr. Newton: There may be an opportunity for that point to be made in the debates on the Address which we would expect to follow the Queen's Speech on 15 November, or in the Budget debate that will come shortly afterwards. In any event I would anticipate a statement on local authority finance in the couple of days after the Budget.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May we have a statement on the responsibilities of the Deputy Prime Minister, who has defined them as: deregulation, the civil service, and market testing? While the Leader of the House is making up his mind on that debate, will he look at columns 15 to 18 in the Official Report of 16 October and at the nature of the questions that the Deputy Prime Minister was asked in Question Time that day? Will he go on to consider how he answered those questions, when he clearly took responsibility for our defence obligations under various treaties, the Labour party conference, the issue of social democracy and the European Community budget?
I believe that the Deputy Prime Minister is answering questions in the House which go wider than his brief, yet we are not allowed to table questions in the Table Office on those very matters—hence the need for a debate.
Mr. Newton: That is a pretty funny question from an hon. Member who displays an above average ability—I pay tribute to it—to use parliamentary procedures intended sometimes for one purpose to achieve other ends, and to ask supplementaries that do not always appear to be directly related to the principal question.
Mr. Peter Luff: Will my right hon. Friend find time for an urgent debate on the control of pollution? Does he realise that the surprising acquittal of Vitalscheme yesterday in Oxford Crown court means that that company's irresponsible pollution of the rivers of Shropshire and Worcestershire will go unpunished—pollution that caused such concern to my constituents last year? Do not water companies such as Severn-Trent deserve to be supported when they bring such prosecutions to protect our rivers?
Mr. Newton: I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is looking into
1154
the pollution of the River Tern as a matter of urgency, and is considering what lessons can be learnt for the regulatory regime and what action needs to be taken in this particular case. I shall of course bring my hon. Friend's further question to his attention.
Mr. John McFall: May I add to the remarks by the shadow Leader of the House about my Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill? The right hon. Gentleman is aware of the unanimous support for the Bill in this House. May I further advise him that this morning I held negotiations with the British Field Sports Society and others so that an agreed set of amendments can be tabled in the House of Lords and the Bill will have unanimous agreement there?
Given that we are just a whisker away from passing the Bill, may I ask the Leader of the House to meet me so that we can explore this issue and arrive at a constructive end for a Bill that has massive support in the country and in both Houses of Parliament?
Mr. Newton: I think I am right in saying that the proceedings on the Bill are continuing in another place. Therefore, I am not sure that it would be appropriate for me to undertake to have a meeting on the basis of speculation about what might happen. I must repeat the point that I made. It has been established over many years that the time available for private Members' Bills is set at the beginning of the parliamentary Session by a decision of the House. That remains the position. However, if only as a matter of courtesy and because I understand the hon. Gentleman's objectives, if he feels that it would be helpful for me to meet him against that background, I would be willing to do so.
Mr. Tony Banks: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Patience is rewarded. May we have a debate very shortly on the future use of county hall on the other side of the river? At the back we have Galliard Homes selling flats by means of misleading advertisements to potential purchasers in the far east. At the front, in the riverside block, we have the Shiriyama hotel—which has now given up the possibility of building a hotel—constructing a large aquarium and trying to sell on the shell of county hall to another organisation. Is that not a scandalous situation, brought about by the Government's ideological fixation with making sure that that building on a prime site opposite Parliament should be used for anything except that for which any decent Government would have ensured that it was used. No European Government would have treated such a prestigious building in the way that this shabby Government have treated it.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to accept, nor do I, his language, which I regard as overheated. I will bring the points that he has made, as far as they can be gleaned within the hyperbole, to the attention of my right hon. Friends.

Points of Order
4.6 pm
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish to raise a matter of which I have given you notice. A document has been passed to me headed "Parliamentary Question by Max Madden MP", signed by an entry clearance officer in the British high commission in Nigeria, dated 17 February 1995. On the second page, under the heading:
"Not for inclusion in draft reply",
considerable concern is expressed by the entry clearance officer that
"we may face criticism on the handling of this application."
It goes on to catalogue unacceptable delays and inexplicable failures of routine procedures. It speculates about action that I might take and that which may be taken by solicitors.
I shall certainly suggest to my constituent that he consider making a complaint of maladministration to the Parliamentary Commissioner, but I wonder whether you, Madam Speaker, would be prepared—clearly, you have not had the opportunity to consider the detail—to deprecate in general terms any actions that are taken by officials or Ministers which are clearly designed to conceal maladministration and to treat Members of Parliament, our constituents and the general public with clear and obvious contempt.
Madam Speaker: That is barely a point of order for me, but the hon. Gentleman was kind enough to give me just a little indication of what he might raise. He tells me that he was concerned about the advice given by officials to Ministers at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in drafting the reply to a parliamentary question. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Chair has no responsibility for ministerial answers to questions, still less for officials' advice to Ministers. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will pursue the matter with the Minister involved. As I said, it is barely a point of order, but the point that he has brought to the attention of the House today is very revealing.
Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have just been out to check the tape, following the exchanges that took place earlier. It would appear from the tape that at 4 pm President Yeltsin was alive.
Madam Speaker: I am sure that the House is pleased to have that news. We are always too much interested in bad news. It is nice to have a little good news for a change.

BILL PRESENTED
  NORTHERN IRELAND (REMISSION OF SENTENCES)
  Secretary Sir Patrick Mayhew, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Howard, Mr. Secretary Forsyth and Sir John Wheeler, presented a Bill to provide for the release on licence of persons serving sentences to which section 14 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 applies; 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 183.]
Orders of the Day
  Mental Health (Patients in the Community) Bill [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered
New clause 1

  PATIENTS DISCHARGED AFTER SENTENCES OF IMPRISONMENT
  `After section 49 of the Mental Health Act 1983 there shall be inserted the following section—
  "Patients discharged after sentences of imprisonment
  49A. Where a patient has been admitted to a hospital under the provisions of sections 47 or 49 above, discharge shall only take place on the signed assent of the responsible medical officer after consultation with persons nominated by each statutory body responsible for after-care.".'.—[Mr. Timms.]
  Brought up, and read the First time
  4.9 pm
  Mr. Stephen Timms: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  The new clause arises from an appalling incident in Newham on 27 July 1994, when Mr. Bryan Bennett, a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing)—who is unable to be in the Chamber this afternoon—and a user of a social services day centre was tragically killed by another user, Mr. Stephen Laudat, just a few months after the latter's discharge from psychiatric treatment at Kneesworth hospital.
  Mr. Laudat pleaded guilty on the ground of diminished responsibility and was committed by the central criminal court to an indefinite period of treatment in Rampton hospital in December 1994.
  The district health authority and the local council jointly commissioned an independent review of the circumstances surrounding the tragedy in January 1995, under the chairmanship of Mr. Len Woodley QC. That inquiry reported last month. The Minister will be aware that the Woodley report is sharply critical of the Bill. It states:
  "it is difficult to imagine how the proposed legislation would have enhanced Stephen Laudat's care or prevented the death of Mr. Bennett."
  It says that its findings do not support the enactment of the Bill and that the key lies in better resourcing of community care—a point to which I shall return if I am able to on Third Reading later today.
  The new clause relates to one aspect of the Laudat case with which the Bill does not deal. There is immense concern in Newham, especially among the relatives of the man who died, naturally, about how Mr. Laudat came to be released from Kneesworth hospital in December 1993, just seven months before the killing. The Woodley report shows that the hospital had great concerns about him immediately before he was released. There was a series of difficult incidents in October and November 1993 and the ward manager wrote, prior to an after-care planning meeting on 25 November, that Mr. Laudat was subject to the
  "potential and threat of violence to both males and females",

  1157
  and that he was
  "vulnerable and a threat to himself and others".
  Mr. Laudat's prison sentence—the reason for his detention in the first place—meant that he could be released on 6 December 1993. At the meeting on 25 November, it was noted that there were insufficient grounds to warrant his detention beyond the end of the restriction order on 6 December and that he had, therefore, to be released.
  That is the matter that has so deeply concerned myself and my hon. Friends the Members for Newham, South and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and which lead to the drafting of the new clause. Mr. Laudat was released because his prison sentence expired and not because anyone had positively concluded that he was ready to re-enter the community. The limited grounds in the Mental Health Act 1983 under which it would have been possible to detain Mr. Laudat further were felt not to have been complied with, so it was felt that there was no alternative but to release him, despite the severe misgivings of those responsible for his care. The truth is that he should not have been released.
  The new clause shifts the onus, so that in such circumstances discharge could take place only on the explicit authority of a medical officer and not merely because the prison sentence had expired, as in the case described in the Woodley report. The length of the sentence clearly bore no relation to the state of Mr. Laudat's health.
  Under the new clause, the patient would be released only if his doctor was positively satisfied that he was not a danger to himself or others. If it had been enacted prior to December 1993, it is likely that my hon. Friend's constituent would be alive today. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept it, to prevent similar tragic incidents.
  Ms Tessa Jowell: I commend my hon. Friends the Members for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) and for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) for tabling the new clause. We believe that it should be supported.
  Although such patients will be entitled, when discharged, to after-care under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983, there is no legal requirement in that section to consult prior to discharge and on many occasions, as my hon. Friend made clear, discharge is poorly, if at all, planned and co-ordinated. We believe that new clause 1 is a practical way of addressing those concerns.
  4.15 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) for bringing the matter forward. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) did me the courtesy of writing to explain that he could not be here, but that his hon. Friends the Members for Newham, North-East and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) would be here to support new clause 1.
  I understand well the concern that lies behind new clause 1 following the Woodley inquiry into the care of Stephen Laudat. However, the present wording of the
  1158
  Mental Health Act 1983 already meets the aims of the new clause, while the introduction of supervised discharge will of course strengthen the provisions.
  The Home Secretary may direct that a patient be transferred from prison to hospital; he may also direct that a patient should be subject to special restrictions. The patient may not then be discharged, given leave of absence or transferred to another hospital without the consent of the Home Secretary. The issue that the new clause seeks to address arises at the point when the prison sentence of a patient in hospital expires. At that point, the restrictions exercised by the Home Secretary also expire. That does not mean that the patient must then be discharged immediately. The patient remains liable to be detained for a further six months unless a positive decision is taken to discharge him or her.
  At the end of the six months, the responsible medical officer must review the case and the detention may then continue if the renewal conditions in section 20 of the Mental Health Act 1983 are met. When the patient is eventually discharged, he or she is subject to section 117 in the same way as anyone else who has been detained for treatment under the Act; that is, the relevant health and local authorities are obliged to provide after-care services for as long as the patient needs them.
  Under the terms of the Bill, as soon as the restriction direction has lapsed, it is open to the responsible medical officer to make a supervision application if, and only if, he or she is satisfied that the after-care arrangements are agreed and in place. New clause 1 would treat transferred prisoners differently from those admitted directly under hospital orders made by the courts. I do not think that that is desirable or necessary and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the new clause.
  Mr. Timms: I am disappointed that the Minister has not accepted the new clause, but I am encouraged by what he said. I hope that he is right that the arrangements will ensure that such incidents do not take place in future. In the light of what the Minister said, I shall not seek to press the new clause to a vote and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn

Clause 1

  AFTER-CARE UNDER SUPERVISION
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 25, at end insert—
  '(7A) If, on the date when a patient ceases to be liable to be detained in a hospital under this Part of this Act, a supervision application has been made in respect of him but the Health Authority have not yet accepted the application, his liability to be so detained shall continue—

  (a) until the end of the period of three months commencing with that date, or

  (b) until the Authority either accept or refuse the application whichever is the earlier.'.

  The amendment aims to press the Government to reconsider the issue with which it deals, which has run through the proceedings on the Bill all the way through from the House of Lords.
  As a Scottish Member, I am entitled to ask the Government to reconsider because clause 4(1), which inserts a section 35A(6) into the Mental Health (Scotland)

  1159
  Act 1984, makes Scottish provisions precisely like those in the amendment. Briefly stated, the objective of the amendment is to prevent patients from being able to walk straight out of hospital just when attempts are being made to arrange their supervised discharge. That is balanced by providing that patients can be detained for only three months so that they cannot be detained for an indeterminate or excessive period.
  The amendment is supported by experience especially in respect of the treatment of schizophrenics. I fully understand the Government's problem in getting the legislative balance right in dealing with schizophrenia, which can cause people to be so ill that they act completely irrationally, as opposed to what I might call normal mental illness. It is difficult to legislate for both sets of patients.
  I understand, too, that there are potential civil liberties arguments, as there always are when we deny people their liberty, even for a determined period of three months. I am not persuaded by the Government's position as stated by the Minister in the other place at the beginning of the Bill's passage, when it was suggested that there would be a gap in the procedure. The Government seemed to accept that there would be a gap and took the view that the patient would be much more likely to stay as a voluntary patient in those circumstances. I wish that I had that confidence. Some schizophrenic patients—perhaps only a small number—might simply go walkabout, which would disrupt the after-care package being put in place.
  I hate to be superior, but we tend to do things better in Scotland. If the provision is good enough for Scotland, why should not it be in the English part of the Bill?
  Mr. David Atkinson: I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will respond positively to the amendment because the Bill presupposes that all the appropriate accommodation and after-care arrangements for the patient will have been put in place by the time his or her detention period is over and that, if they have not, the patient will accept a continuation of his detention voluntarily until they have. As the National Schizophrenia Fellowship has repeatedly pointed out, that flies in the face of experience and reality. Appropriate accommodation is not always in place, sometimes for the best of reasons.
  Nevertheless, patients can walk out, claiming their rights under the Bill, and then disappear through the safety net. That is of great concern to us. The National Schizophrenia Fellowship has suggested that it is better to keep the stable door bolted until we can be assured that proper after-care and accommodation are in place before the release of patients. I hope that my hon. Friend will respond positively to the amendment.
  Mr. Bowis: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) for raising this issue and to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) for bringing the expertise of the National Schizophrenia Fellowship to bear on this point. I hope that I can fill the gap for the hon. Gentleman and, in so doing, reply positively to my hon. Friend.
  As the hon. Gentleman said, the amendment was tabled in the light of the Scottish provisions, under which the sheriff may defer the making of a community care order until he is satisfied about the after-care and medical services to be provided. That reflects the concern, which
  1160
  has been expressed on both sides of the House, about what might happen if the authority to detain a patient were about to expire for whatever reason—possibly because the after-care services that the patient needed were not yet in place—and the health authority had not yet accepted the supervision application.
  However, the way in which the provisions for supervised discharge have been framed for England and Wales makes the amendment unnecessary. First, the detailed requirements for consultation by the responsible medical officer with all those concerned are designed to ensure that a supervision application is made only once all necessary preparations are in place. The requirement for the health authority to consult the local authority before it accepts the application provides a double check on that, and there should be no reason to delay acceptance of the application once consultation has been completed.
  However, in the unlikely event of a delay for some unforeseen reason, I commend to the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend section 20 of the Mental Health Act 1983. The renewal provisions of that section would remain available to enable a patient's detention in hospital to be renewed for as long as necessary. The existing provision is therefore adequate for that purpose without requiring a new procedure for renewing detention to be included in the Bill. The current measures add to that provision. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts the existence of that basic assurance and I invite him to withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. Kirkwood: I think that I am reassured by that reply. I know the Minister well enough to know that he will monitor this matter carefully. If there are experiences like those that have been raised as genuine and legitimate concerns, particularly at the hands of schizophrenic patients, I hope that he will make it his business to ensure that any gaps that remain despite what he has said are closed at some stage in the future.
  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
  Mr. Bowis: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 3, line 29, leave out
  `unless the patient has otherwise requested,'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 14 to 24.
  Mr. Bowis: The amendments relate to the rights of a patient's nearest relative to be consulted and the position that arises when a patient objects. They fulfil the commitment that I gave in Committee to my hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) and for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) and to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) to table amendments to provide for that objection to be overridden in certain circumstances.
  The amendments define two tests that must be satisfied if a patient's objection is to be overridden. First, he or she must have a propensity to violent or dangerous behaviour towards others. Secondly, the responsible medical officer must believe that it is appropriate for the nearest relative to be consulted.

  1161
  I am sure that all hon. Members on both sides of the House will understand that, in those amendments, we have found it necessary to walk a tightrope in maintaining a balance between all the different interests. I believe that the balance that we have struck is the right one.
  I commend those amendments to the House.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: The Minister is right; he is walking a tightrope. Despite his build—and perhaps my build as well—he appears to have made a successful job of it.
  The amendments were a Government response to requests from my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and Conservative Members to reconsider that aspect. The Government have tabled amendments relating to the rights of patients to object to their responsible medical officer consulting a nearest relative about placing the patient on a supervision order. As the Bill stands, the patient has the right to object to such consultations.
  I believe that we all understand why, in normal circumstances—inasmuch as any of those circumstances may be described as normal—the patient should have the right to object to such consultations. However, the amendments mean that the patient loses his right to object to the consultation if he has a history of violence or threatening behaviour—and that is where the Minister says that he is walking a tightrope.
  The purpose of the amendments is to strike a balance between the reasonable rights of the patient and the rights of relatives and close family. The amendments are intended to serve as protection for the families of violent patients. They make it less likely that a potentially violent patient can be discharged under supervision without his family being consulted and warned.
  The Government probably have achieved the right balance, and I support the amendments.
  Mr. David Atkinson: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for responding so positively to the anxieties of the National Schizophrenia Fellowship about the amendments, and I thank our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland for the amendments that are the equivalent for Scotland in those respects. I welcome the amendments wholeheartedly, and once again thank my hon. Friend, for his positive response in listening to us.
  Amendment agreed to
  Amendment made: No. 14, in page 3, line 36, 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!.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

  Ms Jowell: I beg to move amendment No. 45, in page 7, line 12, leave out lines 12 to 16.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 46, in page 7, line 12, leave out
  1162
  'A patient subject to after-care under supervision may'
  and insert
  'An application for a patient subject to after-care under supervision to be taken and conveyed (in this Act referred to as a "conveyance application") duly completed in accordance with subsection (4A) below, shall be sufficient authority for the patient to'.
  No. 47, in page 7, line 16, at end insert—
  '(4A) A conveyance application may be made by the supervisor in respect of a patient subject to after-care under supervision, on the grounds that—

  (a) he continues to suffer from a mental disorder, being mental illness, severe mental impairment, psychopathic disorder, or mental impairment, and

  (b) it is necessary for the health and safety of the patient or for the protection of others that he should be taken and conveyed in accordance with subsection (4) above.

  (4B) A conveyance application shall be made to the Health Authority which accepted the supervision application in respect of the patient.'.
  Ms Jowell: These amendments deal with the take and convey powers that the Bill will give to those responsible for supervision or anyone who is nominated by the supervisor. In our opinion, they are the changes in the law that are most likely to create serious difficulties.
  Amendment No. 45 removes the new powers altogether from the Bill. The aftercare organisations responsible for supervision and care would still be able to formulate and impose requirements on the person subject to supervision and would have to conduct a review if the person failed or neglected to comply with them. However, the supervisor would not be able to exercise physical force in seeking compliance. That is not to say that community psychiatric nurses, social workers and other people who will be involved in supervision would be left without legal powers to tackle problems when they occur.
  One can imagine the circumstances in which the new power may have to be used. For example, the person under supervision may be behaving in such a way that the supervisor believes that an urgent assessment is required; or the person may be preventing access to their home, one of the most common difficulties in offering support to seriously mentally ill people in the community.
  Very occasionally, the person's behaviour may be so disturbed as to pose an immediate threat to their own safety or to that of other people or property.
  In each of those situations, ample legal powers already exist and are routinely used by those who are allowed to do so in order to deal with the matter. Assessments are undertaken, if necessary, after a social worker has obtained a warrant requiring a person to give him and the doctor access. The Mental Health Act 1983 and other laws clearly allow professionals to intervene when behaviour is so disturbed as to justify the need for further assessment or to restrain violent or threatening behaviour.
  High-quality supervision and support for mentally ill people in the community depends for their effectiveness not on new coercive legal powers, but on the appropriate use of existing powers and the more effective deployment of professional resources and services for people needing intensive support and help. If the essential success of after-care plans relies on the agreement and consent of the patient and his or her partnership with the professional team, the Minister must tell us how he justifies the creation of new powers that are so controversial with

  1163
  those who will be called on to implement them and so potentially damaging to the relationships that professionals are to have with those in their care.
  4.30 pm
  Let us consider what the Minister is proposing in the Bill. He has not drafted the power so that the supervisor can compel the patient to submit to treatment, occupation, education or training—if one could even contemplate the last two options being possible in practice. The power does not give the supervisor the right to use force to enter premises, nor can the supervisor detain the patient after he or she has been conveyed. Even doctors who have called for new powers find that difficult to understand.
  Professor Chris Thomson, registrar of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, has written:
  "To many psychiatrists and others this is the worst of both worlds. The mentally ill would be subject to the power of 'arrest' to no apparent purpose. Psychiatrists remain deeply sceptical and believe that the Bill will not provide the extra public safety which the Government is hoping for."
  We would not support moves to compel treatment on patients in the community and we believe that the measure may do harm even if it remains largely unused. That harm will be greater than any benefit that may accrue from having this power on the statute book.
  One of the most harmful effects may be to encourage poor professional practice. As I think we all accept, good community care depends on high quality relationships, built on trust, confidence and sensitivity to a person's individual needs and circumstances. The threat or use of force can offer the short cut of gaining a person's compliance with a plan or programme. In place of the careful and diligent development of an effective relationship with the patient, a supervisor can merely call in aid his or her power to take and convey or threaten to get the police in order to use it. We are sure that that will damage community care—driving people from services rather than encouraging them to use them, especially if, as will be likely, supervisors try to get the police involved in using coercion rather than use it themselves. Many professionals are unhappy about the prospect of having these powers. Therefore, the provision may be irrelevant because, as I have said, it may simply not be used.
  We recognise that the House may not be persuaded that the powers should be removed from the Bill. The House may consider it possible to regulate their use in order to deal with the concerns that I have outlined. We have also tabled a compromise amendment. Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 preserve the powers, but require those who wish to use them, first, to submit to the health authority which accepted the supervision a written application setting out the grounds.
  Those grounds require the supervisor to confirm that the person is still suffering from a mental disorder within the meaning of the Act and that the use of the power to take and convey is necessary, not just beneficial or convenient, for the sake of the patient's health and safety and for the protection of others. The amendment therefore links the use of the power to some threat to patients' health or risk to their or other's safety.
  1164
  We believe that the power can be justified only when it is subjected to such clear and explicit regulation. It is only in those circumstances that professionals and patients will be able to see the reason for using the power and any justification there may be for it.
  Mr. Kevin Hughes: I shall be brief in my remarks today as the points were explored in great depth on Second Reading and in Committee. I welcome the fact that the Government have decided to put the issues regarding the provision of care for the mentally ill on the agenda. However, I must also voice my concerns about the legislation that is now before Parliament.
  The Government claim that the Mental Health (Patients in the Community) Bill is "uncontroversial", but my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) has pointed out that that is certainly not so. The Government have failed completely to listen to the widespread opposition to their proposals. We know that leading health professionals and patient organisations are united in their opposition to the Bill. They are particularly concerned about the proposed power to take and convey people with mental illness to places of treatment. Therefore, I support the amendments moved by my hon. Friend that would remove that power from the Bill.
  First, the proposal is an affront to civil liberties and we covered that ground in Committee. The Bill provides no restrictions on who can exercise the power to take and convey and there is no requirement to inform the patient of the reasons for its use. The Bill allows the patient's supervisor to nominate any other person or agency to take and convey the patient. The supervisor does not have to obtain any additional authority before delegating that power and there are no safeguards to protect the person being conveyed or the person effecting the conveyance.
  Secondly, I question the workability of the proposal. The Bill proposes that patients be taken and conveyed to a specified place, but it does not suggest what should happen to patients once they have been taken and conveyed. It is difficult to see how an unwilling patient could be forced to take part in activities such as education and training, even if that patient has been successfully taken and conveyed to a specified place.
  The proposal seeks to compel patients to use services but, amazingly, it provides no guarantee that those services will be provided. The proposal threatens to damage the relationship of trust between patient and supervisor and there are concerns that, as a result of the Bill, patients in the community will be discouraged from remaining in contact with the mental health services.
  Many social workers and community psychiatric nurses are not keen to take on the new power as they believe that it could put them at risk from potentially violent patients. Some professionals have said that they would not use any of the Bill's provisions—which they regard as unnecessary—as they believe that the Mental Health Act 1983 is adequate. Leading mental health professionals have expressed strong reservations about the proposals on take and convey. My hon. Friend has quoted the remarks of Professor Chris Thomson, registrar of the Royal College of Psychiatrists. It is worth repeating, and I hope that the Minister will listen:
  "To many psychiatrists and others this is the worst of both worlds. The mentally ill would be subject to the power of 'arrest' to no apparent purpose."

  1165
  That concern is shared by many people who work daily with the mentally ill. It is ridiculous for the Government to seek to improve the provision of care for the mentally ill without heeding the advice of the professionals who daily provide that care.
  The Bill fails to address the concerns of the caring professions, who are anxious that treatment for the mentally ill should be properly addressed and funded. The Bill's provisions do not address long-term issues but are a quick fix aimed at mending public opinion rather than mending an outmoded and underfunded system.
  I hope that the Government have noted past debates and those today, will listen to health professions, and will accept the amendments, so that we may all be united in getting behind better services for the mentally ill.
  Mr. David Nicholson: I hope that I have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) in asking my hon. Friend the Minister to resist the amendments. It is important that this difficult and sensitive subject should be explored at this stage of the Bill and the speeches have been helpful, but my hon. Friend will be aware that the National Schizophrenia Fellowship has briefed us to resist the amendments. The fellowship is not concerned about this particular power. In fact, the NSF thinks that it is sometimes necessary to use that power. Patients found wandering in the streets need to be returned to their accommodation. When offered transport by authorised staff, they are willing to accept it.
  In addition to the NSF's representations, I and other hon. Members are aware of individual episodes in our constituencies. Such a safeguard is necessary for people to accept and support the care in the community measures that the Government have introduced, with widespread support, in recent years. I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend that he resists the amendments.
  Mr. Bowls: The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) invited me to join him on the high wire. Although we paled at the thought of the impact on the Chamber, that summed up the balance that we are seeking to achieve. That was evident even on the other side of the House. The hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) said that the 1983 Act was adequate, while the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) said that the system was outmoded. Somewhere in the middle is the need to improve the system all the time, for the benefit of patients and the whole community.
  When the Law Commission's report on mentally incapacitated adults was published, it looked to extend the power to convey to guardianship, which the commission said was the unanimous view of everyone that it consulted. We heard a quote from the Royal College of Psychiatrists, but I could quote another report that states exactly the opposite—that the Government are not going far enough. That message has also come from the British Medical Association, and the view of the National Schizophrenia Fellowship suggested that the amendment should be resisted.
  The Labour party must look at its own policy. In the other place, Labour thought that the power to convey was so good that it should be extended to guardianship, yet Labour Members here believe that that power should not apply to anyone. They must explain to the public why that
  1166
  strengthening of care and support for severely mentally ill people and protection for the community is not something that they are prepared to accept. I believe that the public support our proposal, which is in the interests of patients.
  4.45 pm
  I will seek to reunite the hon. Members for Doncaster, North and for Dulwich. We have made it clear that supervised discharge will work largely on the basis of co-operation between all concerned. We therefore see the power to convey a patient being used only rarely—for example, when he or she is temporarily unco-operative, which point was forcefully made by my hon. Friend and the NSF.
  The principle of a power to convey is already present in the Mental Health Act 1983 when a patient has to be taken to hospital for treatment or assessment. That may be valuable in helping to resolve a temporary crisis. It is limited in nature and provides a halfway house before return to hospital is considered. If there were no power to convey, the care team would be in the position of needing to consider readmission to hospital on every occasion that a patient was unwilling to co-operate with the arrangements for his or her aftercare.
  The starting point for the Bill is that for this particular group of patients, the care programme approach is not enough and needs a degree of legal underpinning to make it effective. It is a matter of balance, and I believe that the Bill has the overall balance right.
  The argument that the power to convey in some way contravenes basic human rights ignores the point that in the absence of supervised discharge, the patient might have had to continue being detained in hospital. In that case, the overall effect of supervised discharge is to enable someone to enjoy a greater measure of freedom—even though subject to some constraints—than would have been possible in its absence.
  Amendments 46 and 47 would require the supervisor to make a "conveyance application" to the health authority before the power was used but the whole point about the provision is that it is likely to be needed in an emergency, to enable a patient to be removed urgently from a situation that may present a danger to him or herself or to other people—for example, as a result of drinking. The supervisor, or someone that he or she has authorised, needs the power to ensure that effective action can be taken in such a case. Requiring the supervisor to apply to the health authority would defeat the purpose of the provision.
  This reserve power is designed to help ensure that the patient will receive and participate in the aftercare services that he or she needs. As the NSF said, it could defuse a crisis and persuade previously resisting patients that it would make sense if they agreed to go back home or to see a doctor or psychiatric nurse. It clearly involves less restriction of a patient than the alternative of considering readmission to hospital when the patient ceases to co-operate in the delivery of aftercare services. In that spirit, I hope that the hon. Member for Dulwich will withdraw her amendment.
  Ms Jowell: I want to make it clear that there is no dispute between myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes). My point was that existing powers are adequate to cover take-and-convey as the Minister intends. I was not making the point that

  1167
  existing legislation is adequate. There is increasingly urgent need for a review of the 1983 Act, to address properly the dramatic and correct shift in the last 12 years in the care and treatment of people suffering from mental illness, from hospitals to the community.
  The Minister attempted to confuse events in the other place. My noble Friends were seeking to draw out the distinction between the power to take and convey and the power of guardianship. They appear almost identical, apart from the use of coercion—guardianship is not a coercive power.
  The Minister described the provision as a reserve power that will be used only rarely. The power might be helpful where a seriously ill individual has stopped taking his or her medication and begins to deteriorate—becoming disturbed and disruptive and causing concern to their family, people around them and professionals. If the Minister envisages take-and-convey being used in such circumstances, I would insist that adequate powers are already available in the 1983 Act. Indeed, the circumstances in which the reserve power is likely to be needed are precisely those in which the individual is likely to need to be taken to hospital for assessment and, possibly, treatment. We are not talking about a draconian and coercive power to take someone to a day centre, simply because they choose not to go; at any rate, I sincerely hope that that is not what is being proposed.
  Although I am naturally disappointed that the Minister is not prepared to accept even the compromise proposals, we shall not press the amendment to a vote. We believe that the House will wish to return to these matters at a future date, when a Labour Government will conduct a thoroughgoing review of the Mental Health Act 1983.
  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments made: No. 15, in page 8, line 7, after `patient' insert
  `who is (or is to be)'.
  No. 16, in page 8, line 21, leave out
  `unless the patient has otherwise requested,'.
  No. 17, in page 8, line 27, 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.'.

  No. 18, in page 8, line 28, leave out ', after such consultation,'.
  No. 19, in page 11, line 12, leave out
  `except where the patient has otherwise requested,'.
  No. 20, in page 11, line 18, 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.'.

  No. 21, in page 12, line 22, leave out
  `unless the patient has otherwise requested,'.
  No. 22, in page 12, line 29, 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.'.

  No. 23, in page 12, line 44, leave out
  `unless the patient otherwise requests,'.
  No. 24, in page 12, line 48, 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.'.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Clause 4

  COMMUNITY CARE ORDERS
  Mr. John McAllion: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 18, line 26, leave out from '35A.—(1)' to 'the' in line 28 and insert
  `Where a patient has attained the age of 16 years'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 3, in page 18, line 39, at end insert 'and
  (c) a community care assessment under section 12A of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (in this Act referred to as a "community care assessment").'.
  No. 4, in page 19, line 2, after 'appropriate', insert
  'to ensure that a patient receives such medical treatment, after-care services and a community care assessment'.
  No. 5, in page 19, line 22, after 'until', insert
  `a community care assessment of the patient has been carried out and'.
  No. 8, in page 21, line 7, at end add ';and
  (c) the community care assessment of the patient.'.
  No. 11, in page 22, line 14, after 'circumstances', insert
  `and his community care assessment'.
  Mr. McAllion: The amendments were inspired by the Law Society of Scotland and cover a range of issues connected with the Bill's Scottish clauses.
  Amendment No. 2 would ensure that only people over the age of 16 could be subject to community care orders. Let me explain why we consider that limitation necessary. The English and Welsh clauses limit supervised discharge to young people who have attained the age of 16, because it is felt that young people would be more appropriately dealt with under the Children Act 1989. If that is the Government's view in respect of young people in England and Wales, surely they should take the same attitude to young people in Scotland.
  The Minister will know that a young person can be subject to compulsory detention under the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984, which does not set an age limit. Although it is fairly rare for a young person to be compulsorily detained in hospital, it does occasionally happen in Scotland. The amendment simply covers circumstances in which a young person is discharged from hospital to live in the community.

  1169
  It is suggested that, if further powers are to be taken to control the young person's life in the community, doctors should involve the expertise of the reporter and the children's panel in Scotland, as they would more appropriately control and supervise the lives of such young people. They certainly have the experience and the procedures to consider young people's needs. Surely it is better to involve them than to use the sheriff court procedure.
  As the Minister will know, the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 provides that those responsible for a young person's welfare may apply to the sheriff for a supervision order for a child in need of extra care. Among the conditions that can then be imposed are conditions relating to residence and medical treatment. Those are precisely the kind of matters that might be included in a community care order; however, it would be preferable to use a supervision order, because that too involves the expertise of the reporter and the children's panel.
  On an allied matter, may I remind the Minister of an incident that took place in Glasgow in 1994 and led to the death of a police constable? Philip McFadden was subsequently committed to the State hospital in Carstairs. The Minister will be aware that the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland had conducted an inquiry into the care and treatment of Philip McFadden before the incident took place. Has there been any progress with that inquiry?
  Amendment No. 3 is intended to provide for a person who is subject to a community care order to have a full community care assessment under the National Health Service and Community.Care Act 1990. It would ensure that such a person received the benefits of the new community care system of assessment and care management under the care programme approach, and would make it clear that such an assessment should be carried out before the granting of the community care order. We believe that the sheriff should have the benefit of seeing the full assessment before granting such an order.
  Amendment No. 4 attempts to ensure that the sheriff does not impose conditions on the community care order that are not relevant to the main aims of that order. The Minister will be aware that the provisions in clause 4 which apply to Scotland are very different from those that apply to the supervised discharge procedures proposed for England. Under the English procedures, the special medical officer has the power to say where the patient should reside, what day facilities he or she should use and whether access to medical and social work personnel will be necessary. Those procedures also include the controversial power to convey the patient to treatment, which was mentioned when we discussed the earlier group of amendments.
  We cannot conceive that the sheriff would have it in mind to include in the order any additional powers, but we consider it essential for the legislation to make very clear what the Government have in mind. Is it proposed, for example, that the controversial power to convey could be introduced in Scotland under the sheriff court procedure? Could patients in Scotland be conveyed against their will to day-care and medical facilities? Those who work in the field in Scotland are interested to know exactly what the Government intend.
  1170
  Amendment No. 5 is designed to ensure that the sheriff has the power to defer making an order until he is satisfied that the patient's community care needs have been assessed. Again, we believe that the sheriff should have the benefit of seeing a full community care assessment of the patient before making an order.
  Amendment No. 8 is linked to, and consequential on, amendment No. 2. It is simply an attempt to bring the proposed new system into line with community care procedures now current in Scotland. It would ensure that the person considering whether to make a community care order would consider the information about the patient's needs as set out in his formal community care assessment. Amendment No. 11 is simply consequential on amendment No. 2.
  Mr. George Foulkes: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak, particularly because the report mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion)— the report of the inquiry conducted by the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland into the care and treatment of Philip McFadden—was published by the Scottish Office today. I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for sending me a copy of the report earlier this week: I have now had time to read it in some detail.
  With the permission of the Scottish Office, I sent a copy of the report to the parents of the late Police Constable Lewis Fulton. Lewis and Gette Fulton, who are constituents of mine, bore their tragic and unnecessary loss with great fortitude and dignity. I am happy to place that on record.
  As I am sure the Minister would admit, the report is quite worrying. I shall deal with two issues arising from it which relate to today's debate. First, there is the question of media coverage of such incidents. Section 7 of the report, on page 23, is very critical of the coverage by the Daily Record, which featured the headline
  "Schizo can't be tried for cop killing",
  and an article that described Philip McFadden as a madman. The same issue contained the headline
  "Teenage schizo can't face trial, but judge orders 'Keep this madman in Carstairs'".
  I entirely agree with the comment of the Mental Welfare Commission:
  "Press coverage is very important, because it forms a basis for the public perception of events. The sort of pejorative language used by the Daily Record is deplorable and does not assist an intelligent debate about the problems of community care."
  We need, above all, an intelligent debate. This is a very difficult issue, and if newspapers—particularly tabloid newspapers—employ such expressions, we shall not have that intelligent debate.
  I shall deal with another section of the report at slightly more length—although not in extenso, hon. Members will be pleased to hear. It relates to the position when Philip McFadden was discharged from the psychiatric hospital. When he was in the hospital, he had the support and help of a very experienced consultant psychiatrist, Dr. McCabe—who comes out of the report very well—and a range of specialist support. That support was expensive—rightly so—but it was immediately available, and provided excellent support for a very disturbed young man at a very difficult time. When Mr. McFadden moved out into the community—this point relates to community care—the general practitioner was his first line of support.

  1171
  We all accept that GPs should be the first line of support. GPs are anxious to remind us that people cannot be referred to consultants, that people cannot get any other kind of medical treatment and that they must go to their GP. They demand the right to be the primary support in medical care, but in so being they have some responsibilities to society and, above all, to their patients.
  When Philip McFadden's mother was in desperate need of urgent support and assistance she rightly called her GP. The Minister will confirm, however, that for a substantial period that distraught lady could not get past the GP's receptionist. I have heard of many instances where anxious and desperate patients or their relatives have been fobbed off by receptionists. That is what happened in this case.
  Eventually, after persisting, and with the help of Rosemary Fitch—a psychiatric nurse who comes out very well in the report—she got through but found that not one GP was available in the practice. It is astonishing that this big, busy practice in Glasgow had not one GP available to deal with the mother of a psychiatric patient. By this time, Philip McFadden was wielding a knife and threatening people in the family.
  5 pm
  When Philip McFadden's mother eventually got through to the doctor some time later, he refused to attend. I know of incidents in Scotland where GPs have been assaulted, and we have to take account of that, but this was a difficult situation, and the report says that the doctor should have contacted the police and gone with them so that there was medical and police assistance simultaneously. That was not done in this case. Instead, a young police constable went along on his own and was stabbed to death. In my view, it happened because the system, under which GPs give immediate support to people like Philip McFadden's mother, broke down.
  That is why I am asking the Minister to review the role and responsibilities of GPs. That is important. More young people will be discharged into the community, which is absolutely right in principle, but the necessary support must be available to ensure their protection and the safety of the general public—in this case, a young policeman.
  I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that he will contact the Royal College of General Practitioners and the British Medical Association, both of which provided experts to give evidence to the commission. Dr. Jim Rodger of the Scottish Council of the Royal College of General Practitioners and Dr. John Gamer of the Scottish committee of the BMA suggested that there should be some improvements, that GPs need to be available 24 hours a day for such emergencies, for which they need clear rules such as how and when to bring in the police to work alongside them.
  This was a tragic death that should never have occurred. In my view, the system broke down. I am not pointing the finger at any individuals, although some are criticised in the report. I hope that the Minister will deal with those criticisms and say how he will respond to them. The Mental Welfare Commission has pointed the finger at certain individuals, but I am more concerned about the system and to ensure that, as far as is humanly possible—it can never be guaranteed—the kind of situation in which Lewis Fulton met his death does not occur again. I know that I am speaking on behalf of his parents and his widow
  1172
  when I say that they are anxious to ensure that such a situation does not occur again, and that no other young policeman has to face the same difficulties.
  The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton)I share the sympathy of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) for the family of police officer Lewis Fulton, and I shall make a full statement on that in a moment.
  I shall deal first with the amendments, which seek to achieve two things. First, they would have the effect of making available community care orders to patients who are over 16, whether detained or otherwise. Although the question of detaining a child under 16 in a psychiatric hospital is a disturbing thought—children can become mentally ill—the existing provision recognises that it may be necessary for a child to be detained in hospital. If there is a possibility of a person under 16 being detained in hospital, it is only fair that that person should have the same rehabilitation opportunities as all others so detained, including access to community care orders. For that reason, an age limit of 16 years, in our view, should not be imposed.
  The amendments also seek to introduce a statutory requirement that the patient should receive a needs assessment, and propose an associated change to the Bill. We do not need to legislate to do that, as local authorities already have the duty, under section 12(a) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, to assess people's social care needs. We believe that the duties on authorities to provide aftercare, under section 8 of the 1984 Act, are quite clear, and include, through the Bill, duties to provide aftercare for persons subject to a community care order. We shall also underline in guidance the circumstances in which that duty applies to community care order patients. If there are problems in meeting these duties, they should be addressed administratively, not by primary legislation.
  With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) will not press the amendments. If there are matters that require the Children Act provision to apply in a case, they can definitely be used, but it is still preferable to have the opportunity to use a community care order if that would help to support a young person on discharge from hospital.
  The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley raised the very tragic case of police officer Fulton and inquired into the care and treatment of Mr. Philip McFadden prior to the incident on 17 June 1994. I am grateful to the commission for the comprehensive way in which it has carried out its inquiry. Because of the possibility that Mr. McFadden may yet stand trial, if considered fit to do so in future, the inquiry has necessarily concentrated on the care and treatment that he received before the death of police officer Fulton, to whose family we extend our deepest sympathy.
  The commission's report recommended: first, that the Secretary of State and the Royal College of General Practitioners and other appropriate GP organisations consider the need for further guidance for GPs in dealing with potentially violent, mentally disturbed patients in community care. Secondly, it recommended further discussions between the police and doctors to address the issue of collaboration in respect of crisis situations involving people with mental illness who are potentially violent. Local arrangements should be agreed between GPs, psychiatric services, mental health officers and the

  1173
  police to deal with such emergency situations. Thirdly, police training should be appraised to ensure that there is adequate preparation for recognising mental illness and dealing with members of the public who are mentally ill.
  I am glad to confirm that the Government have accepted those recommendations. As a first step, we have written to the national general practitioner and police organisations, enclosing a copy of the commission's report and asking them to agree with us the action necessary to address the commission's recommendations. I shall also refer the report to the Greater Glasgow health board to consider whether any separate action, bearing on the board's responsibilities, is necessary to address the commission's comments and conclusions in relation either to primary care or hospital settings. As I mentioned to the hon. Gentleman, in relation to GPs' responsibilities, the report has been sent to the Royal College of General Practitioners and the BMA, and we will follow up with them how they can address the commission's recommendations.
  I am also sympathetic to the point that it is undesirable for the press to leap to conclusions in cases of this nature. Indeed, the commission's report emphasised that Mr. McFadden received appropriate treatment from the adolescent psychiatry service in Glasgow and dispels any suggestion that he had been inappropriately discharged into the community. It also criticises misleading aspects of the press coverage given to the case, including the suggestion, which was irrelevant, that a shortage of psychiatric admission beds had contributed to the incident.
  Mr. Foulkes: Before the Minister concludes, I should like to thank him. The Government have acted properly in all that they have done and I sincerely welcome the Minister's announcement. It shows that when dealing with such sensitive matters party politics need not play a part and that we can sometimes move forward with agreement. I am especially grateful to the Minister.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for these measures and our actions on the recommendations.
  I can now respond specifically to a point made by the hon. Member for Dundee, East. Under the Bill, there is a much more specific provision than a power to convey in Scotland, which requires the return of the person to hospital for reassessment if his mental condition has deteriorated. That can be done by a member of the care team. The direction to attend hospital for reassessment in such cases constitutes sufficient authority to convey a person to hospital, and an additional power to convey as proposed in England and Wales is not considered necessary. In other words, the technicalities may be different but the purpose is the same, and I thought it necessary to mention that.
  Of course, the decision to detain a person must be made on the basis of clinical diagnosis and has to be of a nature or degree that warrants detention. Detention can be for a period of six months and can then be renewed at 12-month intervals depending on the mental condition of the patient involved.
  Mr. McAllion: I thank the Minister for his prior notification of the publication of the report by the Mental
  1174
  Welfare Commission for Scotland and I associate myself with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) to the effect that the Government have handled the matter properly.
  I should also like to add my support from the Front Bench to my hon. Friend's criticism of the tabloid coverage of the tragic incident. The use of words such as "schizo" and "madman" was disgraceful and wholly unacceptable. It strikes me that the tabloids in particular increasingly exercise considerable power in our society, but with power should go responsibility. In this case, they have shown no responsibility whatsoever.
  I also accept to a certain extent the Minister's explanation about ensuring that people under 16 should have the same rehabilitation opportunities as everyone else. The point is not that they should be denied those rehabilitation opportunities but that their rehabilitation opportunities should be under the supervision of the reporter on the children's panel service. That is the most appropriate way to handle them, as opposed to the sheriff court system in Scotland.
  I thank the Minister for his remarks about improvements that the Government are suggesting for better collaboration between the police and general practitioners and for police training, and for referring the report to the Greater Glasgow health board.
  Finally, I hope that there is to be no scapegoating in this affair. If there are any lessons to be learnt about weaknesses in the system, I hope that we try to deal with them rather than hold an individual responsible. However, I am grateful to the Minister and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 25, in page 19, line 45, after `(3)(a)' insert 'or (f) 'or (3A)'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 26 to 44.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The amendments provide for communication with an intimation to informal carers and, in certain circumstances, the nearest relative. They are proposed in response to representations made in Committee.
  The amendments provide that those who give informal care to the patient are informed of the various stages of the community care order—its making, renewal or revocation, variation of its conditions, a change of special medical officer or aftercare officer or a reassessment in hospital. That is a direct response to an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Dundee, East.
  The amendments also enable the responsible medical officer, the special medical officer or the aftercare officer, as appropriate, to consult at the various stages with the patient's nearest relative when a patient has a history of violence despite the patient's objections. The right to override the patient's wish would allow those caring for the patient to obtain information from the nearest relative, which might be essential to an assessment of the risk that the patient poses to himself or others. This is in the light of an amendment to the English provisions sponsored by

  1175
  the National Schizophrenia Fellowship and proposed by the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). I am glad to incorporate them in the Bill.
  Mr. McAllion: I am grateful to the Minister for tabling the amendments-I wish only that he would be as responsive and flexible in dealing with other matters that we raise with him.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 26, in page 20, line 13, after '(3)(a)' insert 'or (3A)'
  No. 27, in page 20, line 48, 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.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
  5.15 pm
  Mr. McAllion: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 22, line 21, after 'force;', insert—
  '(iv) the views of the patient and his or her carers as to such matters, as disclosed to the person making the application for the community care order during consultation;'.
  The amendment would ensure that the person making the report under an application for a community care order must inform the sheriff about the discussions that he or she has had with the patient and with his or her carers. We believe that it is important that the sheriff should understand any problems with the community care order that either the patient or his carers may have. The responsible medical officer will have consulted both before making the application, and the amendment requires him merely to report on those discussions.
  Although the patient has the right to attend the hearing, there is a real possibility that in many cases he or she may be too ill to attend or may be intimidated by the process. The amendment would be an additional safeguard to ensure that his or her views are taken into account.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The amendment would introduce a requirement that the aftercare officer's report accompanying the application should include the views of the patient and his carers about the proposed order. As drafted, it would be the patient's views, as disclosed to the responsible medical officer.
  I must point out that the Bill requires that patient and carers are consulted by the responsible medical officer before the application is made. The application should reflect the views of those consulted, and guidance will be issued by us. As I am sure the House is also aware, the proposed new clause 35A(2) attracts the provision of section 113 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 to the application of a community care order. That means that the patient must be given the opportunity to be heard by the sheriff, either in person or through a representative.
  I hope that the House will agree that an interested and vociferous patient probably will wish to attend the hearing, and that is the best safeguard. We take the view that a patient who is so ill as to be unable to attend the court hearing should probably not be considered for a community care order. In such circumstances, the patient should be cared for in hospital.
  I accept that a patient may choose not to attend the hearing, and we shall use guidance to underline the importance to the application of the views of those
  1176
  consulted and to make it clear to the various professionals involved that patients should be encouraged to attend or be represented at such hearings. Given those assurances, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. McAllion: In view of the Minister's assurances about guidance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
  Amendments made: No. 28, in page 22, line 33, at end insert 'or (3A)'
  No. 29, in page 23, line 18, 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.'
  No. 30, in page 23, line 20, after 'above' insert
  'and any consultation under subsection (3A) above'
  No. 31, in page 23, line 29, after '(3)(b)(i)' insert 'or (iv) or (3A)'
  No. 32, in page 23, line 36, leave out from 'of' to 'of in line 38 and insert
  `references to subsections (3)(b)(i) and (3A) of this section for the references to subsections (3)(a) and (3A)'
  No. 33, in page 24, line 7, 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.'.
  No. 34, in page 24, line 13, after '(1)(a)' insert 'or (1A)'.
  No. 35, in page 24, line 31, after '(1)(a)' insert 'or (e) or (1A)'.
  No. 36, in page 24, line 37, leave out from 'of to 'of in line 39 and insert
  'references to subsections (1)(a) and (1A) of this section for the references to subsections (3)(a) and (3A)'.
  No. 37, in page 25, line 43, 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.'.
  No. 38, in page 25, line 51, after '(a)' insert 'or (e)'.
  No. 39, in page 25, line 52, at end insert 'or subsection (4A) above'.
  No. 40, in page 27, line 16, 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.'.
  No. 41, in page 27, line 45, after '(2)(a)' insert 'or (e) or (2A)'.
  No. 42, in page 29, line 28, after 'officer' insert
  ',any person falling within subsection (2)(e) below'.
  No. 43, in page 29, line 43, 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.'.
  No. 44, in page 30, 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—

  1177

  (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.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Schedule 1
  AFTER-CARE UNDER SUPERVISION: SUPPLEMENTARY
  Ms Jowell: I beg to move amendment No. 48, in page 41, line 32, at end insert—

  'Mental Health Act Commission
  16A. In section 121 of the Mental Health Act 1983, in subsection (4) leave out from the word "the" on the fifth occasion where it occurs to the end of the subsection and insert—

  "(a) the exercise of the powers and the discharge of the duties conferred or imposed by this Act so far as relating to patients received into guardianship or after-care under supervision under this Act; and

  (b) the care and treatment, or any aspect of the care and treatment in hospitals and mental nursing homes of patients who are not liable to be detained.".'.

  The amendment would modify the Secretary of State's powers to extend the remit of the Mental Health Act Commission. It would not require him to extend its responsibilities, but would allow him specifically to require the commission to have a responsibility towards patients who are placed in aftercare subject to supervision and who are received into guardianship. There are ample reasons to believe that the commission should have responsibility for protecting the interests of patients in the community as much as those of patients in hospital
  First, we have seen from recent reports what can be the tragic and catastrophic consequences of neglect, maladministration and the incompetent care of patients living at home. Is the Minister not prepared to see the connection between the poor standards of care and services that those independent investigations have revealed and the absence of any standing body of experts with legal powers to investigate complaints of poor care?
  Secondly, the new legal powers are likely to affect not a handful of patients. but as many as 3,000 at any one time. If, as may be predicted, certain patients remain under supervision for long or indefinite periods, the total will rise well beyond that number. If the Minister justifies the policy behind the Bill by observing that care and treatment has shifted from hospital to the community, the logic of that argument should mean that patients in the community, especially those subject to legal powers, should have the same protection as that afforded to those in hospital
  The third justification for the change is that the commission itself wants this added responsibility because it believes it to be necessary, not simply desirable. It is necessary because the Bill introduces new coercive powers, and the use of those powers should be overseen by an independent body with powers to investigate complaints from patients or from carers. It is one of the important checks and balances that make the difference between law that is fair and law that is unfair
  We know that the Government have no principled objection to such a role for the commission, since in Scotland they are to extend the role of the Mental Welfare Commission to patients subject to community care orders. It is not enough for the Minister simply to distinguish Scottish law from that in England, and to use that as justification for a different approach. We can well imagine how his objections to the amendment would be regarded by those who may be among the 3,000 patients subject to new powers, desperately needing the assistance of the Mental Health Act Commission
  In Committee and today, Opposition Members have drawn attention to the flaws of the drafting and procedure of the Bill. We are most concerned that, in practice, the powers may be used unfairly, often to support poor practice and defensive and unimaginative styles of working, rather than humane and effective care. In our view, such concerns provide all the more reason why the commission should have responsibility from the outset for monitoring the way in which the Act is used—not from a distance, but by being able to receive and consider complaints from patients and others acting on their behalf
  Mr. David Atkinson: While I have no objection to what is proposed in paragraph (a) of the amendment, I must question whether the Opposition have considered the consequences and especially the cost of what is proposed in paragraph (b), which extends the remit of the 1983 Act to all patients, not only those who are detained under the Act. That must be at the expense of the patients to whom the Act applies. We are all aware of the challenges before the commission at present, in fulfilling its responsibility to patients who are detained, let alone extending the scope of the Act to those who are not.
  The amendment is not any substitute for what is needed now: a complete review of the 1983 Act, which is now 13 years old. I do not think that the amendment is the way forward.
  Mr. Bowis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his last point. Indeed, we have said on occasions that in due course we shall consider that.
  I am grateful to the hon. Lady for tabling the amendment, which raises a debate that we had at some length in Committee and in another place. Before even a permissive power is taken, the full implications need to be properly thought through, and proper consultation should take place. On that basis, it would not be right to accept the amendment.
  I base my view on three factors. The first relates to the priorities for the use of the commission's resources. The commission was set up expressly to safeguard the interests of detained patients. Having been deprived of their liberty, they have a particular claim on the commission's protection. Any extension of its remit to other groups, whether now or in the future, must not be at its expense.
  The second reason is connected with the fundamental changes that the commission is already facing. The commission is undergoing a major reorganisation of its structure and approach to its current remit, and that needs to be allowed to settle before an extension can be considered. Thirdly, it would make more sense to consider the commission's remit in relation to the operation of the Act, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) is also suggesting. We shall want to

  1179
  consider that in due course, when it is possible to assess the impact of supervised discharge in the context of all the other initiatives that we have taken on the care of severely mentally ill people.
  That does not mean that in the meantime the Mental Health Act Commission will have no locus at all in reviewing the use of the new power. Given its general responsibility to protect the rights of patients who are liable to be detained, it will be able to review the procedures for making a supervision application, since the patient at that point must be liable to be detained. The commission's involvement will be similar to its monitoring of section 117 aftercare procedures before a patient is discharged. The extension of the commission's remit in that area is certainly not ruled out for all time, but now is not the right time to be considering it. In the light of that, I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw the amendment.
  Ms Jowell: I add only to my opening remarks concerning the conclusion reached by the Mental Health Act Commission. In its public policy statement on the Bill, it said:
  "Without some extension to the remit of the Commission to enable it to monitor the use of the new powers, and to ensure that the new statutory controls are only used strictly in accordance with statutory requirements, it considers both patients and community may not derive the full benefit from its provisions."
  I listened very carefully to what the Minister said and welcomed his rather veiled undertaking to ensure that the commission keeps those matters under review. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) knows that Opposition Members have long called for a comprehensive review of the Mental Health Act 1983 for the reasons that he outlined. We remain committed to that review and, from what the Minister said, it sounded as if he was at last being persuaded of the need for it.
  In the light of the Minister's rather tentative assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
  Order for Third Reading read
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Bowis.]
  5.26 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: The Bill was primarily motivated by the public concern about the plight of people with serious mental illness who are discharged into the community. The plight of such patients has been highlighted by a series of terrible incidents, a disturbing number of which have resulted in fatalities.
  Stephen Laudat stabbed and killed a man in 1994, only eight months after being discharged from a psychiatric department. Jason Mitchell was discharged by consultants and within days had killed his father and an elderly couple—also in 1994. John Rous, a paranoid schizophrenic, killed an untrained volunteer hostel worker, Jonathan Newby, in Oxford in 1993. Christopher Clunis, a patient who had been in and out of psychiatric and social services care for most of his life, stabbed and killed Jonathan Zito on the London underground in 1992. Peter Robak, suffering from a severe personality disorder, killed Anthony and Barbara Rawlings and their 15-year-old son just 11 days after being discharged from hospital in 1990.
  1180
  Those cases show the dangers that are posed to members of the public by a very small number of severely mentally ill people who develop serious personality disorders. We are united with the Government in wanting to see better care for such patients and better protection for the public. The inquiries and reports that followed the tragedies tell us what action could have been taken to prevent the killings. They also make a number of clear recommendations concerning the implementation of the policy of caring for mentally ill patients in the community.
  The literature is plentiful: the Ritchie report on the care and treatment of Christopher Clunis; the Royal College of Psychiatrists' Boyd report on homicides and suicides among the mentally ill; the Audit Commission's report "Finding a Place"; "The Falling Shadow", a report by Louis Blom-Cooper and others into the events surrounding the killing of Georgina Robinson; and the 1994 report of the Select Committee on Health into community care for people with serious mental illness.
  In each case, the authors point to the same problems: lack of liaison among care agencies, and lack of resources to provide care and treatment in psychiatric departments and in the community, which is particularly serious in deprived inner-city areas. There have also been failures to act on warning signals, sometimes with terrible and tragic results. Every report recommends improvement in those areas as a top priority.
  Those are the recommendations that the House should consider, and upon which the Government should have acted when they drafted the Bill. They are recommendations which, if taken up, would both provide better care for severely mentally ill patients and allay public concern about safety.
  However, the Government have ignored the recommendations. Instead of listening to expert opinion and learning from the mistakes of the past, they have succeeded in drafting a Bill that misses the point, is unpopular with those who work in mental health and will do nothing to improve patient care. Indeed, it could well make matters worse. The Bill fails to take the action desperately needed to improve the care provided for the small proportion of severely mentally ill patients who pose a potential danger to themselves or to members of the public.
  A new concept of supervised discharge is the central proposal in the Bill. Supervision orders are to be made in respect of a patient who would represent
  "a substantial risk of serious harm"
  to himself or herself or to others. A supervision order will last initially for six months, and subsequently for periods of a year at a time.
  As part of an agreed aftercare programme, people under supervision may be required to reside at a specific place or to attend for occupation, education or training. A supervisor, who must be a person professionally involved in the patient's care, will be appointed to monitor the supervision order.
  Many people will hear that and think it a good idea. Some patients need extra support and attention while recovering from treatment for serious mental illness, especially if they have a tendency not to comply with their care programme. But such a form of aftercare supervision already exists, and it is known as a guardianship order.

  1181
  Many people who work in mental health community care are at a loss to understand the need for a completely new order when the existing power of guardianship offers an almost identical provision. Although it is used rarely, perhaps because of the strain that it puts on scarce resources, guardianship is effective in the small number of cases in which some form of statutory supervision is required. It facilitates community care, while offering protection to the patient.
  The key difference between a guardianship order and the proposed supervision order is contained in the Bill's most controversial and most strongly opposed proposal—the power to take and convey. The need for a power to convey a person under supervision to a place of treatment, training, education or residence specified under the terms of the supervision order is highly questionable. I do not understand how such a power, which may be exercised by anyone nominated by the patient's supervisor, is appropriate to a co-operative and humane approach to community care.
  If the power is exercised against a patient's will, it is highly unlikely to encourage compliance with his or her treatment plan. There is also a danger that the coercive elements of the new arrangements will compromise the important relationship of trust that should exist between patients and carers. It is important to emphasise the fact that one cannot care for people in a community environment without some consent and trust between the person being supervised and the supervisor.
  The power to take and convey has been opposed by many groups and organisations, including the Law Society, the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales, MIND, the British Association of Social Workers, the Mental Health Foundation, the Community Psychiatric Nurses Association, SANE, the Royal College of Nursing, Unison, Survivors Speak Out and Liberty.
  In Committee, the Minister failed to make the case for the power to take and convey, and several hon. Members have shown their opposition to it by signing early-day motion 1487. The power constitutes a significant erosion of civil liberties, with no conceivable benefit to patients.
  The Bill allows the patient's supervisor to nominate any other person or agency to take and convey the patient. The supervisor does not have to obtain any additional authority before delegating the power. The application of the existing provisions for "arrest" laid down in sections 6 and 137 of the Mental Health Act 1983 is subject to strict criteria and numerous safeguards made clear in the code of practice. That code contains guidelines for best practice and sets out the rights of patients, and the responsibilities of care professionals to safeguard those rights—safeguards that are absent from the Bill as it stands.
  We had hoped that the Minister would accept the widening of the remit of the Mental Health Act Commission to include patients receiving after-care under supervision. That would have reduced the likelihood of the power to take and convey being abused, or used to reinforce worst rather than best practice. The idea was backed by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Law Society, MIND and a range of other organisations, including the commission itself, so it is disappointing that the Minister has rejected it.
  1182
  The Minister has not been consistent about how the power will work. In another place Baroness Cumberlege said:
  "Clearly this power to convey would be used only in times of emergency."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 April 1995; Vol. 563, c. 156.]
  That begs two questions. What constitutes an emergency? And what kinds of emergency does the Minister believe are not already covered by sections 6 and 137 of the 1983 Act?
  The Minister suggested that the power would be used in different circumstances. He told the Committee:
  "We are providing for a reserve power, as it were, which would be available to the supervisor of that small group of vulnerable and sometimes unpredictable patients, in order to overcome a temporary unwillingness to co-operate."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 6 July 1995; c. 94.]
  Baroness Cumberlege said that the power would be used only in emergencies, yet the Minister said that it would be used to overcome temporary unwillingness to co-operate. The two sets of circumstances are different. So nobody will know how or when the power is to be exercised. Perhaps in this final stage, before the Bill reaches the statute book, the Minister will be able to dispel the confusion and make a final and authoritative statement on when the Government intend the power to take and convey to be exercised.
  It is all the more important that the Minister makes such a statement, because the Bill is silent about what will happen once the patient has been taken and conveyed to the specified place. It appears that he cannot be forced to stay there against his will, and it is difficult to see how an unwilling patient, who has probably been further aggravated by being taken and conveyed, can be forced to take part in occupation, education, training, or whatever else he is supposed to do.
  The threat will undermine the relationship of trust that must exist between carer and patient. My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) referred to the views of the registrar of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, Professor Chris Thomson. In an article in the British Medical Journal, Dr. Nigel Eastman, the head of forensic psychiatry at St. George's medical school, expressed even stronger reservations about the power to take and convey:
  "A highly detrimental therapeutic effect is likely to arise from community psychiatric nurses forcing unwilling patients into their cars and taking them to day centres or hospitals where they are then asked to take treatment that they have (presumably) already refused."
  We believe that the proposition is unworkable.
  In introducing the Bill, the Government have acknowledged that community care for the seriously mentally ill is not working effectively. We are united on that point. However, they have not realised the scale of the problem, nor identified the solutions correctly. Coercion is not a substitute for co-ordination and co-operation. Statutory powers are no substitute for well-resourced and focused community care. As a consequence, the Bill will not achieve in practice what it sets out to achieve.
  5.39 pm
  Mr. David Atkinson: I welcome the Bill in its final form, as does the National Schizophrenia Fellowship. We are grateful for the fact that many of our amendments have been accepted. I should also like to take this opportunity to welcome the Minister of State's

  1183
  pre-emptive response in August to the recent report of the social services inspectorate and the clinical standards advisory group, when he called on health authorities to get their act together in three months, to bridge the gap between the theory of community care for the mentally ill and the reality, when it falls short.
  That stark reality was brutally exposed by last month's report of the Woodley inquiry into the death of Stephen Laudat, to which the hon. Members for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) and for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) referred. Woodley recommended better co-operation between health authorities and social services, the provision of more day centres, better training in risk assessment and management and a complete avoidance of bed-and-breakfast accommodation for homeless mentally ill people. All those recommendations echo long-standing concerns of the fellowship—to which I would add the need for a wider recognition of mental disability as well as physical disability in the benefits and allowances that are available for the disabled.
  The implementation of this legislation will undoubtedly assist the care programme approach to the mentally ill, by providing more powers and greater flexibility for the supervision of discharged patients. I fear, however, that it will serve only to highlight further the shortfall of psychiatrists and key workers, whose case loads just do not allow enough time for their patients.
  Still, although the Bill represents no substitute for a complete review of the 1983 Act, which was conceived against the background of a bygone age for the mentally ill, I welcome the fact that the Minister has confirmed again this evening that the Government are giving thought to a review of the Act. The Bill confirms that the community care approach to the mentally ill is here to stay, and I look forward to the undoubted contribution that the Bill will make to public safety, which must always be paramount.
  5.41 pm
  Mr. Kirkwood: The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) said a few moments ago that coercion is not a substitute for co-operation. Bearing in mind the job to which he is moving in a few months' time, I am sure that many of his right hon. and hon. Friends will remind him of that statement. I can think of no one better than the hon. Gentleman to replace the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon)—and if the hon. Gentleman uses the power to take and convey as effectively as the hon. Member for Jarrow has done, he will be a great success.
  This is an important Bill, but I share some of the worries expressed about it by hon. Members on both sides, most recently by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson). The Government will get their legislation. Certainly, they could not afford to ignore some of the terrible tragedies to which the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East rightly referred. But I do not think that this is the right measure; I remain to be convinced that it is. The Government's argument was probably the best they could muster in the circumstances.
  I commend the Minister's handling of the Bill throughout its stages, but I sincerely hope that he will take away certain clear messages from the whole process. One is that the opportunity should have been taken fundamentally to review and reform the Mental Health
  1184
  Act. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) say that Labour would give the subject priority in the new Parliament, should it have any influence in it. And I know the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) well enough to know that, when we have a Scottish Parliament, it will be high on our agenda there, too. I hope, in the meantime, that the Minister—or his successor—will not forget the undertaking that he has given. The urgent need for reform has been expressed by many pressure groups and by hon. Members of all parties, and I hope that the Government will tackle it constructively.
  As I said on Second Reading, I still feel that we need to deal with the problems not so much of the high-profile tragic cases as of the people who might commit suicide or engage in self-neglect, who make up the vast burden of the cases with which the professionals have to deal. I do wonder whether the Bill will help them; I remain sceptical whether it will. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East listed some of the professional bodies that remain unconvinced as well.
  It is not a shortage of powers that is the problem: it is a shortage of resources. We need more appropriate accommodation and more employment, training and recreational resources. That is not to say that a blank cheque should be offered, but these are the sort of issues that we would have liked to hear more about from the Department during the passage of the Bill.
  I also fear that there will be a diversion of resources within the provision of mental care and the treatment of mental illness, owing to the new Act. I hope that the Minister will look into that carefully and that, if he finds evidence of people having to divert resources from other equally urgent needs in the treatment of mental illness, he will respond urgently. Moreover, I cannot help but think that the Bill will impose a new raft of responsibilities, of a kind that the Government have not foreseen, on mental health nurses.
  More than anything else, the Bill is a lost opportunity. We shall give the Minister his Bill; in return he must monitor it carefully, and not use it as a substitute for a thoroughgoing reform in the future.
  5.45 pm
  Mr. John Gunnell: I want to ask just one question: why has the Bill caused so much disquiet in communities that include many mentally ill people or people who have suffered from mental illness at some stage but have been restored to good health? The power to take and convey is responsible for that disquiet, yet it is clear from the Bill that it can be applied only to limited numbers of cases. It is certainly clear, judging by the cases cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East, that it is necessary to have powers to protect the public; but the concern is much more widespread than just among those to whom the Bill may apply.
  There are many people on what I might term the fringes of mental illness. They may have spent some time in an institution but have since been integrated fairly well back in the community. But they still entertain uncertainties at the back of their minds about these powers—they trouble them. Surprisingly, perhaps, certain groups of people have been anxious for a change in the powers without really having understood them.

  1185
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East that there has been no satisfactory response on the issue of the Mental Health Commission. It could perhaps have been a voice of independence, but there has been no movement on that. People have therefore concluded that there has once again been a lack of consultation and that the Government have been unwilling to compromise on the detail. That only adds to people's fears. There are many people to whom the Minister does not intend this measure to apply, but they still harbour fears—perhaps because at times in the past they have been unable to control their behaviour. They therefore suspect that the Bill's powers might ultimately be applied to them.
  There is a second reason for the disquiet that the Bill has caused. It would be fine if the people whom I have described were set to gain something from the Bill, but it is, as others have said, a lost opportunity. It does not tackle the real problems of community care for the mentally ill. When the Bill was first presented it became clear that it would be unaccompanied by additional resources. One recognises that now limited additional resources have been provided, but those resources have understandably been directed to a small minority of mentally ill patients because the Bill focuses on them. However, the Bill contains nothing for the vast majority of people.
  The Mental Health Foundation has produced a list of the needs of mentally ill people. It says that they need an appropriate place to live, an adequate income, a varied social life, employment and other day activity, help and support, respect and trust, choice and consultation. All those are absent from the Bill. The Audit Commission report made clear how important was a secure place to live for mentally ill people. The Bill does not tackle that issue. The people who have expressed their fears to me feel that they have lost something. They are uncertain about their ultimate freedom in certain circumstances, but they feel that they have gained nothing from the Bill. What is more, the Bill has been accompanied by a squeeze on the benefits system, which has hit some of the same people who will not benefit from the Bill.
  I launched a report in the House some months ago for the Matthew Trust. I am sure that the Minister has seen the document. It contained a list of cases and individuals. Amounts such as £25 or £70 can make an enormous difference to such people, but the benefits system somehow misses them out. People fall through the safety net. A new power is being introduced with which they are unhappy. Their real problems are not dealt with. The squeeze on Government funding and benefits makes their circumstances even more adverse.
  Many of the people to whom I have spoken feel that there is discrimination against people who have mental illness. They have certain difficulties if they live in the community without support. People taunt them. Their appearance may be a little unusual. They feel that there is no anti-discrimination legislation in place to protect people who have mental illness, although legislation exists to protect against discrimination on the basis of race or gender.
  1186
  People feel that the Bill threatens their freedom even though, looking at it rationally, we might say that it does not. I have tried to explain that to some of the people with whom I deal, but they do not want to see the measure on the statute book and they would like to see changes.
  The Bill is a lost opportunity, but in a sense it is more than that. The Government have been intransigent on some of the matters that have been raised. Even if in practice those matters make no difference to mentally ill people, that intransigence is seen as a definite Government programme which could just include them. It is hard to bring rational thinking to people who have such fears.
  We have seen papers which support the legislation and argue that the provision of transport is a good thing. One can talk to people along those lines, but one cannot convince them that the measure does not provide an all-powerful body with a power that could reach down and touch them in their communities.
  The Bill is a lost opportunity. I am glad that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench have said that a thorough review of the Mental Health Act 1983 will take place under a Labour Government. I hope that proper resources will be provided for the mentally ill in our community because the need is certainly great.
  5.53 pm
  Mr. Timms: In the earlier debate on the new clause, I drew attention to the criticisms of the Bill in the Woodley report published last month on the killing of Bryan Bennett by Stephen Laudat in Newham. The critical point is that the Bill does nothing to provide desperately needed additional resources for mental health care. As several hon. Members have said, the Bill could make matters worse.
  I have received a letter from Dr. Ruth Taylor, a Newham GP, in which she commented on some of the criticisms levelled by the Woodley report at a Newham psychiatrist referred to in the report as Dr. B. She says:
  "In 1993 three consultant psychiatrists covered the Newham population of 230,000. Dr. B covered a population of 90,000—approximately three times that recommended by the Royal College of Psychiatrists. She carried this burden for ten years … Help was requested from the management of the psychiatry services … but none was forthcoming. In 1992 the general manager and chief executive were warned in writing by the Newham consultants … that their excessive workload made their standards of practice unsafe. No effective change was brought about to alleviate the problem … when professionals are given an impossible workload, disasters are daily waiting to happen."
  That is the reality of mental health care and the Bill does nothing to help. The family of Mr. Bennett are angry. The family of Mr. Laudat, the perpetrator, are angry. The system failed for both of them and it must be radically reviewed, as hon. Members on both sides of the House have said.
  Things are getting worse. The health authority and local authority in my area, despite shocking reductions in their funding, have managed to set aside additional resources for mental health care next year in the light of the Woodley report, but East London and City health authority projects a £7 million deficit next year. The Woodley report highlights the need for extra resources in east London to avoid more incidents such as the one to which I have referred. So why is it proposed to withdraw large sums of money from the district health authority?

  1187
  That is asking for disaster. I urge the Minister to ensure that those threatened draconian cuts to the East London and City budget do not go ahead.
  There is growing anger in east London on mental health matters. On Sunday, several hundred people attended a festival organised by the Newham needs campaign to highlight the problems of inadequate funding for health services in Newham. Fifty-nine people sent electronic mail messages of protest to the Prime Minister and many more sent postcards to the Secretary of State.
  Another matter raised by the Woodley report has not been picked up by the Bill. Recommendation 5.20 of the report recommends that
  "the Department of Health harmonise guidance on Section 117 registers, proposed Supervision registers, and the Care Programme Approach with Community Care Assessment and Care Management in respect of people who have a severe mental illness and their carers. Such guidance should include clarification of clinical, management and practitioner responsibilities and the importance of choice by the service user in who their psychiatrist or key worker is to be for the purposes of sustaining a therapeutic relationship."
  That guidance is urgently needed. It has been discussed for a considerable period. Can the Minister give the House an assurance that it will soon be issued?
  Great efforts are being made in Newham jointly by the health authority and the local authority to learn the lessons of the report. A detailed joint action plan has been drawn up. My plea to the Minister is at least to stop taking resources away from east London and other areas like it, which is what is proposed for the health authority and the local authority for next year. This cannot go on. I urge the Minister to act to change things for the better.
  5.58 pm
  Ms Jowell: The Bill faces in two directions—backwards to the 1983 Act to correct serious anomalies and forward to the new challenges that community care must face. Very rarely is mental health legislation debated on the Floor of the House. It is complex and often controversial. It involves careful balancing of many interests. It raises issues of personal liberty and professional accountability. It touches on the responsibility of public services to provide adequate and effective care for some of the most vulnerable people in our society.
  The law is only one, of a number of influences that must be engaged for good community care to work in practice. The others are the services themselves, the skills and competence of professionals responsible and, of course, ministerial guidance to authorities on the nature and extent of their duties and to professionals on their practice. It is the role of Government and Government alone to determine the respective importance of each of those influences and to orchestrate their working together.
  Public confidence in community care has been badly shattered by recent highly publicised tragedies and that adds a new context to our consideration of legal and policy changes in the area. We can no longer discuss and decide such issues beyond the public's view. For a new contract of trust to be forged with the public, services need to be in place, together with an effective legislative framework, enabling people with mental illness to be properly contained and treated when they are a risk to themselves or to others.
  1188
  As drafted, the Bill will be unfair and probably unworkable. Where it needs to be certain and unambiguous, it remains unclear and open to wide and varied interpretation. The Bill needed to gain the confidence of those who will experience added restriction and interference when placed under supervision. It can do so by providing clear and effective rights and entitlements to services, but it offers nothing new—nothing more than the present vague and unenforceable section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983.
  The picture painted by recent reports on mental health services suggests that Ministers have profound and persistent illusions, or indeed delusions, about the real world in which people with mental illness and those who care for them have to cope. Certainly, we see little sign of a system in practice in which the guarantees and assurances made by Ministers are on offer.
  The Bill needed to win the support of hard-pressed health and social services professionals. It has failed to do so. It merely imposes on them heavy legal and personal responsibilities and furthermore suggests that services to some patients will have to be reduced or discontinued to meet the needs of patients being targeted as a result of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will assure us when he sums up that no one receiving services will have them taken away to enable such targeting.
  The Bill should recognise the need for fairness and equity in the use of coercive powers such as "take and convey". It can do so by making professionals clearly accountable when they use them. As we discussed, the Bill omits important checks and balances. Enhancing the role of the Mental Health Act Commission would be a step towards doing that.
  The Minister should be encouraging the use of existing powers and legal provisions, such as guardianship. Such an aim should be shaping the contents of the new legislation. Instead, as part of the Government's piecemeal approach to tinkering with what is largely obsolete legislation, they intend to create unnecessary and confusing additional powers.
  Many organisations that represent professional staff who will have to use the Bill and those who will be made subject to it have also voiced their concern. They include the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Nursing, the Community Psychiatric Nurses Association, the Mental Health Foundation, the National Association for Mental Health—MIND—and Survivors Speak Out. The support and confidence of such organisations are essential for this legislation to succeed.
  I frequently listen and talk to people who are in touch with and using community care services. For five years I was a member of the Mental Health Act Commission and for 13 years I was assistant director of MIND. All the accounts force us to the same conclusion that we find when reading the recent flood of reports on community care—the Ritchie report on Christopher Clunis, those of the Mental Health Foundation, Sir Louis Blom-Cooper and the Audit Commission and now those of the social services inspectorate and the Clinical Standards Advisory Group, which were published in the summer. They tell us that the crisis affecting care in the community has little to do with the law and much to do with the attitudes, skills and resources of professionals and the very limited community opportunities available to those with enduring and intractable mental health problems. To the extent that

  1189
  problems result from the present state of the law, they will not be addressed by the limited and unambitious measure that we have been debating.
  Before concluding, I must remind the House of the contents of the report that led to this Bill. It was the Department of Health's internal review of legal powers on the care of mentally ill people in the community, which was published in August 1993. It presented the Government with their options for legal change in that area and the principles that should provide the framework for any change. The report said:
  "if … a new power is introduced it is absolutely essential that account is taken in framing it of the criticisms and fears expressed by many of those who gave evidence to us, and that it is applied in such a way as to minimise the dangers they foresaw".
  The review also offered a series of principles to frame the new power. It said that the power should be applied so as to ensure the least restrictive form of care consistent with safe management; that it must have adequate safeguards to ensure appropriate use; that it must be so defined as to minimise the risk of its being wrongly applied to patients who do not need this form of legal constraint; and that it must not discriminate in principle or in practice against particular ethnic or other groups. It also said that it must be recognised that the use of the power implies a reciprocal obligation on the statutory services to provide the support that the patient needs.
  We take the Government back to those principles when judging the legislation before us. They must stand judged by their refusal to accommodate in the legislation the principles emanating from their own review.
  The Bill was an opportunity to rebuild the contract of trust, which is the essential foundation of community care, between the patient, families, professionals and the public. The Government have failed to take that opportunity and it will now fall to a new Government—a Labour Government—to introduce a new mental health Act, to inspire and recreate that contract of trust.
  6.6 pm
  Mr. Bowis: I am tempted to say, "Are you sure?" to the hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell). I suppose that I should be flattered. I do not know if it is a parliamentary record for two Opposition spokesmen to have to contribute to the same debate to balance a Minister. I appreciate the fact that I am to be balanced and that this is a subject on which we need balance. I also appreciate
  1190
  that, recently, the Leader of the Opposition had to stand in to help out the spokesman on the shadow Home Affairs team, but I have never before heard of a spokesman standing in to help out a leader, which is what we have seen today.
  The House has given the Bill the thoughtful, thorough and critical attention that it deserves. Despite the rather sad little speech of the hon. Member for Dulwich, I am grateful to hon. Members on both sides of the House who have contributed to our discussions at all stages. They have been good, constructive and, on the whole, good-humoured debates.
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office and his team have worked closely with us to draw up a package of measures that will ensure that some of the most vulnerable patients receive the follow-up care that they need. That is in the interests of the patients, their families, their professional and informal carers and their local communities.
  The introduction of supervised discharge and community care orders is complemented in the Bill by provisions on leave of absence and absence without leave. The scrutiny in both Houses has refined and improved the Bill. Our mental health legislation has evolved over many years and will continue to do so. That is a pledge that I can certainly make to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown). We shall be studying carefully how the new powers are used alongside the existing power of guardianship, but for now we are committed to acting positively to help patients, their carers, families and the professionals responsible for providing services and personal support.
  I should add that this Bill brings to an end the time of yet another Opposition Front Bench health team. As they take their bow and leave the stage, rather like the Von Trapp family in "The Sound of Music"—perhaps the Trappist connotation is appropriate in the case of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown)—I wish them well in their new roles.
  I believe that these measures will strengthen the care and support of vulnerable people with severe mental health problems. The Bill must be seen in the context of all the investment in services, hospitals and the community that has brought new hope to mentally ill people and their families. We stand four-square behind them and behind the community as a whole, which rightly demands this strengthened level of care and supervision. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Parliament
  6.10 pm
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
  That the draft Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 23 October, be approved.
  Last year, I had to make a somewhat lengthy speech to explain the complications arising from the freeze that had earlier taken place. This year, I think that I can explain the position simply and clearly. During the debate on Members' salaries in 1993, two years ago, I made it clear to the House that the Government thought that the right course thereafter was for the salaries of Ministers to be dealt with on exactly the same basis as those of Members. That arrangement has been applied for the past two years and is straightforwardly the basis of the proposed increases for 1996.
  As the House will recall, the annual increase in Members' salaries is linked to the pay settlement for civil servants in grades 5 to 7. That means that Members of Parliament will receive an increase of 2.7 per cent. on 1 January without the need for parliamentary action. Because the proposals follow established policy, there is no need for me to go into detail except perhaps to say that the increase for Ministers in this House will be 2.7 per cent., precisely in line with the Members' figure. For our colleagues in the other place, because they do not have a reduced parliamentary salary, the increase is equivalent to the overall cash increase received by their counterparts at this end of the building.
  I should remind the House, and with more force than usual in view of the events of the past hour, that the order covers not only Ministers but the Leaders of the Opposition in both Houses, the Opposition Chief Whip and Deputy Chief Whip in the Commons, and one other Commons Opposition Whip together with the Opposition Chief Whip in the Lords, and, of course, Madam Speaker. Additionally, though they not covered by the order, you will be pleased to hear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the same increases will be paid to the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means and to the Chairmen and Deputy Chairmen of Committees in the other place.
  I say in the friendly spirit with which I address the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) that I might be prepared to accept a manuscript amendment to confine the increase in respect of the Opposition Deputy Chief Whip to the present rather than the prospective holder of the post. That might be attractive, were I in that frame of mind, after the speech that the hon. Gentleman made a few moments ago. Some observations have probably already been made on that. When he finally becomes Deputy Chief Whip and sits two seats along the Bench from where he is now, he would have public executions of hon. Members who spoke at the length that he did in the previous debate. Nevertheless, it was a fascinating speech.
  The policy of a clear automatic linkage for Members of Parliament which is then straightforwardly carried through by order to Ministers and others has provided us with a mechanism that has meant that for the past two years we have been able to settle these matters without substantial controversy. The proposals in the order are sensible and right. I commend them to the House.
  6.13 pm
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: I do not wish to detain the House because this is a repeat of last year's debate. The right hon. Gentleman rightly listed some of the posts included in the order. It goes without saying that the most deserving cases in the order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are, of course, those of yourself and your colleagues in the Chair.
  I was expecting that the order would be the same, word for word, as last year's order and that only the figures would be different. This is the only detailed question that I have for the Leader of the House. The order is not the same, word for word, because two words are missing from paragraph 2. I do not understand why the words "of salary" have been Snopaked out of this order.
  As the Leader of the House said, the increase is 2.7 per cent., the same as for Back Benchers. That is based on civil service grades 5 to 7, which, I regret to say, have been separated. Therefore, in 1996 some other arrangements will have to be made for Members of Parliament whereas I thought that we had a formula and had put the matter to bed. It appears that we have not.
  It is right that the salary arrangements for Ministers should be dealt on the same basis as those of other hon. Members. That being so, I regret the need for this debate. We are not debating Members' pay having agreed a formula such as that which has produced the 2.7 per cent. increase.
  In last year's debate, on 24 November 1994, I offered the Leader of the House the chance to secure Opposition support to amend the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975 so as to provide the same automatic linkage for Ministers that applies to hon. Members. I have since repeated that offer to the Leader of the House. It should have been taken up. A Labour Government will legislate to clear up the anomaly. If it is not done before the general election, it will have to be done afterwards. It is an utter waste of parliamentary time, bearing in mind that we have dealt with the matter in respect of hon. Members.
  It has been a tough year for Ministers, as the chickens from the false promises made in 1992 have come home to roost. On the other hand, this year the Ministers who will receive this salary increase have had their loyalty tested by the Prime Minister when he put his leadership on the line. They have ended up with a powerful Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State. The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) can well manage on a Cabinet Minister's salary. I am surprised that the order, listing in detail as it does different Ministers by title as members of the Cabinet, does not refer to a First Secretary of State or a Deputy Prime Minister. Clearly, the right hon. Gentleman is a member of the Cabinet but is not listed.
  I know that the right hon. Gentleman has his own special arrangements for official cars; he does not have one but is paid to use his own. He has not done well at answering questions at the Dispatch Box. All we have had from him so far is party-political rants. Who should pay him—the taxpayer or the Tory party? We are not sure whether he is a second Minister Without Portfolio or the Minister with the good bits of everyone's portfolios. In due course, he will answer for himself, as will other Ministers, to the electorate.
  I agree that to participate in public life is both a duty and a privilege. Very high standards of conduct are expected and standards for Ministers are rightly higher

  1193
  than those for others. Notwithstanding the Nolan report, which the Opposition fully support, I believe that Ministers are honourable people carrying out a responsibility placed on them by the Prime Minister of the day. We may not agree with all their actions; we may believe that many of them do not care, are incompetent and out of touch. The answer is to replace them, not deny them a modest increase in pay.
  6.17 pm
  Sir Terence Higgins: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House pointed out that there have been some improvements in the mechanism for dealing with Members' and Ministers' pay. I feel bound to say that if one takes a long-term view of the way in which we have dealt with those matters, we are now in a situation that can be described only as a crisis.
  Since I first came to the House some 30 years ago, the statistics show that Members' pay in real terms, allowing for inflation, is just back to where it was 30 years ago. Between then and now, it has been below that level, sometimes by a substantial amount. Meanwhile, real incomes in the country as a whole on average have gone up 80 per cent. Members' pay has not gone up at all.
  Even more remarkable, and this is relevant to the motion, is what has happened to Ministers' pay and indeed to the Prime Minister's pay. They are paid less than half what people in the Government were paid when I came to the House 30 years ago. That, too, has happened against a background in which the real income of the country as a whole has risen by 80 per cent.
  The situation is creating a serious recruitment problem. One cannot divorce the issue of Members' pay from that of Ministers' pay because in our system, unlike that of the United States, for example, where the Executive is drawn from outside the legislature, we have to get people into the House of Commons or House of Lords in order to recruit Ministers. So the level of both Ministers' and Members' pay is relevant in this context. An article in today's edition of The Times rounded up the figures, but I suggest that we would need to double Members' pay and treble the Prime Minister's and Ministers' pay to get us back to approximately where we were 30 years ago. If we do not take such a once-and-for-all step, the quality of hon. Members and those fit to become Ministers will become an increasing problem.
  Top salaries outside the House have risen even more. The papers talk every day of "fat cats". Let us look at salaries that, in many ways, are not exceptional. I know from personal experience not so long ago that, if one wants to recruit a good finance director for a public liability company in a risky industry—no one can deny that politics is a risky industry in terms of remaining a Member of Parliament or a Minister—one will probably have to pay £250,000. A good chief executive would have to be paid some £500,000. Meanwhile, this order increases the Prime Minister's salary at £82,000 by £1,500. It is preposterous.
  We must deal not just with the question of pay. I announced a little while ago, following some totally irrational boundary changes and various other matters, that I would not stand at the next election, so I may be in a stronger position than present Ministers or those who
  1194
  will stand at the next election to make this point. Many people have said that the status of Members is not what it was when I was first elected and, alas, that is true.
  Reference was made to the Nolan committee. I can say nothing about that because I sit on the Select Committee that is seeing how its recommendations might be implemented, but I hope that it will do something to restore the standing of Members and that the measures that we have already taken will do so. That is another problem that we must take into account.
  We must consider carefully what should be done. I am particularly worried that the salary now paid to Members is not sufficient to attract the sort of person that used to be attracted here—those with a good degree, someone who has been president of a union or who has a similar background in some other field. They are no longer attracted here because they can earn more than hon. Members in two years after university, and, in some occupations, more than the Prime Minister in five years.
  Another real change is that Ministers currently in office decide that they will not go on. Previously, ex-Ministers remained in the House for one, two or three Parliaments. I can think of a number of hon. Friends who are still here, and it is true of myself. But that will no longer happen. Few ex-Ministers are recycled, so they will take the first available opportunity to leave the House at the next general election. The people on whom we rely to man Select Committees, to engage in debate on the Floor of the House and give experience, will simply no longer be here. That is a worrying development.
  What should be done? We know only too well from the misrepresentations of the increase in Members' pay before the last one, when the press said that it was vastly in excess of inflation—my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House pointed out at the time that that was untrue—that there would be an outcry in the press if Members' salaries were doubled. But we have reached a stage where we must face up to that. We have two possible options. First, as the Nolan committee seems to have remarkable public approval as an independent body, we could refer the question of Ministers' and Members' pay to that body as soon as possible. Secondly, we could ensure that negotiations take place between the two sides of the House on what should be done in the next Parliament. We can do nothing in. this Parliament, but if we were to do something now for the next Parliament, we would at least help to deal with the argument that we were voting for our next pay increase, and the electorate would know where it was.
  I am sorry that the Leader of the Opposition has decided not to take his pay increase. I notice that some Labour Front-Bench Members did not know that that was so. This is similar to some of the worst excesses of Thatcherism, when the previous Prime Minister refused to take her full salary. That was a serious mistake and I am sorry that the Leader of the Opposition seems to be following in Mrs. Thatcher's footsteps in that respect. I hope that, on reflection, he will give further thought to the matter because we must reach an agreement across the House about what should be done to introduce a once-and-for-all change to redress the balance.
  This is now an extremely serious issue. Although my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House says that we can introduce a pay rise now on this basis without it arousing controversy, there is a distinction between having no controversy and ignoring a potentially serious problem.
  6.25 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I have listened to the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) make exactly that speech on a number of occasions, and it gets more compelling with the listening. He makes a powerful case and is in a strong position to do so. I support everything that he said. We now have an opportunity to get a hold of the problem and make matters more realistic before the next Parliament. That would be the proper and honourable way to proceed.
  The right hon. Gentleman's idea of referring the matter to a Nolan-type inquiry ignores top salary pay review reports.
  Sir Terence Higgins: They were all ignored.
  Mr. Kirkwood: If the matter goes to the Nolan committee and is not ignored, that would be a massive improvement, which may be why the right hon. Gentleman makes that suggestion. I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues for the number of hours that the Select Committee has spent examining the Nolan committee's recommendations. It is a sobering thought that the Nolan inquiry would not have been necessary if Members' and Ministers' salaries had been proper and commensurate with normal market salaries.
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) was right to stress that this order is ludicrous and otiose. It is certainly so as far as I am concerned. The Leader of the House will recognise that, as a member of a minority party, I have no financial interest whatever in this or any other such order. I am shop steward and I do all the hard work for all the minority parties. I do not mind that. It is a great public duty, which I enjoy doing.
  Mr. Newton: Is the hon. Gentleman confirming that the Liberal Democrat party does not expect to form the next Government?
  Mr. Kirkwood: I shall not be tempted to answer such an unfair question. It was a monstrous attack, and it was out of character for the Leader of the House to suggest any such thing to such a humble person as myself. I have written the Leader of the House a letter, which he may not yet have received. It does not necessarily offer him a position in my Government but asks him to consider helping the process of the usual channels. That is a separate issue. The important point that the hon. Member for Perry Barr made is that we should use the fast track procedures to get rid of this order altogether. That would save the House time and we would all be the better for it.
  Many hon. Members are confused about the new way in which Members' and Ministers' salaries are linked with those of civil servants because there has been a revolution in how the civil service is paid since the introduction of performance-related remuneration and job regrading. I am pleased to see that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who is responsible for those matters, is in his place. I do not know how it will be possible to achieve a sensible link in future. That reinforces my view that a senior salary pay review body or a Nolan-type committee should investigate the matter so that we can prepare recommendations for the next Government to apply in the next Parliament. They can then take effect properly and with a minimum amount of controversy. However, I accept that there will be controversy and I agree with the right hon. Member for Worthing that we should confront that and take part in it positively and robustly.
  1196
  I want to ask a genuine question—I do not make a party political point. Given the obvious change that there has been in the power of agencies and given the number of agencies that are now spawned by Ministers, then if we are to have very small policy units with Ministers in charge—I know that there has been much political controversy about the Home Secretary and the Prison Service—should the inquiry that I and the right hon. Member for Worthing and other hon. Members are suggesting, consider the future and continuing responsibilities of Ministers?
  However, all those matters should be removed from the potential controversy of a debate on the Floor of the House of Commons. They should be tackled by people who can make evaluations sensibly, dispassionately and objectively. They should make recommendations to Ministers and Ministers should have the courage to implement them.
  I should like to think—certainly in as far as I have any influence in any new Government or otherwise—that Liberal Democrat Members would support Ministers if they made sensible recommendations that brought ministerial salaries and Members' salaries into line with ordinary modern market levels.
  6.30 pm
  Sir Peter Emery: I shall be quite brief; I have only three arguments to make.
  First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) on making a case that I should have thought would be acceptable to all hon. Members. The idea that we must at all times do nothing because the press will snipe at us seems to me to be the worst of all possible arguments.
  I disagree with my right hon. Friend in only one instance. I do not think that the issue of Ministers' and Members' salaries should go to a Nolan-type inquiry. The case is so well proved that three or four hon. Members—some Ministers and some Opposition Members—should be able to get together to hammer out a joint agreement that can be made public, which will operate from the next Parliament. We should not ask someone else to consider the matter—someone whose recommendations we would review and alter before putting the report to one side. The job should be given fairly and squarely to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), so that together they may work out a new structure.
  It cannot be right that the chairman of UK Ltd.—our Prime Minister—is paid less than any chief executive officer of one of the top 100 companies, and probably of many other companies. That cannot make sense. Something has gone wrong with the structure. Whoever the Prime Minister is, that cannot be sensible, and that anomaly should be corrected.
  Similarly, something is wrong when Ministers in charge of Departments are paid considerably less than their chief civil servants and often much less than their deputy secretaries and other people, not only the permanent secretary. That is archaic, wrong and should be corrected—and corrected now, to take effect from the start of the next Parliament.

  1197
  That is the main message that I wish to give to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. However, there is one other thing. Will he please get together with the Opposition to work out what shall be the indices that we must apply in 1996 for the adjustment? We have been through that so many times over the years.
  Eighteen months ago, we believed that we had put the thing to bed— that we would never have that debate again. As a result of the alteration of indices, I understand that we shall have to decide on something. Surely that can be done quickly and mutually, because there should not be any dispute about it, and it can be adopted by the House, without any political aspect being brought into it, for the benefit of all Members who will be affected after the 1996 adjustment. Surely that does not need to be referred to anyone. We and our leaders should be reasonable enough to be able to get that done.
  That is a common-sense matter, which would be tackled in that way in any other organisation. Simply because we happen to be in the public eye, we are scared silly that we may be criticised for being greedy or wrong or something of that nature.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Peter Emery: I am just about to stop, but of course I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Skinner: It is all right as far as it goes, but the right hon. Gentleman is one of those Conservative Members who will gladly support a minimum wage for Members of Parliament, and in this case for Ministers and others, yet, when it comes to ordinary workers earning £1 or £2 an hour, will undoubtedly walk into the Lobby with all the Ministers to prevent those workers obtaining a miserly £4 an hour.
  Sir Peter Emery: One might have expected the hon. Gentleman to make that sort of comment, but there are some times when he can rise above being extremely negative and derogatory. The position is not as he would imply. I am suggesting that Members of Parliament might begin to approach—not actually approach—a true market value for the job that they do.
  Hon. Members often work 60 or 70 hours a week—not the number of hours that the hon. Gentleman would imply—including working on Saturdays, in time when other people are absolutely free. That is a special job, which needs to be done, and done properly. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing said, we need to attract the best people to do that.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will forgive me for leaving the Chamber. I shall return when he replies to the debate, but a presentation is being made to the Clerk of Committees, who is retiring after 41 years. I shall go, if my right hon. Friend will excuse me, to pay attention and then return to the Chamber.
  6.35 pm
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I believe that I hold a quite different opinion from most hon. Members in the Chamber tonight. However, I endorse some of the
  1198
  comments made about a need to regularise the salaries of Ministers and Members of Parliament for the next Parliament. That is prudent.
  I shall discuss all the people mentioned in the order at least to Minister of State level, if not higher—with the exception of you and your colleagues, Madam Deputy Speaker, whose salaries are a pale shadow of what they should be.
  I broadly agree with one thing that the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) said. In the unlikely event of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) inviting me to join his Government—perhaps contrary to his better judgment—I certainly would accept the salary of the Minister appropriate to that portfolio, because I believe in the well-established trade union principles, "What you have you hold" and "Take the rate for the job." However, I believe that the way in which we set the rate for the job of Ministers is not appropriate. There are some constitutional dangers, on which I invite the House to pause and reflect.
  The historical reason why Ministers have salaries is that, in the days when membership of the House was a part-time job—it could be and was done part time by the vast majority of people—obviously when Members were given a ministerial appointment they were expected and required to give up outside interests, so there was a case for a salary, which created a disparity between Ministers and other Members of Parliament.
  Nowadays, even if the work of a Back-Bench Member is not wholly full time—although I believe that it should be, and I have no remaining time to give to any outside interest—there is a consensus that it requires a tremendous amount of time and attention. So, of course, does the work of a Minister, but in my opinion a case cannot be made for a disparity of salary between a Back-Bench Member and, at least, a Member who has reached the level of Minister of State.
  I believe that Back-Bench Members of Parliament and Ministers of State work equally hard. They have different roles, and there is a danger of our not recognising the different roles. However, it is important that people should aspire as much to the role of a Back Bencher as they do to that of a Minister.
  The functions of Back Benchers and Ministers differ from one other. There is a need for people who will concentrate on being a Back Bencher—who will probe, criticise, cajole and ferret out information. There is a need for hon. Members who ask questions in the House of Commons on evenings when others might want to get away and move on to other business. Such people might be a nuisance and make aggravating remarks. That is an important role, and it is wrong to suggest that it is less important than being a Minister of State. We must bear that in mind.
  There are other hon. Members with important functions. The deputy leader of the Labour party does not receive any additional salary; the leader of the Liberal party does not receive any additional salary and the Front-Bench Opposition team do not receive a different salary—they are on Back Benchers' salaries. If there is a case for Ministers receiving a higher salary than Back Benchers, it seems that there is a case for those other hon. Members to whom I have just referred receiving a different salary. However, I believe that we should all be equal here.

  1199
  Before people deride what I am saying, they should reflect on the fact that there is likely to be a Conservative Opposition in the not too distant future. The Conservative leader of the Opposition will have to choose people to serve on his or her shadow Cabinet. They will no doubt be required and expected by the party to give their full-time energy and enthusiasm to their shadow portfolios, but they will have to do so on their existing Back Benchers' salaries. At that time, some of them might remember my speech and think, "Mackinlay had a point." When they are sitting on the Opposition Benches, they may well think that perhaps their worth, energy and enthusiasm, with minimum resources, are as important as those of the Labour Members sitting on the Treasury Bench.
  There is a danger of having two tiers of Members of Parliament, which would not be conducive to good parliamentary democracy. There is no doubt that many people come to this place with a burning ambition to sit in a ministerial car. That is a perfectly honourable ambition, but of equal importance are those people who come here to probe and check the Executive.
  Some hon. Members have given long and distinguished service to the House. The late Bob Cryer used to sit below the Gangway on the Opposition Benches and my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) works diligently as a Back Bencher. Certainly, millions of people consider my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to be extremely good value for money. If there were to be a vote, they would want him to have a salary at least equal to that of a Minister of State.
  The system is wrong. I hope that there will be some reflection on the fact that hon. Members should be equal and their salary—their remuneration—should reflect that. Much more important than our income levels are the resources available to us to do the job as Members of Parliament—but that is another debate, as is the subject of hon. Members' salaries. The issue of salaries is important—our cousins across the water in the United States have far more resources than we do to fulfil their roles as legislators.
  Mr. Rooker: Will my hon. Friend please finish his speech?
  Mr. Mackinlay: My hon. Friend asks, from a sedentary position, when I will finish my speech. He makes my point: the relationship in this place between the Treasury Front Benchers and the Opposition Front Benchers is far too cosy. There are occasions when hon. Members need to stand up and demonstrate a degree of independence which is not reflected here too often.
  On that note, I shall conclude my say—I am pleased to have had it. It is time to cut out the cosy relationship and recognise that parliamentarians here are, and should be, equal.
  6.44 pm
  Mr. Newton: I am tempted to say that tonight's debate has been an almost heartwarming experience for a Minister. It started off with Ministers being collectively described by the Opposition Front-Bench team as kindly, honourable people, or words to that effect. A series of speakers, led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins), supported by my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton. (Sir P. Emery) and
  1200
  Opposition Members, then described us as underpaid and overworked. I hope that my right hon. Friends and others will understand that I am not sure that it would be appropriate for me, in my position, to spend the rest of this debate warmly agreeing with every word that they said. I thought that some powerful points were made, on which I shall reflect. I hope that others, including those who comment on our affairs outside the House, will also reflect on them.
  I listened to the characteristically engaging speech of my fellow Member of Parliament for Essex, the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). I cannot say that I agreed with every word, but, as he defined a Back Bencher's role as being a nuisance, I thought that he had established some degree of expertise and should be listened to with appropriate respect.
  I shall now comment on some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), which will enable me to pick up, albeit briefly, points raised by other hon. Members. He asked a technical question about a couple of missing words. I have been given the customary soothing assurances from those who send me such assurances that that was no more than a drafting matter, not a sinister, devious plot. I marvel at the hon. Gentleman's assiduousness; I had better confess that I did not sit down and compare every word of this order—
  Mr. Rooker: I did.
  Mr. Newton: I know: I am returning the compliment that the hon. Gentleman was kind enough to pay to those on the Treasury Bench by complimenting him on his remarkable feat. I am almost tempted to agree with the hon. Member for Thurrock that the hon. Member for Perry Barr has demonstrated the need to be paid more. I certainly note the point raised by the hon. Member for Perry Barr and assure him that there was no sinister intention or error involved, but an attempt to improve the drafting. We are always looking to save a word here or there to save the hon. Gentleman's reading time.
  I recall the offer that the hon. Gentleman made last year relating to primary legislation, which I did not reject then and certainly would not reject now. In my role as the person with responsibility for the legislative programme, may I say that it is necessary to weigh the question of how much time to use on one issue rather than another. Judging from some of the speeches that have been made from below the Opposition Gangway in today's debate and last year's debate, however much co-operation there may be from the Opposition Front Bench, it is not absolutely clear that that co-operation would be universally reflected throughout the House. I note that the hon. Member for Perry Barr has repeated his suggestion.
  I realise that the issue of linkage was raised more in relation to hon. Members' pay than to Ministers' pay and so runs a little wider of the main subject of tonight's debate. I note the concern expressed. As I have demonstrated to the House in the past three years, I have no doubt about the value of a system whereby hon. Members' pay can be increased sensibly and fairly, annually, without the need for an annual debate. I have every intention of ensuring that such a system is sustained.
  A number of interesting suggestions have been made in relation to Lord Nolan and other matters. I hope that the House will understand that, against the background of today's debate and the time pressures—quite apart from

  1201
  the factors that I have already mentioned—it would not be right for me to give an extensive, philosophical speech ranging over all those subjects.
  Mr. David Winnick: Is the Leader of the House aware that a number of points have been made—including some by Conservative Members—that need to be considered seriously? Perhaps we shall return to them soon when we debate the Nolan report. Is the Leader of the House aware that one reason that many of us cannot go along with the suggestion made tonight by the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) is that, over the past 16 years, a Tory-dominated Parliament has worsened the position of the poorest paid in this country—those who live on a pittance? All the statistics—even Government statistics—bear that out. In those circumstances, there is no room for cosy complacency between the two sides on the issue of pay.
  Mr. Newton: I note what the hon. Gentleman says and I understand why he makes that point. I shall not use my former experience in the social security area to expand on the many improvements that have been made for less well-off pensioners or for people in low-paid employment with children through family credit. I simply make it clear that I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis. Beyond that, the hon. Gentleman has not tempted me to make a speech about social security or any other wider subject. Once again, I commend the order to the House.
  Question put and agreed to
  Resolved
  That the draft Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 23rd October, be approved

  NORTHERN IRELAND (REMISSION OF SENTENCES) BILL
  Ordered,
  That, in respect of the Northern Island (Remission of Sentences) Bill, notices of Amendments, New Clauses and New Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—[Mr. Newton.]
  6.50 pm
  Sitting suspended.
  On resuming—

  Accommodation Level CrossingsBill (Lords)
  Order for Third Reading read.
  7 pm
  Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: I beg to move, That the Bill be read the Third time.
  The Bill, which is concerned with safety, was originally deposited in the other place in November 1994. It had a trouble-free passage through both Houses to this point. The Bill is modest but important. Railway Bills used to take the lion's share of parliamentary time but they are now something of a rarity, as a result of both Houses accepting recommendations of the Private Bill Procedure
  1202
  Joint Select Committee—of which I have the honour of being Chairman. This is a somewhat unusual occasion but it is nevertheless important.
  Although the Bill had a trouble-free passage through both Houses, I must explain its purpose. Railtrack is a public limited company registered under the Companies Act 1985. On 1 April 1994, that part of the British Railways Board undertaking that consisted of the management of the railway network in Great Britain and of related property rights and liabilities was transferred to Railtrack.
  Railtrack includes a number of level crossings created for the benefit of owners and occupiers of land adjoining the railway, known as accommodation level crossings. Under the previous arrangements, many of those parts of the railway system were not covered by current legislation. Certain railways within what is now Railtrack were authorised by legislation before 1845. One of them covers my own constituency—the 1830 Act relating to the London and South-Western Railway.
  Those parts of the railway not covered by section 75 of the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 or by section 68 of the Railway Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845 operated a totally different type of penalty for people who failed to close gates on accommodation crossings. Last night, I found in clause 84 of the 1830 Act—and we grumble about the length of Bills today—these words:
  "And be it further enacted, That all Persons opening any Gate set up at either Side of the said Railway to communicate with the adjoining Land shall and they are hereby respectively required, as soon as they, and the Carriages, Cattle or other Animals or Things under their Care, shall have passed through the same, to shut and fasten the said Gate; and every Person neglecting so to do shall forfeit and pay any Sum not exceeding Forty Shillings for every such Offence."
  Clearly, that is a modest fine in today's economic climate.
  The Railways Act 1992 brought up to date fines for all those railways that were subject to post-1845 legislation, but those before that date were not affected. The Bill is designed to bring the whole rail network, and fines for accommodation crossings in particular, up to date.
  The Bill has three clauses, and it will do no more than apply to the pre-1845 Act crossings the same penalties as apply to the amended clauses Acts. If the Bill is passed, all accommodation level crossings throughout England, Wales and Scotland would be subject to the same laws concerning the closure of gates and the lowering of barriers—and the same penalty levels. It is important to note the reference to barriers, because many gates have been replaced by barriers, to which no Act of Parliament makes reference. The schedule comprises a long list of the railways affected.
  This is a modernising and important piece of legislation, and I commend it to the House.
  7.6 pm
  Mr. Brian Wilson: I am sorry that we are not joined tonight by the Secretary of State, but a press release today informs us that he is speaking in Grantham, which presumably has a vacant seat. We wish him well there. I note also that in the awards run by PR Week, Railtrack is a finalist in the category of best internal publication. I did not know that Railtrack had any internal publications—I thought that they all had become public.

  1203
  We have no problem with the Bill, and I endorse the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for New Forest (Sir P. McNair-Wilson). The measure will make a significant contribution to safety, but it must be seen in the context of everything that Railtrack is doing. We question whether everything that is happening on the railways is in line with the measures that the hon. Gentleman is rightly proposing tonight.
  I will share with the House some of the thoughts of Jan Glasscock, who I understand is a safety director with Railtrack South, contained in a memorandum in which he reviews safety issues within his area. He complains about the prescriptive nature of safety regulations on the railways and states that the inevitable effect has been either to close the railway completely for lengthy periods or cause excessive delay, and/or reduce the number of trains that can be passed over a specific route. Jan Glasscock writes that while not wishing to dilute the safety message, they must be mindful of the commercial effect that those requirements are having on the railway industry and on Railtrack as a business. He attaches a list of rules, regulations and instructions that he suggests should be got rid of without compromising safety.
  The most disturbing passage in that memorandum is the final paragraph, where Jan Glasscock concludes with a flourish:
  "It is no good in five years' time saying 'We were the safest railway in the world, but we went out of business.'"
  That is a very disturbing sentiment. We want to be able to say, unequivocally, that we have—as we have had in the past—the safest railway in the world; but we do not want that to be pitted against the commercial interests of a private company. For Jan Glasscock to predict that he might conceivably say in five years' time, "We were the safest railway in the world, but we went out of business" suggests to me an immaturity and conflict of interests in the organisation which are intolerable, and which on their own would represent a very good reason for abandoning the privatisation of Railtrack.
  Jan Glasscock has suggested a list of measures. Some are doubtless fairly marginal, but others are sufficient to make us wonder whether it is really such a good idea to dispense with safety measures that have been built up over time. He suggests, for instance, allowing the use of a passenger train during fog in the event of information that a person has fallen out. I do not know why that is not considered a good idea, but I am sure that I do not want the commercial interests of Railtrack to determine whether that measure should be repealed now.
  Jan Glasscock also wants a more lax regime in regard to train crew route knowledge. I do not wish to detain the House, but the list continues. In regard to signalling, for instance—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman would be wise to follow his own advice. We are dealing with a narrow Bill—on Third Reading, which makes the debate even narrower.
  Mr. Wilson: I am grateful to you for letting me get this far, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I nevertheless think it important to view safety issues in a wider context—and it so happens that some of Jan Glasscock's
  1204
  recommendations for a more lax safety regime apply to level crossings.
  It is important to put the Bill in that context. If, as a result of privatisation, we are indeed moving towards a regime in which safety is pitted against the commercial interests of Railtrack, it is all the more important to have the measures and penalties that we are discussing.
  I leave hon. Members with that thought from Jan Glasscock:
  "It is no good in five years' time saying, 'We were the safest railway in the world but we went out of business.'"
  What worries me is that in five years' time we could be saying, "We were the safest railway in the world, but then we were privatised and commercial interests took over." That really would be a tragedy for the country.
  7.12 pm
  The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) loses no opportunity to blame every leaf on every line—and, no doubt, inappropriate kinds of snow—on privatisation, which has not yet come about. He was remarkably restrained this evening, however: we did not hear of a single leaf, or a single flicker of snow.
  The Bill rebuts the hon. Gentleman's implication—British Airways might have some difficulty following the logic of this extraordinary proposition—that the introduction of private capital and more effective management necessarily leads to lower safety standards. As my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Sir P. McNair-Wilson) pointed out, it is a housekeeping measure, which seeks to bring the penalties imposed on railways built before 1845 for leaving crossing gates open into line with those built after that date. The anomaly is due to the omission of pre-1845 railways from the Transport and Works Act 1992.
  I suppose that, as a previous chairman of the Campaign for Freedom of Information in the House, I should reveal that on occasions such as this Ministers are furnished with sheets of questions and answers anticipating the difficult barbs that may be launched by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I can exclusively reveal—provided, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you promise not to pass the information on—that question 2 on my list reads, "Why missed out?" The answer is "Oversight".
  Mr. Graham Allen: Somebody probably cocked it up.
  Mr. Norris: I am not entirely sure whether that is parliamentary expression, but it is more or less the reason for our being here this evening.
  Mr. Allen: A slip of the quill.
  Mr. Norris: A slip of the quill, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says.
  I do not think that I need add to the succinct explanation offered by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest of why this innocuous measure should not be given its Third Reading.
  Question put and agreed to
  Bill accordingly read the Third Time, and passed.

  Oxbridge Lane Primary School
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]
  7.15 pm
  Mr. Tim Devlin: I welcome my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment to her first Adjournment debate. I was very pleased when someone whom I know to be a fellow Landrover owner—and a keen one—took over the portfolio; I look forward to working with my hon. Friend in her new job.
  The debate is about future facilities at a school in my constituency; it is not—as the media seem to expect—a debate about lack of Government funding, the need for repairs or over-large class sizes. Oxbridge Lane is a very pleasant school, although it is small: it is efficiently run and well led, in good repair and with good class sizes. There are two classes of 30, and the rest comprise between 25 and 30. The buildings are in very good condition.
  The debate concerns the future of the school, which is a victim of its own success, with a full roll and parents choosing to send their children to it. The plain fact is that the schoolis simply too small for the number of children who currently attend it, and too small for the number who will want to attend in the future.
  At present, the school has some 450 pupils and 21 teachers. After Christmas, there will be 490 children. Given the current admission of 75 children per year, the maximum number that the school could hold is 525. The Department's maximum, I understand, is 442; the figure is based on an admission of 56 per year.
  Under the Education Reform Act 1988, primary schools must admit pupils up to their "standard number". That was calculated in 1991 as the highest of the following: the number on the roll in May 1991, divided by the number of age groups; the number produced by dividing the capacity of the school by the number of age groups; and, if applicable, the number intended to be admitted under the most recent proposals under section 12 or 13 of the Education Act 1980. In the case of Oxbridge Lane, that figure is 525.
  As a result, the school is so crowded that it has to have split break times and split lunch times, and cannot hold an assembly for the whole school at once because the hall is too small and such an assembly would not comply with fire regulations. There is no room for a library, or for proper physical education facilities as required by the national curriculum. There is only one playing field, across the road and up an alley, recently reclaimed from derelict land by the county council. The school nursery and music facilities are delivered in a Horsa hut, also across the road and up the same alley. There are terrible parking problems in the area, as there is no off-street parking.
  Generally, the staff are doing wonders with what they have. The buildings are warm, dry and well maintained; when working, the school is quiet and well ordered. None the less, it is exceedingly difficult to run split meal times and breaks when children do not concentrate because other children are indulging in other activities outside the window and there is simply not enough space for all of them to be out in the playground at once. The school was
  1206
  built in 1890. It is now 105 years old; it will be 106 in February. The parents have recently raised a lot of money to refurbish the playground, and I pay tribute to them for their efforts and for the support that they have given to the school. The school is hemmed in on four sides by the Victorian streets that it is built to serve, and there is no room for expansion in any direction.
  The children from the Oxbridge area of my constituency deserve adequate facilities so that they can receive excellent access to the national curriculum. Therefore, one of two things will have to happen: either there will have to be a reduction in the standard number at the school, to 60—the physical capacity, which will leave many parents disappointed at not receiving their choice—or a new school building will have to be provided on a site where it is possible to expand.
  A reduction in the number of children would fly in the face of the Government's policy of parental choice. That has been endorsed by the governors and the local education authority, but it is, however, not an ideal solution. For instance, even at the lower standard number, the school would still have no kitchen facilities and all the catering would continue to be delivered on wheels from St. Bedes, some distance away, by lorry. That in turn takes the school hall out of use for a good part of the day. Ideally, if the school is to remain where it is, it would benefit from Marlborough road, the adjacent road, being closed off to give safer access to the grassed area and the nursery up the alley on the other side of the road. The Horsa hut, in which the nursery and drama facilities are housed, would also need replacement, as it dates from before the second world war, even though its present condition is quite good. There would still be no access to playing fields. There would still be no technology suite, and the staff room would still not accommodate all the staff at once.
  The alternative is to consider building a new school. In another part of my constituency, Ingleby Barwick, we have two delightful new primary schools for a whole new community of new houses. But, in my submission, old communities in old houses deserve good schools for their children as well. The site for a new school is already designated. There are two models of what such a school could be like.
  It would be in line with our policy to give parents a real choice if my hon. Friend were to recognise the strength of Oxbridge Lane's claim for capital over the next five years; recognise that it has been top of Cleveland's bid for the past five years; and lobby our colleagues for the necessary funds to start this great project. If she cannot do that, I would very much appreciate her advice as to what should be done.
  7.21 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Cheryl Gillan): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) on raising the situation of this school with me, and welcome the opportunity to respond to the points that he has put on behalf of his constituents.
  My hon. Friend is well known as an assiduous and hard-working Member who constantly puts issues on behalf of Stockton, South before the House. His constituents are most fortunate to have him as their representative in this place. I also thank him for his kind

  1207
  remarks, and as a fellow Landrover owner, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall try to keep this vehicle on the right road.
  I am well aware of the position at Oxbridge Lane primary school, as are officials in my Department. Thanks to my hon. Friend's efforts, I and other ministerial colleagues have corresponded with him about the school on previous occasions. Indeed, my officials visited Oxbridge Lane last summer to see the school at first hand. I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend's description of conditions at Oxbridge Lane and have taken note of the representations that he has made about them. My hon. Friend and others on Teesside believe that there are too many children currently attending the school in the light of the facilities that are available on the current site. They also believe the reason for that situation to be an excessively high standard number, which forces the school to recruit additional pupils at a level above that which is sustainable.
  I shall first of all say a few words about the rather technical system of the standard number and what it is designed to achieve. I shall then make two suggestions to my hon. Friend as to how the current situation at the school might be alleviated, which I hope he will find helpful.
  As my hon. Friend will know, a standard number is a fixed minimum entry number and is intended to be an indicator of a school's capacity, which admissions authorities are required to honour. The intention of the system is to protect the exercise of parental choice. It means that as many parents as possible can have their first choice of school for their children, and I am sure that my hon. Friend would join me in endorsing that principle. We do recognise, however, that standard numbers can sometimes be too high in the light of the facilities that are available at individual schools. We have a mechanism for dealing with that, under which local education authorities can publish proposals for the reduction of standard numbers. Such proposals require the approval of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. She looks at each case that reaches her on its merits.
  Our expectation is that most successful cases will involve the removal of physical capacity at a school, which implies, of course, that fewer pupils can be accommodated. My right hon. Friend is prepared, however, to take other arguments into account in reaching decisions on proposals for reductions in standard number. It is open to local education authorities to put to her whatever they feel is a convincing case. In reaching a decision, my right hon. Friend would, of course, have regard to the Government's policy of more open enrolment. As many parents as possible should be offered places for their children at the school for which they have expressed a preference.
  We must remember that any reduction in a standard number could mean a reduction in the number of parental preferences that can be met. The case for a reduction must therefore be made with reference to the existing standard number and to the changed circumstances of the school since that number was set. My right hon. Friend will need a clear explanation as to why the current standard number should no longer apply. In the case of Oxbridge Lane primary school, therefore, it would be open to the local education authority to publish proposals to reduce the standard number if it felt that it was too high. Were it to
  1208
  do so, I can promise my hon. Friend that I and my right hon. Friend would look very carefully at any arguments that it put. We would also bear in mind what he said tonight.
  I should add that the initiative in publishing such a proposal lies with the local education authority alone. Whatever impression my hon. Friend's words may have made on me tonight, action would lie in the first instance with Teesside. The local education authority has not published a proposal to reduce the standard number of the school, and my hon. Friend will, I am sure, wish to take the matter up with it directly.
  It may be helpful to my hon. Friend if I comment on a further point about where responsibility for publishing any such proposal would lie. Cleveland county council is currently the local education authority for my hon. Friend's constituency, but from April 1996, Cleveland will, as he knows, be passing that particular baton to the new unitary council for Stockton-on-Tees. If it was the intention that the standard number should be changed before 1 April 1996, it would be for Cleveland county council to publish any proposal. If, on the other hand, the proposal was intended to be implemented after that date, it would be the responsibility of the new Stockton council. We have made explicit provision in regulations for shadow local education authorities such as Stockton to be able to publish proposals before they formally enter into their education kingdoms. There should be no delay in dealing with matters such as this purely because responsibility for education is transferring from one local authority to another.
  My second set of remarks relates to capital funding. If something needs putting right at the school, action must in the first instance lie with the local education authority, which has a statutory responsibility for providing school places in Stockton and for ensuring that the buildings where children are taught are safe. Like other local education authorities, it will have substantial capital resources of its own that it could devote to the kind of work at Oxbridge Lane that my hon. Friend mentioned, if it so wished. It is not for me to seek to influence the decisions that it makes about local spending priorities. I should add, however, that it is open to Stockton-on-Tees council, which will have responsibility for the school capital programme in my hon. Friend's constituency from next April, to put in a bid to my Department for capital resources at the school. Indeed, I know that Stockton made reference to the school in the bid that it submitted to my Department only last week. My Department is currently considering local authorities' capital bids, including that of the new Stockton unitary authority, and final allocations will be announced in December.
  It may he helpful to my hon. Friend if I explain a little about how our system of capital allocation works. As he knows, local authorities are given permission to borrow up to a certain level to fund capital programmes for all their services, including education. Decisions on how to use the resources generated by borrowing are entirely for the authorities: they must decide priorities between services and between projects within services. The borrowing limit is not the limit on authorities' capital spending. As I have already suggested, authorities are also able to invest capital receipts and they can use funds from their revenue budgets for capital purposes if they wish.
  In determining each local authority's share of the national total of capital allocations, consideration is given to commitments arising from projects allowed for in

  1209
  previous allocations, providing new school places in areas of population growth, and implementing cost-effective schemes to remove surplus places.
  After allowing for authorities' liabilities for work at voluntary-aided schools and for approved capital work at special schools, the remaining resources are distributed by a formula to contribute towards the cost of all other capital-related work at schools. The formula is made up of elements to meet improvement work, work at special schools and other work.
  The national priority criteria have been agreed with the local authority associations. They reflect authorities' statutory and contractual liabilities and have remained substantially unchanged for more than 10 years. They are designed to meet the most pressing needs for capital funding in schools.
  One example to which my hon. Friend referred is the construction of two new primary schools in Ingleby Barwick. He should be aware that my Department was able to make a substantial financial contribution to the funding of those projects.
  Each year we undertake a review to determine whether the procedures should be amended in the light of changes in the organisation of schools and of comments from local authorities and other interested bodies. Of course, we would consider carefully any representations for a change in the criteria which attract consensus support.
  I understand that the local education authority and the governors would prefer to replace Oxbridge Lane primary rather than reduce its standard number. However, my hon. Friend will wish to note that, in its past three capital bids, Cleveland local education authority has not bid for a named project for the school in one of my Department's priority categories but has said that it is a project that it wishes to fund out of its improvement/replacement formula. Capital under the improvement/replacement formula is not given for named projects, and it is up to local education authorities how they spend their improvement/replacement resources and, indeed, as I said a moment ago, their total annual capital guidelines allocation.
  1210
  It is always open to local education authorities, however, to bid for additional capital resources in the supplementary credit approval rounds that take place three or four times a year. Supplementary credit approvals are late additions to local authorities' capital allocations for cases where capital could not be issued in the main capital round. They also act as a way of providing for projects that are clearly very worth while but might just fail to meet the strict criteria for specific cover that I have already outlined.
  My Department currently gives priority to projects that involve significant investment from the private finance initiative and those connected with the single regeneration budget. I must, however, emphasise that all bids will be examined on their individual merits. I know that my hon. Friend would not expect me to make any promises here and now.
  Cleveland local education authority has not bid for a supplementary credit approval for the school in question. The next supplementary credit approval round is likely to take place early next year. Any allocations given in that round are for spending before April 1996. Again, my hon. Friend may wish to approach the local education authority on that point.
  Clearly, I cannot guarantee the success of any bid submitted for consideration, but my hon. Friend can be assured that, if a bid is submitted, I shall take into account everything that has been said this evening. If bids are unsuccessful, local education authorities are welcome to ask that their bid should be reconsidered in future capital rounds.
  I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this subject and for the opportunity to discuss some of the issues surrounding school building projects and our policy on admissions. I am always happy to take account of any points that he would like to draw to my attention, especially in connection with Oxbridge Lane primary school, and I have sought to be helpful tonight.
  I have particularly noted my hon. Friend's opening remarks, in which he said that the school is pleasant, efficiently run and well led. There is no doubt that his comments will be reflected on with pride by the teachers, governors and parents alike at that school.
  Question put and agreed to
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Eight o'clock

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Capital Building Programme
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list each capital building programme, costing more than £1 million, completed in each year since 1979–80, by or on behalf of his Department or local magistrates committees, together with the cost expressed in 1995–96 prices. [38331]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  A schedule of all Crown, combined court and county court schemes is attached at annexe A. The readily available information on magistrates courts schemes is attached at annexe B. Although it is completed for the last four years, the Department does not hold detailed records of all magistrates court schemes completed prior to 1992 which is when responsibility transferred from the Home Office.

  Annexe A: Crown county and combined court building project

  £ million

  Title of scheme

  Type of court

  Works cost cash

  Works cost1995–96 prices

  1979–80

  0

  0

  1980–81

  Wood Green Phase 1

  Crown

  1.25

  2.73

  Leicester

  Crown

  4.42

  9.66

  Romford

  County

  1.03

  2.24

  Nottingham Phase 1

  Crown

  2.23

  4.86

  Birmingham Newton St

  County

  1.10

  2.40

  Snaresbrook Phase 1

  Crown

  2.78

  6.07

  Total

  12.80

  27.97

  1981–82

  Burnley

  Crown

  1.50

  2.99

  Kings Lynn

  Crown

  1.12

  2.22

  Bolton

  Comb

  4.00

  7.97

  Total

  6.61

  13.18

  1982–83

  Portsmouth

  Comb

  7.00

  13.02

  Chelmsford

  Crown

  5.61

  10.43

  Leeds

  Comb

  9.68

  18.00

  Southwark

  Crown

  12.60

  23.44

  Total

  34.89

  64.89

  1983–84

  RCJCrypt

  High

  2.47

  4.38

  Maidstone

  Comb

  10.20

  18.14

  Total

  12.67

  22.52

  1984–85

  Liverpool

  Comb

  43.44

  73.55

  Snaresbrook Rebuild (Fire)

  Crown

  1.40

  2.37

  Total

  44.84

  75.92

  732

  Annexe A: Crown county and combined court building project

  £ million

  Title of scheme

  Type of court

  Works cost cash

  Works cost1995–96prices

  1985–86

  Oxford

  Comb

  5.17

  8.29

  Swindon

  Comb

  2.36

  3.79

  Salisbury

  Crown

  1.18

  1.89

  Total

  8.71

  13.97

  1986–87

  Isleworth D.O.G. House

  Crown

  4.43

  6.91

  Milton Keynes

  County

  1.17

  1.82

  Guildford

  Crown

  4.70

  7.32

  Manchester Wood St Phase 1

  Crown

  10.13

  15.78

  Peterborough

  Comb

  3.96

  6.16

  Southampton

  Comb

  7.08

  11.02

  Total

  31.46

  49.01

  1987–88

  Birmingham

  Crown

  8.87

  13.12

  Newcastle Moot Hall

  Crown

  1.68

  2.48

  Nottingham Phases 2&3

  Crown

  6.18

  9.14

  Norwich

  Comb

  7.02

  10.38

  Swansea

  Crown

  5.15

  7.62

  Total

  18.90

  42.74

  1988–89

  Lambeth

  County

  1.14

  1.58

  Coventry

  Comb

  5.25

  7.28

  Telford

  County

  1.05

  1.46

  Snaresbrook Phase 2

  Crown

  2.50

  3.47

  St. Dunstans House

  High

  1.67

  2.31

  Truro

  Comb

  4.93

  6.84

  Middlesex Guildhall

  Crown

  6.90

  9.56

  Grimsby

  Comb

  4.84

  6.71

  Derby

  Comb

  7.40

  10.26

  Croydon

  Comb

  15.13

  20.97

  Total

  50.82

  70.44

  1989–90

  Doncaster

  Crown

  3.42

  4.44

  RCJ 123 Additional

  HC

  11.36

  14.72

  Manchester Cr Sq/Wd St 2/3

  Comb

  4.97

  6.44

  Taunton

  Crown

  2.79

  3.62

  Wood Green Phase 2

  Crown

  15.26

  19.77

  Total

  37.80

  48.99

  1990–91

  Wolverhampton

  Comb

  9.17

  11.00

  RCJ Thomas More

  High

  2.54

  3.05

  Newcastle Quayside

  Comb

  17.13

  20.56

  Total

  28.84

  34.61

  1991–92

  Northampton

  Comb

  11.49

  12.97

  Teesside

  Comb

  15.09

  17.04

  Hull

  Co-loc

  11.28

  12.73

  Stoke

  Comb

  9.50

  10.72

  Stafford

  Comb

  10.35

  11.68

  Harrow

  Crown

  17.61

  19.88

  Lincoln

  County

  2.31

  2.61

  Luton

  Crown

  9.96

  11.25

  Warrington

  Comb

  7.48

  8.44

  Newport

  Crown

  10.90

  12.30

  Total

  105.96

  119.63

  1992–93

  733

  Annexe A: Crown county and combined court building project

  £ million

  Title of scheme

  Type of court

  Works cost cash

  Works cost1995–96 prices

  Carlisle

  Comb

  9.29

  10.08

  St. Albans

  Crown

  16.34

  17.73

  Central London County

  Court Phase 1

  County

  1.62

  1.76

  Bradford

  Comb

  18.85

  20.45

  Chester

  Crown

  6.55

  7.10

  Borough

  Crown

  19.06

  20.68

  Dartford

  County

  2.16

  2.34

  Total

  73.87

  80.15

  1993–94

  Woolwich

  Crown

  31.15

  32.80

  Bristol

  Crown

  33.49

  35.26

  Total

  64.64

  68.06

  1994–95

  RCJ East Wing

  High

  15.57

  16.08

  Neath and Port Talbot

  County

  1.31

  1.35

  Pontypridd

  County

  1.42

  1.46

  Central London County

  Phase 2

  County

  6.43

  6.64

  Newport (IOW)

  Comb

  2.23

  2.3–0

  Leicester

  County

  3.47

  3.59

  Birmingham

  County

  33.34

  34.44

  Cardiff County

  County

  3.49

  3.61

  Total

  67.25

  69.47

  1995–96

  Canterbury

  Comb

  15.69

  15.69

  Preston

  Comb

  24.84

  24.84

  Worcester

  Comb

  7.80

  7.80

  Total

  48.33

  48.33

  Grand Total

  658.37

  849.87

  Annexe B: Magistrates court building projects

  £ million

  Scheme

  Actual cost

  Cost at 1995–96 prices

  1981–82

  Lancaster

  1.925

  3.836

  1987–88

  Merton

  3.196

  4.727

  Lewes

  2.394

  3.541

  1988–89

  Lowestoft

  2.099

  2.909

  Brighton

  2.289

  3.172

  Port Talbot

  1.415

  1.961

  Stockport

  4.63

  6.417

  Bath

  2.098

  2.908

  Dewsbury

  2.394

  3.318

  1989–90

  Brent

  7.782

  10.085

  Cardiff

  7.401

  9.592

  Hertford

  4

  5.184

  Oldbury

  2.795

  3.622

  Woking

  2.064

  2.675

  Thames

  5.086

  6.591

  734

  Annexe B: Magistrates court building projects

  £ million

  Scheme

  Actual cost

  Cost at 1995–96 prices

  1990–91

  Bootle

  2.935

  3.522

  Bury

  3.541

  4.249

  Chester

  3.700

  4.440

  Basildon

  2.700

  3.240

  Great Yarmouth

  3.167

  3.811

  Harrogate

  2.351

  2.821

  Lincoln

  4.113

  4.935

  Milton Keynes

  4.587

  5.504

  Newton Aycliffe

  1.657

  1.988

  Wigan

  5.077

  6.092

  City of London

  3.990

  4.788

  1991–92

  Haywards Heath

  2.576

  2.908

  Kendal

  1.552

  1.752

  Wimbledon

  3.196

  3.608

  Leicester

  7.432

  8.391

  1992–93

  Bedlington

  2.848

  3.090

  Woolwich

  3.294

  3.574

  Newport (IOW)

  3.406

  3.695

  Taunton

  2.503

  2.716

  1993–94

  Fareham

  2.637

  2.777

  Leeds

  18.132

  19.093

  Llandudno

  1.810

  1.906

  North Shields

  3.262

  3.435

  Rotherham

  5.400

  5.686

  1994–95

  Newham

  11.747

  12.135

  Shrewsbury

  3.983

  4.114

  Rhondda

  1.678

  1.733

  Barrow

  3.072

  3.173

  Bexley

  1.208

  1.248

  Milton Keynes

  1.108

  1.144

  1995–96

  Nottingham

  20.000

  20.000

  Mansfield

  5.127

  5.127

  West London

  8.335

  8.335

  Unregistered Land
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the acreage and percentage of land in each county in England which is unregistered. [38037]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The registration of land is the responsibility of Her Majesty's Land Registry which was established as an executive agency of the Lord Chancellor in July 1990. The question concerns a specific matter on which the chief executive of the agency is best placed to provide the answer. I have accordingly asked the chief executive of Her Majesty's Land Registry to reply direct.

  Letter from E. Beardsall to Mr. Gordon Prentice, dated 26 October 1995:
  Acreage and Percentage of land in each English County which is unregistered
  In the absence of the Chief Executive, who is presently away from the office, I have been asked by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, to reply to your recent question to

  735
  him concerning the acreage and percentage of land in each county of England which is unregistered.
  I regret that statistics relating to unregistered land or to land acreage are not maintained by the Registry but I can tell you that out of an estimated 20 million titles in England, nearly 15 million are registered. The majority of registered titles relate to residential properties in urban areas.
  I hope this information will be helpful.

  Pay Bargaining
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will provide in respect of his plan of pay delegation submitted to the Treasury(a) a description of the staff in each bargaining unit covered by the plan, distinguishing staff in HQ functions, agencies and agency candidates, and in other identifiable business units and (b) proposals for trade union recognition in each bargaining unit and the negotiating machinery to be put in place in each bargaining unit. [38271]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  In addition to the headquarters of the Lord Chancellor's Department and associated offices, the Lord Chancellor has responsibility for four agencies: the Court Service, Her Majesty's Land Registry, the Public Record Office and the Public Trust Office. He is also responsible for the Legal Aid Board, which is an executive non-departmental public body.

  The Public Trust Office and the Court Service became executive agencies in July 1994 and April 1995 respectively, but pay issues of common interest have continued to be subject to joint consultation with LCD HQ. From 1 April 1996, however, the headquarters of the Lord Chancellor's Department—with associated offices—the Court Service and the Public Trust Office will each assume responsibility for the pay and grading of their staff and from that date will become separate units for collective bargaining purposes. The Legal Aid Board already has delegated responsibility in this area, from 1 April 1995. Staff in headquarters, the two agencies and the Legal Aid Board are primarily in senior management, executive, clerical, secretarial and office support grades. The Court Service also includes county court bailiffs, clerks to HM judges and a small number of domestic staff, the latter serving judges' lodgings.

  The present pay and grading structures are, however, now under review. It is not envisaged that, in the immediate term, there will be any significant changes in the present recognition arrangements with the trade unions, who have been invited by headquarters and the two agencies to be party to interim pay agreements which would remain in place pending the outcome of the pay and grading reviews. Changes in pay, structure and collective bargaining arrangements may follow, after consultation and negotiation, as a result of these reviews.

  The chief executives of Her Majesty's Land Registry and the Public Record Office have been asked to reply direct.

  Letter from Sarah Tyacke to Mr. John McAllion, dated 26 October 1995:
  I have been asked by the Lord Chancellor's Parliamentary Secretary to reply to your question about pay delegation.

  (a) The Public Record Office, a small Government Department and an Executive Agency of the Lord Chancellor's Department, is making its own arrangements for pay
  736
  delegation. All staff, comprising the unified (administrative and curatorial), secretarial, conservator and support grades, are covered in the bargaining unit.

  (b) The office is proposing to continue current trade union recognition (FDA, NUCPS, CPSA and IPMS), and is seeking single table bargaining arrangements.

  Letter from E. Beardsall to Mr. John McAllion dated 26 October 1995:
  In the absence of the Chief Executive, who is presently away from the office, I have been asked by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, to reply to your recent question to him concerning pay delegation in HM Land Registry.
  As a separate department, the Registry has always dealt directly with HM Treasury and, since 1 April 1994, has been responsible for its own pay and grading systems. Agreed negotiating machinery is in place which involves three trade unions representing all groups of Land Registry staff.
  I do hope that this answers the points raised with the Parliamentary Secretary but please contact me if I can be of any further assistance.

TREASURY

  Less-developed Countries (Debt)
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table projecting, for each less-developed country, the total debt stock and annual debt service obligation if the Trinidad and Madrid terms were to be implemented in full. [38396]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I regret that the figures are not available to produce meaningful projections as requested.

  Our objective in proposing the Trinidad terms for bilateral debt, and the multilateral debt initiative launched in Madrid, is to reduce the debt burden of the poorest, most indebted countries to sustainable levels. We continue to pursue this objective.

  Tobacco Industry
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest figures of people employed in the tobacco industry at the latest available date and the figures for 1990. [39286]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Available information closest to that requested is for employees in employment in the tobacco manufacturing industry at September 1989, 1991 and 1993. The information is provided in the following table.

  Year

  Employees (thousands)

  1989

  11.4

  1991

  8.7

  1993

  8.0

  Source: CSO.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many jobs, created in the last year, were in(a) small and medium-sized companies, (b) manufacturing industries and (c) service industries. [39376]
  737
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The information requested for small and medium-sized companies is not available. Information for manufacturing and services is available only for the net change in jobs and is provided in the following table.

  Employment in Great Britain: June (thousands)1

  1994

  1995

  Net change

  Manufacturing

  4,052

  4,086

  34

  Services

  17,832

  18,145

  313

  Note:

  1 Includes employees and self-employed.

  Source: CSO.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he is proposing to reduce tendering costs for public finance initiative schemes. [37162]

  Mr. Jack
  This is, of course a private not a public finance initiative—although the Government want to keep costs down for both the private and public sectors. I am keen to see an increase in the use of the private finance initiative for the scouring of public projects. However, I am aware of concerns about the costs involved in this exercise and plan shortly to meet with representatives of the construction industry to discuss the matter. However, as experience of the PFI grows costs will continue to fall as Government and business improve their expertise in making contracts in this way. The Government are also encouraging the spread of best practice among Departments, for example by avoiding over-prescriptive specifications.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the rate of higher rate of income tax necessary to counterbalance the effect of(a) abolition of the lower rate of income tax and (b) the abolition of the lower rate of income tax and national insurance contributions for the lowest band tax payers. [37959]

  Mr. Jack
  It would be inappropriate to comment about the range of possible changes to tax rates and thresholds being assessed for the Budget statement. The direct revenue effects of illustrative tax changes are shown in "Tax Ready Reckoner and Tax Reliefs" published by HM Treasury in July, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Tax Evasion
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many cases of evasion of payments of(a) income tax and (b) other tax have been discovered in each of the last five years; and what has been the value of the revenue recovered in both categories. [37922]

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested for taxes administered by the Inland Revenue is as follows:738

  Year

  Income tax investigations

  Other investigations

  Yield from counter-evasion work (£ million)

  1989–90

  57,997

  12,551

  933

  1990–91

  61,755

  13,219

  1,091

  1991–92

  59,993

  14,421

  1,324

  1992–93

  55,611

  12,952

  1,361

  1993–94

  58,420

  12,200

  1,295

  1994–95

  57,701

  10,643

  1,378

  The figure of yield for 1994–95 cannot be compiled on a basis exactly comparable with earlier years, owing to a change in the way these figures are maintained. Unlike previous years, it includes the yield from all employer compliance work.

  Pensions
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average accrued capital value based on private sector annuity rates or other appropriate calculation method of(a) a civil service employee's pension and (b) other public sector employee's pensions of those (i) employees retiring this year and (ii) those current and past employees with future pension rights at retirement. [37884]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Information for all public sector and public service pension arrangements is not kept centrally. However, the table sets out the average capitalised values of retirement benefits for civil servants who are members of the principal civil service pension scheme together with corresponding figures for two of the large public service schemes.

  Approximate capitalised value of average accrued retired benefit entitlement

  Pension scheme

  Pensioners retiring over the year to1 October1995£

  Active members at1 April 1995£

  Pensioners with preserved benefits at1 April 1995£

  1. PCSPS (excluding N.I.)

  98,000

  32,000

  14,000

  2. NHS (England, Wales, Scotland and N.I.)

  80,000

  30,000

  10,000

  3. Teachers' Superannuation Scheme (England and Wales)

  146,000

  61,000

  16,000

  Notes:

  The capitalised values include the value of pension benefits, lump sum retirement benefits and attached spouse's pensions.

  The values for pensioners retiring over the year to 1 October 1995 exclude those retirements due to ill health.

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department.

  Fidelity Bonus
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration he has given to funding a fidelity bonus paid to couples who stay married for five years. [39030]
  739
  Mr. Jack
  I have received many interesting proposals in the run-up to the Budget which I am considering carefully.

  Black Economy
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest date when an investigation into the black economy took place; what was its findings; and what was the estimate of the extent of the black economy, and the resulting loss of revenue in income tax, in actual and at 1995 prices. [39009]

  Mr. Jack
  It is not possible to make a reliable estimate of the size of the black economy. However, the Inland Revenue has an on-going programme to detect and deter evasion in all areas of the tax system for which it is responsible. I refer the hon. Member to the chapter entitled "Compliance" in the annual report of the board of Inland Revenue for the year ending 31 March 1995, which may be found in the House of Commons Library.

  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the size of the black economy. [39008]

  Mr. Jack
  It is not possible to make a reliable estimate of the size of the black economy.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the number of people who will pay capital gains tax in 1996–97 and 1997–98. [39091]

  Mr. Jack
  The number of individuals and trustees who will have capital gains tax liabilities arising from disposals in 1996–97 and 1997–98 are provisionally estimated at 90,000 and 95,000 respectively.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the behavioural effects of the abolition of capital gains tax. [39102]

  Mr. Jack
  It would not be appropriate to comment on tax matters in the run-up to the Budget.

  Advance Corporation Tax
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of ACT receipts for
  1995–96. [39095]

  Mr. Jack
  The forecast of advance corporation tax receipts for 1995–96 made at the time of the 1995 summer economic forecast was £9.5 billion.

  Defence Expenditure
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the savings that could be made annually by linking British defence expenditure to the average level of other western European countries. [39252]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  None. UK defence expenditure is determined by UK defence needs and spending priorities. It would be meaningless to link it to the average of other countries' defence spending.
  740

  Overseas Aid Budget
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations his Department has received from(a) members of the general public, (b) hon. Members and (c) non-governmental organisations on the size of the overseas aid budget since 1 September; and what were the figures for the same period last year. [39084]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The information is as follows:

  1 September1995 to23 October1995

  1 September1994 to23 October1994

  (a) Letters from general public

  1,150

  35

  (b) Hon. Members' letters

  260

  20

  (c) Non-governmental organisations' letters

  1—

  1—

  1 Not separately recorded.

  Redundancy Payments
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to end or alter the tax reliefs available on the first £30,000 of redundancy payments; and if he will make a statement. [39143]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 24 October 1995]I cannot anticipate my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget statement.

  Employee Fraud
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total number of cases of all forms of fraud committed by employees of his(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies for each year from 1991–92 to 1994–95; and for each of these years, what was the total monetary sum (1) misappropriated in such frauds and (2) subsequently recovered. [39126]

  Mrs. Angela Night
  [holding answer 24 October 1995]The total number of cases of fraud and the total monetary sum misappropriated and subsequently recovered is shown in the following table.

  £

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  HM Treasury

  (cases)

  (0)

  (1)

  (0)

  (0)

  misappropriated

  nil

  22

  nil

  (0)

  recovered

  —

  nil

  —

  —

  Forward: Civil Service Catering

  (cases)

  (2)

  (19)

  (1)

  (0)

  misappropriated

  60,000

  78,496

  268

  nil

  recovered

  nil

  790

  nil

  nil

  Agencies

  (cases)

  (2)

  (2)

  (3)

  (0)

  misappropriated

  nil

  31,754

  nil

  nil

  recovered

  —

  23,573

  —

  —

  741

  £

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  NDPBs

  (cases)

  (0)

  (0)

  (0)

  (0)

  misappropriated

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  recovered

  —

  —

  —

  —

  National Insurance
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the additional revenue yield which would result from extending employers' national insurance contributions to all fringe benefits currently liable to income tax only. [29141]

  Mr. Heald
  I have been asked to reply.

  We estimate the figure to be £250 million based on 1994–95 figures.

TRANSPORT

  Transport Council
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the result of the Transport Council held in Brussels on 28 September. [40234]

  Sir George Young
  The Transport Council met in Brussels on 28 September. My hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads represented the United Kingdom.

  The Council discussed proposals for a Community negotiating mandate on road transport agreements with certain central and eastern European countries, and invited the Committee of Permanent Representatives to prepare detailed texts with a view to agreement at the December Transport Council.

  The Council met Transport Ministers from the nine central and eastern European countries which have association agreements with the European Community. Discussion concentrated on the approximation of legislation and development of infrastructure.

  The Council reached a common position on a consolidating and amending directive on the weights and dimensions of goods vehicles, which extends to national traffic the limits on dimensions—but not weights—applying to international traffic. On the initiative of the UK and the Netherlands, existing goods vehicles which cannot comply with the new provisions may continue in use in national transport until the end of 2006.

  The Council also reached a common position on a directive transposing into Community law and applying to national transport the existing regulations on the international carriage of dangerous goods by rail. Special, more stringent rules will continue to apply to the channel tunnel.

  The Council reached political agreement on a scrapping scheme to reduce capacity in the inland waterways industry. Together with Germany, the UK opposed the use of Community funds for this purpose. The Council also
  742
  reached political agreement on a regulation giving inland waterways operators the freedom to provide services in any member state.

  The Council continued to discuss the Commission's proposals for liberalisation of ground handling services at Community airports. These will now be considered further by the Committee of Permanent Representatives. The Council agreed a resolution on air traffic management in situations of crisis and congestion.

  Other items raised at the Council included proposals for a plastic card driving licence, which were welcomed by the UK and other member states, and taxation of aviation fuel.

  Trans-European Transport Networks
  Mr. Tracey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what will be the United Kingdom's share of the funds available in 1995 for priority projects under the European Community's financing programme for trans-European transport networks. [40233]

  Sir George Young
  Priority projects in the United Kingdom will receive some £22 million, which is just over 15 per cent. of the total funds available for priority projects in 1995 and more than any other member state will receive from the EC fund. In addition to the £7 million for the west coast main line, which I announced in the House on 18 October,Official Report, column 370, the channel tunnel rail link will receive £13.6 million and schemes along the Ireland-UK-Benelux road link will benefit from £1.6 million. The UK will also receive £36,000 million for road traffic management research and has an interest in a number of other traffic management schemes, including a global navigation satellite system, which will together receive some £16 million of TENs funding in 1995.

  Airports
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the maximum current capacity of each terminal of(a) Heathrow, (b) Gatwick and (c) Stansted for (i) passengers and (ii) flights. [39367]

  Mr. Norris
  These are matters for BAA plc.

  The number of passenger air transport movements at Stansted is limited to 78,000 per annum under the Stansted Airport Aircraft Movement Limit Order 1987.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many passengers used Stansted airport in(a) the year of its opening and (b) 1994. [39371]

  Mr. Norris
  Stansted airport opened for commercial use in 1946, but the first regular services did not operate until the following year. The new terminal opened in March 1991, and in that year 1.9 million passengers used the airport. The comparable figure for 1994 was 3.3 million passengers.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will undertake the environmental impact assessment in respect of a new terminal 5 at Heathrow. [39774]

  Mr. Norris
  No. An environmental impact assessment was prepared by BAA plc prior to its application for planning permission for a fifth terminal.
  743
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many passengers used each of the terminals at(a) Heathrow and (b) Gatwick in (i) 1984 and (ii) 1994. [39379]

  Mr. Norris
  I understand from BAA plc that the information requested is as follows:

  1984

  1994

  Million passengers

  Heathrow Terminal 1

  11.46

  21.37

  Heathrow Terminal 2

  7.45

  8.23

  Heathrow Terminal 3

  10.23

  10.79

  Heathrow Terminal 4

  1—

  10.97

  Gatwick South Terminal

  13.95

  12.76

  Gatwick North Terminal

  2—

  8.29

  1 Opened April 1986.

  2 Opened March 1988.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of existing(a) passenger and (b) freight capacity is being used currently at (i) Heathrow, and (ii) Gatwick and (iii) Stansted. [39373]

  Mr. Norris
  This is a matter for BAA plc.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimates he has for passenger use of(a) existing Heathrow terminals, (b) Gatwick terminals, (c) Stansted and (d) terminal 5 at Heathrow in (i) 2000 and (ii) 2005. [39372]

  Mr. Norris
  I understand that BAA plc has presented the following projections to the Heathrow terminal 5 public inquiry:

  2000

  2005)

  (million passengers per year)

  Existing Heathrow Terminals

  60.0

  52.6

  Gatwick Terminals

  22.1

  27.3

  Stansted

  7.1

  12.5

  Heathrow Terminal 51

  —

  14.4

  1 Application to build terminal 5 is currently the subject of a public inquiry. If planning permission is granted, BAA pic aims to have the first phase open by 2003.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessments he had made of the environmental impact of the airports on(a) Heathrow, (b) Gatwick and (c) Stansted. [39366]

  Mr. Norris
  For Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, the Department publishes an aircraft noise exposure index in the form of annual aircraft noise contours using Leq—equivalent continuous sound level, 16 hour dBA. It is the responsibility of airport operators or developers to undertake appropriate environmental impact assessments of any major new developments proposed at airports.

ENVIRONMENT

  Green Belt Land
  Sir Michael Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on how many occasions in the past five years he has granted planning permission for the development on land in the metropolitan green belt for 744
  (a) motorways and (b) motorway service areas; and if he will make a statement. [38353]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  We are not aware of any such cases in metropolitan green belt land around London. Approval should not be given for inappropriate development in a green belt except in very special circumstances. Further advice on control over development in green belts is given in section 3 of planning policy guidance note 2—revised—January 1995.

  My right hon. Friend has called in four planning applications for motorway service areas on different sites in the green belt, along the M25 in Epping Forest district, Essex. They were considered at a joint inquiry which ended in the summer. The Government Office is awaiting the inspector's report.

  The Secretary of State is minded to grant permission for a motorway service area in the green belt, on the M25 at Iver, Buckinghamshire, but is considering further representations on new evidence that has arisen.

  Motorway Service Areas
  Sir Michael Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the locations for possible motorway service areas adjacent to the M25 which were rejected by his inspector as being unsuitable on the ground that they are off-line. [38355]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  We are not aware of any such cases.

  Noise Legislation
  Mr. Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce his proposals to improve the current noise legislation. [38039]

  Mr. Gummer
  I am aware of my right hon. Friend's continuing interest in this important subject. We are currently considering both the written responses to the recommendations in the consultation paper on neighbour noise controls and the results of recent trials of the proposed new night noise offence. We hope to announce shortly how we propose to take forward the recommendations.

  Queen Elizabeth Hospital
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate(a) the costs and(b) the costs of delay relating to the planning inquiry into the developing at the Queen Elizabeth hospital in the borough of Greenwich., [38736]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  No. Such estimates are unnecessary as they are not material to the Secretary of State's decision on whether a planning application should be called in.

  Public Inquiries
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the shortest, the average and the longest period of delay in setting up a local public inquiry. [38735]
  745
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The provision of information on public local inquiries is the responsibility of the planning inspectorate. I have asked the inspectorate's chief executive to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from James Greenfield to Mr. Peter Bottomley, dated 23 October 1995:
  The Secretary of State asked the Chief Planning Inspector to reply to your question about the shortest, the average and the longest period of delay in setting up a local public inquiry. Mr. Shepley is away from the office this week, and I am writing on his behalf.
  In the case of planning appeals and planning applications called-in for the Secretary of State's decision, the Inquiries Procedure Rules state that the inquiry shall be not later than 20 weeks or 22 weeks respectively after the relevant start date for the case, unless such a date is impracticable. Generally, the earliest possible date for an inquiry to be arranged is about 14 weeks after the relevant date (16 weeks or more for called-in applications), allowing the parties adequate time to submit and exchange statements and prepare proofs of evidence within the recommended timescales.
  There is general delay in arranging dates for these inquiries caused by the need to provide Inspectors for development plan inquiries. The Planning and Compensation Act 1991 required mandatory district wide plans to be published by local authorities, so that future development control decisions were made in accordance with the plans, unless material considerations indicated otherwise. Ministers expectations were that all plans would be in place by the end of 1996. Extra Inspectors have been recruited, but need to undergo an extensive training programme before they become fully effective.
  Within the Inspector's published Business Plan there are a number of performance targets, many of which are measured against the time taken to complete 80‥ of our caseloads. The latest statistics show that during September, 80‥ of the dates for inquiries proposed by the Inspectorate to the parties were made within 40 weeks of the relevant dates. The earliest date proposed was made in week 18, and the latest date in week 51. The average waiting time for an inquiry date was 35 weeks.

  Special Areas of Conservation
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list proposed special areas of conservation in the United Kingdom that contain specimens of shore dock. [39244]

  Mr. Clappison
  The sites proposed to Government by the statutory nature conservation agencies, working through the Joint Nature Conservation committee, as possible special areas of conservation representing an appropriate UK contribution for the shore dock—Rumex rupestris—to the European Union wide Natura 2000 network were:

  Angelsey Coast Dunes (Glannau Mons)

  Fal and Helford

  Isles of Scilly Complex

  Penhale Dunes

  Plymouth Sound and Estuaries

  The Lizard

  Following a public consultation on those proposals in the spring, the Anglesey coast dunes site was submitted to the European Commission as a candidate special area of conservation in June. I anticipate that other sites for this species will go forward as candidate special areas of conservation later this year.
  746

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by county, those designated areas that have been damaged in each of the last four years, with the cause of damage in each case. [39064]

  Mr. Clappison
  The information is not available in the form requested. Information on damage to SSSIs is contained in the annual reports of English Nature, copies of which are in the Library.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what assessment he has made of the effect of people receiving benefit, where the level of housing benefit has been capped in line with the local reference rate, on the overall availability of private rented accommodation; [38895]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the extent to which the private rented sector will be used only by people with a guaranteed income capable of paying the levels of rent demanded following the capping of housing benefit levels. [38871]

  Mr. Clappison
  Under the changes to the housing benefit system, housing benefit will continue to meet in full rents at or below the general level of rent for similar accommodation in the same locality. Even where the market rent is above the general level, housing benefit will meet half the excess. The effect of the new system will depend on the decisions landlords and tenants reach on rents locally and we will be monitoring this closely.

  The Housing White Paper made it clear that we see the private rented sector as an important complement to social housing for people on low incomes. We are committed to providing an effective housing benefit system that enables low income households to rent in the private sector.

  Wetland Sites
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to invite the application of the Montreux procedure, in accordance with resolution C.5.4 of the Ramsar convention, for those United Kingdom wetland sites where the Joint Nature Conservation Committee has recently predicted or recorded negative changes in ecological character. [39238]

  Mr. Clappison
  None. The United Kingdom is a strong supporter of the Ramsar convention, which does much valuable work in fostering the conservation and wise use of wetlands. The United Kingdom national report to the sixth meeting of Ramsar contracting parties in 1996 states that the ecological character of 12 of the 95 United Kingdom Ramsar sites has changed, is changing or is likely to change. No additional UK sites are appropriate for inclusion on the Montreux record. In responding the UK national report, the Ramsar secretariat stated that the UK report is one of the most comprehensive, detailed and open of the reports they receive. A copy of the UK national Ramsar report is in the House Library.

  One UK Ramsar site, the Dee estuary, is currently on the Montreux record, and was the subject of a monitoring visit last autumn by the Ramsar bureau and other

  747
  international wetland experts who reported to my right hon. Friend this summer. A response to this report is currently in preparation.

  Water Extraction Licences
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if water extracted from boreholes or aquifers requires a water extraction licence: and if he will make a statement. [38994]

  Mr. Clappison
  The National Rivers Authority has a duty to manage water resources, including groundwater, under part II of the Water Resources Act 1991. Most abstractions from groundwater require a licence from the authority. The major exemptions are for agriculture or domestic use below 20cm per day.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by(a) region or county and (b) location the number of new water extraction licences that have been approved since 1 July; and if he will indicate the amount of water granted to be extracted. [38993]

  Mr. Clappison
  The number of new abstraction licences issued by the National Rivers Authority between 1 July and 15 October, with their associated quantities, are as follows:

  Region

  Number of new licences

  Quantity(Megalitres perannum)

  Anglian

  26

  462

  North West

  21

  200

  Northumbria and Yorkshire

  38

  2,751

  Severn Trent

  53

  6,811

  Southern

  5

  14,708

  South Western

  34

  13,040

  Thames

  4

  2,801

  Welsh

  22

  35,920

  Total

  203

  76,693

  These figures do not include variations, successions, drought orders or re-issued time limited licences. The quantities for Welsh, South Western and Southern regions have been distorted by the issue of several very large, low loss licences—fish farms, Hydropower and cooling.

  Rural Housing
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to exempt small rural villages from his Department's new right-to-buy arrangements for(a) local authorities and (b) housing associations' tenants to ensure their homes are not turned into holiday cottages or sold to outsiders; and if he will make a statement. [39057]

  Mr. Clappison
  Following the publication of the Housing White Paper, we consulted widely on the proposal for a purchase grant scheme for tenants of housing associations. In the light of concerns expressed about the impact of the proposals on the availability of social housing in rural areas, we have concluded that existing and future housing association properties situated in rural communities of less than 3,000 people will not be included in the purchase grant scheme. This will be provided for in legislation.
  748
  The purchase grant proposals relate only to tenants of housing associations, and not those of local authorities.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the effect of the abolition of discretionary subsidies on homelessness among the most vulnerable groups in society. [38897]

  Mr. Clappison
  The changes to the housing benefit rules that will be introduced in January 1996 are intended to bear down on high rents in the private rented sector. There is no reason to assume that the changes will affect the level of homelessness.

  Water, Doncaster
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will investigate the extent to which water in the aquifers of the Doncaster area geological syncline could be used in greater volumes, either in the public water supply or other purposes; what is the current cost of obtaining potable water from this source; what capital and revenue cost would be incurred in using sufficient water for these uses so as to stabilise the height of the local water table; and if he will make a statement. [39035]

  Mr. Clappison
  The National Rivers Authority has a duty to conserve and secure the proper use of water resources in England and Wales. I understand that the Sherwood sandstone aquifer in the Doncaster area is already fully utilised for public water supply. It is possible that some groundwater could be made available from the carboniferous stratum, but the quantities are expected to be small and the water quality poor. The cost of obtaining a potable water supply or stabilising the local water table have not been investigated.

  Latham Report
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about progress on implementing the Latham report. [38868]

  Mr. Clappison
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden on 18 July 1995,Official Report, column 1065. We have now published the results of the two consultation exercises and continue to consider legislative proposals in the light of these, and subsequent discussions with the construction industry.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest information he has for each of the water companies of the level of dissolved lead in water pipes; and if he will make a statement. [38995]

  Mr. Clappison
  The standard for lead in drinking water in England and Wales is a maximum allowable concentration of 50 microgrammes per litre—ug/litre. This standard relates to unflushed samples at consumers's taps and is equivalent to an average concentration of about 20ug/litre. This is more stringent than the 5Oug/litre standard in the European Community directive on water intended for human consumption which relates to flushed samples.
  749
  There is no lead in the water that leaves treatment works. Most of the lead is picked up from the consumers own pipework. The drinking water inspectorate has issued a leaflet to advise consumers on simple steps they can take to minimise the levels of lead in their drinking water.

  Number of samples containing lead in various concentrations by company for 1994

  Company

  Number of samples taken

  Lead concentration µg/litre

  <10

  11–20

  21–30

  31–40

  41.–50

  51–100

  >100

  Anglian

  2,272

  2,181

  63

  20

  4

  2

  1

  1

  Bournemouth and West

  Hampshire

  73

  71

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bristol

  321

  212

  39

  31

  12

  10

  12

  5

  Cambridge

  247

  185

  41

  14

  4

  1

  —

  2

  Chester

  20

  19

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cholderton

  3

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dwr Cymru

  1,437

  1,236

  71

  40

  20

  17

  27

  26

  East Surrey

  271

  252

  12

  2

  2

  2

  1

  —

  Essex and Suffolk

  1,045

  981

  32

  11

  9

  7

  4

  1

  Folkestone

  64

  54

  6

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hartlepoole

  12

  12

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Mid Kent

  137

  131

  3

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Mid Southern

  179

  178

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North East

  906

  717

  112

  42

  15

  9

  10

  1

  North Surrey

  73

  63

  2

  4

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Northumbrian

  1,125

  941

  87

  39

  22

  12

  22

  2

  North West

  15,868

  12,103

  1,426

  829

  472

  320

  500

  218

  Portsmouth

  243

  193

  28

  13

  4

  11

  3

  1

  Severn Trent

  4,834

  3,645

  455

  286

  148

  110

  156

  34

  Southern

  869

  731

  64

  22

  18

  8

  15

  11

  South Staffs

  489

  406

  47

  17

  8

  2

  9

  —

  South East Water

  345

  294

  19

  11

  7

  6

  8

  —

  South West

  671

  573

  53

  17

  10

  6

  10

  2

  Sutton District

  32

  31

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tendring Hundred

  268

  263

  3

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Thames

  1,082

  1,014

  50

  5

  8

  1

  4

  —

  Three Valles Water

  1,599

  1,435

  90

  42

  16

  6

  8

  2

  Wessex

  1,304

  1,152

  71

  33

  12

  13

  10

  13

  Wrexham

  52

  49

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Yorkshire

  2,783

  2,235

  252

  111

  54

  34

  62

  35

  York Waterworks

  113

  107

  3

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Total samples in 1994

  38.737

  31,467

  3,034

  1,596

  852

  567

  862

  356

  Per cent, of total samples

  -

  81.25

  7.85

  4.1

  2.2

  1.5

  2.2

  0.9

  Birmingham Airport
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to call in the planning application for expansion of Birmingham international airport. [39621]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The application is still being considered by the local planning authority, Solihull metropolitan borough council. Should they be minded to approve it the application will be notified to the Secretary of State in due course and he will then decide whether to call it in for his own decision.

  Tenants
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he will take to enable tenants in rent arrears to transfer to cheaper accommodation where this is at the tenant's request. [38538]

  Mr. Clappison
  None. Transfers of local authority tenants and rent arrears are matters for local authorities.
  750
  The table sets out the number of samples containing lead in various concentrations by water company for 1994, the latest year for which information is available. No distinction is made between dissolved lead and particulate lead.

  Incinerators
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment pursuant to his answer of 21 February, when he now expects to publish Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution's report on polychlorinated biphenyls, polychlorinated dibenzo-para-dioxins and polychlorinated d:benzofurans in the vicinity of inc inerators. [38904]

  Mr. Clappison
  It should be available before Christmas.

  Area Cost Adjustments
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research he has commissioned on the use of travel-to-work areas to calculate area cost adjustment; what further studies have been commissioned into area cost adjustments, and if he will make a statement. [38918]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  We commissioned research into the possible use of travel-to-work areas from the Centre for Urban and Regional Development Studies at
  751
  Newcastle university. The report of this work has subsequently been discussed with the local authority associations in the standard spending assessment sub-group.

  This sub-group has received a number of other papers on area cost adjustment which include or comment on other research work. These are a report from a technical sub-group which sought to investigate alternatives to the current methodology, a commentary by the south east counties on the alternatives, and a paper by the metropolitan districts which covered a report by Ernst and Young on the current methodology.

  The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration has announced his proposals for an independent review of the adjustment. I refer the hon. Member to the answer which my hon. Friend gave on 17 October 1995, Official Report, column 185–86.

  Homelessness, London
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people are currently homeless in London. [39645]

  Mr. Clappison
  Local authorities in England report on their quarterly PIE return to my Department the number of households for whom they accept responsibility to secure accommodation under the homelessness provisions of the Housing Act 1985.

  The latest estimate for London appears in table 1 of "Households found accommodation under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 Housing Act 1985: England. Statistics for the second quarter of 1995", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Housing, London
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many London homes(a) public and (b) private sectors are unmodernised. [39369]

  Mr. Clappison
  The 1991 "English House Condition Survey" recorded modernisation only in relation to kitchens and bathrooms. The following were found in London.

  Public sector

  Private sector

  Percentage of sector

  Number

  Percentage of sector

  Number

  Unmodemised kitchen

  142,000

  20.6

  325,000

  14.1

  Unmodernised bathroom

  216,000

  31.4

  486,000

  21.1

  The 1991 EHCS defines an unmodernised kitchen or bathroom as one with amenities more than 25 years old.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many homes in London are unfit for habitation. [39368]

  Mr. Clappison
  The 1991 "English House Condition Survey" found 301,000 London dwellings to be unfit under section 604 of the Housing Act 1985, as amended by schedule 9 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.
  752

  Development Land
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimates he has for the amount of(a) land and (b) buildings in London which are available for development. [39370]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Department of the Environment does not hold detailed information on buildings in London available for development. A central register of unused and underused public land was maintained in the Department from 1981 onwards in accordance with part X of the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980. In 1989 this responsibility was transferred to local authorities.

  Berkshire County Council
  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment if he intends to appeal against the ruling of the High Court on 6 October 1995 that his decision to abolish Berkshire county council and transfer its functions to the six existing district councils was invalid in so far as it concerns the transfer of functions to the borough of Bracknell Forest and the royal borough of Windsor and Maidenhead. [40487]

  Mr. Gummer
  The court ruling was not a judgment on the merits of my decision on the structure of local government in Berkshire, but turned on a point of interpretation of the Local Government Act 1992 which I feel needs to be tested further. Leave to appeal was granted by the High Court, and I shall be serving notice of appeal to enable the matter to be argued further in the Court of Appeal. I shall not lay the Berkshire (Structural Change) Order before Parliament while the appeal is proceeding.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Departmental Responsibilities
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list his Department's responsibilities. [38450]

  Mr. Lang
  My Department's responsibilities are indicated in the list of ministerial responsibilities which is published regularly by the Cabinet Office and is available through the Vote Office. The Department's objective is to help UK business compete successfully at home and abroad. It also aims, through the Office of Science and Technology, to strengthen the UK's science engineering and technology capability and to maximise its contribution to national economic performance and quality of life.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received following the revocation of the Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1986. [39348]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  My Department has received a number of inquiries about the implications of the revocation of the 1986 regulations. My officials have held discussions with representatives of the trading standards service and explained that the supply of fireworks to
  753
  children under 16 remains an offence both under section 31 of the Explosives Act 1875 (as amended) and under the General Product Safety Regulations 1994.

  Mr. Davies
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will reintroduce the Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1986. [39347]

  Mr. Evans
  I am satisfied that the requirements currently in place are adequate to prevent the sale of fireworks to children under 16 years of age. I do not believe there is any need for changes in the legislation.

  Newsagents
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he last met the chief executive of the National Federation of Retail Newsagents; and what was discussed. [39088]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  I met Mr. Bob Frost, chief executive of the National Federation of Retail Newsagents, on 13 July 1995.

  Mr. Frost expressed the NFRN's concerns about recent developments, in particular: the recent increases in wholesaler's carriage charges; the changes being made in wholesale distribution areas; the decision by several publishers to reduce the newsagent's margin on retail sales; and the effect on newsagents of orders made against the NFRN under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976.

  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the Office of Fair Trading's proposals which require that all retail newsagents supplied from the same distribution point must by October 1996 be charged the same rate for delivery. [39087]

  Mr. Evans
  The OFT has no such proposal. However, I agree with the OFT that high carriage charges should not be used as a means of deterring new entrants.

  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the recent increases in carriage charges on newspaper outlets. [39086]

  Mr. Page
  It appears that wholesalers have increased their charges to recover an increased element of the expenses associated with distribution and delivery. That is a matter for their commercial judgment.

  Company Takeovers
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what reviews of the law and regulations regarding company takeovers have been carried out since 1985; and what were their main conclusions. [39262]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  In 1988, the Government published the results of a review of mergers policy and the merger control procedures of the Fair Trading Act 1973—"Mergers Policy—a DTI paper on the policy and procedures of merger control". The main conclusion was that the policy towards mergers should remain unchanged but that a number of changes would be made to merger control procedures to help speed up decision. The changes introduced include a non-mandatory prenotification system and the power to accept divestment undertakings in lieu of reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. More recently, following a review of merger 754
  control procedures as part of the Government's deregulation initiative, a number of changes have been made or are to be made, including the power to accept behavioural undertakings in lieu of reference to the MMC and a reduction in the period during which a merger may be referred to the MMC from six to four months.

  Mr. Nicholson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, if he will make a statement on the objectives of the current law regarding company takeovers. [39264]

  Mr. Evans
  The Fair Trading Act 1973 gives my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade discretion to refer qualifying mergers to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission where he believes they may operate against the public interest. Since 1984, the Government's policy has been that, in determining whether mergers should be referred, the primary consideration is the effect on competition. Certain mergers are also subject to the City code on takeovers and mergers which is a non-statutory code administered by the panel on takeovers and mergers. The code and the panel operate principally to ensure fair and equal treatment of all shareholders in relation to takeovers. The code also provides an orderly framework within which takeovers are conducted.

  In 1987, a review of the operations of the takeover panel identified a number of measures to strengthen the panel's regulation of takeovers while maintaining its existing non-statutory status. The measures were designed to improve the monitoring and investigative capabilities of the panel and to bring the panel into a closer relationship with the regulatory arrangements established by the Financial Services Act 1986.

  The Trade and Industry Committee of the House also undertook a review of takeovers and mergers policy and made a number of recommendations, which were published on 27 November 1991, HC 90. The Government's response to that report was published on 26 February 1992, HC 300.

  Newspaper Industry
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his proposals for deregulatory changes within the newspaper industry. [39085]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The changes introduced in October 1994 have had 'a significant effect in opening the retail market. I have no further proposals in this area.

  Cable Companies
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many complaints he has received in the last 12 months from (i) members of the public, (ii) local authorities and (iii) hon. Members about cable companies failing to reinstate properly the pavement or highway after cabling work is completed. [38850]
  755
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  One complaint was received between 21 October 1994 and 20 October 1995 stating that a cable company had not met its statutory requirements with regards to reinstatement. However, the number of complaints received during this period expressing displeasure over reinstatements by cable operators are as follows:

  Members of the public: 41

  Local authorities: 2

  Hon. Members: 21

  The New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 sets the standard of works for cable operators and the utilities, and provides that both interim and permanent reinstatements must conform with the statutory national specification. All cases of defective reinstatement which are identified by the local highway authority must be rectified at the undertaker's expenses; additionally, the undertaker must for each proved defect bear the cost of the initial investigation and three further follow-up inspections.

  The number of complaints per kilometre trenched has fallen.

  Mountain Bikes
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action his Department is taking in respect of those manufacturers who sell mountain bikes that are unsafe for use other than on a tarmac road as notified to him by Nottingham university in the research it has carried out for his Department; and if he will make a statement. [39017]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The report commissioned by my Department into the safety of mountain bikes made a number of recommendations aimed at better matching the performance of mountain bikes with user's expectations and intended use. My officials will shortly be discussing the detailed findings of the completed research with the bicycle industry.

  Barnsley and Doncaster Training and Enterprise Company
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much funding has been provided to Barnsley and Doncaster TEC. for small and medium-sized businesses in each year since its inception, including the current financial year; what is his forecast for the coming financial year; and if he will make a statement. [39556]

  Mr. Page
  Barnsley and Doncaster TEC has received funding for the support of small and medium-sized businesses from numerous Government and European sources. The main DTI support is the enterprise budget which was £328,000 in 1993–94, £362,500 in 1994–95 and is forecast to be £294,000 in 1995–96.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the hon. Member for Walsall, North may expect to receive a reply to his letter of 5 September concerning a company in his constituency which is being dealt with by the offices of the Minister for Trade. [39646]

  Mr. Nelson
  I replied to the hon. Gentleman's letter on 23 October.
  756

PRIME MINISTER

  British Workers (Japan)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to discuss with the Japanese Government the position of those British workers in Japan who, after paying into the Japanese state retirement pension scheme, are eligible neither for a pension nor for a lump sum payment [39393]

  The Prime Minister
  Officials in the Department of Social Security have held informal, exploratory discussions with Japanese officials about a social security agreement between the two countries concentrating on matters of national insurance contribution liability. We have had no formal request from the Japanese Government for such an agreement, but any such approach would be carefully considered.

  Free Phone Numbers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the Departments and agencies that provide a free phone number allowing members of the public to pass on information regarding private individuals. [38893]

  The Prime Minister
  This information is not held centrally.

  Young Scientists Contest
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Prime Minister what were his engagements on 11 September; what factors made it impossible for him to accept an invitation to open a European contest for young scientists on that date; and if he will make a statement. [39029]

  The Prime Minister
  I have no record of an invitation to open such a contest on 11 September. I did receive an invitation, in February, to attend the meeting on 12 or 13 September, but I declined the invitation since I had no plans to be in Newcastle on that date; nor was I.

  Cabinet Committees
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish an updated list of ministerial Committees of the Cabinet. [39495]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn) on 18 July,Official Report, columns 1005–12.

  Nuclear Test Veterans
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the campaign led by the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association for recognition and compensation for those veterans who participated in or witnessed nuclear tests held by the United Kingdom. [39208]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces gave to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) on 25 May,Official Report, column 662.
  757

  Public Appointments, South Yorkshire
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will list the public appointments for which his Department is responsible in the county of South Yorkshire, indicating in each case the duration of the appointment, the date when a new appointment is due, and the salary; [39434]

  (2) if he will list all the non-departmental public bodies to which his Office makes appointments in the county of South Yorkshire, with the total annual budget for each body and the number of appointments made or renewed for each body in each of the last four years. [39463]

  The Prime Minister
  For these purposes, my Office is part of the Cabinet Office—Office of Public Service. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Scottish Breast Campaign
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Prime Minister how many postcards he has received from the Scottish Breast Campaign; and to how many of these he has replied. [38772]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 25 October 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) on 16 October, Official Report, column 23.

  Duke of Windsor (Papers)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on information relating to(a) the conduct of the Duke of Windsor in world war two, (b) Anthony Blunt's visit to Schloss Friedricshof in April 1945 and (c) documents taken from Schloss Friedricshof in 1945 held by Her Majesty's Government; and when this information will be available for public inspection. [38002]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 25 October 1995]: Papers removed from Schloss Friedricshof by Sir Owen Morshead, the King's Librarian, and Anthony Blunt in 1945 were returned to Schloss Friedricshof in 1951.

  Papers relating to the Duke of Windsor's passage through Spain and Portugal in 1940 were published in 1957 in volume X of "Documents on German Foreign Policy".

  United Nations Day
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what engagements he had to mark United Nations Day. [36752]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 24 October 1995]: I attended the United Nations 50th anniversary commemorative summit meeting in New York between 22 and 24 October.

  French Nuclear Tests
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss French nuclear testing in the Pacific in his forthcoming meeting with President Jacques Chirac of France. [38428]
  758
  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 24 October 1995]: I shall be holding talks with President Chirac on 30 October, during the Anglo-French summit. It is expected that the talks will cover a wide range of current issues.

  Joseph Rotblat
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what communications he has had with Joseph Rotblat on winning the Nobel peace prize. [39269]

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister what correspondence he has had with Professor Joseph Rotblat since the award to him of the Nobel peace prize; what assessment he has made of the works of the Pugwash Foundation; and if he will make a statement. [38831]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 24 October 1995]: None.

  Employee Fraud
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the total number of cases of all forms of fraud committed by employees of his(a) office and (b) non-departmental public bodies for each year from 1991–92 to 1994–95; and for each of these years, what was the total monetary sum (1) misappropriated in such frauds and (2) subsequently recovered. [39123]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 24 October 1995]: None.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Information Technology
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he is taking to ensure that Government Departments are making best use of the skills and expertise of the private sector in their expenditure on information technology. [40457]

  Mr. Freeman
  The private finance initiative has the aim of delivering high quality and more cost-effective public services by bringing the private sector more directly into the provision of those services. Expenditure on information technology on which government spends over £2 billion per year is a key area where the private finance initiative has demonstrated a vital role.

  Many Government Departments have already established dedicated private finance units. But, given the unique nature of information systems and information technology projects, I am establishing a new team to work specifically on IS/IT projects. This will be in the Office of Public Service, and draw on resources from the private finance panel executive and CCTA, the Government centre for information systems.

  The new unit will ensure that the principles of the private finance initiative are applied to IT expenditure across the whole of Government, with strong backing from the centre of Whitehall.
  759

  Public Appointments, South Yorkshire
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) if he will list all the non-departmental public bodies to which his Office makes appointments in the county of South Yorkshire, with the total annual budget for each body and the number of appointments made or renewed for each body in each of the last four years; [39467]

  (2) if he will list the public appointments for which his Department is responsible in the county of South Yorkshire, indicating in each case the duration of the appointment, the date when a new appointment is due, and the salary. [39430]

  Mr. Freeman
  There are no Cabinet Office, Central Office of Information or HMSO public appointments in South Yorkshire.

  Agencies
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer of 17 October to the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman),Official Report, column 183, if the three appointments of consultants in connection with the future of his agencies were made after considering alternative sources for such appointments tested by competition; and if those appointments are subjected to (a) maximum total cost ceilings (b) maximum cost per day ceilings or (c) a time limit for their appointment. [39334]

  Mr. Freeman
  The three appointments of consultants in connection with the future of my agencies were made through a competitive process following an advertisement in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

  The appointment to advise urgently on ways of increasing private sector involvement in the Occupational Health and Safety Agency, Recruitment and Assessment Services, the Central Office of Information and the Civil Service College is subject to a maximum total cost ceiling and a time limit.

  The total fees for the appointments in relation to HMSO and Chessington Computer Centre are fixed in so far as the projects conform to the terms of reference in the invitation to tender and the assumptions set out in the bids from the financial advisers. Elements outside the control of the financial advisers may lead to an application for additional fees which would then need to be carefully considered. Expenditure will be closely monitored.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Salmon Advisory Committee
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has reached a decision on the future of the Salmon Advisory Committee. [40202]

  Mr. Baldry
  The Salmon Advisory Committee has now largely completed the various tasks that Fisheries Ministers have asked it to undertake. Six of its reports have been published and a further five reports are nearing completion. When its current work is completed, the committee's report will provide a set of studies 760
  comprehensively examining all the factors that affect salmon during the various stages of their life cycle as well as on a range of other important topics. The committee's published reports have all been well received.

  The terms of appointment of a great majority of the committee's members will shortly come to an end, and with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales I have been considering whether the life of the committee should be extended for a further period. We have concluded that, once the committee has completed its current programme of work, there are no further tasks for it to undertake of sufficient importance to justify its retention. The committee will, therefore, be wound up at the end of the current financial year.

  A particularly valuable feature of the Salmon Advisory Committee is that it represents views from all part of Great Britain. My right hon. Friends and I do not wish to lose the opportunity to seek advice on salmon issues on a Great Britain basis and we are, accordingly planning to hold regular meetings with representatives of the various organisations interested in salmon fisheries; these will take place at least once a year and will provide a forum for the discussion of matters relating to salmon and salmon fisheries.

  My right hon. Friend and I wish to thank all members and former members of the Salmon Advisory Committee for their hard work and dedication; they have made a major contribution to improving our understanding of salmon. Particular credit is due to the committee's chairman, Professor George Dunnet, CBE who, sadly, died last month. We have asked Mr. Robert Clerk OBE, an existing member of the committee, to take over the duties of chairman for the remaining life of the committee.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of BSE there have been in animals born in each year since the ruminant feed ban was introduced. [40301]

  Mrs. Browning
  Up to 24 October 1995, BSE has been confirmed in the following numbers of animals born after the ruminant fed ban was introduced on 18 July 1988:

  19881: 10,689

  1989: 9,364

  1990: 2,425

  1991: 461

  1992: 6

  1993: 1

  119 July-31 December:

  Countryside Schemes
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the cost in 1994, in Humberside and the three counties of Yorkshire, of payments made under(a) the countryside stewardship scheme, (b) the hedgerow incentive scheme, (c) the countryside premium scheme and (d) the wildlife enhancement scheme; and what is his estimate of the cost in 1995. [38989]

  Mr. Clappison
  I have been asked to reply.
  761
  Payments in the counties in question in the financial year 1994–95 under the countryside stewardship scheme totalled £1.279 million and under the Wildlife Enhancement scheme £464,000. Payments for the two schemes in 1995–96 are estimated to be £1.534 million and £330,000 respectively. The hedgerow incentive scheme was combined with countryside stewardship in October 1994 and separate costs are not available. Countryside premium is not available in the counties in question.

  Animal Transits (Deaths)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate for the number of sheep and lambs who die in transit each year. [31128]

  Mrs. Browning
  It is not possible to produce such an estimate from the information available.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what proportion of calves that are exported from the United Kingdom are checked by MAFF at the time that an export certificate is signed to see if they are from herds with histories of either bovine spongiform encephalopathy or enzootic bovine leukosis; [38707]

  (2) how many calves from herds known to have had BSE have been exported in each of the last five years; and to which countries they have been sent; [38709]

  (3) how many calves from herds known to have had EBL have been exported in each of the last five years; and if he will indicate to which countries they have been Sent. [38708]

  Mrs. Browning
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers that I gave to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on 16 October 1995,Official Report, column 125–26.

  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many imperfect animal health certificates, including their schedules, were recorded by his staff monitoring livestock exports at Brightlingsea during September; [38695]

  (2) what action was taken in respect of imperfect animal health certificates recorded by his staff at Brightlingsea during September. [38697]

  Mrs. Browning
  No consignments of live animals exported out of Brightlingsea during September were accompanied by imperfect animal health certification.

  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many imperfect animal health certificates, including their schedules, were recorded by his staff monitoring livestock exports at Dover during September; [38696]

  (2) what action was taken in respect of imperfect animal health certificates recorded by his staff at Dover during September. [38698]

  Mrs. Browning
  In September, the documentation accompanying two consignments of live animals which underwent official checks before their export from Dover was found to be incorrect. In the first instance, the export health certificate indicated that there were 260 animals in 762
  the consignment although there were in fact only 160. The certifying veterinary inspector confirmed that the certificate should have referred to 160 animals and amended the certificate appropriately, in accordance with official procedures for making such amendments. In the second instance, the export health certificate number was misread by the certifying veterinary inspector and misquoted on the accompanying schedule listing the animals in the consignment. As soon as the certifying inspector confirmed the error, the schedule was amended by MAFF personnel and the export allowed to proceed.

  Spring Traps
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what policy consideration led to the decision to add four spring traps to the previous list of 11 traps already approved for use under the Spring Traps Approval Order 1995. [38699]

  Mrs. Browning
  Under the Pests Act 1954, the Ministry has to consider proposals for the use of spring traps for animals. The four new traps met the necessary conditions for approval.

  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what criteria were used by him for approval of the four new traps he has added to the list of 11 traps already approved for use under the Spring Traps Approval Order. [38701]

  Mrs. Browning
  The four traps were assessed for their safety, efficacy and humaneness. The impact and clamping forces delivered by the BMI Magnum 55, 110 and 116 traps were all at least equal to, or greater than, those for traps previously approved for the same species under the 1954 Act. The Aldrich spring activated animal snare is a spring-operated, live-capture, padded foot snare; it was tested first on a human volunteer and then results were collected in the field.

  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why he added four spring traps to the previous 11 traps already approved for use under the Spring Traps Approval Order before the outcome of the current consideration being given to the humane trapping standards by his Department and the British Standards Institute. [38700]

  Mrs. Browning
  The work of the International Standards Organisation's Technical Committee 191 is not yet complete and discussions are still taking place. Under the Pests Act 1954, the Ministry has to consider proposals for the use of spring traps for animals and cannot unreasonably delay consideration of such proposals.

  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if animals were used to test any of the four new traps he has added to the list of 11 traps already approved for use under the Spring Traps Approval Order; and if the Animal Procedures Committee of the Home Office was consulted. [38702]

  Mrs. Browning
  No animals were used in the laboratory assessment of the three new BMI traps. For the Aldrich spring activated snare, field results were collected.

  As required under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, the relevant Home Office inspector was consulted.
  763

  Sheep Dips
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of organophosphate compounds in licensed sheep dips sold in the British Isles have passed the neurotoxicity screen tests required by EC regulations, and if he will make a statement. [38691]

  Mrs. Browning
  There are two organophosphate compounds used in products authorised in the United Kingdom as sheep dips. Reviews of the products are being undertaken by the Veterinary Products Committee in accordance with directive 81/852/EEC, as amended, and guidelines published by the European Commission. These include a requirement for data to assess any risk which might result from exposure to the products.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to ban the use of organophosphate-based sheep dips pending the completion of the epidermiological studies of organophosphate-related illness being pursued by a consortium of Government Departments; and if he will make a statement. [38618]

  Mrs. Browning
  The safety of organophosphorus sheep dips is kept under constant review by the Veterinary Products Committee, the independent body of scientists which advises the Government on veterinary medicines matters. Its most recent advice, following assessment of a report from the Institute of Occupational Health on research into the long-term health effects of exposure to organophosphorus sheep dips, is that, on the basis of current scientific evidence, the marketing of OP dips should continue. However, it is essential that the guidance in the leaflet "Sheep dipping" and label instructions on the product are carefully followed in full.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if his Department will suspend the sale of all organophosphate-based dips which(a) have not passed the neurotoxicity screening tests or (b) have not yet been tested; and if he will make a statement. [38693]

  Mrs. Browning
  Following a review of organophosphorus sheep dips by the Veterinary Products Committee in 1993, the committee concluded there was no scientific evidence for a ban. This advice by the VPC was re-affirmed earlier this year, following its assessment of Institute of Occupational Health report about research into the possible long-term health effects of exposure to organophosphorus dips. Ministers' decisions following VPC advice on such reviews are made public.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minster of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the available research material his Department has(a) evaluated and (b) commissioned on the toxicity and neurotoxicity of organophosphate compounds; and if he will make a statement. [38617]

  Mrs. Browning
  As part of its comprehensive review of the issues surrounding OP dips in 1993, the Veterinary Products Committee considered a considerable number of scientific papers, some published and others containing confidential information. A full list of all the papers involved was included as an annex to MAFF news release 424/93 issued on 1 December 1993 announcing the outcome of the review. A copy of this news release is available in the Library of the House.
  764
  MAFF has not commissioned any research on the toxicity or neurotoxicity of organophosphate compounds. However, MAFF is jointly commissioning with the Department of Health and the Health and Safety Executive an epidemiological study. The results of this study will be published.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to extend the use of BHC (Gammexane)-based sheep dips; and if he will make a statement. [38615]

  Mrs. Browning
  No BHC (Gammexane)-based products are currently authorised for use as sheep dips. The last product licence for such products was withdrawn by the company in 1991, and there are no plans to re-introduce these products.

  Sheep Scab
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will extend the provision of research into new methods of sheep scab control to include the commission of a full economic audit of the options currently available for controlling this disease; and if he will make a statement. [38614]

  Mrs. Browning
  On 10 July 1995, when I gave the results of the 1995 spring surveillance exercise carried out by the State Veterinary Service into the incidence of sheep scab, I announced that I had also requested a review of the alternative options that may be available to deal with this disease.

  A consultation paper will be issued shortly.

WALES

  Rechem International, Pontypool
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to hold a public inquiry into Rechem International, Pontypool. [39594]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  None. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) on 18 July,Official Report, columns 1203–04.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends to make his announcement on the level of revenue support grant for the new local authorities in Wales. [39577]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In accordance with the normal timetable, provisional standard spending assessments for local authorities, including provisional levels of revenue support grant and non-domestic rate income, will be announced in mid-December. The final 1996–97 local government revenue settlement will be announced in late January.

  Cardiff Bay Opera House
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 18 October,Official Report, column 285, and his answer of 18 July, Official Report, columns 1200–01, concerning the Cardiff Bay

  765
  Opera House Trust, if he will specify the nature of the potential conflict of interests problem resolved in September 1993. [39816]

  Mr. Hague
  The attention of Welsh Office officials was drawn to the fact that Grosvenor Waterside, a subsidiary of Associated British Ports, might become a member of the trust. It was agreed that the company should not be represented on the trust until such time as the terms of purchase of the land had been formally agreed.

  Housing Association Ombudsman
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to introduce legislation establishing an ombudsman in Wales to deal with complaints against housing associations which are registered with Tai Cymru, in line with the arrangements for England and Scotland. [39874]

  Mr. Hague
  I am considering the question of such complaints procedures in the light of my consultation paper "More Choice in the Rented Sector".

  Land Authority for Wales
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 19 October,Official Report, column 341, if the use of the Land Authority for Wales compulsory purchase powers to acquire land on the Caldicot Levels will require his approval. [39876]

  Mr. Hague
  Yes.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what grounds summonses have not been issued against those involved with the Dutch transport firm Nicolay following allegations of offences under the Welfare of Animals during Transport Order. [35601]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 19 July 1995]: I have been asked to reply.

  The summonses issued by Dover magistrates court on 8 December 1994 for service in the Netherlands on W. Nicolay by and named employees of the company were received by the UK central authority in the Home Office on 3 February 1995 and were forwarded for service to the Ministry of Justice in The Hague on 26 February. The summonses were not served by the authorities in the Netherlands, but the company submitted voluntarily to the jurisdiction of the magistrates court. The charges against the employees were withdrawn. The case was heard on 23 October 1995.

  Prison Population
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment he has made of the effect of the daily prison population of a minimum 766
  jail sentence for (a) drug traffickers and (b) burglars with three previous convictions; [39598]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the effect on the jail population of abolishing remission for prisoners serving less than one year; [39600]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the effect on the daily prison population of moving the eligibility for remission to the 85 per cent. point of each sentence. [39599]

  Mr. Maclean
  A White Paper will be published early in 1996 setting out full details of the Government's proposals on sentencing and our assessment of their implications.

  Prison Inspections
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what circumstances(a) hon. Members and (b) members of their staff are allowed to accompany the chief inspector of prisons when he visits a prison in hon. Members' constituencies; and if he will make a statement. [39548]

  Miss Widdecombe
  It is not normal practice for HM chief inspector of prisons and prison inspectors to be accompanied by visitors while conducting inspections of prison establishments in England and Wales.

  Doncaster Prison
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the members of the board of visitors at Doncaster prison; and when their term of office expires. [39551]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The members of the board of visitors at HMP Doncaster are as listed:

  Mrs. Audrey Anne Murphy JP (Chairman)

  Mr. John Sammuel George Share (Vice Chairman)

  Mr. Michael Andrew JP

  Mrs. Diane Atkinson

  Mrs. Hazel Pauline Bailey JP

  Mr. William John Barton

  Mrs. Yvonne Cooke

  Mr. Pete Etherington

  Mr. Martin John Faulkner

  Mr. Barry Michael Goforth

  Mr. Roy Hunt

  Miss Susan Iris Mackay

  Mr. Douglas Manners

  Mrs. Carole Diane O'Neill JP

  Mrs. Maureen Oakes

  Mrs. Andrea Robinson

  Mrs. Cynthia Janice Thomas JP

  Mrs. Pauline Wilson

  The term of appointment of members of the board of visitors at HMP Doncaster is up to the triennial review date of the board, which is 31 December 1996.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the chief inspector of prisons is next scheduled to visit Doncaster prison; and if he will make a statement. [39547]
  767
  Miss Widdecombe
  The next announced full inspection of HMP Doncaster is scheduled to begin on 10 March 1996. Whether HM chief inspector—if by then in post—will visit on that occasion will be a matter for decision at the time.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the subcontractors providing services at, or relating to, Doncaster prison since it opened whose contract was terminated before its time of expiry; and if he will indicate the reason for the contract being terminated; [38965]

  (2) if he will list the subcontractors currently providing services at or relating to Doncaster prison; and if he will list in each case the services provided, the length of contract and the cost of the contract. [38966]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for these matters 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. Martin Redmond, dated 26 October 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about present and former sub-contracted services at Doncaster prison.
  Premier Prison Services does not sub-contract any operating functions involving security, the provision of prisoner programmes, health care, food services, works services or laundry.
  There are, however, several specialist contracts in place to deal with the maintenance of computer equipment; electronic locking systems; closed-circuit television linked to video recording systems; and specialist plant and equipment. In addition, specialist medical personnel support Doncaster prison on a contractual basis when required. The terms of such contracts are a matter of commercial confidentiality for Premier Prison Services and the contractors concerned.
  To date Premier Prison Services has not terminated any contract with sub-contractors at Doncaster prison.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current reinstatement value of Doncaster prison; how it is calculated; and how often it is reassessed. [39054]

  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. Martin Redmond, dated 26 October 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the current re-instatement value of Doncaster prison, how it is calculated, and how often it is assessed.
  Doncaster prison is contractually managed by Premier Prison Services. Under the terms of the contract, damage to the structure of the prison buildings is the responsibility of the contractor, except where it is deemed to have been outside the contractor's control.
  The pre-final account construction costs of Doncaster prison are estimated at £92.4 million (including VAT, variation of price and resource costs). However, given the extent of the liability agreed with the contractor and the need to evaluate the cost of damage should it occur, it is not necessary for the Prison Service to calculate, or re-assess, the costs of the potential re-instatement value of the
  768
  prison. This is not our practice even for prisons for which we must fully bear any re-instatement costs.

  Badsworth Hunt
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by date and location the number of police deployed to keep the peace at each meeting of the Badsworth hunt during the last 12 months. [39562]

  Mr. Maclean
  This is an operational matter for the chief constable of West Yorkshire.

  Farm Fires
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many fires occurred on United Kingdom livestock farms in each of the last five years; how many(a) poultry and (b) other animals died in farm fires in each of those years; and if he will make a statement. [39335]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The available information is for fires in agricultural buildings attended by local authority fire brigades; livestock farms are not separately identified in the statistics. The latest year available is for 1993.

  Fires in agricultural buildings1 showing poultry and other animals killed, United Kingdom 1989–93

  Fires

  Animals killed

  Year

  Total

  in which animals died

  Poultry2

  Other

  Total

  1993

  1,820

  104

  38,165

  4,322

  12,487

  1992

  2,050

  123

  442,808

  4,651

  47,459

  1991

  1,885

  120

  5188,483

  6,147

  194,630

  1990

  2,072

  101

  674,649

  17,499

  92,148

  1989

  2,233

  121

  758,967

  16,382

  75,349

  Notes:

  1 Includes buildings associated with agriculture, forestry and fishing.

  2 Includes chickens, turkeys, ducks and geese.

  3 Includes 3 fires killing 1,000 chickens, 3,000 chicks and 3,300 ducks.

  4 Includes 7 fires killing 1,000, 1,000, 3,000, 5,500, 9,000, 9,600 and 15,000 chickens.

  5 Includes 5 fires killing 5,000, 5,000, 13,000, 21,000 and 90,000 chickens.

  6 Includes 5 fires killing 10,000, 18,000 and 30,000 chickens, 5,000 turkeys and 5,082 ducks.

  7 Includes 3 fires killing 8,258, 18,000 and 27,000 chickens.

  Source:

  Home Office Fires Statistics.

  Pipe Hawk
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the police authorities who currently use the ground-probing system Pipe Hawk; and if he will make a statement. [39022]

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand that the Pipe Hawk ground-probing radar system has been used by the Gloucestershire, Essex and Gwent police.

  Firemen (Deaths and Injuries)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the number of injuries to and deaths of firemen in each of the last five years in (i) Wales and (ii) England; and if he will make a statement. [38987]
  769
  Mr. Kirkhope
  The information is given in the following table:

  Deaths and injuries of fire brigade personnel while on duty in England and Wales 1990 to 1994–95

  England

  Wales

  Year

  Deaths

  Injuries1

  Deaths

  Injuries1

  1990

  5

  671

  1

  59

  1991

  3

  880

  1

  42

  1992

  3

  811

  0

  50

  19932 Ql

  0

  251

  0

  25

  1993–94

  3

  722

  0

  75

  1994/5p3

  1

  567

  0

  40

  1 Injuries are defined as those which result in absence of duty for at least one month or 2 weeks or more of hospitalization.

  2 January to March 1993. Since 1993 data is collected on a financial years (April to March) basis; prior to that it was on a calender year.

  3 Figures for 1994–95 are provisional and those for England exclude London Fire Brigade casualties. In 1993–94 there were 149 non-fatal London Fire Brigade casualties and no deaths.

  Source:

  Home Office

  Prison Service
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the 137 full submissions referred to in Mr. Lewis's letter of resignation which the prison service were required to submit to the Home Office between October 1994 and January 1995 together with the name of the addressee. [38860]

  Miss Widdecombe
  No. The advice given to Ministers is confidential.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) on what date the director general of the prison service provided evidence to the inquiry; and on how many occasions he was called out of the interview on the instructions of Ministers, as described in paragraph 3.81 of the report of the Learmont inquiry; [38863]

  (2) on how many occasions the then Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Stirling, called out the director general of the prison service from his interview, as described in paragraph 3.85 of the Learmont report; and what was the nature of the business which necessitated this action. [38864]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The former director general, Mr. Lewis, was interviewed by members of the inquiry team on five occasions. The interview referred to in paragraph 3.85 of Sir John Learmont's report took place on 29 March 1995. On this occasion, the beginning of the interview was delayed, there was an early adjournment for lunch, and Mr. Lewis was called out on one occasion during the afternoon, because my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling, who was then Minister of State, requested urgent briefing about matters which were the subject of media interest and on which radio and television interviews had been requested. These matters included the market testing programme, the rise in the prison population, and the high intensity training scheme.
  770

  Public Events (Arrests)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many arrests were made during the VE-day anniversary celebrations held in Hyde park, London in May; and if he will list the offences committed; [39082]

  (2) how many arrests were made during the lesbian and gay parade march in London on 24 June; and if he will list the offences committed. [39077]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Fire Service, Wales
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the number of people employed in the fire service in Wales in each of the brigades. [38985]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The following table shows the establishment figures as at 1 January 1995 which have been taken from returns made by the brigades:

  Regular firefighters

  Retained firefighters

  Control room personnel

  Clwyd

  185

  225

  22

  Dyfed

  228

  342

  17

  Mid Glamorgan

  335

  264

  21

  South Glamorgan

  323

  24

  17

  West Glamorgan

  247

  111

  18

  Gwent

  286

  189

  20

  Gwynedd

  105

  418

  15

  Powys

  31

  257

  9

  Total

  1,740

  1,830

  139

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on response rates by the fire brigades in Wales. [38988]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The following table shows the average response time in minutes in respect of fire incidents, taken from when the brigade answered the first call to when the first fire appliances attended at the fireground:

  Brigade

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Clywd

  7

  7

  8

  7

  7

  Dyfed

  9

  9

  9

  9

  8

  Gwent

  8

  8

  7

  8

  7

  Gwynedd

  9

  9

  9

  9

  10

  Mid Glamorgan

  9

  8

  9

  9

  9

  Powys

  10

  11

  11

  10

  10

  South Glamorgan

  6

  6

  6

  7

  6

  West Glamorgan

  7

  7

  7

  7

  6

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the annual budget for each fire brigade in Wales, in real terms, in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [38986]
  771
  Mr. Kirkhope
  The budgeted net current expenditure for the brigades concerned—at constant 1995–96 prices—is as follows:

  £ million

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Clwyd

  8.8

  8.7

  8.8

  8.8

  9.5

  Dyfed

  9.1

  9.2

  8.7

  9.2

  9.2

  Gwent

  11.7

  11.3

  11.6

  11.6

  11.4

  Gwynedd

  6.1

  5.9

  6.2

  6.2

  6.1

  Mid Glamorgan

  12.8

  12.8

  13.1

  13.1

  13.0

  Powys

  2.9

  2.8

  2.9

  2.9

  2.9

  South Glamorgan

  10.0

  9.7

  9.8

  10.0

  9.9

  West Glamorgan

  10.3

  9.4

  9.7

  10.0

  10.1

  Electronic Tagging
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the total cost involved in the tagging of Clive Barratt of Kings Lynn, Norfolk; and if he will make a statement. [30811]

  (2) if he will list the number of people (a) men and (b) women who have been given a tagging system by courts; and what is the average cost of such a scheme. [30812]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The electronic monitoring trials in Manchester, Reading and Norfolk are expected to cost a total of about £1.6 million over nine months. It is not possible to ascribe costs to an individual offender.

  The trials started in July this year. As of 23 October, 11 men and no women have been sentenced to electronically monitored curfew orders. One of the purposes of the trial is to assess the cost-effectiveness of electronic monitoring.

  Mr. Matthew Powell
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Police Complaints Authority has finished its investigations into Mr. Matthew Powell of Nottingham; what was the result of its investigations; and if he will make a statement. [39081]

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand that the investigation into Mr. Powell's complaint against the Nottingham constabulary, which is being supervised by the Police Complaints Authority, has not yet been completed.

  General Election (Voting)
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what procedures will be put in place prior to the general election to ensure that those entitled to postal and proxy votes are made aware of their rights as soon as possible by means of public advertising; and if he will make a statement. [39171]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply to his question on 22 May,Official Report, column 497.
  772

  Cemeteries
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of when the supply of land for burials in urban areas will become exhausted. [38852]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  None. The provision of cemeteries is a local matter.

  Animal Transport
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration has been given to issuing summonses against those involved with the Dutch transport firm Nicolay on behalf of Kent county council concerning offences alleged under the Welfare of Animals During Transport Order 1994. [38703]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The summonses issued by Dover magistrates' court on 8 December 1994 for service in the Netherlands on W. Nicolay and named employees of the company were received by the UK Central Authority in the Home Office on 3 February 1995 and were forwarded for service to the Ministry of Justice in the Hague on 26 February. The summonses were not served by the authorities in the Netherlands, but the company submitted voluntarily to the jurisdiction of the magistrates' court. The charges against the employees were withdrawn. The case was heard on 23 October 1995.

  Pay Bargaining
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide in respect of his plan for pay delegation submitted to the Treasury(a) a description of the staff in each bargaining unit covered by the plan, distinguishing staff in HQ functions, agencies and agency candidates, and in other identifiable business units and (b) proposals for trade union recognition in each bargaining unit and the negotiating machinery to be put in place in each bargaining unit. [38286]

  Mr. Howard
  The prison service, forensic science service and the fire service college already have delegated authority from the Secretary of State to make their own pay arrangements, and each has established its own recognition and negotiating arrangements. The Passport Agency is expected to have delegation from 1 April 1996.

  The delegation plan which was recently submitted to the Treasury covered the remainder of Home Office staff. These comprised some 9,000 staff at grade 6 level and below.

  There are no agency candidates at present and no plans to create more than one bargaining unit within the non-agency Home Office. We intend to recognise the First Division Association, National Union of Civil and Public Servants—which will become the Public Services, Tax and Commerce Union on 1 January—Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialist and Civil and Public Services Association for the grades for which they are currently recognised. We also plan to recognise the Immigration Service Union for immigration service grades. Talks have taken place with all five unions about negotiating machinery. Our preferred option is for single

  773
  table bargaining but, as the other four unions will not sit with the ISU, separate arrangements will be needed to cover immigration service grades. These are not yet finalised, but may involve separate negotiations with the NUCPS/PTC and with the ISU.

  Mr. Peter Clowes
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement of the detailed charges which were brought against Mr. Peter Clowes in connection with the collapse of the Barlow Clowes companies and related matters, and of which Mr. Clowes was convicted; what was the sentence awarded by the courts in this case; what part of the sentence has so far been completed; what stage in the process of parole has been reach; if he will set out all statements made by the courts or parole authorities about the extent to which Mr. Clowes has had sufficient time in prison satisfactorily to consider and appreciate the impact of his action upon his victims; and if he will make it his policy to ensure that Mr. Clowes remains in prison for the full term of his sentence. [39325]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 25 October 1995]: Mr. Peter Clowes was convicted in February 1992 on eight counts of making a false statement to induce investment contrary to section 13(1) of the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act 1958 and on ten counts of theft contrary to section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968. Mr. Clowes was sentenced to ten years imprisonment in all. To date he has served about three years eight and a half months of that sentence.

  Mr. Clowes became eligible for parole in June this year. All prisoners, like Mr. Clowes, who were sentenced before 1 October 1992 to sentences of 12 months imprisonment or more become eligible to be considered for parole after serving one third of their sentence. Mr. Clowes was not granted parole at his first review. His legal representatives sought leave to move for a judicial review of that decision. Leave was refused but an appeal against that refusal was successful. The decision not to grant parole will therefore be subject to judicial review. This aspect of Mr. Clowes' case is therefore sub judice and I regret that I am unable to give details of his parole reports.

  Once eligible for parole, prisoners such as Mr. Clowes are assessed annually by the Parole Board and if release on licence is not recommended they are released unconditionally once they have served two thirds of their sentence. If Mr. Clowes is not granted parole he can expect to be released in October 1998.

  Women's Refuges
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the funding for women's refuges for each of the last five years and for the current year. [38471]

  Mr. Clappison
  I have been asked to reply.

  In 1995–96 the Department is providing, through the Housing Corporation, £2.2 million in capital funding for women's aid projects in England largely to provide refuge places. Comparative figures for earlier years are given in the table. No information is available about revenue funding.
  774

  1994–95 £4.6 million

  1993–94 £5.8 million

  1992–93 £5.4 million

  1991–92 £5.2 million

  1990–91 £1.7 million

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many women's refuges there are per region and in the country as a whole; [38469]

  (2) what has been the percentage change in the number of women attending women's refuges in the past five years nationally and in each region. [38466]

  Mr. Clappison
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government do not have information about the number of women's refuges, or the number of women staying in refuges. Some information on the number and locations of refuges is being collected.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to extend the number of women's refuges; and in which regions they will be introduced. [38472]

  Mr. Clappison
  I have been asked to reply.

  The provision of women's refuges is best decided by local authorities and other agencies, taking into account such issues as the local supply of housing available for short-term use in emergency situations.

SCOTLAND

  Fox Hunting
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to ban fox-hunting on land under his jurisdiction, and if he will make a statement. [39217]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The Government believe that all field sports are a matter for the conscience and decision of the individual, and we have no plans to introduce legislation to ban fox-hunting.

  Fox hunting on land owned by my right hon. Friend and managed by the Forestry Commission is permitted only where it has traditionally taken place or where the right to hunt or to grant facilities to hunt has been reserved in the title. No permissions are currently granted for the hunting of foxes on any of the remaining land owned by my right hon. Friend.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the materials which were licensed for dumping in the Irish sea and North channel,(a) within and (b) outside the area known as the Beaufort's dyke, in each of the last 20 years giving a brief description of such materials indicating who issued licensing permits for such dumping and the original source of the dumped material. [38590]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 25 October 1995]: The Scottish Office is responsible for licensing the disposal of materials at sea in Scottish waters.
  775
  The majority of licences issued by the Department over the past 20 years in respect of the North channel and Irish sea have related to the dumping of dredge spoil to facilitate the safe passage of vessels, or from engineering works. In addition, licences have been issued covering the disposal of 50 tonnes of nitrocellulose sludge from the ICI/Nobels Ardeer explosives factory in 1974, 3,213 tonnes of creamery waste from the Stranraer creamery in 1978 and 1,890 tonnes of rainwater contaminated with gas liquors from a number of dismantled gas holders in 1985.

  Vandalism (Schools)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what new measures are being considered to reduce the cases of vandalism in Scottish schools. [37938]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 20 October 1995]: There is a range of measures which education authorities can consider to reduce vandalism in schools, including for example physical measures such as installation of security lighting and closed circuit television surveillance. However, the most appropriate course of action in each case will depend on local circumstances.

  Adam Busby
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans the Director of Public Prosecutions has to seek the extradition of Adam Busby from the Irish Republic. [38493]

  The Attorney-General
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 16 October 1995 by the Minister of State at the Scottish Office to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Mr. McNamara), Official Report, column 16.

  No warrant for the arrest of Adam Busby has been issued in England or Wales, and therefore the question of extradition to this jurisdiction has not arisen.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  AIDS
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what projects are currently being supported by the Overseas Development Administration to care for people with HIV/AIDS in developing countries. [38780]

  Mr. Hanley
  The United Kingdom currently supports some 35 projects in 10 developing countries to care for people with HIV/AIDS. Financial commitments amount to £7.3 million through the bilateral aid programme. A proportion of the UK's contribution to UN organisations, the World Bank and European Commission is also used for HIV/AIDS-related activities, including care for people who are HIV infected. The UK has provided £37.3 million to the World Health Organisation global programme on AIDS since its inception in 1987.
  776
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the Overseas Development Administration's strategy for addressing the needs of people infected with HIV/AIDS in developing countries. [38781]

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on 25 October Official Report, columns 644–45.

  Tibet
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what amount of EU funds have been made available to Tibet; for what purposes; and to which organisation. [38621]

  Mr. Hanley
  The EC is financing two projects in the Tibetan autonomous region. Both are being implemented through the non-governmental organisation "Medecins Sans Frontières". These are: (i) a physiotherapy project aimed at training doctors and assisting people suffering from a crippling illness called "Big Bone Disease", —EC assistance approximately £98,000; and (ii) a health care and hospital refurbishment project in the Lhasa district—EC assistance approximately £315,000.

  The EC is also considering a contribution of 7.6 million ecu—some £6.3 million—towards the cost of an integrated rural development project in Pa Nam. If the EC contribution is confirmed, it will focus primarily on support for agricultural extension, rural water supply, education and health services and a special project management unit.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Mr. Tom Ikimi
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his officials contacted Mr. Tom Ikimi, Foreign Minister for Nigeria, during his visit to the United Kingdom in September; and if he will make a statement. [39063]

  Mr. Hanley
  Neither Ministers nor officials had contact with the Nigerian Foreign Minister, who was in Britain on a private visit.

DEFENCE

  Tenders (Anonymity)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what factors underlie the need for anonymity for the organisation that won tender No. 4964A; and if he will make a statement. [38304]

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

  Training, Germany
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has held with the German authorities concerning the availability of(a) land areas

  777
  and (b) airspace over eastern Germany for training use by British forces; and if he will make a statement. [38118]

  Mr. Soames
  None.

  Nuclear Tests (Memorials)
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to commission a suitable national memorial to the British veterans of nuclear and atomic tests carried out since 1950; and if he will make a statement. [39221]

  Mr. Soames
  It has been a long-standing policy of successive Governments that the cost of such memorials is met from public subscription or private donations rather than from public funds.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what quantities of(a) radioactive wastes and (b) surplus conventional explosives his Department has disposed of in the Hurd Deep off Alderney; and if he will place in the Library copies of departmental documents which cover these disposals. [39256]

  Mr. Soames
  Complete records of past sea dumping of munitions at Hurd Deep are not available. Details of the UK's sea disposal programme for low and intermediate level radioactive wastes, including wastes generated by MOD establishments, some of which was disposed of in Hurd Deep, are contained in a report commissioned by the Department of the Environment titled "Report of the Independent Review of Disposal of Radioactive Waste in the Northeast Atlantic", published in November 1994.

  Public Appointments, South Yorkshire
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all the non-departmental public bodies to which his Department makes appointments in the county of South yorkshire, indicating the total annual budget and the number of appointments made or renewed for each body in each of the last four years. [39423]

  Mr. Soames
  None.

  Queen's Flight
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what official duty the Duke of York was performing when he made use of an aircraft of the Queen's Flight on 22 July; and if he will make a statement. [39295]

  Mr. Soames
  The Duke of York attended the British open golf championship at St. Andrews on 22 July at the invitation of the Royal and Ancient. This was an official engagement which was listed in the court circular.

  Private Lee Clegg
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he gave to funding Private Lee Clegg's referral to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. [39746]
  778
  Mr. Soames
  In the absence of legal proceedings, it would not be appropriate for the MOD to provide funds. Should a reference to the Court of Appeal be made in future, the MOD would consider the matter.

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he gave to treating Private Lee Clegg's application for financial assistance from the Ministry of Defence as if he had been on legal aid. [39747]

  Mr. Soames
  Like any other United Kingdom citizen, Private Clegg can apply for legal aid; the criteria for eligibility are not a matter for my Department.

  Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes
  Mr. John Carlisle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has initiated a review of the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes. [40236]

  Mr. Soames
  A review of the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes, NAAFI, has now begun, and is being led by Mr. Geoffrey Dart on secondment from Marks and Spencer plc.

  As a Crown-owned body, the structure and scope of business of the NAAFI will be subjected to the normal prior options tests. Comments and contributions from those with an interest in NAAFI and its work would be welcome and should be sent, by 1 December 1995, to Mr. Dart, independent review of NAAFI, Ministry of Defence, Metropole building, room 4/55, Northumberland avenue, London WC2N 5BL.

  Mr. Dart's report is due to be completed by 31 January 1996.

  Mr. David Hart
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 19 October,Official Report, column 360, on what projects, other than procurement contracts, Mr. David Hart provides advice. [39773]

  Mr. Portillo
  Mr. Hart offers advice on aspects of the management, efficiency and capabilities of the MOD and the armed forces.

  Vehicle Accidents
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many, accidents involving vehicles transporting his Department's weapons and ammunition have been recorded in each of the past five years; and if he will state in each instance the(a) date and time, (b) location and (c) cause of accident. [37722]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 19 October 19951: My Department's traffic accident database only records loads as being "hazardous" or "non-hazardous"; it does not specifically identify weapons and ammunition. It has, however, been possible to separately identify the following accidents involving vehicles transporting MOD weapons and ammunition in each of the past five years:

  779

  1990

  (a) 09.30 4 October 1990

  (b) Shoeburyness

  (c) Other driver error

  1991

  (a) 12.40 24 April 1991

  (b) Hameln, Germany

  (c) Driver error

  1992

  None

  1993

  (a) 07.45 23 June 1993

  (b) Hameln, Germany

  (c) Driver error

  (a) 09.20 8 September 1993

  (b) En route Crombie to Ernesettle

  (c) Brake problems

  1994

  (a) 10.45 25 July 1994

  (b) Dean Hill, near Salisbury

  (c) Other driver error

  (a) 18.00 1 September 1994

  (b) Helensburgh

  (c) Driver error

  (a) 09.30 21 December 1994

  (b) J12/J13 of M6

  (c) Faulty wheelbearings.

  Nuclear Weapons Tests
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 18 July,Official Report, column 1178, if he will take action to correct the Blue Book data reference S-0514906 relating to ex-corporal J. D. Wilson's presence at British nuclear tests to include Grapple X with Grapple Y and to exclude reference to Grapple Z; and if he will send amended records to the War Pensions Agency. [37749]

  Mr. Soames
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence will write to the hon. Member.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Terrorists (Early Release)
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received in relation to the call for early release of terrorists from prison. [36909]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he is taking on the early release of prisoners in Northern Ireland. [36913]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  These are not political prisoners but offenders who have committed grave crimes for which they have been sentenced by the courts. Primary legislation enacted by Parliament must continue to govern the proportion of their sentences they serve in prison. In a speech at Queen's university on 25 August, I set out the Government's policy and I shall be introducing a Bill today.
  780

  Tourism
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further proposals he has to promote Northern Ireland as a tourist venue. [36910]

  Mr. Ancram
  The Government's responsibilities for tourism are undertaken by the Northern Ireland Tourist Board whose proposals include continued television and press advertising working to encourage new air links to Northern Ireland and stepped-up promotion to the travel trade and conference market.

  Peace Process
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress of the peace process. [36911]

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the latest position on the peace process. [36914]

  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the prospects for a lasting peace in the Province of Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [36922]

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress of the peace process. [36921]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Sir Thomas Arnold), for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and for Neath (Mr. Hain).

  Electricity Interconnector
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current position regarding the inquiry into the electricity interconnector to Scotland. [36912]

  Mr. Moss
  The report and recommendations of the Planning Appeals Commission following its inquiry into the electricity interconnector is expected in early 1996.

  Drugs Misuse
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures are being taken to counter the problem of drugs misuse in Northern Ireland. [36916]

  Sir John Wheeler
  I have established the new top-level central co-ordinating group for action against drugs, of which I am chairman. It will drive forward and build upon action emerging from the policy statement of the Northern Ireland Committee on Drug Misuse which will be published shortly.

  Road Safety
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary for State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to improve road safety in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [36918]

  Mr. Moss
  In July 1995, the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland, the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Department of Health and Personal
  781
  Social Services joined together to publish a comprehensive road safety plan for Northern Ireland. This covers the three-year period to 1997 and is intended to increase the effectiveness of road casualty reduction measures by providing a more strategic approach to the planning, co-ordination and delivery of road safety activities. The plan will contribute to and support Northern Ireland's road safety target, which is:
  "by the year 2000 to reduce the total number of people killed and seriously injured on Northern Ireland's roads by one-third compared with the average of the 1981n to 1985 figures".

  Road traffic legislation is being strengthened and brought more closely into line with the rest of the United Kingdom; legislative proposals include the introduction of a penalty points scheme for traffic offences.

  Education Administration
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the administration of education in Northern Ireland. [36919]

  Mr. Ancram
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement I made on 7 September, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  Framework Document
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in implementing the proposals in the framework document. [36920]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  The proposals in the framework document were presented as an aid to discussion and negotiation between the parties and not for implementation by the Governments. We believe that the framework documents identify the issues on which there will need to be agreement if there is to be a political settlement which is acceptable across the community in Northern Ireland.

  Cancer Services
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on cancer services in Northern Ireland. [26923]

  Mr. Moss
  My Department has established a cancer working group, under the chairmanship of the chief medical officer, to review the current provision of cancer services in Northern Ireland and to make recommendations by 31 March 1996 as to how the services can be improved. Any major decision on the pattern of cancer services, including new investments, will be taken in the light of the work of that group and my Department's response to it.

  Local Authority Waste Disposal Companies
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he intends to introduce local authority waste disposal companies in Northern Ireland similar to those in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [36924]
  782
  Mr. Moss
  Most of the district council areas in Northern Ireland are of insufficient size to support the cost of separate waste disposal companies. Accordingly, it is not proposed to make provision for the introduction of such companies.

  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has for the restructuring of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. [36925]

  Sir John Wheeler
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave to him on 25 May,Official Report, column 749, and 29 June, Official Report, columns 777–78. The Government have since announced that the publication of their detailed proposals on the reform of the tripartite structure will be by way of a White Paper.

  Roads Programme
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much is being spent in the current year on new roads; how many miles of roads this covers; and if he will make a statement. [36926]

  Mr. Moss
  Under the major works programme for roads, covering schemes costing over £200,000 each, approximately £7 million is being spent on 8.7 km—5.4 miles—of new roads during 1995–96. In addition, a further £2 million is scheduled to be spent on land acquisition payments for other schemes to be constructed in subsequent years of the five-year programme and on final payments in respect of schemes completed prior to 1995–96.

  Details of new roads to be constructed during 1995–96 under the minor works programme—covering schemes costing under £200,000 each—are not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The total budget for this programme in 1995–96 is £12 million.

  Peace and Reconciliation Institute
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent representations he has received concerning the distribution of funds under the terms of the European Union's Peace and Reconciliation Institute. [36927]

  Sir John Wheeler
  In recent months, my right hon. and learned Friend has met representatives of voluntary organisations and the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) and I have met with delegations led by Northern Ireland Members of the European Parliament to discuss a variety of issues in relation to the European Union special programme for peace and reconciliation. A vast range of written submissions was made as a result of the extensive consultation exercise carried out by the Department of Finance and Personnel.

  Benefits
  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proportion of individuals in Northern Ireland live in households receiving one or more means-tested benefits. [36928]
  783
  Mr. Moss
  It is estimated that approximately 533,000 individuals, or 32 per cent. of the population, in Northern Ireland live in households receiving one or more means-tested benefits.

  Economic Conferences
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what new investment in Northern Ireland 784
  has resulted from the economic conference hosted by the Prime Minister and President Clinton. [36917]

  Mr. Ancram
  The inward investment gestation period is usually at least 18 months, so no immediate investment has yet been secured. The conference firmly established Northern Ireland on the investment map. The Industrial Development Board has had over 150 US inquiries since the Washington conference and recorded a threefold increase in US companies visiting Northern Ireland in the year since the ceasefire.
  785

HEALTH

  AIDS
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money has been allocated to the Health Education Authority to spend on HIV/AIDS prevention campaigns for 1995–96 and for the four previous financial years. [37753]

  Mr. Sackville
  The allocation to the Health Education Authority for public education covers work on HIV/AIDS and other aspects of sexual health. The amounts spent since 1991–92 and the estimated spend for 1995–96 are shown in the table. The figures exclude funding for the National AIDS Helpline but include a share of accommodation and other overheads costs.

  1991–92: £9.071 million

  1992–93: £9.776 million

  1993–94: £7.060 million

  1994–95: £7.523 million

  1995–96: £6.207 million (estimate)

  GP Lists
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what sanctions his Department is able to impose upon doctors who remove patients from their list(a) without good cause and (b) against the patients' interests; [37637]

  (2) in what circumstances doctors are permitted to remove patients from their list because the patient has made a complaint against the doctor; [37638]

  (3) what action he has taken to prevent doctors from removing patients from their list because the patient is (a) too expensive to treat or (b) makes an unusually high demand on the doctor. [37640]

  Mr. Malone
  Where a general practitioner-patient relationship breaks down it is important that there are no more restrictions than are necessary on the freedom of either party to terminate the relationship. Safeguards are in place to prevent discrimination against patients. The General Medical Council issued advice in 1992 to all doctors that it is unacceptable to discriminate against patients on ground of age, sex, sexual orientation, race, colour, religious belief, perceived economic worth or the amount of work they are likely to generate by virtue of their clinical condition. Disciplinary action can be taken against any doctor who acts unethically.

  Construction Projects
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) construction projects worth over £25 million and (b) IT projects worth over £1 million have commenced in each of the last three years, by region. [37924]

  Mr. Sackville
  The available information is shown in the tables.

  Construction projects of £25 million and over1

  Region

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  South Thames

  0

  1

  1

  North Thames

  0

  0

  0

  Anglia and Oxford

  0

  0

  0

  North West

  3

  0

  0

  786

  Construction projects of £25 million and over1

  Region

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  West Midlands

  0

  0

  0

  Trent

  0

  0

  0

  Northern and Yorkshire

  0

  1

  1

  South and West

  1

  1

  0

  Notes:

  1 Projects included with approved cost at tender excluding Value Added Tax and inflation of £25 million or more which have been reported under Computerised National Capital Intelligence Service and Exchange (CONCISE).

  Schemes started on site in the financial years 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95.

  IT projects of £1 million or over 1

  Region

  1993–94

  1994–95

  South Thames

  3

  4

  North Thames

  0

  0

  Anglia and Oxford

  1

  2

  North West

  2

  2

  West Midlands

  3

  1

  Trent

  1

  1

  Northern and Yorkshire

  1

  1

  South and West

  2

  0

  Notes:

  1 Projects included with a whole life cost of £1 million or more.

  Schemes started on site in the financial years 1993–94 and 1994–95.

  Asthma
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what conclusions have been reached by his Department with respect to the links between asthma and poverty, particularly poor housing. [38311]

  Mr. Sackville
  Risk factors for asthma include: environmental tobacco smoke; maternal smoking; poor fetal nutrition; and modern home environments with central heating, double glazing and reduced ventilation, which may favour increased concentrations of allergens such as house dust mites and moulds. Due to the complex interaction of these factors it is difficult to quantify the effects of any one factor on asthma or to establish causal links between housing conditions and health.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met members of the National Asthma Campaign to discuss air quality reporting and other concerns of the group. [38873]

  Mr. Sackville
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not met members of the National Asthma Campaign. However, on 23 November the Departments of Health and of the Environment are holding a conference on "Asthma: Possible Causes, Successful Management" in association with the NAC and the Institute for Environment and Health at the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre. The conference will be addressed by Ministers of both Departments.

  Doncaster Health Commission
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how much the Doncaster health commission spent on legal fees in each year since 1993; [39005]
  787
  (2) how many legal actions were initiated by Doncaster health commission which were (a) discontinued and (b) settled out of court, for each year since 1993. [39006]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally. The hon. Member may wish to approach Mr. K. Jones the chairman of Doncaster health authority for details.

  Male Fertility
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what study his Department has carried out into the risks to male fertility resulting from environmental oestrogen phthalates, polychlorinated biphenyls, bovine oestrogen and urine from contraceptive users; and if he will make a statement. [38874]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department of the Environment, in consultation with the Department of Health, commissioned the Medical Research Council Institute for Environment and Health to review the health aspects—including male reproductive disorders—of environmental oestrogens. The institute's report, "Environmental Oestrogens: Consequences to Human Health and Wildlife" found no evidence of a causal link between apparent changes in reproductive health in human beings with exposure to oestrogens and other chemicals in food and the environment. Copies of the report are available in the Library. The report made a number of research recommendations which Departments are considering.

  Infertility Treatment
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if Doncaster Health Commission has sought from his Department advice as to the most cost-effective and cost-efficient means of providing infertility treatment in its area. [38977]

  Mr. Sackville
  It is the responsibility of individual health authorities to determine the provision of infertility treatment in the light of local needs. Advice has been made available to all health authorities and national health service trusts through the publication, "Effective Health Care Bulletin on Management of Sub-fertility", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Social Services, Dorset
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been(a) the increase in Government funding of social services in Dorset and (b) the inflation rate since (i) 1979 and (ii) 1990; and if he will make a statement. [38972]

  Mr. Bowis
  Figures for individual local government services were not available before 1981–82. Funding for personal social services in Dorset increased from £19.7 million in that year to £43.5 million in 1990–91, and £86.5 million in 1995–96. Inflation from 1981–82 and 1990–91 has been 98 and 19 per cent. respectively—as measured by the gross domestic product deflator.

  In real terms personal social services resources in Dorset have increased by 121 per cent. since 1981–82, and by 67 per cent. since 1990–91.
  788

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has plans to take off the prescribed list medicinal aerosols containing chlorofluorocarbons as a propellant. [38875]

  Mr. Malone
  No.

  Diabetes
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department has taken in respect of the statements of patients with diabetes mellitus about their care during the operative period; and if he will make a statement. [38968]

  Mr. Sackville
  None. It is a matter of good professional practice to ensure that patients are fully clinically assessed before they undergo general anaesthesia and surgery, and that their condition is monitored during and after the operation.

  Trent Region
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will detail, for each financial year since 1990–91, the resource allocation per head of population for each health district in the Trent region. [38976]

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for the Trent regional health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact, Mr. Keith Ackroyd CBE, chairman of the authority for the details.

  Appointments
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list, for each NHS trust in the Trent region, those trusts that currently have unfilled vacancies for(a) chairmen and (b) non-executive directors. [38974]

  Mr. Malone
  Those national health service trusts in Trent region which currently have unfilled vacancies for chairmen or non-executive directors are:

  Chesterfield and North Derbyshire royal hospital NHS trust

  One non-executive director vacancy.

  Sheffield Children's hospital NHS trust

  One non-executive director vacancy.

  Complaints
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many complaints he has received in(a) 1992–93, (b) 1993–94, (c) 1994–95 and (d) 1995 to date from patients and organisations representing patients at Doncaster royal infirmary and Montagu hospital NHS trust; and what assessment he has made of the working of the patient's charter in respect of this trust. [38978]

  Mr. Malone
  Collated information on complaints to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about individual trusts is not available centrally. However, for details of complaints made direct to the Doncaster royal infirmary and Montagu hospital national health service trust, the hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman, Mr. Ray Tonkinson.
  789

  South Yorkshire Ambulance Service
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many ambulances are currently operated by the South Yorkshire ambulance service; what is their current age; and how many days the ambulances spend on average out of service; [39580]

  (2) how many employees of the South Yorkshire ambulance service were dismissed in (a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95; [39541]

  (3) how many maintenance depots the South Yorkshire ambulance service current operates; if he will list their locations; and what the figure was 24 months ago. [39581]

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is not available centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contract Dr. B. M. Kingston the chairman of South Yorkshire metropolitan ambulance and paramedic service national health service trust for details.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish figures for the performance of the South Yorkshire ambulance service in each month from July 1994, showing the percentage of calls responded to within 14 minutes for the(a) Doncaster, (b) Barnsley, (c) Rotherham and (d) Sheffield health areas; what is the target specified in the patient's charter; and what extra provision is provided for the large rural areas within the county. [39608]

  Mr. Sackville
  The patient's charter states that a person calling an emergency ambulance—999 call—can expect it to arrive within 14 minutes in an urban area or 19 minutes in a rural area. Individual ambulance services as a whole are classified as being either urban or rural. The South Yorkshire metropolitan ambulance and paramedic service NHS trust—SYMAS—is classified as an urban service.

  In 1994–95 SYMAS responded to 92.1 per cent. of emergency calls within 14 minutes. More detailed information is not collected centrally and the hon. Member may wish to approach Dr. B. M. Kingston the chairman of South Yorkshire metropolitan ambulance and paramedic service national health service trust for details.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by wave the start-up costs for each NHS trust, by region. [39499]

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 18 July Official Report, column 1154.

  South Yorkshire Ambulance Service
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the extent of his responsibilities for the South Yorkshire ambulance service. [39445]

  Mr. Sackville
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has statutory responsibility to provide ambulance services in England such as he considers necessary to 790
  meet all reasonable requirements. Subject to this overall responsibility, the operation of ambulance services in South Yorkshire is a matter for the board of the South Yorkshire metropolitan ambulance and paramedic service national health service trust.

  Tuta Blood Packs
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many blood donations were destroyed after the recall by the National Blood Authority of blood in Tuta blood packs; [36849]

  (2) what was the total amount of blood moved between transfusion centres on the evenings of 29 and 30 June to compensate for the loss of donations in Tuta packs. [36851]

  Mr. Sackville
  I understand from the National Blood Authority that some 7,500 units of blood were withdrawn from use following their first issue of warnings about the use of Tuta bags on 30 June. A further 2,500 were withdrawn following the further warning issued on 4 and 5 July. A daily breakdown is not available, but I understand that some 3,000 units of blood were transferred between centres from the nights of Thursday 29 June and Sunday 2 July, to maintain supplies of blood particularly in the areas most affected by the recall. All centres had adequate stocks to meet hospital demand on 4 July.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Medicines Control Agency will complete its investigation into the use of faulty Tuta blood packs; and if its findings will be published. [36850]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Medicines Control Agency has completed its investigation and copies of the report will be placed in the Library.

  Wessex Information Systems
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the outcome of the legal action by the Wessex regional health authority against Wessex Information Systems; [38267]

  (2) what was the sum sought from Wessex Information Systems by the Wessex regional health authority in the recent legal action; and what was the sum agreed in the final settlement; [38269]

  (3) if he will list the legal actions taken by the Wessex regional health authority against suppliers and contractors involved in the Wessex RISP project giving the total costs incurred by the regional health authority and the total sum received. [38270]

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for the South and West regional health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact Ms Rennie Fritchie, regional chairman, for details.
  791
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice was given by his Department to the Wessex regional health authority prior to the settlement of the legal action by the Wessex regional health authority against Wessex Information Systems. [38268]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department did not give any advice in relation to this case.

  Diseases
  Mr. Hinchcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of(a) cholera, (b) typhoid fever, (c) paratyphoid fever, (d) dysentery, (e) food poisoning and (f) diphtheria, were notified in 1993 and 1994. [38536]

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table:

  Cases reported in England and Wales

  1993

  1994 (provisional)

  Cholera

  23

  30

  Typhoid fever

  175

  236

  Paratyphoid fever

  93

  134

  Dysentery

  6,841

  6,961

  Food poisoning (total)

  68,587

  82,587

  Diphtheria

  6

  9

  Notification of infectious diseases are published annually in the MB2 Series (Communicable Disease Statistics), copies of which are available in the Library. The latest available publication is Series MB2 No. 20 (1993).

  Suicide
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are his strategies for the reduction of deaths from suicide in(a) adults and (b) adolescents. [38537]

  Mr. Bowis
  A wide range of initiatives are being pursued. The key themes of our suicide prevention work are improving mental health services, increasing public awareness of mental health issues, targeting occupational and demographic groups at particular risk of suicide, and reducing access to means. The overall suicide rate has now fallen in each of the last four years.

  In addition, we have a comprehensive strategy to improve child and adolescent mental health. Most recently, public awareness work in support of World Mental Health Day focused particularly on young people.

  "Health of the Nation"
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he is taking to address "Health of the Nation" targets for obesity. [38593]

  Mr. Sackville
  Measures to address obesity include:

  activity by the nutrition task force programme to reduce the proportion of fat in the diet;

  proposals from the physical activity task force for helping more people to be more active more often;

  a major campaign being developed by the Health Education Authority to promcte regular moderate physical activity and to highlight the contribution of physical activity to the prevention of obesity; and

  research reviews of effective intervention with regard to the prevention and treatment of obesity.

  792

  Deliberate Self Harm
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the incidence of deliberate self harm amongst(a) adults and (b) adolescents, annually from 1987. [38539]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Market Testing
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 6 June to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown),Official Report, column 28, if he will place in the Library a list of the contacts for hospital and health services awarded so far under competitive tendering process by each NHS trust in England since 6 June. [39650]

  Mr. Sackville
  The information will be placed in the Library.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to answers of 13 January,Official Report, columns 255–56 and 28 March, Official Report, column 568, which NHS clinical services and which non-clinical services are currently being market tested; and if he will list the companies tendering for business and the location of each market testing operation. [39651]

  Mr. Sackville
  The only new entry to the list provided in January would cover the market testing of perfusionist services by one trust. The list covers services which one or more NHS trust has market tested in recent years, as notified to the NHS Executive's market testing database. The other information is not available centrally.

  Private Patients
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many private inpatients and how many private outpatients were seen within the NHS and using NHS facilities by region and in total in(a) 1989–90 and (b) the latest date for which figures are available. [39386]

  Mr. Sackville
  Information on the number of private patients—finished consultant episodes—treated in national health service hospitals in England by region of treatment for 1989–90 is contained in the annual publication, "Hospital Episode Statistics". Similar information on private outpatient attendances is contained in "Outpatient and ward attenders". The latest year for which figures are available for is 1993–94. Copies of the publications are in the Library.

  Hospitals
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what information the NHS Executive has on the number of hospitals in each region and in total in England at 1 April; [39387]

  (2) what is the Department's definition of a hospital; [39388]

  (3) if he will review the decision not to collect centrally the number of hospitals in England. [39389]
  793
  Mr. Malone
  I refer the right hon. Member to reply I gave her on 16 May Official Report, columns 173–76. There are no plans to collect additional information centrally.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many new hospitals were(a) begun and (b) completed in each year since 1974. [39391]

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is not available centrally in the form requested. Information is collected on reported major capital projects, and this information is shown in the table.

  Capital schemes in the NHS

  Calendar year

  Start on site

  Finish on site

  1980

  16

  8

  1981

  34

  10

  1982

  44

  15

  1983

  36

  38

  1984

  51

  32

  1985

  47

  44

  1986

  52

  38

  1987

  60

  51

  1988

  70

  65

  1989

  73

  75

  1990

  56

  66

  1991

  52

  81

  1992

  51

  63

  1993

  20

  77

  1994

  61

  55

  Notes:

  1. Information was first collected for starts on site after 1 January 1980.

  2. Prior to 1 January 1986 reporting was on a voluntary basis for schemes with a works cost over £2 million.

  3. Returns became mandatory for schemes with a works cost over £1 million from 1 January 1986.

  4. With the introduction of the Capital Investment Manual (CIM), reporting thresholds were changed to over £1 million total cost from September 1994.

  Hospital Closures
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish an updated list of all hospital closures that have been referred to his Department for decision, including those awaiting a decision, giving the nature of all organisations objecting, the decision, if any, and date. [39390]

  Mr. Sackville
  An updated list of proposed closures and changes of use considered by Ministers for the period from January 1992 to September 1995 will be placed in the Library. All except Higham Grange rehabilitation centre and Hartford Hall rehabilitation hospital have been contested by the relevant community health council. Other organisations may have objected but full details could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Ministers approved all the proposals except the proposed closure of Ponteland and Lemington hospitals, Newcastle. No decision has been made on Booth Hall children's hospital, Manchester, while the consultation process is subject to judicial review.

  Abortions
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of abortions were carried out by the NHS in each (i) district health authority, (ii) regional health 794
  authority and (iii) in total in each of the last five years; and what was the total number of abortions performed in each year. [39649]

  Mr. Sackville
  The information will he placed in the Library.

  The total number of abortions—residents and non-residents—performed in each year are published for the years 1990 to 1992 in "Abortion Statistics 1992" (OPCS Series AB no.19, table 2). The corresponding figures for 1993 and 1994 are published in "Legal abortions in England and Wales 1994" (OPCS Monitor series 95/8, table 1), copies of which are available in the Library.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total number of cases of all forms of fraud committed by employees of his(a) Department,(b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies, for each year from 1991–92 to 1994–95; and for each of these years, what was the total monetary sum (i) misappropriated in such frauds and (ii) subsequently recovered. [39138]

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 24 October 1995]: The details of all forms of fraud committed by employees of the Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies are as follows:

  Total Cases

  Amount Misappropriated £

  Amount Recovered £

  1991–92

  Department-1

  171.50

  171.50

  Agencies-Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  NDPBs-Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  1992–93

  Department-2

  20.80

  Nil

  Agencies-Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  NDPBs-1

  4,700

  Nil

  1993–94

  Department-3

  9,652.45

  Nil

  Agencies-Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  NDPBs-Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  1994–95

  Department-3

  14,388.12

  12,869.62

  Agencies-1

  50.00

  50.00

  NDPBs-1

  300.00

  300.00

  1 Not a final figure. Recovery action is being pursued inappropriate cases.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Classroom Assistants
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many classroom assistants were employed in(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools for each year since 1988. [39149]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The available information is shown in the table.
  795

  Full-time equivalents of education support staff1 in maintained schools in England 1992–95 Position in January each year

  Year

  Primary

  Secondary

  1992

  32,483

  16,969

  1993

  36,441

  17,770

  1994

  41,117

  19,466

  1995 (provisional)

  46,324

  21,463

  1 Nursery assistants, special needs support staff and other support staff including librarians, technicians, medical care staff and child care assistants.

  Voucher Scheme
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if she will list the companies that have been shortlisted to administer the voucher scheme; [39150]

  (2) how many companies have submitted bids to run the voucher scheme; [39151]

  (3) what estimates she has received from those companies shortlisted to administer the voucher scheme for the cost of administering the voucher scheme; [39152]

  (4) when she expects to announce which company will be appointed to administer the a voucher scheme. [39153]

  Proposals under consideration for

  LEA

  Places proposed to be removed where known

  (a) Up to 3 months

  (b) 3–6 months

  (c) 6–9 months

  (d) 9–12 months

  (e) In excess of 12 months

  Avon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Barnet

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Bexley

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Birmingham

  210

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Buckinghamshire

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  2

  Bury

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cheshire

  27

  3

  6

  —

  —

  —

  Croydon

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Cumbria

  —

  6

  4

  —

  —

  —

  Dorset

  —

  —

  2

  3

  —

  —

  Dudley

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  East Sussex

  330

  3

  5

  —

  —

  —

  Essex

  217

  3

  2

  —

  1

  1

  Gloucestershire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Greenwich

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Hampshire

  60

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Haringey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Harrow

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Hertfordshire

  350

  3

  6

  2

  —

  —

  Humberside

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Kent

  103

  7

  5

  —

  1

  6

  Kirklees

  160

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lancashire

  —

  —

  1

  3

  2

  1

  Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Liverpool

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Newcastle

  148

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Norfolk

  34

  —

  10

  1

  1

  —

  Northamptonshire

  19

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Northumberland

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  North Yorkshire

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Nottinghamshire

  578

  —

  5

  —

  2

  —

  Oldham

  218

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  796
  Mr. Robin Squire
  Of the 170 companies which expressed an interest in administering the nursery voucher scheme, 10 were invited to tender for the contract. Details of the tenders, including the names of the companies and their proposed fees, are covered by commercial confidentiality. The company appointed to administer the scheme will be announced shortly.

  School Reorganisations and Closures
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which local education authorities have school reorganisation or closure proposals under consideration by her Department; how many surplus places will be removed by each local education authority as a result of their proposals; and which authorities, since the submission of their proposal to her Department, have been waiting for a decision for(a) up to three months, (b) three to six months, (c) six to none months, (d) nine to 12 months and (e) in excess of 12 months. [39154]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The table lists proposals under consideration by the Department for the closure, alteration or establishment of county and voluntary schools; the number of places that it proposed will be removed as result of the proposals, where this is a factor and the number involved is known; and the length of time the proposals have been under consideration.
  797

  Proposals under consideration for

  LEA

  Places proposed to be removed whereknown

  (a) Up to 3 months

  (b) 3–6 months

  (c) 6–9 months

  (d) 9–12 months

  (e) In excess of 12 months

  Oxfordshire

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Richmond upon Thames

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Salford

  177

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Sefton

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Solihull

  60

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Somerset

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  South Tyneside

  128

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Stockport

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  —

  Suffolk

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Surrey

  60

  1

  7

  —

  —

  —

  Tameside

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Tower Hamlets

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Waltham Forest

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Wandsworth

  266

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Warwickshire

  203

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  West Sussex

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Wigan

  321

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Wiltshire

  107

  5

  5

  1

  —

  —

  Wirral

  72

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Wolverhampton

  208

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Primary School Class Sizes
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage and how many primary school pupils are currently in classes of

  Numbers and percentages of pupils in single teacher classes of size in maintained primary schools in each local education authority area in England 1994 to 1995

  Position in January each year

  31–35

  36–40

  41+

  Number of pupils

  Percentage1

  Number of pupils

  Percentage1

  Number of pupils

  Percentage1

  1994

  City

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Camden

  542

  6.1

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Greenwich

  2,301

  13.3

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Hackney

  499

  3.7

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Hammersmith

  795

  11.1

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Islington

  892

  6.9

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  418

  8.3

  36

  0.7

  0

  0.0

  Lambeth

  816

  5.2

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Lewisham

  1,318

  7.2

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  South wark

  2,331

  12.3

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Tower Hamlets

  601

  4.6

  37

  0.3

  0

  0.0

  Wandsworth

  1,471

  10.5

  150

  1.1

  45

  0.3

  Westminster

  352

  4.9

  76

  1.1

  0

  0.0

  Barking

  1,183

  8.3

  232

  1.6

  0

  0.0

  Barnet

  2,319

  11.1

  115

  0.6

  0

  0.0

  Bexley

  5,838

  31.6

  72

  0.4

  0

  0.0

  Brent

  1,819

  9.6

  338

  1.8

  0

  0.0

  Bromley

  10,239

  46.8

  146

  0.7

  0

  0.0

  Croydon

  4,667

  19.6

  229

  1.0

  0

  0.0

  Ealing

  4,001

  19.6

  145

  0.7

  0

  0.0

  Enfield

  7,201

  35.2

  36

  0.2

  0

  0.0

  Haringey

  657

  3.9

  75

  0.4

  0

  0.0

  Harrow

  3,472

  22.2

  72

  0.5

  0

  0.0

  Havering

  4,030

  21.3

  146

  0.8

  0

  0.0

  Hillingdon

  4,422

  24.9

  431

  2.4

  43

  0.2

  Hounslow

  4,570

  28.7

  749

  4.7

  0

  0.0

  Kingston upon Thames

  5,299

  56.0

  185

  2.0

  0

  0.0

  Merton

  2,783

  22.6

  268

  2.2

  63

  0.5

  Newham

  1,201

  5.4

  116

  0.5

  0

  0.0

  Redbridge

  8,054

  50.3

  402

  2.5

  0

  0.0

  Richmond upon Thames

  869

  8.8

  112

  1.1

  153

  1.5

  798
  (a) 31 to 35, (b) 36 to 40 and (c) 40-plus in each local education authority and in total; and what were the equivalent figures in January 1994. [39380]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is shown in the following table.
  799

  Numbers and percentages of pupils in single teacher classes of size in maintained primary schools in each local education authority area in England 1994 to 1995

  Position in January each year

  31–35

  36–40

  41+

  Number of pupils

  Percentage1

  Number of pupils

  Percentage1

  Number of pupils

  Percentage1

  Sutton

  4,552

  38.8

  144

  1.2

  0

  0.0

  Waltham Forest

  3,088

  17.8

  112

  0.6

  0

  0.0

  Birmingham

  25,730

  26.9

  1,373

  1.4

  61

  0.1

  Coventry

  4,940

  19.5

  601

  2.4

  0

  0.0

  Dudley

  6,524

  27.1

  369

  1.5

  604

  2.5

  Sand well

  8,863

  32.7

  1,312

  4.8

  0

  0.0

  Solihull

  6,200

  34.1

  511

  2.8

  0

  0.0

  Walsall

  5,066

  22.8

  511

  2.3

  0

  0.0

  Wolverhampton

  4,774

  22.3

  381

  1.8

  0

  0.0

  Knowsley

  5,271

  31.0

  644

  3.8

  0

  0.0

  Liverpool

  11,660

  24.5

  918

  1.9

  42

  0.1

  St. Helens

  4,586

  31.6

  851

  5.9

  0

  0.0

  Sefton

  7,742

  31.6

  475

  1.9

  41

  0.2

  Wirral

  5,410

  18.8

  474

  1.6

  44

  0.2

  Bolton

  7,010

  31.8

  1,608

  7.3

  428

  1.9

  Bury

  5,087

  32.6

  1,024

  6.6

  128

  0.8

  Manchester

  8,446

  20.5

  1,173

  2.9

  0

  0.0

  Oldham

  7,746

  36.9

  779

  3.7

  92

  0.4

  Rochdale

  7,300

  39.8

  552

  3.0

  168

  0.9

  Salford

  5,603

  25.2

  1,127

  5.1

  87

  0.4

  Stockport

  6,813

  28.2

  1,265

  5.2

  101

  0.4

  Tameside

  10,943

  51.1

  1,136

  5.3

  0

  0.0

  Trafford

  7,729

  41.9

  1,340

  7.3

  82

  0.4

  Wigan

  7,572

  29.0

  2,380

  9.1

  45

  0.2

  Barnsley

  5,185

  26.0

  376

  1.9

  95

  0.5

  Doncaster

  6,296

  23.7

  1,252

  4.7

  0

  0.0

  Rotherham

  2,334

  10.4

  235

  1.1

  0

  0.0

  Sheffield

  6,821

  18.1

  1,460

  3.9

  0

  0.0

  Bradford

  8,214

  25.6

  567

  1.8

  0

  0.0

  Calderdale

  4,942

  28.3

  326

  1.9

  0

  0.0

  Kirklees

  8,391

  26.8

  981

  3.1

  0

  0.0

  Leeds

  16,686

  28.2

  2,719

  4.6

  0

  0.0

  Wakefield

  8,738

  32.3

  1,258

  4.7

  0

  0.0

  Gateshead

  1,786

  10.8

  76

  0.5

  0

  0.0

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  5,083

  24.8

  760

  3.7

  0

  0.0

  North Tyneside

  3,408

  22.7

  447

  3.0

  50

  0.3

  South Tyneside

  2,915

  20.1

  489

  3.4

  52

  0.4

  Sunderland

  4,022

  15.4

  222

  0.8

  0

  0.0

  Isles of Scilly

  31

  18.5

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Avon

  25,695

  34.1

  1,058

  1.4

  0

  0.0

  Bedfordshire

  7,314

  19.7

  1,701

  4.6

  49

  0.1

  Berkshire

  15,220

  27.0

  1,070

  1.9

  0

  0.0

  Buckinghamshire

  16,670

  29.1

  2,310

  4.0

  92

  0.2

  Cambridgeshire

  13,979

  25.2

  1,100

  2.0

  0

  0.0

  Cheshire

  27,187

  32.6

  2,922

  3.5

  84

  0.1

  Cleveland

  10,863

  18.8

  2,523

  4.4

  0

  0.0

  Cornwall

  12,409

  32.4

  1,032

  2.7

  0

  0.0

  Cumbria

  8,568

  22.1

  732

  1.9

  85

  0.2

  Derbyshire

  25,613

  34.1

  4,055

  5.4

  314

  0.4

  Devon

  19,328

  24.9

  1,847

  2.4

  0

  0.0

  Dorset

  17,562

  42.6

  580

  1.4

  0

  0.0

  Durham

  13,729

  26.5

  1,283

  2.5

  0

  0.0

  East Sussex

  18,862

  39.8

  435

  0.9

  0

  0.0

  Essex

  29,961

  25.2

  768

  0.6

  0

  0.0

  Gloucestershire

  10,644

  25.4

  479

  1.1

  0

  0.0

  Hampshire

  40,820

  31.5

  3,484

  2.7

  0

  0.0

  Hereford and Worcester

  9,432

  20.1

  478

  1.0

  0

  0.0

  Hertfordshire

  20,658

  26.8

  600

  0.8

  86

  0.1

  Humberside

  21.804

  28.1

  3,973

  5.1

  137

  0.2

  Isle of Wight

  1,672

  23.9

  190

  2.7

  0

  0.0

  Kent

  40,873

  33.0

  697

  0.6

  0

  0.0

  Lancashire

  39,104

  33.4

  5,884

  5.0

  124

  0.1

  Leicestershire

  13,760

  19.2

  673

  0.9

  0

  0.0

  Lincolnshire

  11,975

  25.2

  667

  1.4

  0

  0.0

  Norfolk

  10,584

  18.5

  445

  0.8

  146

  0.3

  North Yorkshire

  12,653

  22.9

  965

  1.7

  84

  0.2

  Northamptonshire

  9,402

  20.2

  188

  0.4

  0

  0.0

  Northumberland

  6,301

  33.0

  1,559

  8.2

  41

  0.2

  800

  801

  Numbers and percentages of pupils in single teacher classes of size in maintained primary schools in each local education authority area in England 1994 to 1995

  Position in January each year

  31–35

  36–40

  41+

  Number of pupils

  Percentage1

  Number of pupils

  Percentage1

  Number of pupils

  Percentage1

  Nottinghamshire

  17,125

  20.8

  2,658

  3.2

  164

  0.2

  Oxfordshire

  5,242

  13.7

  563

  1.5

  45

  0.1

  Shropshire

  8,530

  25.5

  555

  1.7

  0

  0.0

  Somerset

  10,074

  28.9

  402

  1.2

  0

  0.0

  Staffordshire

  24,238

  27.8

  5,720

  6.6

  780

  0.9

  Suffolk

  5,386

  13.2

  222

  0.5

  0

  0.0

  Surrey

  13,064

  19.2

  635

  0.9

  42

  0.1

  Warwickshire

  11,984

  28.8

  756

  1.8

  0

  0.0

  West Sussex

  10,459

  20.6

  475

  0.9

  0

  0.0

  Wiltshire

  11,784

  25.7

  401

  0.9

  0

  0.0

  England

  978,995

  25.7

  92,481

  2.4

  4,697

  0.1

  1995 (provisional)

  City

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Camden

  569

  6.3

  36

  0.4

  0

  0.0

  Greenwich

  2,433

  13.8

  72

  0.4

  50

  0.3

  Hackney

  569

  4.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Hammersmith

  1,294

  16.6

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Islington

  1,055

  8.1

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  221

  4.5

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Lambeth

  540

  3.4

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Lewisham

  1,072

  5.8

  73

  0.4

  47

  0.3

  South wark

  2,446

  12.5

  37

  0.2

  0

  0.0

  Tower Hamlets

  728

  4.8

  0

  0.0

  50

  0.3

  Wandsworth

  1,238

  8.7

  221

  1.6

  0

  0.0

  Westminster

  607

  8.8

  39

  0.6

  0

  0.0

  Barking

  994

  6.6

  271

  1.8

  52

  0.3

  Barnet

  2,179

  10.4

  112

  0.5

  0

  0.0

  Bexley

  7,761

  38.9

  73

  0.4

  0

  0.0

  Brent

  2,098

  11.2

  158

  0.8

  188

  l.0

  Bromley

  11,305

  50.5

  291

  1.3

  0

  0.0

  Croydon

  5,863

  23.2

  110

  0.4

  0

  0.0

  Ealing

  4,059

  18.9

  78

  0.4

  0

  0.0

  Enfield

  8,156

  39.5

  36

  0.2

  0

  0.0

  Haringey

  1,006

  5.8

  39

  0.2

  0

  0.0

  Harrow

  4,080

  25.0

  72

  0.4

  0

  0.0

  Havering

  4,625

  23.9

  37

  0.2

  0

  0.0

  Hillingdon

  4,320

  23.6

  427

  2.3

  86

  0.5

  Hounslow

  4,863

  29.1

  787

  4.7

  41

  0.2

  Kingston upon Thames

  5,960

  61.4

  256

  2.6

  0

  0.0

  Merton

  2,938

  23.3

  223

  1.8

  138

  1.1

  Newham

  2,604

  11.0

  76

  0.3

  0

  0.0

  Redbridge

  7,902

  48.8

  435

  2.7

  0

  0.0

  Richmond upon Thames

  1,980

  19.8

  0

  0.0

  60

  0.6

  Sutton

  4,214

  34.8

  114

  0.9

  0

  0.0

  Waltham Forest

  3,330

  18.8

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Birmingham

  27,064

  28.0

  1,080

  1.1

  107

  0.1

  Coventry

  7,016

  26.2

  784

  2.9

  75

  0.3

  Dudley

  5,506

  22.6

  562

  2.3

  867

  3.6

  Sandwell

  9,902

  35.8

  871

  3.1

  42

  0.2

  Solihull

  6,589

  35.4

  917

  4.9

  0

  0.0

  Walsall

  5,875

  25.5

  511

  2.2

  42

  0.2

  Wolverhampton

  5,220

  23.9

  626

  2.9

  0

  0.0

  Knowsley

  5,349

  29.4

  899

  4.9

  52

  0.3

  Liverpool

  11,288

  24.3

  1,023

  2.2

  230

  0.5

  St. Helens

  4,496

  30.6

  1,011

  6.9

  0

  0.0

  Sefton

  7,775

  31.0

  1,018

  4.1

  0

  0.0

  Wirral

  5,449

  18.6

  627

  2.1

  0

  0.0

  Bolton

  8,190

  36.2

  1,982

  8.8

  194

  0.9

  Bury

  5,633

  36.0

  801

  5.1

  0

  0.0

  Manchester

  9,026

  21.4

  1,008

  2.4

  177

  0.4

  Oldham

  7,853

  36.5

  782

  3.6

  188

  0.9

  Rochdale

  7,542

  39.0

  473

  2.4

  87

  0.4

  Salford

  6,128

  27.0

  753

  3.3

  94

  0.4

  Stockport

  6,962

  28.2

  849

  3.4

  47

  0.2

  Tameside

  10,553

  48.4

  738

  3.4

  0

  0.0

  Trafford

  8,455

  44.6

  1,193

  6.3

  41

  0.2

  Wigan

  8,941

  33.6

  2,347

  8.8

  87

  0.3

  802

  803

  Numbers and percentages of pupils in single teacher classes of size in maintained primary schools in each local education authority area in England 1994 to 1995

  Position in January each year

  31–35

  36–40

  41+

  Number of pupils

  Percentage1

  Number of pupils

  Percentage1

  Number of pupils

  Percentage1

  Barnsley

  5,625

  28.0

  383

  1.9

  193

  1.0

  Doncaster

  6,692

  25.5

  1,605

  6.1

  41

  0.2

  Rotherham

  2,961

  13.0

  308

  1.4

  0

  0.0

  Sheffield

  9,467

  24.1

  1,408

  3.6

  244

  0.6

  Bradford

  9,500

  28.7

  1,207

  3.7

  0

  0.0

  Calderale

  5,558

  30.3

  108

  0.6

  0

  0.0

  Kirklees

  10,466

  32.5

  1,733

  5.4

  91

  0.3

  Leeds

  18,551

  30.6

  2,428

  4.0

  266

  0.4

  Wakefield

  8,420

  30.2

  2,070

  7.4

  54

  0.2

  Gateshead

  2,084

  12.3

  153

  0.9

  0

  0.0

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  5,854

  28.7

  756

  3.7

  134

  0.7

  North Tyneside

  4,467

  29.7

  413

  2.7

  50

  0.3

  South Tyneside

  2,766

  18.9

  747

  5.1

  103

  0.7

  Sunderland

  3,410

  12.8

  191

  0.7

  0

  0.0

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Avon

  25,550

  32.8

  1,277

  1.6

  92

  0.1

  Bedfordshire

  8,288

  21.4

  1,531

  4.0

  509

  1.3

  Berkshire

  14,692

  25.3

  828

  1.4

  85

  0.1

  Buckinghamshire

  17,591

  29.5

  2,944

  4.9

  670

  1.1

  Cambridgeshire

  14,211

  25.5

  735

  1.3

  0

  0.0

  Cheshire

  26,906

  31.5

  3,196

  3.7

  213

  0.2

  Cleveland

  11,332

  19.4

  2,527

  4.3

  0

  0.0

  Cornwall

  12,878

  32.8

  1,039

  2.6

  87

  0.2

  Cumbria

  10,374

  26.2

  968

  2.4

  110

  0.3

  Derbyshire

  27,071

  35.1

  5,414

  7.0

  474

  0.6

  Devon

  21,844

  27.5

  1,770

  2.2

  45

  0.1

  Dorset

  17,058

  40.4

  980

  2.3

  0

  0.0

  Durham

  14,215

  27.2

  1,240

  2.4

  0

  0.0

  East Sussex

  19,221

  39.8

  470

  1.0

  0

  0.0

  Essex

  30,666

  24.8

  979

  0.8

  230

  0.2

  Gloucestershire

  11,044

  25.4

  551

  1.3

  0

  0.0

  Hampshire

  41,963

  32.4

  1,967

  1.5

  46

  0.0

  Hereford and Worcester

  10,011

  20.7

  481

  1.0

  41

  0.1

  Hertfordshire

  22,320

  28.1

  692

  0.9

  42

  0.1

  Humberside

  22,058

  27.7

  4,393

  5.5

  445

  0.6

  Isle of Wight

  1,749

  24.8

  111

  1.6

  0

  0.0

  Kent

  43,201

  33.6

  722

  0.6

  285

  0.2

  Lancashire

  42,290

  35.0

  6,298

  5.2

  244

  0.2

  Leicestershire

  15,730

  21.1

  1,413

  1.9

  424

  0.6

  Lincolnshire

  13,595

  27.7

  955

  1.9

  82

  0.2

  Norfolk

  11,793

  20.0

  218

  0.4

  55

  0.1

  North Yorkshire

  16,110

  28.4

  1,598

  2.8

  50

  0.1

  Northamptonshire

  10,244

  21.2

  332

  0.7

  0

  0.0

  Northumberland

  6,720

  34.9

  1,269

  6.6

  41

  0.2

  Nottinghamshire

  19,413

  23.4

  3,186

  3.8

  543

  0.7

  Oxfordshire

  5,940

  15.2

  384

  1.0

  98

  0.3

  Shropshire

  9,304

  27.0

  668

  1.9

  0

  0.0

  Somerset

  10,140

  28.3

  583

  1.6

  53

  0.1

  Staffordshire

  25,921

  29.4

  4,569

  5.2

  657

  0.7

  Suffolk

  6,142

  14.5

  254

  0.6

  0

  0.0

  Surrey

  11,382

  16.6

  647

  0.9

  89

  0.1

  Warwickshire

  12,906

  30.4

  899

  2.1

  175

  0.4

  West Sussex

  12,219

  23.0

  660

  1.2

  0

  0.0

  Wiltshire

  14,007

  29.5

  696

  1.5

  0

  0.0

  England

  1,047,741

  26.8

  97,882

  2.5

  10,103

  0.3

  Training for Work
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is(a) the average number of training for work leavers who gained a qualification or credits towards a qualification and (b) the number of leavers entering employment in 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994 (i) nationally and (ii) for each training and enterprise council. [39778]
  804
  Mr. Paice
  As the information requested contains a large amount of data, I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my reply in the Library.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much was spent on the training for work programme in each year between 1991 and 1995 and what is the projected account in 1995–96; what was the number of starts and filled places in each year; and what is the projected figure for 1995–96. [39776]
  805
  Mr. Paice
  In April 1993, training for work replaced employment training and employment action. The information requested is given in the following table.

  1991–92 Outturn(1)

  1992–93 Outturn(2)

  1993–94 Outturn(3)

  1994–95 Provisional outturn

  1995–96 planned

  Expenditure (£ million)

  753.7

  766.8

  760.2

  683.0

  574.0

  Starts (000s)

  252

  291

  292

  280

  225

  Filled places (000s)

  119

  105

  124

  95

  92

  Notes:

  1. In the expenditure figures for 1991–92, the ET element relates to England and Wales and the EA element relates to England, Scotland and Wales.

  2. In the expenditure figures for 1992–93, the ET element related to England only and the EA element related to England and Scotland

  Training Costs
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the average amount spent by employers on training each of their employees in 1992 and 1994. [39779]

  Mr. Paice
  The data requested are not available.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the budget for each training and enterprise council for 1995–96. [39777]

  Mr. Paice
  The budget made available to each training and enterprise council in England by the Department fore 1995–96 is shown in the following. The responsibility for TECs in Wales lies with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  TEC budgets 1995–96

  £

  South East

  Hampshire

  27,323,756

  Heart of England

  12,535,357

  Isle of Wight

  3,638,642

  Kent

  36,282,620

  Milton Keynes and North Bucks

  11,127,628

  Surrey

  12,128,689

  Sussex

  22,550,765

  Thames Valley Enterprise

  31,720,395

  London

  Aztec

  12,254,997

  Centec

  23,865,389

  Cilntec

  20,391,148

  London East

  36,266,110

  North London

  20,674,806

  North West London

  11,157,405

  Solotec

  19,115,941

  South Thames1

  33,827,403

  West London

  18,620,229

  Eastern

  Bedfordshire

  13,021,470

  Cambstec

  7,849,613

  Essex

  31,658,402

  Greater Peterborough

  11,207,428

  Hertfordshire

  20,838,636

  Norfolk and Waveney

  24,523,751

  Suffolk

  15,019,798

  806

  TEC budgets 1995–96

  £

  South West

  Devon and Cornwall

  43,815,751

  Dorset

  14,574,980

  Gloucestershire

  14,241,391

  Somerset

  12,359,270

  Westec

  27,879,781

  Wiltshire

  12,223,966

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  34,557,562

  Central England

  10,400,327

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  24,665,865

  Dudley

  9,882,928

  Hawtec

  12,895,288

  Sandwell

  12,664,294

  Shropshire

  11,977,681

  Staffordshire

  28,901,500

  Walsall

  8,003,525

  Wolverhampton

  9,781,984

  East Midlands

  Greater Nottingham

  18,273,503

  Leicester

  22,313,670

  Lincolnshire

  22,918,889

  North Derbyshire

  10,661,439

  North Nottinghamshire

  15,957,808

  Northamptonshire

  12,516,841

  Southern Derbyshire

  17,104,924

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Barnsley and Doncaster

  24,942,444

  Bradford and District

  17,376,587

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  19,763,424

  Humberside

  33,126,307

  Leeds

  20,043,842

  North Yorkshire

  15,406,306

  Rotherham

  11,174,354

  Sheffield

  20,634,318

  Wakefield

  10,704,117

  North West

  Bolton and Bury

  15,017,992

  Cumbria

  17,843,301

  Eltec (East Lanes)

  19,840,603

  Lawtec (Lanes West)

  28,822,730

  Manchester

  43,011,107

  Metrotec Ltd. (Wigan)

  11,090,965

  Normidtec

  15,382,978

  Oldham

  9,109,551

  Rochdale

  9,539,178

  South and East Cheshire

  13,971,563

  Stockport/High Peak

  12,050,452

  Merseyside

  Cewtec

  20,880,534

  Merseyside

  52,238,640

  Qualitec

  8,336,638

  North East

  County Durham

  25,698,704

  Northumberland

  14,150,915

  Sunderland City

  16,478,872

  Teeside

  31,069,685

  Tyneside

  37,505,997

  1 South Thames TEC: the figure shown is the 1995–96 allocation which will be reallocated to the receiver and the successor TECs.

  807

  "Race for Opportunity"
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on the launch of the business in the community campaign "Race for Opportunity". [40361]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The Government warmly welcome the move by major companies to champion "Race for Opportunity". These companies recognise the diverse talents and business opportunities which our multiracial society has to offer. Champions of the campaign will take full account of the ethnic minority community in all aspects of their business, from marketing and purchasing to employment, and they will strive to become good corporate citizens. Such efforts are to be congratulated.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Trials (Media Coverage)
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Attorney General how many trials have been stopped in the last three years as a result of media coverage, in how many cases media coverage has been cited by the court as a reason for returning a not guilty verdict; and if he will list the cases. [38319]

  The Attorney-General
  There is no central record of cases coming within the criteria set out in the hon. Member's question. The two prosecuting authorities for which I have responsibility—Crown Prosecution Service and Serious Fraud Office—have identified the following cases in which criminal proceedings have been stayed on the grounds of "abuse of process" because the court has held that media coverage has made a fair trial impossible.

  Name

  Date

  Charge

  Anthony Grunwell

  June/July 1993: Snaresbrook Crown Court

  Theft from motor vehicle

  R. v. Reade, Morris and Woodwiss

  15 October 1993: Central Criminal Court

  Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice

  R. v. Hassan and Caldori

  24 July 1995: Isleworth Crown Court

  Conspiracy to distribute counterfeit currency

  R. v. Geoffrey Knights

  24 October 1995: Harrow Crown Court

  Causing grievous bodily harm

  R. v. Zaheer and Others

  11 October 1995: Harrow Crown Court

  Violent disorder

  The table is compiled from individual recollection and is not necessarily exhaustive.

  The inquiries referred to above have identified two cases where media coverage has been a factor, but not the only factor, in a decision to quash convictions. Those cases related to proceedings against Michelle Taylor and Lisa Taylor (11 June 1993) and Vincent Wood (6 July 1995).
  808

  Barings Bank
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Attorney General (1) if all information requested by the Serious Fraud Office from the Singapore authorities has been handed over; [38400]

  (2) what action he is taking in respect of the decision of judicial managers and prosecutors in Singapore with regard to access for Serious Fraud Office investigators to documentation in Singapore relating to Barings. [38401]

  The Attorney-General
  Baring Futures (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. is under the control of judicial managers appointed by the Singapore High Court to which the Serious Fraud Office made an application for an order that the judicial managers disclose certain company records. That application was not granted and the SFO is currently appealing the decision to the Court of Appeal of Singapore.

  I have myself corresponded with my counterpart in Singapore.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Secuirty (1) what assessment he has made of the number of people who would claim to be entitled to specific benefit if a national minimum wage was introduced at £3.50 per hour, £4 per hour and £4.50 per hour for all employees aged 18 years and over; [36765]

  (2) what estimates he has made of the effect on the level of expenditure on specific benefits if a national minimum wage was introduced at (a) £3.50 per hour, (b) £4 per hour and (c) £4.50 per hour for all employees aged 18 years and over. [36766]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  No assessment has been made.

  National Insurance Numbers
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will sanction the use of national insurance numbers as a means of reference by(a) the Student Loans Company and (b) the universities and colleges admission system. [37066]

  Mr. Heald
  We have a policy of restricting the use of national insurance numbers to national insurance, tax and social security benefit-related purposes.

  State Pensions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the amount of(a) the widow's payment and (b) the Christmas bonus in the year 1996–97 if they had been uprated (i) in line with earnings and (ii) in line with prices since the date when they were announced and the date when they were introduced. [38161]
  809
  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available in the format requested. Since 1988, benefit upratings have been based on movement in the retail prices index over the preceding September to September period. Data on

  Column 1 Benefit/allowance

  Column 2 Date introduction announced

  Column 3 Date introduced

  Column 4 Rate at announcement £

  Column 5 Rate when introduced £

  Column 6 Current rate £

  Column 7 Rate at April 1996 if amount at Column 4 uprated by prices since date at Column 2 £

  Column 8 Rate at April 1996 if amount at Column 5 uprated by prices since date at Column 3£

  Christmas bonus

  November 1972

  December 1972

  10.00

  10.00

  10.00

  69.75

  69.75

  Widow's payment

  December 1985

  April 1988

  1,000.00

  1,000.00

  1,000.00

  1,584.65

  1,473.20

  Notes:

  1. Figures have been rounded to the nearest 5 pence.

  2. The retail prices index (all items) up to September 1995 as published by the Central Statistical Office has been used for uprating.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the percentage change in the real value of the pensioners' Christmas bonus since it was first paid; to what amount it would have to be changed to restore its original value; and if he will increase it this Christmas. [39653]

  Mr. Heald
  If the £10 Christmas bonus had been uprated in line with prices since it was first paid in December 1972, it would be £67.15 at December 1995. The £10 bonus represents about 15 per cent. of this figure. We have no plans to increase the bonus.

  Notes:

  1: Figures rounded to nearest 5 pence.

  2: The retail prices index (all items) up to September 1995 as published by the Central Statistical Office has been used for prices uprating.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to pay the state retirement pension from the actual birthday of the claimant; and if he will make a statement. [39392]

  Mr. Heald
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) on 28 April,Official Report, column 715.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the national insurance yield in a full year from extending employers' class 1A national insurance contributions to all non-cash or dividend remuneration currently defined as income for income tax purposes but not for national insurance purposes. [39111]

  Mr. Heald
  The estimate is £250 million based on 1994–95 figures.

  Social Security Expenditure
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the social security spending as a percentage of gross domestic product for each year since 1978. [38820]
  810
  earnings growth in the period September 1994 to September 1995 are not yet available. The available information is in the table.

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply to the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) on 23 March,Official Report, column 342.

  Fraud
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were the savings made by his Department in tackling organised method of payment fraud in 1993–94 and 1994–95; what were the reasons for any changes in savings; and what new policies his Department intends to take to increase substantially the savings by tackling organised method of payment fraud. [37591]

  Mr. Heald
  We have adopted a number of preventative measures as key elements of our strategy for tackling fraud. The redesign of the order book has dramatically reduced the incidence of counterfeiting and manipulation, and the use of secure delivery arrangements for order books to post offices has significantly reduced losses in transit. This has meant a reduction in the Benefits Agency's organised fraud teams' detected savings from £54.8 million for method of payment fraud in 1993–94 to £20.3 million in 1994–95.

  We intend to continue the policy of enhancing preventive measures such as the electronic stop notice system in the south-east of England and the incentive scheme for post offices to identify fraudulent encashments. The benefit payment card which is scheduled to begin roll-out in 1996 will replace payment by order books and giro cheques. It is estimated it will help eliminate fraud of £140 million a year.

  Alongside this preventive work, organised fraud teams will continue to examine new organised fraud trends that may emerge and develop their intelligence and operational capabilities to detect and investigate this type of fraud.

  Child Support Agency
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) in how many cases children have had an increase in child support maintenance and how many have had a decrease, as a result of being assessed by the Child
  811
  Support Agency; and if he will provide a breakdown of these statistics; [37594]

  (2) what is the proportion of Child Support Agency cases assessed at (a) zero to £2.35, (b) £2.36 to £4.99, (c) £5 to £9.99, (d) £10 to £19.99, (e) £20 to £29.99, (f) £30 to £39.99, (g) £40 to £49.99, (h) £50 to £59.99, (i) £60 to £69.99, (j) £70 to £79.99 and (k) £80 or more who were previously paying no maintenance, excluding those which are new separations. [37596]

  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 25 October 1995:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security on the subject of maintenance payments.
  Whilst it is not possible to exclude new separations, an estimated figure for Income Support cases only is available and is set out in the table below. This is produced based on five per cent. samples of Income Support and Child Support Agency cases, carried out in February 1993 and August 1995 respectively.
  Most of the cases included in these samples will be Income Support taken on in the first year of the Agency, when it was estimated that around 50 per cent. of those cases taken on were not already receiving maintenance. This proportion has increased to an estimated 77 per cent. since April 1994, so we would expect the percentage assessed who were not previously receiving maintenance (38.95 per cent.) to increase in future samples.
  You also asked for information on how many cases children have had an increase in child maintenance and how many have had a decrease, as a result of being assessed by the Child Support Agency. This information is not available.

  Maintenance assessed at August 1995 for parents with care who received no maintenance whilst on Income Support in February 1993

  Number of cases: (000's)

  As a percentage of the 333,500 cases assessed at August 1995 who were in receipt of Income Support in 1993

  (a) £0 to £2.35

  60

  17.97

  (b) £2.36 to £4.99

  1

  0.30

  (c) £5 to £9.99

  2

  0.60

  (d) £10 to £19.99

  4

  1.20

  (e) £20 to £29.99

  5

  1.50

  (f) £30 to £39.99

  6

  1.80

  (g) £40 to £49.99

  7

  2.10

  (h) £50 to £59.99

  8

  2.40

  (i) £60 to £69.99

  4

  1.20

  (J) £70 to £79.99

  3

  0.90

  (k) £80 or more

  29

  8.69

  Total

  130

  38.95

  Notes:

  1. The table may include some instances where maintenance was paid to the DSS in respect of the claimant and/or dependant(s) at February 1993 and some cases where there was no entitlement to maintenance at February 1993.

  2. Number of cases includes interim and full maintenance assessments.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many cases have been cleared without assessment by the Child Support Agency in the last six months, with a breakdown of the reasons; [37597]
  812
  (2) if he will give a breakdown of all cases cleared by the Child Support Agency in the last six months showing (a) those where the absent parent is unnamed, (b) other cases which were cleared without assessment, (c) cases where a category A interim assessment was issued and (d) cases where the absent parent was assessed to pay (1) zero to £2.35, (2) £2.36–£4.99, (3) £5–£9.99, (4) £10–£19.99, (5) £20–£29.99, (6) £30–£39.99, (7) £40–£49.99, (8) £50–£59.99, (9) £60–£69.99, (10) £70–£79.99 and (11) £80 or over and to express these figures as numbers of cases cleared during that period and as percentages. [37607]

  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 25 October 1995:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about cases cleared by the Agency.
  You asked for a breakdown of cases cleared in the last six months without a maintenance assessment. As data for September is not yet available, I have based the reply on the first 5 months of the financial year.
  During this period, the Agency cleared 128,726 cases of which 44,357 were full maintenance assessments and 8,618 were category A interim maintenance assessments. A further 75,751 cases were cleared without an assessment. As we have no business need to record more specific reason for clearance we cannot provide a more detailed breakdown of these cases.
  A breakdown of the full maintenance assessments by amount and as a proportion of cases cleared is attached.
  You also asked about cases in which the absent parent was not named. Since April 1995, there have been 35,223 cases in which the absent parent may not have been named. This includes 15,054 cases in which "good cause" for not naming the absent parent was accepted, and 20,169 in which it was not accepted. In cases in which "good cause" was accepted, the person with care may have identified the absent parent, but because of the possible threat to the person with care, or child, the case was not pursued. In some cases, the parent with care may subsequently have named the absent parent and the Agency has pursued maintenance.

  Full assessments by amount and as a proportion of cases cleared: 1 April 1995 to 31 August 1995

  Weekly maintenance

  Full assessments (000's)

  Per cent, as a proportion of cases cleared

  £0 to £2.352

  20.7

  16.08 per cent.

  £2.36 to £4.99

  0.5

  0.39 per cent.

  £5 to £9.99

  0.9

  0.70 per cent.

  £10 to £19.99

  2.7

  2.10 per cent.

  £20 to £29.99

  3.3

  2.56 per cent.

  £30 to £39.99

  3.5

  2.72 per cent.

  £40 to £49.99

  3.8

  2.95 per cent.

  £50 to £59.99

  3.4

  2.64 per cent.

  £60 to £69.99

  2.5

  1.94 per cent.

  £70 to £79.99

  2.5

  1.94 per cent.

  £80 or more

  2.4

  1.86 per cent.

  Total

  146.0

  35.73 per cent.

  Notes

  1 Data extracted from a 5 per cent. sample of cases. As a result, total differs slightly from that recorded by clerical system (44,357).

  2 Includes absent parents on income support.
  813
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was(a) the total staff employed by the Department of Social Security's liable relatives unit at the time of its abolition, (b) the total staff currently employed by the Child Support Agency, (c) the average amount of maintenance collected per employee by the Department of Social Security's liable relatives unit in the last year of its operation, weighted for 1995 prices and (d) the average amount of maintenance collected per employee by the Child Support Agency in the last year. [37600]

  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 23 October 1995:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security concerning the Child Support Agency and the Liable Relatives Unit.
  You asked for a comparison of the average amount of maintenance collected per employee between the DSS Liable Relative Unit in its last year of operation, and the CSA. I am afraid that it is not possible to provide information in this form. We do not know how much maintenance was paid direct between parents during the operation of the Liable Relative Unit, and other Department of Social Security staff were involved in the work (e.g. on finance, visiting and training) who were not in the Unit itself. As far as this Agency is concerned, our staff are solely responsible for all child maintenance work, but by no means all of them are directly involved in maintenance collection duties.
  Such comparisons between the two systems are misleading, as the nature and organisation of the work the Agency does has greatly changed in comparison with the previous system.
  As at 31 March 1995, the CSA employed 6,393 staff. During the 1994/95 year the Agency was involved in the payment of over £187 million in maintenance collected for Child Support assessment.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many former income support claimants were lifted off this benefit due to maintenance paid by the Child Support Agency in each month since January 1994. [37601]

  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 20 October 1995:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State concerning the number of former income support recipients who no longer receive income support as a result of maintenance payments.
  Since January 1994, almost 11,800 claimants have ceased to claim Income Support because the maintenance assessment exceeded the amount of Income Support in payment. A table showing the monthly breakdown is attached.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Number of claimants

  1994

  January

  643

  February

  491

  March

  1,191

  April

  614

  May

  403

  June

  905

  July

  1,378

  August

  655

  814

  Number of claimants

  September

  560

  October

  451

  November

  975

  December

  552

  1994 total

  8,818

  1995

  January

  546

  February

  628

  March

  511

  April

  317

  May

  265

  June

  212

  July

  219

  August

  241

  1995 total

  2,939

  1994–95 total

  11,757

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will give an account for the cases investigated by the Child Support Agency under the requirement to co-operate which are not explained by good cause accepted, absent parent named or reduced benefit directive imposed; [37602]

  (2) how many cases were investigated by the Child Support Agency during 1994–95 under the requirement to co-operate; and if he will provide a month-by-month breakdown showing in how many cases good cause was accepted, in how many a reduced benefit directive was imposed and in how many the absent parent was named; [37604]

  (3) if he will provide an explanation of the cases investigated by the Child Support Agency under the requirement to co-operate which are not accounted for by good cause accepted, absent parent named or a reduced benefit directive; and if he will provide a breakdown of these statistics. [37605]

  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 25 October 1995:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security concerning parents with care and the requirement to co-operate with the Child Support Agency in arranging maintenance.
  You asked for a monthly breakdown of the outcome of requirement to co-operate investigations completed during 1994/95 and details of such investigations. The attached table shows the information requested.
  Of the 38,573 cases where good cause was not accepted, a reduced benefit direction was appropriate in 17,451 cases. In the remaining 21,122 cases, either the Child Support Officer, having had regard for the welfare of the parent with care or any children living with her, decided that a reduced benefit direction was not appropriate, or the parent with care later chose to co-operate with the Agency.
  I hope this is helpful.
  815

  Requirement to Co-operate Decisions 1994–95

  Month

  Good cause accepted

  Absent parent named

  Good cause not accepted

  Reduced benefit direction issued

  Investigations completed

  April

  3,335

  1,073

  2,705

  205

  7,113

  May

  3,915

  1,191

  2,904

  258

  8,010

  June

  4,018

  1,200

  3,071

  892

  8,289

  July

  3,682

  944

  2,831

  1,143

  7,457

  August

  3,636

  864

  3,306

  1,726

  7,806

  September

  3,187

  792

  2,545

  2,846

  6,524

  October

  3,006

  844

  2,449

  3,791

  6,299

  November

  3,465

  937

  3,554

  2,969

  7,956

  December

  2,269

  609

  2,854

  1,285

  5,732

  January

  3,177

  770

  4,399

  973

  8,346

  February

  3,839

  958

  3,699

  922

  8,496

  March

  4,137

  993

  4,256

  441

  9,386

  Total

  41,666

  11,175

  38,573

  17,451

  91,414

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many complaints have been received by the Child Support Agency in each month since its launch. [37603]

  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 25 October 1995:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security on the number of complaints the Child Support Agency has received since its launch.
  From the launch of the Agency in April 1993 to August 1995, over 52,500 written complaints have been received by the Agency. Monthly figures are available from April 1994, and are shown in the table attached.
  Many of these complaints are from persons who are opposed to the legislation but not actually affected by it. The number of letters received that contain complaints specifically about the Agency's performance is not separately identified, but it is considerably less than the overall figure shown above.
  I hope this is helpful.

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  April

  1,465

  3,025

  May

  1,984

  2,481

  June

  1,881

  3,113

  July

  1,992

  2,281

  August

  Monthly

  1,131

  3,160

  September

  breakdown

  2,536

  —

  October

  unavailable

  2,579

  —

  November

  3,070

  —

  December

  2,458

  —

  January

  1,483

  —

  February

  3,121

  —

  March

  3,948

  —

  Total

  10,846

  27,648

  14,060

  Benefit Uprating
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will(a) list, for each benefit which is not being uprated and each capital or income limit which is not being raised, the reasons for not doing so and (b) list
  816
  the current value of each such benefit or limit and the value that would have resulted from increasing it in line with prices and average earnings since it was (i) last increased or (ii) introduced when announcing benefit rates for 1996–97. [39660]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available. Details of the benefit uprating from April 1996 will be released as part of the Budget.

  Appeal Tribunals
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the current rates of remuneration of chairpersons and members of(a) social security, (b) medical, (c) disability and (d) child support tribunals. [39658]

  Mr. Burt
  The available information is in the table. Members of social security and child support appeal tribunals are not paid but can claim loss of earnings.

  Position

  Appeal tribunal

  Daily rate £

  Chairman

  All

  250

  Medical member

  Medical

  228

  Medical member

  Disability

  186

  Lay member

  Disability

  115

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the combined value of(a) child dependency increase and child benefit for the child of a widow and (b) children's allowance and child benefit for the child of a war widow at current and April 1995 prices and as a percentage of average earnings, in November 1979 and at each subsequent uprating date. [39654]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The information is in the tables:
  817

  Table 1: Widows benefit

  Uprating date

  Rate of Child Benefit plus child dependency increase for first child£

  Gross adult weekly average earnings £

  As a percentage of gross adult weekly average earnings

  Equivalent value of benefit at April 1995 prices£

  November 1979

  11.10

  100.60

  11.0

  27.45

  November 1980

  12.25

  120.20

  10.2

  26.27

  November 1981

  12.95

  132.40

  9.8

  24.80

  November 1982

  13.80

  142.40

  9.7

  24.87

  November 1983

  14.10

  156.70

  9.0

  24.24

  November 1984

  14.50

  167.00

  8.7

  23.75

  November 1985

  15.05

  178.70

  8.4

  23.38

  July 1986

  15.15

  189.10

  8.0

  23.15

  April 1987

  15.30

  198.90

  7.7

  22.39

  April 1988

  15.65

  218.40

  7.2

  22.04

  April 1989

  16.20

  239.70

  6.8

  21.12

  April 1990

  16.90

  263.10

  6.4

  20.13

  April 1991

  17.95

  284.70

  6.3

  20.09

  October 1991

  18.95

  294.70

  6.4

  20.90

  April 1992

  19.40

  304.60

  6.4

  20.83

  April 1993

  19.80

  316.90

  6.2

  20.98

  April 1994

  20.00

  325.70

  6.1

  20.67

  April 1995

  20.25

  336.30

  6.0

  20.25

  Table 2: Widows benefit

  Uprating date

  Rate of Child Benefit plus child dependency increase forsubsequentchildren£

  Gross adultweeklyaverageearnings£

  As a percentage of gross adult weekly average earning

  Equivalent value of benefit at April 1995prices£

  April 1991

  17.95

  284.70

  6.3

  20.09

  October 1991

  18.20

  294.70

  6.2

  20.07

  April 1992

  18.65

  304.60

  6.1

  20.02

  April 1993

  19.05

  316.90

  6.0

  20.19

  April 1994

  19.25

  325.70

  5.9

  19.89

  April 1995

  19.50

  336.30

  5.8

  19.50

  Notes:

  1. Gross adult weekly earnings have bee n rounded to the nearest 10p.

  2. From October 1991 the combined rate of child benefit and child dependency increases for the first child and subsequent children diverged. Table 4 reflects the rate in payment for subsequent children from that point.

  Table 3: War widows benefit

  Uprating date

  Rate of Child Benefit plus child dependency increase for first child£

  Gross adultweeklyaverageearnings£

  As a percentage of gross adult weekly average earnings

  Equivalent value of benefit at April 1995prices£

  November 1979

  14.00

  100.60

  13.9

  34.62

  November 1980

  15.35

  120.20

  12.8

  32.92

  November 1981

  16.10

  132.40

  12.2

  30.84

  November 1982

  17.10

  142.40

  12.0

  30.82

  November 1983

  17.45

  156.70

  11.1

  30.00

  November 1984

  17.90

  167.00

  10.7

  29.32

  November 1985

  18.55

  178.70

  10.4

  28.82

  July 1986

  18.65

  189.10

  9.9

  28.50

  April 1987

  18.85

  198.90

  9.5

  27.59

  April 1988

  19.25

  218.40

  8.8

  27.11

  April 1989

  19.85

  239.70

  8.3

  25.88

  818

  Table 3: War widows benefit

  Uprating date

  Rate of Child Benefit plus child dependency increase for first child£

  Gross adultweeklyaverageearnings£

  As a percentage of gross adult weekly average earnings

  Equivalent value of benefit atApril'1995prices£

  April 1990

  20.65

  263.10

  7.8

  24.60

  April 1991

  21.90

  284.70

  7.7

  24.52

  October 1991

  22.90

  294.70

  7.8

  25.26

  April 1992

  23.40

  304.60

  7.7

  25.12

  April 1993

  23.85

  316.90

  7.5

  25.27

  April 1994

  24.10

  325.70

  7.4

  24.90

  April 1995

  24.40

  336.30

  7.3

  24.40

  Table 4: War widows Benefit

  Uprating date

  Rate of Child Benefit plus child dependency increase forsubsequentchildren£

  Gross adultweeklyaverageearnings£

  As a percent, of gross adult weekly average earning

  Equivalent value of benefit at April 1995prices£

  April 1991

  21.90

  284.70

  7.7

  24.52

  October 1991

  22.15

  294.70

  7.5

  24.43

  April 1992

  22.65

  304.60

  7.4

  24.31

  April 1993

  23.10

  316.90

  7.3

  24.48

  April 1994

  23.35

  325.70

  7.2

  24.13

  April 1995

  23.65

  336.30

  7.0

  23.65

  Notes:

  1. Gross adult weekly earnings have been rounded to the nearest 10p.

  2. From October 1991 the combined rate of child benefit and child dependency increases for the first child and subsequent children diverged. Table 2 reflects the rate in payment for subsequent children from that point.

  Occupational Pensions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the effect on an early leaver's pension rights if his period of employment was too short to qualify for a pension under the employer's pension scheme and the employer fails to pay a contributions equivalent premium within the prescribed time limit. [39659]

  Mr. Heald
  A contributions equivalent premium is payable to the state if someone leaves a contracted-out salary-related occupational pension scheme before state pension age with less than two years' pensionable service with his employer. Payment of a CEP means that the employee's rights under the state earnings-related pension scheme are restored as if he had not been in contracted-out employment. Where a CEP is not paid within the prescribed time limit the employer's pension scheme remains liable to provide a guaranteed minimum pension and is notified accordingly by the Contributions Agency. There is no liability to pay a CEP which does not exceed £17.00. In this situation, the amount payable is treated as having been paid and the earner's SERPS rights restored as if he had not been in contracted-out employment.
  819

  Income Support
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the annual change in the amount of income support payable to a single pensioner with savings of £5,000, £8,000 or £8,100 in 1995–96 if the capital limits had been raised since 1986 in line with(a) prices and (b) average earnings. [39656]

  Mr. Rogers Evans
  The information is not available in the format requested. However, we are able to give figures showing the change in the amount of tariff income brought to account, as a result of the capital limits being uprated by(a) the retail prices index and (b) average earnings since 1988. The estimated changes in tariff income are set out in the table:

  Amount of capital held £

  Change in tariff income under capital limits uprated by (a) prices £

  Change in tariff income under capital limits uprated by (b) earnings £

  5,000

  5

  7

  8,000

  5

  7

  8,100

  16

  14

  Notes:

  1. The capital limits of £3,000 and £6,000 have been uprated by (a) the retail prices index, and (b) average earnings from 1988 to 1995–96 prices, and not 1986. The question has been answered in this form because income support was not in place until 1988. No account has been taken of governmental increases to the limits since 1988.

  2. For cases on income support with capital held below the current upper limit of £8,000 the change in their weekly tariff income is equivalent to the gain in income support.

  3. Those with capital of £8,100 might become entitled to income support under the upper capital limit, depending upon their underlying entitlement to income support, reduced by the tariff income indicated in the table.

  Name

  Constituency

  Date answered

  Hansard reference

  Mr. Mark Robinson

  Somerton and Frome

  19 June

  Vol. 262 col. 16

  Mr. John Battle

  Leeds West

  27 June

  Vol. 262 col. 584

  Mr. John Battle

  Leeds West

  27 June

  Vol. 262 col. 584

  Ms Jean Corston

  Bristol East

  18 July

  Vol. 263 col. 1089–90

  Ms Jean Corston

  Bristol East

  18 July

  Vol. 263 col. 1089–90

  Ms Jean Corston

  Bristol East

  18 July

  Vol. 263 col. 1091–94

  Mr. John McAllion

  Dundee East

  19 July

  Vol. 263 col. 1484–85

  820

  Widow's Benefit
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what change in the £1,000 widow's payment would be required in April 1996 in order to restore it to its value in relation to(a) prices and (b) average earnings in 1985. [39655]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available in the format requested. Since 1988, benefit upratings have been based on movement in the retail prices index over the preceding September to September period. Data on earnings growth in the period September 1994 to September 1995 are not yet available. If the widow's payment had been uprated in line with prices since December 1985, it would be £1,584.65 at April 1996.

  Notes:

  1. Figures rounded to nearest 5 pence.

  2. The retail prices index (all items) up to September 1995 as published by the Central Statistical Office had been used for prices uprating.

  Households Below Average Income
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he intends to publish any amendment to "Households Below Average Income: a statistical analysis 1979–1992/93". [40237]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  I have today placed in the Library of the House an addendum to the publication "Households Below Average Income: a statistical analysis 1979–1992/93" published on 2 June 1995. This sets out the minor corrections necessary in a number of places in the document, as a result of two data errors. Both errors are well within the margins of error which were set out in the original publication.

  I have written to the hon. Members correcting replies to parliamentary questions based on the incorrect data. Details of these parliamentary questions are in the table.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by The Lord Bishop of Birmingham.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Trade Unions: Strike Ballots
Lord Orr-Ewing Lord Orr-Ewing asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that trade unions are honouring their statutory obligations for secret ballots before strikes are called and whether they propose to take any steps to ensure that the results of ballots are publicised more widely.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, we are satisfied that trade unions are in the main meeting their statutory obligations and that current legislation provides for adequate publicity of ballot results.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that Answer. Is he aware that only 45 per cent. of those eligible voted in the ballot on the future of the London tubes and that only 30 per cent. voted for the strike? That is not large enough to bring the whole of London to a standstill by a strike. It is highly desirable that the matter should be settled and I see from the mid-day newspaper that talks are continuing. It is important that we should have a system which will avoid the kind of strikes that we had in 1979. The figures were most remarkable; 512 working days were lost between 1975 and 1979 per 1,000 days and in 1990 to 1994 only 37 days per 1,000 were lost.
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that, out of 1,000 days, 512 days were lost through strikes? Now the figure is only 37 days, which is an enormous improvement; but we can still do better.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, my noble friend is correct in saying that as regards the recent strike ballot within the RMT only 45 per cent. of those eligible to vote did so. Two-thirds were in favour of a strike, which is 30 per cent. of those eligible to vote. It would be undesirable for me to say much more about that action because today's press indicates that talks are going on at the moment. I believe that the whole House will want those talks to be successful. My noble friend was right in saying that it would be a tragedy if, with only one-third of the members voting in favour of the strike, millions of Londoners were unable to get to work.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that he is wise to say little about the matter because most Ministers opposite will be wanting a job on the London Underground after the next general election?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am sure that whatever the outcome of the general election the noble Lord will wish to share with me and my noble friend an appreciation of the fact that since 1979 there has been a 93 per cent. reduction in the number of strike days. That is why we are one of the most attractive countries in Europe for inward investment and whatever may be the outcome of the next election plenty of us have plenty of job prospects.
Lord Renton: My Lords, would it not be a wise precaution in the public interest for the Government to remind trade union leaders that if a secret ballot is not held as required by Act of Parliament and supported by the necessary number of members of the trade union the strike is illegal? That fact appears to be overlooked on some occasions. May I suggest that the Minister takes such a step?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, recent history has indicated that on the occasions on which trade unions have not observed the law employers have not been slow to take them to court. The outcome has not always been entirely favourable to the trade unions. It is important that trade unions should observe the draft guidance that we are proposing; that is, if they have held a ballot they should make as clear as possible to as wide a public as possible the exact details of the vote.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, would it not help if many employers took the same attitude as a minority of employers who work hard together with the unions? They wish to avoid strikes and therefore lean over backwards to meet the unions' points of view. The result has been that employers, colleagues and union members have not had to take any other action because they are satisfied that reasonable endeavours have been made to understand the views of the trade union movement.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, certainly we do not wish to return to the dreadful days of pre-1979 when so much time and effort was expended on strike action. I believe that that is clear to any objective observer. The fact that we are now the focus of more than half of the United States investment in Europe and the premier location for Japanese investment is because of the dramatic reduction in the number of working days lost and we have a strike rate that has been below the European Union average for nine years. That is why companies such as Siemens, Samsung, Gold Star, and many others, have made the United Kingdom the focus for their investment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the major elements in the reduction in the number of disputes is that in recent years we have had a very high unemployment rate and that in such circumstances it is usual for the number of disputes to be reduced? Furthermore, is the Minister aware that his own legislation provides for a commissioner for the rights of trade union members and if there had been complaints that the law was not being complied with complaints would have been made to that commissioner? Can he say whether there have been any

1187
complaints and if, as I suspect, there have been very few is it not about time that we looked at the budget allocated to that particular public office?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, a number of factors have contributed to the dramatically improved economic performance but undoubtedly the reduction in the number of strikes has been one of them. The number is the lowest since records began 100 years ago and I cannot believe that the noble Baroness would wish to see the progress that we have made in that direction anything other than sustained. As regards the second part of the noble Baroness's question, of course, remedies are open to those who believe that the action taken is unlawful. As I indicated, the ultimate resort which is open to individual members, trade unions and employers is to the courts.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the Minister instruct his noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing on the nature of democracy and its operation? Is it not a fact that it is important, first, that all those who can take the decision should have the opportunity to vote and that those who trouble to vote should decide the issue by majority, no matter what the percentage of those voting may be? Will the Minister confirm that according to the noble Lord's submission this Government would not be governing because at the general election just over 30 per cent. of the total electorate went into the ballot box to put them in power?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, that is much more than the RMT got in its recent ballot. I understood my noble friend's objection to be that the headline over the strike ballot was that two out of three were in favour of strike action. If the public are to understand what is happening and be fully appreciative of the strength of concern among the workers it should be revealed that only 45 per cent. of those eligible to vote did so. That means that only one in three of the total workforce favoured strike action.

UK Human Rights: UN Report
3.10 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have taken any action in consequence of the suggestions and recommendations of the United Nations Human Rights Committee in response to their fourth periodic report pursuant to Article 40 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the Government have noted the observations of the Human Rights Committee following its oral examination of the United Kingdom delegation on our fourth periodic report under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. We do not plan any specific changes in our arrangements for the protection of human rights in the United Kingdom in light of the committee's views.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, does that Answer mean that the Government have no proposals for action other than telling the committee that it is wrong in every respect? In particular, do they see the need for any action on the right to silence; the provision of legal representation for asylum seekers; drawing the attention of private prison contractors to the standard minimum rules; and assessing the continuing need in Northern Ireland for the Prevention of Terrorism Act? Do the Government not consider it possible that they may be wrong or do they take the view that it is the committee which is out of step with them?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Government explained very carefully their position on all those issues during the oral hearing. The Government regret that the committee does not appear to have taken into account our long-standing cultural traditions and other particular circumstances which determine the way in which human rights are protected in this country nor the fact that the protection provided in the United Kingdom in relation to human rights is among the best in the world.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the committee's report back to the United Kingdom warmly welcomed and encouraged the initiation of the peace process in Northern Ireland and acknowledged the efforts of the state party to combat racial and ethnic discrimination? In a recent case reported in The Times, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice gave a very clear explanation of the right of silence which in no way violates the human rights of a defendant.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I agree with all that my noble friend says. It is absolutely true that the Government do not accept that the provisions of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 as regards inferences drawn from silence, or the comparable legislation in Northern Ireland, in any way contravene the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Indeed, there is no change to the basic presumption of innocence; it is still for the prosecution to prove that the defendant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The security forces in Northern Ireland are required to operate within the law at all times. Nothing that we do is in breach of our international obligations.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, will the Minister agree that the Human Rights Committee is an eminent body which included at the relevant time the new British judge at the International Court of Justice, Judge Rosalyn Higgins, and that its view ought to be taken very seriously indeed, and that in particular, the strong concern expressed about the failure to have a British Bill of Rights or to give domestic effect to the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the covenant is a continuing breach of the international covenant? Is that not a matter which should be debated by Parliament on a free vote?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in the Government's view the incorporation of the covenant, the European Convention on Human Rights or, indeed, a Bill of Rights is not necessary or desirable. I fear that they

1189
would not provide significantly greater protection for the individual than is already provided in this country. Each would transfer the responsibility for determining such matters from our elected and democratically accountable Parliament to the courts, eroding the principle of parliamentary sovereignty.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell us how many persons, if any, are still subject to exclusion orders which prevent freedom of movement within the United Kingdom?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I cannot give that very specific information hut I can say that we are not in breach of our international obligations in this matter.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the recommendations referred to in this Question are those which also include the suggestion that we should review our military discipline, ban corporal punishment in public schools, and tackle any remaining problems of a racial nature in this country? If so, while no noble Lord would wish to be complacent in the matter of human rights, would it be worth the Government suggesting to the United Nations that it should direct its energies to matters of serious human rights abuse on this planet? Is it not the case that this country has one of the finest records in this regard?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend does indeed point to some of the criticisms which the committee made of the United Kingdom, all of which were answered in great detail. Those answers are a matter of public information. I repeat to my noble friend that we have one of the finest records in the world, and I hope that that remains so.

Law on Murder: Review
3.15 p.m.
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the review of the law on murder announced on 24th January has yet been completed; if so when a report of the review will be published; and if not when it is anticipated that this will occur.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Government have not yet completed their consideration of this matter. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary will announce the conclusions of the review in due course but I cannot say at present when that will be.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the recommendations regarding reducing from murder to manslaughter cases where excessive force was used either in self-defence or in the prevention of crime were put forward first 15 years ago by the Criminal Law Revision Committee; that some six years ago, the Law Commission drafted the criminal code following that recommendation; that in 1989 your Lordships' Select Committee on Murder and Life Imprisonment put forward the same recommendation; that in 1994 the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland, in the case of Regina v. Clegg, recommended that the law should be changed; and in 1995 the House of Lords, in
1190
that very case, said precisely the same—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, giving the leading judgment saying that all the recommendations pointed one way? In those circumstances, will the Minister indicate why all this time is needed to carry out a review which was offered only because of the embarrassment which the Clegg case caused?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, all that the noble and learned Lord has catalogued as having been said and debated in the past and what is being debated at present—indeed, the Home Affairs Select Committee at this moment is considering, among other things, this issue—will be taken into account in the course of the review, and eventually will he reported to Parliament.
Lord Carver: My Lords, will the noble Baroness please accept that this is a matter of great urgency for the Armed Forces, the members of which are liable to find themselves convicted of murder and statutorily sentenced to life imprisonment if deemed to have used excessive force in support of law and order?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord makes a very important point. In particular, it was such a case that gave rise to this review. We understand the urgency, and the noble and gallant Lord will also understand the complexity of the matter. It is worth again putting on record that it is not just about members of the Armed Forces or uniformed personnel. It is dealing with the general matter of using excessive force in preserving law and order and/or self-defence.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, may I respectfully ask the Minister when this review was set up; who is in charge of it, where is it being held; and how far has it reached?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord pointed out, it was set up following the Clegg case. The review is being conducted within government with representatives from the Home Office; the Northern Ireland Office; the Ministry of Defence; legal personnel; and the Scottish Office. An interim report has gone to my right honourable friend, and that is being considered at present.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, will the Minister recognise that when she uses the phrase "in due course" to describe how soon a report is to be issued and debated, she is giving the lowest possible priority to the report? She might at least have used the word "shortly" or the words "very shortly". When such a review is forced on government by public disquiet, is it seriously open to government to delay for 10 months in the way that they have now? Is it not a public obligation to take the matter far more seriously than has been evidenced by her replies to the noble and learned Lord?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can tell the whole House that the matter is being taken very seriously. I can say also that there is no malicious intent or deliberate delay in reporting to the House about the matter.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is it not just possible that, among the government departments which might be interested in this important subject, the Lord Chancellor's is one?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble and learned friend catches me out. I am looking to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to ascertain whether indeed his department does have any input into the matter. I cannot believe that it does not. However, I shall have to check.
Lord Lowry: My Lords, can the noble Baroness assure the House that the Government are no less interested in possible criminal law reforms which may ameliorate the condition of accused persons than in those which may make them worse?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can tell the noble and learned Lord that all aspects and all facets of the issue will be taken into account in the course of the deliberations on the matter. However, it only serves to highlight the complexity of the particular issues.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the Minister said that the report would be published "in due course". However, can she give us any further indication? For example, is it likely to be published by the end of this year or during the next parliamentary Session? When are we to have the final report? Surely we deserve an answer to that question.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can be no more specific than I already have.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, I did not notice whether the Minister mentioned the Northern Ireland Office in her Answer. Does it indeed have an input?
Noble Lords: It was there!
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I mentioned the Northern Ireland Office.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I should point out that the Minister failed to mention the Welsh Office. Perhaps I may repeat what I said yesterday. There is profound anxiety in Wales about the neglect of the Principality. It is a deliberate insult to Wales when such important committees are set up with no Welsh representatives on them. Will the Minister please look into the matter?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, of course; I always look into matters that are brought to my attention at the Dispatch Box. However, perhaps I may point out that no one is specifically representing England or Scotland in the matter. It is the expertise across Whitehall that is being brought to bear. I am sorry, I must take that back: I mentioned the Scottish Office. I shall certainly check on the situation. The particular reason for the mention of Northern Ireland was due to the specific case which was brought to the attention both of this House and of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary; and, indeed, was the reason for setting up the review in the first place. However, if the Welsh Office wishes to have an input into the debate, I shall make sure that the matter is considered.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, it is not the Welsh Office that I am particularly concerned with; it is the people of Wales who are anxious about the matter. The Welsh Office is there to serve them. Will the Minister also take that into account?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I note the noble Lord's point. However, the deliberations under consideration and the outcome will affect all citizens of the whole of the United Kingdom.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, the noble Baroness referred to the complexities which are holding up the ultimate delivery of the report. Can the noble Baroness identify some of those complexities—at least the main ones—which are responsible for the delay?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not a lawyer. Therefore, I am unable to give the most technical answer to the noble and learned Lord. However, I can comment on the balance of the definition of excessive force, the particular circumstances which surround it and the scope for a lesser charge. As has already been conveyed to the department, if a lesser charge is an option, it may well lead to more convictions rather than fewer. I know that that is a consideration.

Prison Governors' Association: Manifesto
3.24 p.m.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have seen the manifesto recently published by the Prison Governors' Association and, if so, what is their response to it.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we welcome the Prison Governors' Association manifesto which is generally helpful and a helpful contribution to the Government's consideration of prison issues.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her Answer. When instructed to argue that black is white, I am sure that the noble Baroness will do so with her usual skill and charm. In my long parliamentary experience, I have never heard a more disingenuous Answer than that one. However, is the Minister aware that—and if anyone wishes to contradict me, they had better do so—the report represents a total lack of trust between the present Government and the Prison Governors' Association, as the emergence of policies associated with Michael Howard two years ago are in total contradiction to the policies pursued by his six Conservative predecessors?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I did say that the manifesto was broadly helpful and that it was a generally positive report; and, indeed, broadly in line with government policies. For example, the Prison Governors' Association has said that it is in favour of mandatory drug testing (which is a new approach) and that linking prisoner incentives to behaviour is a good thing. We agree with the Prison Governors' Association on many things; for example, on the need for active,

1193
purposeful regimes centred on education and training. But there are areas where we disagree. I shall mention just three of them. First, there is disagreement on whether prison works; secondly, there is disagreement about whether there should be wider availability of home leave; and, thirdly, there is disagreement about market testing of prison establishments.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, given the fact that the prison departmental system within the Home Office was changed some years ago and replaced with the Next Steps Agency system, thus distancing decision taking from the Home Office, and in so far as the manifesto deals with operational matters, does it mean that from now on operational matters will be entirely in the hands of prison governors?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord raises an important point. Certainly, since the Learmont Report, the noble Lord will know that there is to be a review about the relationship between the Home Office and the Prison Service. I cannot pre-empt the outcome of that debate because much of what was raised in the noble Lord's question are matters to be considered under that review. In the meantime, the Director General of Prisons remains responsible for the day-to-day operational proficiency, efficiency and effectiveness of the service. My right honourable friend remains responsible for policy.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the Learmont Report reveals widespread incompetence and indiscipline throughout the Prison Service from governor grades down to prison officers? Further, was my noble friend as dismayed as I was at the widespread intimidation by prisoners of other prisoners and of staff? Finally, does my noble friend agree that it was inevitable that Mr. Derek Lewis should be speedily replaced and does she feel that it might be desirable to have a senior military person to take his place?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not respond to my noble friend's specific point about the Director General of Prisons. However, I can say that, yes, I was dismayed—as indeed many people would have been—at what General Learmont had to say in his report. It says much about the operational management of individual institutions and casts doubt on the director general's role as someone who was responsible for the operational management of the Prison Service.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the Minister's noble friend has made observations about Mr. Lewis. However, is the noble Baroness aware that Mr. Lewis was appointed by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, who took no account of the recommendation of the appointments board, which did not recommend him? Can the Minister explain that situation?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Mr. Lewis will not be the first person who has been appointed by anyone anywhere who, at the end of the day, does not give full performance which is satisfactory. That is the case. Mr. Lewis was appointed properly and it so happens that he has been found unsatisfactory in the job.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the statements that she has made today—and, indeed, which have been made in another place—concerning the delineation between responsibility for policy and responsibility for operations are wholly in breach of the Government's undertaking given on 8th March 1990 as to the precise responsibilities and accountability of Ministers to Parliament in that regard? Will the noble Baroness say when any public amendment of that undertaking given to this House—and, indeed, given to me when I was standing at the Dispatch Box—was made? When was it amended officially and published in this country?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my right honourable friend remains accountable to Parliament for the effective delivery of the Prison Service. In order for him to fulfill that obligation to Parliament, it is absolutely essential that he liaises with his Director General of Prisons to find out what is going on in the Prison Service and for the Director General of Prisons to be his information link with the Prison Service. It is not for my right honourable friend to interfere operationally in the running of the prisons. He has defended that right, but he has every right to liaise with his Director General of Prisons to fulfill his obligations to Parliament and to be fully accountable.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for drawing attention to the review required by the Learmont Report of the relationship between the Home Office and the Prison Service, and indeed for the importance that she attaches to that review. Such is that importance, that she is not able to answer questions about it now. However, if that review was so important, why did the Home Secretary in his Statement to Parliament last week make no effective reference to the review but instead insisted twice that the Learmont Inquiry had made no criticism of him?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Learmont Inquiry made no criticism of my right honourable friend. My right honourable friend, in his Statement to the House in another place—and my repeating of it in this House—made reference to a review that would look at the relationship of the Home Office with the Prison Service.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that she has missed the whole point this afternoon in everything that she has said?
Noble Lords: Oh!
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am afraid that there is not one noble Lord here who knows quite what I mean when I say that. I shall say it in a sentence. Is the noble Baroness aware that the prison governors' manifesto insists that rehabilitation is the essence of making prison work, and that is a total denial of the Government's policy? Is not the noble Baroness aware of that?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, rehabilitation is an important part of treating prisoners, and the Government take that role seriously. We welcome the report and we believe that it makes a helpful contribution to the debate. We believe that it contains much that is consistent with

1195
government policy, but there are one or two areas which are not. I have brought all of that to the attention of the House.

Standing Orders (Private Business)
3.32 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.
Moved, That the Standing Orders relating to Private Business be amended as follows—

Standing Orders (Private Business)

  STANDING ORDER 39
  Line 4, leave out "the Department of Health and Social Security and"
  Line 8, after second "of' insert "Education and" Line 9, after "Employment" insert "the Department of Health"
  Line 9, after "Heritage" insert "the Department of Social Security"
  Line 20, leave out "Science" and insert "Employment"
  Line 23, leave out "Science" and insert "Employment"

  TABLE OF FEES
  Line 2, leave out "£2,500" and insert "£3,500"
  Line 3, leave out "£2,500" and insert "£3,500"
  Line 23, leave out "£2,500" and insert "£3,500"
  Line 29, leave out "£1,250" and insert "£1,750"
  Line 36, leave out "£1,250" and insert "£1,750"
  Line 41, leave out "£1" and insert "£1.40".—(The Chairman of Committees.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

London Local Authorities Bill [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the promoters of each Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so is lodged in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than 12 noon on Thursday 2nd November next and that all fees due on or before that day have been paid;
That such Bill be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than 3 p.m. on the second sitting day in the next Session with a declaration annexed, signed by the agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;
1196
That the proceedings on such Bill in the next Session of Parliament be pro forma in regard to every stage through which the Bill has passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged to such stages;
That the Private Business Standing Orders apply to such Bill in the next Session only in regard to any stage through which the Bill has not passed during the present Session;
That in the case of any Bill against which there is any petition outstanding—

(i) any such petition which has been presented (if not withdrawn) stand referred to any select committee on the Bill in the next Session;

(ii) any minutes of evidence taken before a select committee on the Bill during the present Session stand referred to any select committee on the Bill in the next Session;

(iii) no petitioners be heard before any select committee on the Bill in the next Session unless their petition has been presented within the time stipulated for the deposit of petitions in the present Session or deposited pursuant to Private Business Standing Order 109(b);

(iv) Private Business Standing Order 110 have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 109" were omitted.—(The Chairman of Commitees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a message be sent to the Commons desiring their concurrence thereto.

Saint Paul's Churchyard Bill
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That this House do agree with the orders made by the Commons set out in their Message of 24th October 1995.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them thereto.

Sustainable Development
3.33 p.m.
Lord Tombs Lord Tombs rose to move, That this House take note of the Report of the Select Committee on Sustainable Development (HL Paper 72).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I begin by thanking the members of the committee who joined me in the task set by your Lordships when our ad hoc committee was appointed on 7th March 1994. Their wide knowledge and experience made the task of absorbing and weighing much written and oral evidence easier than might have been expected at the outset. We also owe a great debt to our advisers, Professor Gerald Manners and Professor Richard Munton, both of the Department of Geography at University College London. Their knowledge of many technical aspects of the inquiry was invaluable to us. I also wish to thank our Clerk, Mr. Edward Wells, for his guidance through the maze of evidence received and for his unfailing good humour in organising us and our work.
In thanking the many individuals and organisations who gave evidence to the committee, I commend the vast archive of useful evidence—published separately as part of our inquiry—to the attention of the bodies created to further the Government's strategy for sustainable development; namely, the Panel, the Round Table and those involved in the Going for Green initiative. We are also grateful for the help of POST, the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, in surveying and summarising for the committee the vast amount of work already done on the topic of waste disposal and recycling.
The task of the committee was an unusually wide-ranging one. It was required to examine the Government White Paper, Cm. 2426, which set out the Government's strategy for sustainable development. This remarkable and visionary document, sponsored by 12 government departments, established a useful framework for action and for public debate as well. It has led international efforts in this important area. Its value has been enhanced by annual reviews but in what remains a complex and somewhat fragmented policy area the ability of the committee to look across the departments concerned has permitted a different perspective.
The committee was asked to report to the House by the end of 1994. It quickly became apparent that this would not be possible, partly because of some inevitable administrative delays in setting up the committee, which held its first meeting on 29th March 1994 and in agreeing the scope of the call for evidence. Therefore we negotiated an extension to Easter 1995 and planned our work accordingly. Unfortunately, a further delay occurred when the Treasury declined our invitation to appear before the committee towards the end of our hearings. Much time was taken up in correspondence and meetings before agreement was reached for the Treasury to give oral evidence. I regret that initial reluctance which would have made it impossible, in the judgment of the committee, to complete our report. I am grateful to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for his help in resolving the problem. In the event the Treasury evidence was helpful as will, I believe, be evident from the report published on 21st June.
The topic of sustainable development attracts a great deal of attention at national and international levels as concern grows about the conflict between our present-day lifestyles and the preservation of our environment for the benefit of present and future generations. Climate change, air pollution, transport, biodiversity and land use are among the many aspects of the subject. Some factors are interactive, and health is a consideration which is frequently present. Concerns about sustainable development are shared by rich and poor nations because of their common dependence on our planet, but perceptions of the nature of the problems and their possible solution differ greatly between nations. The third world, anxious to improve its living standards, sees the problems as the creation of the industrialised nations which should therefore bear principal responsibility for their amelioration.
Partly because of the timescale initially set for our considerations, but also because we wanted our report to be as practical as possible—or as practical as the nature of the subject allows—we decided to impose quite severe limits on our examination. I should like to take a few moments to explain the reasons for those limitations. First, we decided to limit the time horizon of our work to 2025. Our reasons were essentially pragmatic. Technological, economic, social and political developments 30 years from now and beyond are exceedingly difficult to predict; so there is an inevitable tendency to philosophise about a subject where there are pressing problems today. We wanted our report to be relevant to today's policies.
Secondly, we decided to limit the bulk of our examination to issues where the UK has a clearly defined role. This covers measures designed to tackle UK problems but also European measures and international agreements and protocols. We did not want to develop a series of prescriptions for a highly diverse world where our influence is small. Finally, we chose the areas of energy, transport, land use and waste disposal as being representative of the areas of concern. We hoped to see how government policy was seeking to address problems in those areas. Even in those areas our analyses were not exhaustive, but they acted as effective indicators of the extent of government action and their general approach to sustainable development. Despite these restrictions the field of our inquiry was large and diverse and we received a great deal of thoughtful and useful evidence from a wide range of organisations and government departments. We are grateful for that and for the large amount of oral evidence we also received.
The period of our inquiry was one of measured development in government policy in a number of areas, notably the issue of revised planning policy guidance notes emphasising sustainable development; changes in the policy for new roads; the landfill levy; strategic policies for air quality management; the draft waste strategy for England and Wales; the designation of further environmentally sensitive areas; the new habitat schemes; the organic aid schemes; more nitrate sensitive areas; and the countryside access scheme. Those changes were widely welcomed but their practical effect was often that earlier evidence was overtaken.
Government are to be congratulated on the steady elaboration of their policies in a number of areas: our report identifies some of them. Not surprisingly, given the complex nature of many of the policy areas and of inter-departmental relationships, the degree of initiative has been variable with some departments evincing more enthusiasm than others. We mention areas where we consider that more purposeful action is required, and I shall touch on some of them.
Generally speaking, we believe that Government should be more active in setting and publishing targets. We distinguish between imperative and indicative targets. The attitude of departments varied, with some reluctant to set targets which might then become expectations. But all government policies have, or should have, implicit targets. For how else would it be possible to promote a policy? Why then should they not

1199
be disclosed? It is true that targets may require frequent changes to meet changing circumstances, but the need to explain the need for changes is an essential part of the management of any process and should benefit policy makers and the public alike. We did not accept the reservations of the Department of Transport and MAFF in that respect. We noted, for example, that there are as yet no targets for an increase in "green" modes of transport or for reductions in the use of pesticides. The Government's response shows a welcome willingness to adapt a little in this area, and I shall touch on that, possibly at the end of the debate.
Progress towards targets for the reduction of CO2 to meet the climate change programme has been made despite the failure to pursue successfully two major policy measures—the second increase in VAT on domestic fuel and the funding of the Energy Saving Trust. Those failures were offset by unforseen features—the economic recession, the greatly increased use of gas in electricity generation, and the improved performance of the nuclear power industry.
That fortunate conjunction of events seems to have removed some of the determination to pursue declared policy measures, and we deplore the resulting failure to resolve inter-departmental disagreements and to secure proper funding of the Energy Saving Trust, which offers attractive environmental and economic gains to the nation. We hope that a more robust approach to this problem will be adopted by Government, and we welcome as a first step the provision of £25 million per annum from April 1996 to help maintain some activities in this important and rewarding area.
Many problems in policymaking stem from the fragile nature of the scientific understanding of the physical processes involved. We give some examples where decisions have been made on uncertain data and are arguably wrong. The nature of the problems are such that sometimes decisions will have to be made without solid scientific support. We suggest that such decisions should be informed by the ease of their reversibility and advocate the allocation of more efforts to research in those areas in order to avoid undue scope for essentially political decisions. This is a difficult area where pressing decisions will not wait for scientific certainty and where great care must be used to balance the conflicting needs of environmental protection, the costs of the measures proposed and the need to preserve international competitiveness.
It seems obvious that environmental policies should be informed by considerations of costs and benefits, although some organisations suggested an unquestioned imperative for environmental action, a view we did not accept. The quality of such information on costs and benefits is poor. That is hardly surprising given the difficulty of quantifying many of the benefits as a result of their intangible nature and because of uncertainties about future alternative technologies. We believe that more work needs to be done in this area so that cost benefit assessments may at times usefully inform policy priorities. But at root we are sceptical about the likely robustness of the outcome in terms of support for policy decisions. Once again, as in the case of scientific
1200
uncertainty, judgment will necessarily play a major part in policy formation, and open explanation of policy decisions, with their unavoidable uncertainties, will be essential in order to command public support.
In circumstances of uncertainty it is perhaps natural to invoke the precautionary principle, but it has to be recognised that incurring additional costs on the basis of inadequate information is a course to be adopted only when the potential damage to the environment is of sufficient magnitude to justify the likely costs. Such decisions necessarily rest on political and ethical considerations, and judgments are likely to change with the times. Therefore, we warn against actions which may be difficult or impossible to reverse.
The Government place great emphasis on economic instruments as agents for environmental improvements. In general we support that view on the grounds of their flexibility and effectiveness. In our view, the Government are to be congratulated on their insistence that wherever possible the costs and benefits of policy initiatives must be quantified before they are agreed. One important area where that does not seem to have been done is the potential use of natural gas fuelled vehicles in urban areas where the environmental advantages are substantial. We recommend that the Government adjust the tax regime to reflect this and to bring the UK into closer accord with other countries.
However, there are areas where regulation must be an important tool, and we note that most government measures to date have in fact been regulatory. Nevertheless, we support the use of economic instruments and their use to further both national and local environmental objectives. We identify in our report the circumstances in which an economic instrument or a regulation would appear to be the more appropriate policy measure. We also advocate the transfer of taxation from labour to resources in environmental matters, and we welcome the landfill tax as a step in that direction.
The landfill tax is remarkable in that it is a rare example of hypothecated taxation, the proceeds in this case being earmarked to reduce labour costs. We believe that in the field of sustainable development, where the need to engage the enthusiastic support of the consuming public is so important, there may be a need for extension of the principle of hypothecation. Taxes on city access for vehicles and the resulting need for improved public transport systems may be one example of such an opportunity.
The Government published their response to our report on 12th October. In general, they welcomed the report and are proposing a much wider use of targets. The broader definition of the role of the green Ministers is also to be welcomed. But, partly perhaps because of the speed with which the response was prepared, many of the recommendations of the report have either been passed over or peremptorily dismissed.
Thus, for example, the Government resist any changes to the UK overall CO2 reduction targets despite the opportunities which they recognise are being foregone because of barriers to investment in cost-effective energy saving measures. The commitment to £25 million per annum support for the Energy Saving

1201
Trust which I mentioned earlier is a late and inadequate response to a problem which arose from government muddle.
I hope that time will enable a more constructive view to be taken of these and other topics, and I shall return to the subject after having had the benefit of hearing noble Lords' contributions to the debate.
I have taken enough time to describe some of the objectives of the committee in this inquiry. I look forward to hearing the views of noble Lords, many of whom have a deep knowledge of the issues we identified. I hope that our report and this debate will form a useful contribution to a process which is of the utmost importance to future generations. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House take note of the Report of the Select Committee on Sustainable Development (HL Paper 72).—(Lord Tombs.)
3.50 p.m.
Viscount Blakenham: My Lords, I start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, on his chairmanship of the committee. He chaired it with immense clarity and determination; it was a pleasure to be on it. I wish to declare an interest as past chairman of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and a current vice-chairman; and as a past member of the Nature Conservancy Council.
The report covers a vast area and, I am glad to say, has been broadly welcomed by both environmental organisations and the Government. The problem for the country—I use the word "country" on purpose because not only the Government but all of us have to be involved—is to develop and support policies which protect and enhance the environment for the benefit of future generations without unnecessarily damaging economic development.
First, as regards co-operation between government departments and targets, we are fortunate to have an enlightened Secretary of State for the Environment who has also been at the Ministry for Agriculture. He is leading the way in setting targets and objectives and pushing for greater co-ordination between departments. The Department of Transport and MAFF, as the noble Lord said, are slower on setting targets. The Government have welcomed the Select Committee's distinction between "imperative" and "indicative" targets. But there is a danger that indicative targets will not be taken seriously enough and it is important to know how the Government will ensure that all such indicative targets are taken as seriously as they should be by all government departments.
It is clear that green Ministers' activities should extend beyond departmental housekeeping. It emerged from the evidence that greater co-operation was even needed between the Department of the Environment and MAFF since, surprisingly, the latter quite recently reduced the grants on the disposal of farm waste installations without consulting the Department of the Environment.
As regards the common agricultural policy, there is a growing consensus that the current CAP arrangements are not sustainable and that, progressively, agricultural
1202
payments should be tied to environmental and social benefits. Agri-environment schemes still account for only 5 per cent. of CAP expenditure in the UK.
It is quite clear that the dramatic decline in farmland birds is a warning signal and that our agricultural practices have been extremely damaging to wildlife. Perhaps the first warning that we had was the decline of grey partridges. But since then skylarks and now thrushes—although the thrush is a garden bird, it depends on farmland habitats—have declined dramatically.
Finally, the revision of the path of wealth creation is referred to in the report. It is no easy matter. A recent World Bank report on the wealth of individual nations makes interesting reading. It decided that the Americans and the Japanese were not, after all, the wealthiest nations in the world but rather the Australians and the Canadians. It came to that conclusion because that body believed that the traditional measure of gross domestic product was not the only factor to be taken into account. National resources, a protected environment and, perhaps as important as any, education, needed to be considered in the equation. I believe that we should consider that route more clearly in the future.
Regulation and the market economy are no longer enough. Setting targets, long-term fiscal objectives, education, building consensus and trust, and shared values are all needed if sustainable development is to become a reality in this country.
3.55 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, as someone who is not a member of the committee, I have the pleasant duty of congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, and his committee on a fine report. As the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, said in his introduction, and as the report makes clear, it is a complicated matter in which both uncertainty of a scientific nature and the diversity of tastes and preferences, with unknown tastes and preferences of future generations, combine to complicate the judgment that we need to make about matters of sustainable development.
In my brief remarks I wish to bring out what I regard as the contribution and limitations that economic calculation can bring to the problem. The report has struck a good balance, but perhaps I may be allowed to indicate the sharp dilemmas that we face.
For a large part, it is possible to argue that an environmentally responsible policy, a policy of sustainable development, will be economically efficient: that there is complementarity between economics and the environment. To the extent that that is so, there is no conflict. However, inertia means that in adopting any environmentally efficient policy there is bound to be resistance. If we move to a more energy-efficient public transport network, it will clearly hurt some interests which are involved with less efficient forms of transport—for example, the private motor car. One might say that overall the country will benefit. However, interests which will be hurt will be bound to resist. Therefore, even when there is complementarity between economic efficiency and the environment, a judgment has to be made on how to balance the losses suffered by

1203
existing activities and the benefits that will result from a change of policy. That is an easier path that we face. There is no question but that economics make a substantial contribution.
On other issues there is a conflict between what a growth-oriented economic policy and an environmentally responsible policy would recommend. One of the most difficult problems is that we do not know what future generations will want. Therefore, we have to make our decisions on behalf of future generations.
I believe that the precautionary principle which has been highlighted by the committee is right: if in doubt seek to do as little damage as possible; and if you can do some good that will be good too. The precautionary principle is most important when there is conflict between economic and environmental policies.
However, the most peculiar problems occur regarding matters where the economic issue is absolutely no help. Not only is scientific uncertainty a problem but there is no way of putting a value on certain environmental issues. There is no point in pretending that one can have prices, shadow prices or contingent values, for endangered species. One can pretend that there is a price, and therefore one can compensate for the loss. But that is to pretend that we know more than we do.
The committee's recommendations are important. To talk about the notion of capital—whether or not natural capital—in an aggregate way is an obstacle to good judgment in these matters. The notion of natural capital, or aggregate capital, puts prices on individual species and on individual resources. It is implicitly saying, "We can substitute one for another". There comes a time in certain cases of endangered species or biodiversity when substitution is neither possible nor desirable. And if substitution is neither possible nor desirable, we have a responsibility to set strict physical targets which should be regarded as inviolable. We should pursue policies in which certain kinds of biodiversity losses are not at all contemplated. That is a difficult objective, but not to do so would be irresponsible. We owe it to future generations and to nature as such to maintain sustainable development.
Let me add very briefly that I like very much the report's approach in saying that in some areas prices will work and in others regulation is a better choice. There is not much to add in that respect. Although the Government prefer market-oriented policies, they also use regulation quite a bit, and therefore the more explicitly they acknowledge the contribution of regulation, the better off we all are. In that respect, the report is welcome.
I like most about the report its recommendation that the burden of taxation should be shifted from taxation on labour and capital to taxation on resource consumption. It has always astonished me that even those who claim to be against income tax want to fiddle only at the margin. Even the most radical of Members in the Party opposite has not yet contemplated abolition of income tax and the complete removal of national insurance contributions or the abolition of corporation tax. We are in fact taxing work via labour and capital.
1204
We are subsidising consumption and waste of resources, and have done so for a number of years. The time has come for a responsible and radical alternative. The first step should be a shift from income to expenditure tax. We should try to remove taxation from labour as far as possible, and tax the consumption of renewable resources, and even more of non-renewable resources.
It is possible to present a feasible alternative fiscal policy to do that. We could move from the current system, which will be very harmful not only in terms of the environment but in terms of British competitiveness, to a policy by which we tax consumption, guard savings and improve the conservation of natural resources. Those are implications which I hope the Government will draw out and work further upon. Once again, I welcome the report.
4.3 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, as very often when I speak after the noble Lord, Lord Desai, I am able to agree with practically everything that he said. He cast a very useful light as someone who was not a member of the committee but whom it would have been very nice to have working on our report.
I begin by apologising to the House for not being able to stay to the end of the debate. I have a previous engagement which I cannot break. Whenever I hear that statement made by a noble Lord I always mutter to myself, "What does he have to say that is so important that he has to keep his name on the list of speakers?". Like many other noble Lords, I should find it difficult to answer that question. I kept my name on the list because I wear two hats in this debate. I was a member of the committee. I enjoyed it very much and learnt a great deal. I am the spokesman for my party on this particular subject. I also have another excuse. This is the first time that I have had to make such a statement for over 15 years. That is more than a great many other noble Lords can say. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, will wind up from these Benches.
I have written and thought about this subject for the past 25 years, since I was first secretary general of the Green Alliance. In spite of that, I find committees like this one and the documents that they produce very difficult. I tend to get lost. I was very grateful for the guidance of the chairman, who did a very good job, and to colleagues on the committee. We were all extraordinarily grateful for the work of our Clerk and our expert advisers. I still find that much of what is said in the report, much of its "thickness", is taken up with matters that seem slightly to lose track of the main problem. That is absolutely understandable. As the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, said, we have to limit the timescale with which we deal. But I feel that so few people have taken on board the fact that the Rio declaration will lead to a complete paradigm change in our civilization. For example, the present Minister for the Environment is extremely good. He is very good indeed at looking after the environment. I pay considerable tribute to him and his department, and to the civil servant who is the progress chaser for the Government on this particular matter.

1205
However, on matters of ecology the Minister is a non-starter. He believes that economic growth can continue in the developed countries alongside sustainable development. There comes a time when you have to cease growing upwards in that way. You either grow sideways—which a number of us unfortunately do!—or you grow in maturity, which a lot of us hope to do. It is a reasonable change, and it is not to be sneered at. We are not to think it absolutely terrible that we cannot continue to grow from six foot, to seven foot, to eight foot. The world, and the developed countries in particular, cannot go on growing economically in the way that they have—not in quantitative terms, although they can in qualitative terms.
In the developing countries, detritus exceeds our means of disposing of it. In ecological jargon, the capacity of our sinks is shrinking, and we have to realise that even our sources are finite. It is important that we learn to measure growth properly. The noble Viscount, Lord Blakenham, referred to the whole question of the measurement of GNP and measuring the economic growth of the world by other standards. They involve satisfaction, and enable us to realise the concept of net growth as opposed to lumping everything together, including dealing with the sinks as part of the growth.
By almost any of the indicators produced over the years in a number of countries and by a number of bodies to measure economic growth, growth in the West has stopped. It stopped several years ago and shows no sign of continuing. That does not mean that our ways of life cannot be much better and much richer. It does, however, mean that we have to start thinking in a new way.
After a year on your Lordships' committee, and from reading the government response to our report, my impression is that, although they began in a very good way after Rio—I was very impressed with the Government's response to Rio—there is some "bogging down" at the moment. The first energy seems to have disappeared and there needs to be a whole new attack.
I want to pick out a couple of points on the main topics of the report. The first concerns taxes. I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that we need to move over from taxes on work and income to taxes on resources. That is an issue that has been looked at not only by academics such as the noble Lord but also in policy-making processes of my own party in which I have been involved. That is a path we must take.
With regard to the immediate things that need to be done, we believe it important that the Government should have introduced a small-scale landfill tax and have begun raising petrol tax by 5 per cent. a year above inflation. Probably one of the ways in which that ought to be dealt with so that it does not hit the poor too hard—that is a very important matter—is by adjusting VED to favour smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles. We feel that we must go for a reduction in traffic, though I must confess that we are rather like the Government in this. I have read the Government's response to this report and they say, "Yes, it is a good thing to reduce traffic. Does any one have any idea how to do it?". It is true that that is one of the most intractable of problems.
1206
The noble Lord, Lord Tombs, spoke about the Treasury and, when the Treasury was finally persuaded to come to see the committee, the encouraging responses that it gave. But looking at the Government's responses, I am not so cheerful. I suspect that this is an area where we have to attack the Treasury's main bastion of hypothecation. I believe that there is a need and an ability to have—if I may use a phrase recently used by Mr. Ashdown—hypothecation at the margins of taxation.
The taxpayer does not like paying taxes. He never has done. That is nothing new at all. For various reasons the climate is such that taxation now has a very ugly name indeed. But, if one is able to tell people where the taxes are going and that they are not just going into the enormous maw of the Treasury, which will spend them exactly how it wishes, I believe that there will be far less resistance to taxes. That is a way forward in raising the taxes that will be necessary.
A recent survey of the background influences on leading members of my party, which was carried out in order to parallel one previously done for the other parties, showed that the main influence in their early lives was John Stuart Mill. The second place was occupied by a rather interesting trio: the Bible; Keynes; and Schumacher. They are all among my reading and have influenced me. I believe that there is a need for the whole of the political establishment, among others, to become involved in the deep green background. Those named in our polls, for instance, who were not named by either of the other parties were James Robertson and Herman Daly, who will be well-known to those of your Lordships who are contributing to this debate. All parties are striving for "the greenmantle" but we have to do our homework very seriously in order to achieve it. I suspect that my party is being slightly rewarded, though not I hope by a cavalry charge into Erzerum.
I was honoured to be on such a distinguished committee. I pay tribute to our immensely talented chairman. I suggest that it produced a truly workmanlike report which, now wearing my Liberal Democrat spokesman's hat, I heartily welcome. I also welcome the Government's general response and look forward to my colleagues' detailed criticisms of it. I hope that the Government will get a second wind in this matter and again address most urgently what is by far the most important subject of our time.
4.15 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I very much welcome the Select Committee's report for its very thorough examination of where we are as a country in developing policies of sustainable development and I appreciate its introduction by the noble Lord, Lora Tombs. In particular, I welcome the report's constructive tone and its willingness to recognise areas where the Government have made significant progress. In that regard, I also welcome the Government's response, which seems to me again to be very constructive. It reveals a commitment to take environmental considerations with increasing seriousness.

1207
I want to focus only on Chapter 6 of the committee's report which deals with the integration mechanisms. Before doing so, perhaps I may make a general point and note briefly the profound underlying importance of those concerns, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, also just indicated.
The poet Gerard Manley Hopkins wrote:
"What would the world be, once bereft
Of wet and wilderness? Let them be left,
O, let them be left, wildness and wet;
Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet.
Yet why should we leave the marshes and the deserts? I believe that there is a limit to what we can provide in the way of convincing utilitarian or economic arguments, as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, as an economist, brought out so clearly this afternoon. When a million species have perished, and a million remain, why should we be concerned to preserve a particular insect or flower? In the end, no purely utilitarian answer is adequate. We come up against the value of creation in itself, for itself, in all its variety and richness.
The same questions may be asked about our concern for generations yet unborn—that they may be able to enjoy nature as we do and have the use of non-renewable resources. Again we stub—not our toes—our mind and spirit against the sheer precious fact of the earth's existence and continuing life. Concern about the environment is not just a passing fashion. It reflects an inchoate but deeply felt response to life itself, in which life is affirmed for its own sake and in which nature is experienced as refreshing and life giving. That is why this subject will continue to touch a vital nerve in the country as a whole.
The Government have said:
"The United Kingdom is determined to make sustainable development the touchstone of its policies".
Despite that, the Government's own figures show that in some respects the state of the United Kingdom's environment is deteriorating. No doubt other noble Lords will bring that point to the attention of the House. In addition, indicators developed by voluntary environmental bodies also show negative trends for many highly valued aspects of the United Kingdom's environment, including declining populations of wild birds, loss of hedgerows, reductions in fish stocks and deteriorating local air quality.
Some of that deterioration is the result of policies originating in departments other than the Department of the Environment and beyond the control of the DoE. For example, transport policies that emphasised road building and facilitated the growth of private car transport over that of mass transport had significant environmental impact. That highlights the crucial importance of the policies of different departments being co-ordinated from the point of view of their effect on the environment. The Government are committed to that co-ordination through their integration mechanisms; for example, through the retention of a Cabinet sub-committee for the environment and the designation in every department of a "green" Minister. However,
1208
Chapter 6 of the Select Committee's report indicates that those mechanisms are not yet as effective as they might be and the Government's response needs probing.
In 1992 the second anniversary report of the 1990 White Paper said,
"The latest version of 'questions and procedures for ministers' makes clear that papers for the Cabinet and ministerial committees should, wherever appropriate, cover any significant costs and benefits to the environment".
But the Select Committee notes that that strategy,
"fails to indicate who determines whether it is 'appropriate' for environmental costs and benefits to be examined in any particular paper, and who should assess the net environmental costs that might arise".
The Government's response to the committee's report does not answer that point. It remains impossible to determine whether papers for Cabinet have or have not carried environmental statements or to form any judgment about the quality of those statements. There is, of course, the difficulty of releasing Cabinet papers; nevertheless, I believe that some effort should be made to demonstrate publicly that the procedures are being followed.
On another point, the Select Committee is not confident about the present role of the so-called "green Ministers". Indeed, strong words are used. Because of that there is a,
"serious risk of undermining confidence in the mechanisms as a whole and in the priority given to sustainable development at the heart of Government".
What is at stake is that green Ministers have so far been preoccupied with green housekeeping; that is, issues of energy efficiency and of purchasing green products within their departments. Those topics are crucial. Nevertheless, the aspirations of most environmental groups are that green Ministers will be instrumental in looking at all their departmental policies and activities from an environmental perspective.
The Government's response offers some reassuring words in that regard, stating:
"Given the progress that has been made on green housekeeping, the Government agrees that the time is ripe for meetings of green ministers to broaden the range of issues they discuss".
That is much to be welcomed. But that broadening of issues under discussion needs to be linked with other improvements that can and must be made to improve the effectiveness of those mechanisms. For example, it would be good to have published reports from the green Ministers in order to see how each interprets his or her responsibilities; what activities of environmental relevance are being undertaken and an overall assessment of the department's environmental performance. At the moment departmental annual reports are, by and large, not detailed enough in relation to the relevance of the environment to the department's activities.
The Government set out in two reports a methodology by which the environmental consequences of policies might be assessed. They gave a series of case studies from a range of departments showing how the appropriate methodology had been used. Nevertheless, despite the published guidance, there has been no environmental appraisal of key areas of policy such as rail privatisation, Sunday shopping or Post Office

1209
privatisation, when that was an option. The effectiveness of the guidance on policy appraisal needs to be evaluated and suggestions from within government as to how its use could be increased are urgently needed. We therefore welcome the Government's assurance that an evaluation of experience with the guidance will be commissioned shortly.
The guidance on the environmental assessment policies is of particular importance because of the potential to influence both new and existing policies. Some of the conflicts we are presently seeing between environmental and other policy goals could be avoided if all policies, not just a select few, were assessed at an early stage for possible environmental implications, and if appropriate mechanisms were in place for inter-departmental co-operation and decision making. The noble Viscount, Lord Blakenham, gave us an example of one recent failure in inter-departmental consultation.
The Government have willed the end—sustainable development—and many of the means to achieve it. But one of the means—that of ensuring that the environmental impact of the policies of specific departments are properly evaluated and taken into account in order that there might be consistency in giving environmental considerations proper priority—needs further examination in some of the ways I have tried to suggest. In the end, implementing the policy cannot be separated from having the right political mechanisms for ensuring that it is implemented.
4.25 p.m.
Lord Porter of Luddenham: My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Tombs and his committee for their thorough examination of the strategy for sustainable development and for the realistic recommendations of their report.
The strategist's job has to be based in the first place on knowledge, often scientific knowledge, even though that is often incomplete and uncertain. That is especially so in complex environmental matters such as those involving the stratospheric ozone layer and the greenhouse effect. The former of those—the so-called ozone hole in Antarctica—can now be attributed with reasonable certainty, at least in part, to increased levels of chlorine derived from chlorofluorocarbons, and the evidence is considered secure enough to justify their complete replacement internationally, even at considerable expense.
The greenhouse effect is less well established. Absorption of the solar radiation by carbon dioxide leading to atmospheric warming is fairly well understood; but the effect of that on climate cannot be established convincingly owing to the many other complex factors involved. It is a truism that if we cannot predict tomorrow's weather, we cannot have much faith in predictions for next year, let alone the next century.
An obvious strategy in cases like that, which is fully discussed in the report, is based on the precautionary principle, "If you don't know the facts, play it safe". That was referred to also by my noble friend Lord Tombs and the noble Lord, Lord Desai. The committee gives qualified support to the use of that principle in
1210
efforts to strike a balance between wealth creation and environmental protection. In paragraph 8.7 it recommends that,
"when the risks of irreversible damage are high, and the costs of action low, the precautionary principle justifies a decisive response. Otherwise, it may be wise to promote more research rather than take premature action."
I strongly support that strategy, provided the research is aimed at improving understanding rather than short-term fixes. The Government's recent drives towards short-term, wealth-creating research rather than basic research aimed at a real understanding, is the opposite of what is needed to uphold the precautionary principle.
I hope your Lordships will allow me to tell a cautionary tale from my own research. Nearly 50 years ago I discovered a simple molecule. It consisted of two atoms, one of chlorine and one of oxygen. It was called chloric oxide (CLO). I carried out a full study of its properties although it only lasted for around one-thousandth of a second; it was interesting but quite useless. What was needed now was a problem.
In 1970 an Englishman, James Lovelock, noted that the new chlorine compounds being manufactured for refrigerators and aerosols—the well-known CFCs—had pervaded the whole troposphere, though he saw no cause for concern. However, Professor Rowland in California began to ask where all this chlorine was going and predicted that it would be transported—because CFCs were so stable in sunlight—to the stratosphere, where it would have catastrophic effects on the ozone layer. Rowland was derided by many in the chemical industry as a crank. However, he held his ground, and was proved to be right in 1987 when the Royal Society base in Halley Bay reported that 95 per cent. of the ozone in the stratosphere at altitudes between 14 and 23 kilometres had disappeared in two months during the Antarctic spring.
Evidence for the implication of chlorine and CLO in this change was provided by a large airborne American campaign which overflew Antarctica in 1987. The results were very convincing: the unstable CLO molecules appeared rapidly and abundantly in late August, followed by a dramatic fall in ozone. The consequence was immediate international concern—which is not unusual—and also—what is unusual—a rapid implementation of world-wide agreements to outlaw chlorine from entering the atmosphere and the stratosphere. Last week Rowland was awarded a Nobel prize for his work.
This little parable illustrates how the knowledge on which strategy has to be based is often acquired by chance from many quarters and over long periods of time, especially in matters of geological or meteorological change. In the words of paragraph 2.17 of the committee's report:
"The continuing uncertainties and gaps in our knowledge should be seen as spurs to the reduction of scientific uncertainty. They call for the strongest possible support for research into many areas of public concern, and caution against a failure to take fully into account the likely progress that scientific and technical advances may offer in the search for sustainable development."
The report warns against the deliberate or inadvertent devaluation of the precautionary principle. If the precautions taken or advocated on environmental

1211
grounds have no serious economic costs or, on the contrary, have economic or other advantages, then it is unnecessary and even irrelevant to invoke the precautionary principle at all. Thus the promotion of energy economies will reduce the emissions of carbon dioxide and might therefore diminish climate change, but they will surely reduce the demand put upon limited energy resources of the world and are therefore to be encouraged anyway. In the opinion of the committee (at paragraph 4.65):
"in the context of the CCP, the present heavy reliance of Government upon measures to promote improved energy efficiency are well judged."
When there are heavy costs of implementing precautionary measures, a cost-benefit analysis will be appropriate, provided the facts are understood well enough to estimate costs and benefits. If, as is so often the case, the facts are not known, it would appear reasonable to err on the side of caution—but not too far. Safety has become something of a fetish in chemical research and teaching, so that it is virtually forbidden to carry out the simplest experiments and demonstrations from which my generation of chemists learnt their skills and derived much enjoyment. Today it seems to be more permissible to show schoolchildren the apparatus for avoiding conception than, for example, the apparatus for preventing fire and explosion. My Lords, precautions can be bad for you—they should be used with discretion.
4.35 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, and his committee for a most excellent report on this subject, which is as important and wide-ranging as it is difficult. It is most refreshing that so many of its recommendations are clear and firm. The committee wisely decided to exclude some important issues, such as fish stocks at sea and river pollution. I look forward to the further report from the Select Committee on Science and Technology on those subjects. The committee also wisely decided to concentrate on four main policy issues, on which I should like to make a few comments in a moment.
There are two serious obstacles to pursuing the best policy for sustainable development. The first is regulations. Many restrictions are sometimes necessary if we are to achieve the results we want and the results, even in best practice, are long term. Neither of those is a vote catcher. Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said, sustainable development implies sustainable growth: perhaps they are synonymous. With existing knowledge, indefinite growth world wide is incompatible with conservation of natural resources in the long term, and even to maintain the status quo in the long term requires much more efficient and economic use of natural resources. Hence the vital importance of improving recycling techniques and of encouraging their application through appropriate incentives.
The committee rightly supports the setting up of targets for recycling, and indeed on other issues too. The Government response emphasises the need to involve business in target setting. That is right too, but we must
1212
accept that few targets will be met without adequate incentives and sometimes, as I have indicated, regulation. As is indicated in paragraph 4.35 of the report, Treasury opposition to incentives must be overcome; otherwise we shall be left to rely entirely on regulations, and there will always be opposition to more regulation.
On atmospheric pollution, the committee concentrated on the emission of gases, but a recent report from the World Health Organisation indicates that there are equally serious—perhaps more serious—problems of particle emissions. These, I understand, come mainly from vehicle exhausts. I hope that my noble friend who is replying to the debate will say what action Her Majesty's Government intend to take in relation to this problem. It is closely related of course to transport policy, to which I should like to refer in a moment.
On the management of rural land, I welcome the committee's endorsement of proposals outlined in Biodiversity: the UK Action Plan (Cm 2428) which is referred to at paragraph 3.44 onwards of the report. However, we need to put much greater emphasis on protecting SSSIs from the effects of pressure for more roads and other damaging developments, and, as has already been said, we also need to reform the CAP, ultimately so as to get rid of the absurd existence of set-aside, combined with the use of dangerous chemicals, to increase output elsewhere.
Less than 1 per cent. of the United Kingdom's land surface contains critical habitats which support a vast number of valuable plants and wildlife. These include wet grasslands, reed beds, Caledonian pine forests and lowland heaths. I would ask my noble friend whether the Government will set clear targets for road building which are consistent with protecting these habitats in line with the United Kingdom's commitment to the Biodiversity Convention and the Biodiversity Action Plan. There will be an opportunity to carry forward this policy when issuing ministerial guidance to the two new environmental agencies which were set up under the 1995 Environment Act. I understand that that guidance will be laid before Parliament next spring. Can my noble friend the Minister give us an assurance that this guidance will include requirements for those agencies to set and achieve clear biodiversity targets?
Turning now to transport issues, in paragraph 3.20 the committee's report says:
"the Committee believes that too little progress has been made in establishing targets towards sustainable development in transport".
I strongly endorse that view. But those targets must be set in the context of an overall transport policy to make the optimum use of and to have optimum co-operation between all forms of transport, including transport on rivers, which is widely neglected. As an example of the results of having no overall transport policy, the case of Westminster City Council and its recent decision on waste transport and disposal is relevant. The contract was put out to competitive tender. The waste was previously carried by barge down the Thames; but, mainly for reasons of greater expense of this method, the contract was given to a firm to transport the waste

1213
by lorry through the streets. That adds to pollution and traffic congestion—both wholly undesirable from the environmental aspect.
In that example, as in so many others, the fact is that no credit is given to the value of the benefit to the environment. When taking decisions where there is conflict between immediate obvious cost-saving and long-term benefit to sustainable development, there is an urgent need for some way to ensure that a comparison between alternative methods takes fully into account a quantified long-term value of the most environmentally friendly solution. As the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said, this is a very difficult issue. He seemed to think that the problem is impossible to solve but I think that that is rather defeatist. We must try as hard as we can to achieve such quantification. Failure to do that will result in continued unconstructive arguments between quantified short-term costs and apparently emotional long-term values.
Many of the problems of sustainable development are akin to those of government expenditure. As Sir Winston Churchill said, everyone is in favour of economy in principle but expenditure in detail. We are all in favour of protecting the environment in principle, but damaging it when that seems desirable in particular cases. To achieve the optimum level of sustainable development is a huge and difficult problem. In seeking to solve it, we must always remember that continuing damage to the environment is irreversible, as when a species of animal or plant life becomes extinct. And just as anyone would give all his or her savings or more to bring back a seriously ill wife, husband or child to good health, so we must be prepared to pay in terms of present standards of living to preserve the environment for generations to come.
I warmly welcome the report as a valuable contribution to debate and progress on this important issue of sustainable development.
4.43 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I, too, welcome this report and its careful analysis of sustainable development. My chief reservation is that implicit in the phrase is an assumption that sustainability is about not making things worse and about preserving what we have in the way of a natural environment while development is about developing the economy. I do not believe that perpetual development is possible, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote. It would be safer to reverse this conceptualisation and to think about sustaining our present level of economic activity while developing and improving our environment. That would require a considerable change in philosophy as well as of government policy.
Environmental protection has a long history in this country. For example, in the 19th century, Engels thought that one of the worst consequences of capitalism was its tendency to lead to over-exploitation of the earth, the destruction of forests and soil erosion. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, referred to John Stuart Mill who in 1848 doubted whether there would be much satisfaction in contemplating the world with nothing left
1214
to the spontaneous activity of nature—every foot of land brought into cultivation; all quadrupeds or birds, which are not domesticated for man's use, exterminated; and every hedgerow or superfluous tree rooted out.
There was in this country very much earlier concern for the environment. As early as 1285 there was a commission of inquiry into air pollution in London. In the early Tudor period there was legislation to prevent coppices being converted into pasture land and to prevent timber trees being used by the Sussex iron industry. Echoes of current disputes are rife throughout history. In 1577 it was said that foxes would have been,
"utterly destroyed…many years gone",
if gentlemen had not protected them,
"to hunt and have pastime with".
That debate is currently going on in the House.
Concern for the environment has thus existed in this country for many centuries. What is different today is the pace of change and public awareness of environmental issues. Within our lifetime, as the noble Viscount, Lord Blakenham, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford said, there has been a catastrophic decline in common birds—thrushes and larks—and in habitats such as ponds and hedgerows. Our landscape has become increasingly tailored and lacking in variety. This decline in habitats and landscape has been matched by growing concern among the public not just on the grounds of aesthetics and the appearance of the landscape but also on the ground of health.
I welcome the report on sustainable development and the apparent commitment of the Government to setting targets and strategies. However, it is disappointing that in this increasingly critical situation they are not prepared to go much beyond European environmental legislation to preserve and enhance the environment in this country. Much more, I believe, needs to be done to develop a coherent strategy which includes incentives as well as regulations so that the richness of our habitats may be restored and we may achieve pollution free-air, earth and water. It is not just the aesthetics of landscape and the health of the nation that are important. The greatest loss, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford said, is that, as the pace of change quickens, as farming becomes agri-business, and as wilderness and nature are tamed and tidied, there is a serious diminution in the richness and complexity of life. Those are such important elements which stimulate and enrich the human mind.
4.47 p.m.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, I read the committee's report during the long hot days this summer when global warming seemed imminent. I have lived long enough, however, to know that English summers are infinitely variable and we may yet experience again several cold summers in a row.
I congratulate, as so many other noble Lords have done, the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, and the committee on their hard work in studying the multiplicity of reports from the UK government, the European Union and the overarching worldwide conference held in Rio. I agree with the majority of the committee's conclusions,

1215
including its conclusion on the need to strike a balance between wealth creation and environmental protection, which it recognised is very difficult, and the need to set flexible targets in a variety of fields.
I also agree with the committee's recommendation for a balance between economic and regulatory approaches—in all these areas there will be many different strongly held views—and on the need for informed public discussion. I agree with the committee that the discussion must he on the basis of sound scientific knowledge and therefore, as it, too, concludes, there is a great need for good environmental education and a rising awareness of the problems in a cool and calculating manner, as the Government recognise in their recently published response to the committee's report.
I should like to concentrate particularly on the importance of changing the lifestyles and attitudes of consumers and citizens worldwide in both the developed and developing worlds. Our problems are different and will remain so for decades. Nevertheless, we are all living on the same planet and we are dependent on each other. I agree with the committee on the importance of energy saving, which can often save money and not entail extra costs.
When I was chairman of finance of Essex County Council we put in hand an important energy saving initiative. We told the county architect that he could put in hand any capital projects designed to save energy which had a pay-back period of less than three years. We put energy saving on the school curriculum. There is no one better for saving energy than an eight year-old children saying, "Shut the window and turn the thermostat down".
We made a film for the training of caretakers in the better control of boilers and co-operated with Cranfield University in developing a method of computerised control. As a result, over a 10-year period, we saved £33 million gross, £26 million net. As well as saving energy, it also saved money, which could be spent more usefully on teachers and books. That story illustrates clearly how a technological approach helps the environment. More recently, Essex County Council has also calculated that 63,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide per annum were not emitted into the atmosphere.
Those vast savings were made possible by the flexibility of our financial rules, which allowed investment and subsequent savings to be spread over several years. Now I believe that the campaign continues on a five-year pay-back period. I have always felt that Treasury policy is far too much based on yearly budgets with a sharp cut-off date at the end of each financial year. I believe that in all policies to do with the environment, and indeed in wealth creation, time scales of five years to 10 years should be built in to control of investment policy to allow capital to be spent in the early years resulting in revenue savings in future years, achieving perhaps a final net zero sum, or at worst, very low net cost.
In this House some years ago there was considerable investment in energy-saving lightbulbs, so that now we reap the annual reward of very much lower lighting
1216
costs. I believe that individuals should be encouraged to invest in this way at home, and also to insulate their homes better. Government grants are offered for that purpose. Perhaps VAT might be reduced on certain items that clearly reduce energy use, which might encourage individual citizens to join the partnership in energy saving. It is only at the mass level that mass savings can be made.
That is even more true worldwide. I was pleased to read of the international assistance in energy saving given by the UK ODA to the developing world, especially in terms of increased use of solar energy; one of the few resources with which the developing countries are plentifully endowed. The ODA also concentrates on providing more efficient cooking stoves in partnership with charities such as Intermediate Technology. The traditional way of cooking in the developing world uses three stones, with a substantial amount of heat going out between those stones. Intermediate Technology has organised the making locally in Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe of ceramic stoves from clay quite cheaply. They enclose the fire and conserve the heat so that less firewood has to be collected.
I also saw a film about an Indian engineer who slurried cow turds to make natural gas, which was piped to the village. He consulted the women beforehand with the result that all but one were delighted to use the new two-burner gas stoves. Two burners were a tremendous step forward in family cooking and once again they were enclosed to save the heat. Fascinatingly, the left-over slurry made a far better fertiliser so he metaphorically killed two birds with one stone. That was real, sustainable development. These sorts of initiatives save women hours of drudgery in collecting wood and reduce deforestation, so they are worth very strong encouragement.
I hope very much these low-technology solutions to local problems will continue to be encouraged worldwide. They save resources and improve the quality of life in so many different ways. I hope too in the future that the World Bank will invest more money in research leading to initiatives of this kind, so that fossil fuels and trees will be saved in the developing world and their people will, at the same time, enjoy a better quality of life.
The CBI in our own country has produced an interesting report, which I recommend to your Lordships. It is called Environmental Costs, clearly stating that Britain needs a high-quality environment, a safety culture and a successful economy if the aspirations of its citizens are to be met. As it says, only a competitive Britain will have the resources to achieve society's objectives. It goes on to show that where the right action is taken, applying the best technology, care of the environment is good for business and business is good for the environment and the underlying principle of sustainable development.
The report emphasises the importance of board level leadership and of integrating environmental matters fully into business strategies right from the start, not bolted on at the end. The report is illustrated with many strategies already adopted by businesses that have

1217
proved successful. That is why I recommend the report. I do not have the time to describe them all but I shall mention just one. Pilkington, after six years of R&D, created Pilkington K, an energy-saving glass which gives the same thermal insulation as a nine-inch brick wall, while letting light in, just like ordinary glass. It estimates that if all single-glazed homes in the United Kingdom were double glazed with K glass there would be an energy saving of £1,000 million per year and a consequent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of 11 million tonnes. That product is a commercial success, gaining 80 per cent. of the UK market since its launch and substantial export sales. That is the application of high technology at its best.
The CBI has produced a forward-looking document and it is no use pretending that all firms are adopting those sorts of strategies at present. However, it represents a step in the right direction by a powerful national body, and there is no doubt in my mind that the dissemination of good practice is one of the best ways of encouraging other firms to follow suit in technology application. We still, however, have a long way to go in implementing those kinds of strategies and they need to be translated into ongoing day-to-day tactics by all involved.
In this context I hope that the Government will reconsider their response and implement the committee's recommendations by cutting drastically the tax on natural gas vehicles as a road fuel, as has been done by other European member states and by Canada. That would constitute a major step forward in combating urban air pollution, as the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, emphasised earlier.
In the past, we relied on the knowledge that the universe is infinite and because it seems so large in relation to an individual human being, we viewed our own world in the same way. That view is now totally out of date. I am glad that the Government substantially agree with the committee's report and therefore I hope that they will continue to pursue energetically their programme of integrated sustainable development. That would have to include investing some public money in long-term energy saving and environmental projects. However, if industry, education, voluntary non-governmental organisations and ordinary citizens, all co-operate in partnership, there will be both environmental and financial returns of a positive nature in the future. This is an urgent matter and procrastination is just not a possible alternative. Priorities and targets need to be set, monitored and achieved as soon as possible, as the Government and the committee agreed.
4.59 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I regret that I have to begin by asking for the tolerance of the House because I shall be obliged to leave before the end of this most interesting and important debate. Hansard, unfortunately, will not provide me with the feel for the discussion which my complete attendance would have secured. I can only proffer your Lordships my deep apologies.
1218
Next, I must express my gratitude to the chairman of the Select Committee and, indeed, to all its members because they so kindly tolerated my presence among them at so many of their sessions when they were gathering evidence. I found the whole exercise fascinating. My only regret is that the amount of paper that it generated was almost an environmental offence in itself.
It is better to travel hopefully than to arrive, and so I have to say that I do not regret the fact that the Select Committee was unable to find and agree an absolute meaning for the phrase "sustainable development". Indeed, I wish that we could use other words because "sustainable development" is, if it is anything, a political concept and as such will have different meanings to different peoples depending on their circumstances. As the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, suggested in his opening speech, the phrase will have different international interpretations. Worse still, its meaning may well change as circumstances change. Certainly, it will be interpreted differently across the face of the planet. "An examination of policies and actions of the British peoples to reduce damage to the environment" is perhaps a better description of the content of the report although it does nothing to alter its quality. However, that description is both precise and easily understood.
The Select Committee was asked to work on a limited time scale and wisely restricted itself to consideration of matters which are under exclusive national control. It resisted the Syren temptation to divert its attention to considering the international problems caused by population growth. I do not intend to dwell on those matters, but some mention of the context in which the report was written is required.
By the end of the first quarter of the next century—the timetable which the Select Committee set itself—if present trends continue, the global population is expected to increase by between 40 and 50 per cent. I should add that that is the time at which my grandchildren will be expecting to bring up their families, so the timescale is relatively short. That population increase will be unevenly spread. The developed world generally has more static numbers. However, the point to note is that that rapid increase will have the most profound strategic effect on all commodities, a point to which I shall return.
The next point that I wish to note is that the pace of development in the less developed world will accelerate as those countries attempt to deal with the consequences of demographic change as well as take advantage of improving their living conditions in the light of modern knowledge. I am not aware that anyone has tried to plot a relationship between a society's degree of development and the atmospheric emissions of that society, but I suspect that such a relationship exists. I shall use just one figure to illustrate the point. According, to the World Resources Institute, which is based in Washington, per capita emissions from the United States are almost nine times per capita emissions from China. We know that the Chinese are developing rapidly in their haste to catch up and that many other countries are doing the same. We must assume, therefore, that their per capita emissions will be likely to increase also.

1219
We have a dual pressure, therefore, which will artificially increase the global volume of emissions (both gas and particulates) as a result of human activity, with a consequent increase in the potential greenhouse effect—if that is proven to exist. While preparing this speech, I saw a report which indicated that experts now agree that the global climate is in fact changing as a result of industrial development.
I make no more of that except to observe that, as a consequence, we need new technologies—and we need them fast. In particular, we need technologies to provide energy sources that do not involve the combustion of carbon. Not only will that make possible a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, but, because of the impurities inherent in all carbon-based fuels, there will also be a reduction in many other noxious gas and particle emissions. That problem is now so urgent that major research resources should be devoted to its solution even if, as a consequence, other avenues of research have to be restricted for a time.
I must add that that should not be interpreted as a plea for any expansion of nuclear power generation—far from it. The long-term problems of that industry are well known and the Government have rightly concluded that the expansion of that industry cannot be justified at this time. In any event, other avenues exist with less harmful implications, particularly in the field of fuel-cells.
I turn now to agriculture, the other industry that will be placed under enormous pressure. It is good to see that the report is generally complimentary about developments in the industry in recent years. Farming is unique, I think, in undertaking its manufacturing process out in the open where it is fully exposed to the public gaze. As a result, farmers are accustomed to everybody knowing their business and are increasingly accustomed to everybody telling them what they should and should not do. When that advice is well informed, it is welcomed, but some of what is said nowadays in certain quarters is beginning to look a little dated.
It is popular to portray the industry as growing fat producing unwanted surpluses. That portrayal really is dated. I have been examining the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation's statistics for global wheat and coarse grain production and consumption over the past five years. I shall not quote the figures since they seem to undergo constant adjustment in the light of more updated information. However, what they do reveal is that over that period, production and utilisation more or less balance; the total difference over the five-year period being less than the seasonal variation from year to year. That is not the production of unwanted surpluses. Further, if we consider the European situation, we must note that the intervention stores that caused so much concern when they were full in the past are now empty. That has been finally achieved over the past few months without the need for export subsidy as grains are now traded on the world market at prices above the European intervention prices. I am told that the beef mountain will be cleared by the end of the year and that the butter mountain is greatly diminished.
1220
Assuming that society is even to stand still from a nutritional point of view, if the predicted population growth occurs, consistent steady increases in farm output will be required. I will not divert into the economic and political problems which may arise in solving distributional problems, great though they are. I merely remind the House that it is said that farming works in the natural environment. And nature is a wonderful thing. Technological development has imposed its own pressures; pressures that interestingly are paralleled in the medical field. Crops bred for disease resistance find that after a time the disease changes its nature and immunity diminishes. Materials developed to control pests, weeds and diseases become superseded for the same reasons. We are on a treadmill in order to stand still let alone to move forwards.
My purpose in mentioning that is not to remind the House of the biblical seven fat years and seven lean years; it is rather that these facts support my argument that society requires and will continue to require continuous technological development of all kinds if it is to meet the urgent needs of its peoples and at the same time conserve a beautiful environment and have sustainable development. I could develop the agricultural argument in much greater detail but I will not trouble your Lordships' patience at this time.
The Select Committee has undertaken a tremendous study within the refined terms of reference that it was set. While what is revealed in the report will undoubtedly not satisfy everyone, it is a cause for optimism that so much is being done. I have set out to show that there is another side to the coin of sustainable development; one where technological development is both the hope and the opportunity for the future. I am grateful to the House for its attention.
5.12 p.m.
Lord Barber of Tewkesbury: My Lords, as a member of the Select Committee I, too, wish to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Tombs. I hope that he will not take offence—I mean it as a compliment—if I say that I regarded his chairmanship of that committee as a kind of gracious ruthlessness which lasted for more than 15 months. Without chairmanship of that quality I have no doubt that we should be wrangling happily or unhappily upstairs to this day.
I must declare an interest in commercial farming. Furthermore, I was reminded by the noble Viscount, Lord Blakenham, that I too must declare that I was once chairman of the council of the governing body of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. I had forgotten about that. Rather than making a generalised offering on the report, I wish to concentrate on a matter which is dear to my heart and about which I believe we have balanced perspectives.
First, I wish to make a general point. I was disappointed by the notice which the report received in some parts of the specialist press. I got something in the agricultural press by bullying a journalist who owed me a good turn to put something in. However, my sorrow is that the massive volumes of written and oral evidence are a unique archive. Certainly as regards agriculture and land-based industries, I know of no other archive

1221
that is so valuable. It would be a great pity if we could not gamer together enough publicity to ensure that volumes are available in every library and institution where agriculture and land-based industries are taught.
Agriculture is such a complex, technical and economic industry that the complexities dim the light of those seeking sustainable enlightenment. I wish to draw together some of the strands of evidence which came to us and which otherwise might be lost. Some of the evidence was certainly worthy of being read and re-read a dozen times. In searching for sustainability, the starting point must be our soils about which we had very interesting evidence. And the first issue must be to recognise the immense complexities of the subject, those few centimetres of the earth's crust on which we all depend, and to note the influence which polemical arguments, often dubiously based but skilfully presented, have had on public opinion.
Although it takes about a thousand years to form a centimetre of soil from weathering rock, circumstances can change in a remarkably short space of time. When the Strutt Committee reported on soils some 25 years ago in 1970, its main conclusions were that the major farmland soil problems related to compaction by machinery, poor drainage and acidity through failure to apply lime. All those matters could be put right with little difficultly. On soil degradation in the form of erosion, deteriorating soil structure and decline in organic matter levels there was much less comment. But over this 25 year period, when soil productivity has flourished with wheat yields virtually doubling, cropping sequences and husbandry practices have changed and there is now disquiet—and argument—about decline in soil quality. The pregnant questions are by how much and what proportion of the decline is judged to be irreversible.
Professor Peter Bullock, an internationally known soil scientist, with whom I spent much informative time on the campus at Silsoe, gave evidence to us. He believes that 10 per cent. of our soils may have suffered irreversible decline. But this proportion naturally includes the organic soils like the farmland fens where we would have to withdraw from farming altogether and flood them with water if they were to be conserved. Moving from the current high value crop production to some sort of rotation including grass would merely postpone the decline, for these soils start to go as soon as they are exposed to the atmosphere. And below them are often mineral soils of lower but still reasonable quality which will be cultivated.
On other soil erosion, Professor Bullock told us that up to 75 per cent. of the damage could be stopped by modest changes in husbandry by, for example, ploughing across the contour rather than down the slope. Again, as a caveat, it must be recognised that much erosion is on an individual field scale or in parts of fields. It would be absurdly irresponsible to minimise soil deterioration in the UK, but the expert evidence presented to the Select Committee was hardly on the dramatic scale so often suggested by non-scientists writing for the newspapers. There is a problem of
1222
indeterminate scale which has to be addressed by further research and a widening of perception by farmers on what needs to be done.
An agronomist's view came from Mr. John North who told us:
"However, it is impossible to quantify the scale and extent of overall levels of change in relation to soils, in part due to the absence of rigorous methodology, robust data and a lack of understanding of the many interactions involved".
He then went on to suggest that while there is agreement that the texture of the soil is important there is, even now, continuing disagreement of the importance of many aspects of farming systems and production practices in relation to risk of damage to the soil and the long-term effects on soil fertility. The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution is investigating soils and its report is anticipated by the end of this year. There will be a lot more grist to the soil's mill when that arrives.
Soil health is but one component in the search for sustainability of farm systems. Agrochemicals—that is pesticides and fertilisers—are being examined on the basis of the fewer the better. Fertilisers are being examined because of potential pollution and the use of fossil fuel in their manufacture. Pesticides—that most pejorative word in the conservation vocabulary—are being examined for their suspected health hazards and effect on ecosystems.
Achieving a sensible balanced view in this whole field is not easy. The scars of the organochlorines—aldrin, dieldrin and heptaclor—and their disastrous effects on wildlife still linger in the memory. And organophosphate sheep dips are the subject of much debate in your Lordships' House. But perhaps I may quote two experts who work with crop pesticides: Richard Bromilow and Peter Nicholls of Rothamstead, that major seat of farming experience. They say:
"The effects of pesticides on the microbial populations in soil are only transient, and long-term field trials have failed to find any deleterious effects on soil fertility following repeated applications of pesticides. On the available evidence, we believe that the present use of modern pesticides in the UK will not lead to the accumulation of hazardous residues in soils, nor to deleterious effects on either crop growth or the wider environment".
As to water pollution, I was extremely impressed by a recent NRA report which tells us that non-agricultural pesticides may be the main threat to groundwater quality.
One wonders whether there would have been more balanced thinking about pesticides if they had been called plant and animal health products. Let us not forget, for example, that fungicides are often essential for maintaining quality in cereals; and without quality we shall not get very far in the ever-more competitive conditions to come. Producing a large heap of grain of unknown quality and then looking for a buyer are for days long gone. But the main issue is surely this: we must not allow objectivity to be eroded by populist pressures as we move towards lower pesticides use. On the way are spectacular achievements in genetic engineering which will introduce disease resistant genes into plant breeding and in consequence make us less dependent on pesticides, and, incidentally will allow products to be tailored for specific market requirements.

1223
Equally spectacular are the achievements already with us in the form of satellite mapping of our farms to enable far more precise applications and therefore reductions of agrochemicals. It would be bad judgment indeed, and it would be bad for the long-term competitiveness of the farming industry if we were pushed too quickly down the road to restrictions on pesticides use which were based on guesswork and misplaced anxiety.
It will be interesting to hear more from the Government on the development of a pesticides index which is an eminently sensible step forward. In their response to the report, the Government have accepted the desirability of targets but point to the difficulty of devising a comprehensive set which takes account of farming and environmental diversity problems. That is surely fair comment but the report argues for targets wherever they can be practical because nothing crystallises the mind as much as a background figure to influence thinking and planning. Extreme vagueness, if replaced by a target, however loose and flexible, moves action a step forward where little or no movement was previously discernible.
All of that brings me to farming systems. What are the factors here concerned with sustainability? Can it be agreed that there are four main components of environmentally responsible agriculture: care of the soil; careful use of inputs to avoid harmful degrees of pollution; provision and management of wildlife habitats wherever practical—green farm furniture if you like; and the tailoring of farming systems to be sustainable and to promote bio-diversity?
Although there can be argument about the first three, the issues are clearly defined, as I have tried to do in an inevitably superficial way. It is the fourth component of farming systems with which I and many others have difficulty; and it is in that sphere where there is the greatest confusion on the part of those who are not, either directly or indirectly, involved in the industry who see putting the clock back to universal mixed farming, longer rotations, more extensive farming and perhaps even a hint of organic husbandry as the only keys to sustainability. Those arguments are questionable and often in direct conflict with having a UK farming industry which is internationally competitive and looks to the future with confidence.
Many environmental "good things", a whole comprehensive range of them, can be superimposed on an efficient commercial system. New habitats can be woven into the fabric of high-class arable farming and green fingers of one sort or another of better hedgerow management, headland strips to provide the weedseed and the invertebrate feedstock for the corn buntings and tree sparrows and the rest, as well as more recently, the opportunity to use set-aside for better purposes. What can be referred to as a nice green shagginess can be draped over an efficient system without diluting its profitability—a proper and sensible integration of the two objectives. But tinkering with successfully evolved farming systems is an altogether different matter.
1224
What will be found is that most successful entrepreneurs do their utmost to squeeze down their inputs whilst maximising their outputs. To do otherwise is to court extra unnecessary risk. I feel particularly grateful to a scientist, Professor Ben Miflin, Director of the Arable Crops Research Institute, for advising the Select Committee about the LIFE programme—that is, the Less Intensive Farming and Environment programme—at Long Ashton Research Station. Contrary to all the premature claims being made as to its success of lowering inputs while maintaining profits, Professor Miflin sought to refer to the experiment as "promising". But the risks and management costs had not yet been built into the figures. Professor Miflin said:
"We have to bear in mind that for the individual farmer it is consistency of performance that is extremely important. He cannot afford to take major risks in any one year otherwise he is out of business."
How refreshing to hear such wisdom coming from such an expert source—that the LIFE programme and other less intensive work takes on board additional risks to conventional systems, that bear economic penalties.
There is a final point in that connection which must be recognised. Precision in the food production process is a commercial element which has been pursued with considerable success during the past 30 years. It will become yet more important as CAP support drains away and market forces bite. And you lose precision, for example, if your take pigs out of doors; replace pesticides with more hit-and-miss biological controls; and when you start muddling with lowering inputs below good housekeeping practice. Those are matters often totally ignored when we pursue the sustainability concept.
So, for the industry, the message of this report will be that the move to sustainability needs to be a series of steps based on scientific data of proved worth. That general message is contained in paragraph 8.7 of the conclusions of the report. The noble Lord, Lord Porter of Luddenham, mentioned this but perhaps I may repeat it because it is so important. In my mind, it encapsulates very roughly the general feeling that we all had when we came to the end of our 15 months' stint. The report states:
"Given the uncertainties, the difficulties for Governments in trying to strike a balance between wealth creation and environmental protection should not be under-estimated. Clearly, when the risks of irreversible damage are high, and the costs of action low, the precautionary principle justifies a decisive response. Otherwise, it may be wise to promote more research rather than to take premature action".
Those words have a particular relevance to the agricultural industry, for I am quite sure that advancing technology is going to provide for sustainable advance on a step-by-step basis.
I conclude with two further quotes from the evidence, quotes which in themselves are almost worthy of their own debate. First, the National Farmers Union said:
"We view sustainability as a conceptual approach rather than a firmly defined goal".
And Professor John Marsh of the University of Reading said:

1225
"Intensive production is not necessarily less sustainable than extensive production … at a global level the solution to sustainable development cannot lie in seeking more extensive agricultural systems but must involve making intensive systems more sustainable".
I thought that those were profound thoughts indeed.
5.27 p.m.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, and the committee on their report, which has tackled the issue of sustainable development in great depth and with due care. There are concerns raised by non-governmental organisations expert in this field, and I should like to highlight some of these this afternoon.
In my view, one of the most important aspects of the report is its recognition of the finite character of the environment. I agree with my noble friend Lord Caldecote that if we use up finite resources today, or damage them irreparably, they will not be available for future generations to use or enjoy.
In that connection, I should like to make three points. First, land is a finite resource yet it is not dealt with directly in the report. I believe that it needs careful consideration, both by this House and by the Government. Mark Twain (I think it was) put it in a nutshell when he said, "they ain't making it any more". We have a finite stock of land and we should be guarding it with the greatest care. And yet, according to research by CPRE, we are still losing land at a rate of over 12,000 hectares per year.
Under the heading of Targets and Rural Land Use, I add another issue—the loss of rural land to urban development. When we lose rural land, we lose the capacity to produce food, we lose natural habitats, we lose opportunities for rural recreation and we lose precious landscapes. I firmly believe that we need to give urgent priority to this problem.
Secondly, the committee recognises the important role of designations in reducing the impact of development on vulnerable or valued environments. Indeed, it has been a long-held principle that national parks should be protected from major and damaging development, and it is on this subject that I should like to concentrate for a few minutes.
I should be grateful if the Minister can provide an assurance that the major development test contained in the planning policy guidance will be rigorously applied to all proposed developments including those which are not subject to town and country planning regulations. I also hope that the Government will encourage developers to place greater emphasis on examining alternatives as part of the environmental assessment of development proposals in national parks.
The 10 national parks represent 10 per cent. of the land surface of England and Wales and attract over 100 million visitors a year. Their designation is important not only as a means of protecting beautiful areas from damaging developments, but because they are central to the environmental health of the nation as a whole.
The two purposes for which national parks are designated are to conserve and enhance the scenic beauty, natural systems and land forms, wildlife and
1226
cultural heritage and to promote the understanding and enjoyment of the parks. Both purposes are consistent with the principles of sustainable development.
Because they have a history of some 40 years' practice in the area, national parks are blueprints—or, perhaps, I should say greenprints—for the wider countryside whereby established good practice can be replicated in other areas. I was very pleased to see that the Government recognised that point in the recent Rural White Paper.
As the committee is eager to advance the principle of setting targets, perhaps my noble friend the Minister can tell me what targets he has in mind for the national parks. I should very much welcome an overall target to protect and enhance their environmental quality. Equally, the committee recommends the integration of environmental objectives across all government departments. That point was alluded to by my noble friend Lord Blakenham, and indeed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. It echoes the principle of green Ministers and reflects the duty which the Environment Act places on public bodies to have regard to national park purposes.
Protecting national parks is not only the job of the national park authorities. Although the Minister may not be able to provide an answer this afternoon, I should be grateful if he would write to me, clarifying how he intends to ensure that that duty is discharged in departments other than his own.
I have outlined some of the major policy concerns that need to be addressed at the national level. However, without work on the ground, we shall not be able to make sustainable development a reality for ordinary people. That is my third point. The British Trust for Conservation Volunteers (BTCV), which involves over 100,000 volunteers in practical conservation work in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, has given me an insight into the solution.
A recent project shared with a metropolitan council in Huddersfield focused on the issues of an inner-city urban area where there was high unemployment, poverty and social problems. BTCV began its work by liaising with the local populations to put forward their aspirations. Soon many local people of all ages and backgrounds were taking part in drafting management plans to deal with environmental problems for those particular areas.
Many of the people involved in the project had not previously undertaken practical conservation work. Yet virtually everyone was keen to learn and take part once they recognised the value of the project. This type of work demonstrates the need for a partnership approach among government, local communities and the voluntary sector. That is the essence of sustainable development working effectively at local level.
In conclusion, I believe that we must recognise land and landscape as finite. We must ensure that there are adequate laws to protect our finest landscapes, and we must support local partnerships which include all sections of the community so that wider participation in practical conservation work is encouraged.
5.33 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, when we began this exercise I felt rather despondent because it seemed to me that not only did the committee have an impossible task, but also that no chairman would ever be able to keep us to the point. However, I was wrong on both counts. I believe that the report is most useful. The noble Lord, Lord Barber, described the chairman of the committee as a ruthless dictator, or something like that. Although I agree with the description, I must say that the noble Lord managed very well to keep us under control.
We decided at the very beginning that we must limit the range of our examinations. I believe that that decision was both practical and wise because it would have been impossible to deal with the whole range in any depth. I believe that the result justifies that decision. I hope that the task which we have begun will be carried forward by bodies with a longer life expectancy than we had.
The committee was also aware that, although the achievement of sustainable development remains an essential aim, the background of scientific and other information is constantly changing so that the provision of advice to Her Majesty's Government must be a continuing exercise. The 1990s have seen a growth in the number of "green" official bodies, presumably intended to deal with that need. As we have heard from other speakers, there is a designated "green" Minister in each major government department who is charged with ensuring that environmental considerations are integrated into the policies and strategy of that department. That sounds a very important task.
However, as the right reverend Prelate, and others, pointed out, it was difficult for us to discover whether the system actually worked other than on a housekeeping basis. Certainly there was very little indication of strategic meetings. I was, therefore, relieved to read in the Government's response to our report that the activities of those green Ministers are to be widened. Other new bodies—and there are many of them—seem more positive. I refer to the establishment of the Round Table on Sustainable Development, the Panel on Sustainable Development, the Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment, the Biodiversity Action Group, the Scottish Advisory Group on Sustainable Development, the Central and Local Government Advisory Group and there are many more. Indeed, the list is far too long for me to mention all of them. There are also a number of countryside advisory groups set up by the Department of the Environment and by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Local government, too, has responded well to the challenge. At the time of the Select Committee's investigations some 200 local authorities had already begun to implement their plans for local Agenda 21. I understand that, since then, many more have come on stream. I believe that local authorities are an essential interface between central government and people. Without their involvement the educational task would be more difficult. It is encouraging that even though
1228
most local authorities are under financial stress many have produced, and are actually implementing, plans to support the Rio commitment.
With so many separate initiatives in progress it is vitally important that co-ordination of effort is seen as a high priority by the Government and is carried out at the highest level. The public are concerned about environmental issues and that is shown in survey after survey; indeed, the results always show that the environment comes second, perhaps sometimes third, to the very vital needs of a job and somewhere to live. Therefore, when all the verbiage from those many bodies is examined, I believe that the public will expect something positive to emerge as a result.
It is also important that an organisation once in place can rely on continued support, both financial and political, in carrying out its task. I am thinking in particular of the Energy Saving Trust, mentioned by our chairman in his opening remarks, which has been through a very frustrating period of underfunding. Although I welcome the Government's assurance in paragraph 88 of their response which suggests that the immediate difficulties have been resolved, it seems to me that it is only those difficulties that have been resolved, and the funding is not very accurate. I do not wish to suggest that an organisation or initiative once started must go on for ever, but while it exists it should function and not be merely a cosmetic exercise.
There was general agreement from witnesses that the need to involve and educate all citizens, regardless of age, on the elements of environmental protection is fundamental to the success of the Government's declared aims. The Secretary of State for the Environment, Mr. Gummer, has been particularly strong on that point, not only in his evidence to the Select Committee but also in many utterances made throughout the country since he came to office. I commend him for that. The committee agreed with him. It is worth looking at what arrangements are in place to achieve this objective.
Much work is being done by voluntary bodies. The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, gave us some examples. We owe a great deal to them for the effort they have put into environmental education long before there was any official approval, let alone support, for their exertions. I cannot list all of the bodies but those I have most admired include the RSPB, the National Trust, the CPRE, the Royal Society for Nature Conservation, which I believe is now called the wildlife trusts, the Green Alliance, and there are many more. The statutory bodies such as the Countryside Commission and the three nature conservancy bodies in England, Scotland and Wales have also contributed directly and indirectly to raising the awareness of the general public to the importance of sustaining their natural environment. Bodies such as Waste Watch, which provides invaluable advice to the public and to local government on waste reduction and recycling, are all part of an impressive network of expertise which until now has perhaps been undervalued in official circles.
We recently debated at some length the future of our national parks. As the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, pointed out, they provide an example of practical environmental

1229
education. Literally millions of visitors each year learn at first hand the value of conserving our natural heritage from generation to generation. The National Parks Review Panel stated:
"we regard it as important for all 60 million residents of the UK to have the opportunity to understand and appreciate the nature and character of the national parks and the role they can play in wider issues of environmental awareness".
That is an extremely important statement.
Bodies such as the RSPB have accumulated valuable scientific evidence in the battle to maintain biodiversity in the UK. The committee was convinced, and has said, that the maintenance of biodiversity is an essential element in sustainable development and, at paragraph 8.19 of the report, suggests that targets are a realistic way forward for habitats and species. In spite of the difficulties that may seem to arise in setting targets for habitats and species many of us believe it is possible and believe that they should be set.
To sum up, my message to the Government is that there is a wealth of information and expertise available to them already and the new organisations are adding to this store—I am afraid!—on a daily basis. However, all will be wasted if there is not a will in government to co-ordinate the efforts, to disseminate information where it is needed and to legislate if need be. Every citizen must be involved in the task of ensuring that future generations are not deprived of the opportunities for enjoyment of our world which are still available to this generation. I welcome the positive statements in the Government's official response but the test will be whether the momentum can be continued even when the spotlight has turned elsewhere, as in politics it inevitably will. This is one subject which must not be allowed to fade if it becomes politically less fashionable or, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said, the Government run out of energy. I commend the report to the House and I hope it will not be lost sight of.
5.43 p.m.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, I welcome the report of the committee. Sustainable development is one of those nebulous concepts: everyone thinks that they know what they mean by it but no one can quite accurately define what they mean. However, we seem to agree that as a concept it must underpin decision making. There are obvious limits to the amount of damage the environment can take and those limits should not be breached. We must learn to tread more carefully on our precious resources.
The committee recommended that the concept of carrying capacity should be integrated into policy making. I should like to make a few observations of my own on this point. It is well known that some developments exceed the carrying capacity of the environment. That is unacceptable. It flies in the face of the principles of sustainable development. I would argue that nowhere is the concept of carrying capacity more important than in our national parks yet they are under greater pressure than many other areas.
I am particularly concerned about the often irreversible damage that is done by minerals developments in the parks. The committee notes the
1230
government target of increasing the use of mineral and construction wastes as aggregates, thereby reducing dependence on land-won aggregates from 83 per cent. to 68 per cent. by the year 2006. I very much support this target as a step in the right direction. By recycling mineral and construction waste, the demand on primary minerals is reduced. Other ways of managing demand are by being economical in our use of minerals and by redefining the requirements which give rise to the demand for minerals. One way of doing this is by questioning whether we really need a new development.
We can also reduce the impact on national parks by avoiding sources that are particularly environmentally sensitive; for example, by encouraging commitments to avoid the use of national parks for products for many major construction projects and industrial applications. Carrying capacity can be protected by the imposition of regulations. Although I am well aware that it is this Government's policy to deregulate where possible, the committee has recognised that there is still a need for some regulation in order to protect the environment. I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, underline that statement in his opening remarks.
I welcomed the inclusion of legislation on old mineral permissions as part of the Environment Bill which we debated earlier this year. In a number of debates I highlighted the damage that was caused by minerals workings, particularly those in national parks. Minerals extraction, by its very nature, is unsustainable. Minerals cannot be recreated, neither can the local distinctiveness of a landscape. The landscapes of our national parks are a particularly valuable asset which should not be depleted. I have mentioned that minerals can be recycled, for example as roadstone. However, national park landscapes cannot be recycled: once destroyed, they are lost for ever.
In the light of the recommendations of the committee and recent legislation on old permissions, I should like to bring to the attention of the House the concerns that still exist regarding old mineral permissions and use as an example the current situation in the Dartmoor National Park involving the winning of china clay. The present regime, facilitated by lax environmental conditions on the planning permissions and the inability of the park authority to impose additional conditions, has led to an unacceptable situation. I ask your Lordships to bear in mind that in Minerals Planning Guidance 14, paragraph 133 states:
"The industry now produces in the order of 25 million tonnes of waste each year, most of which is tipped outside the limits of the pits".
In my example operators are opening up new workings as the present workings have reached a sufficient depth to be unviable in present economic circumstances. It would seem straightforward that these old workings should be closed, and the pits used to dispose of waste from the new workings. However, operators will not do this as it will "sterilise" the old workings should it become economic once more to use them. I find this unacceptable as the natural capital of a national park, one of our finest landscapes, is being permanently eroded.

1231
If we are truly to embrace the concept of sustainable development, national parks should be the last places where we allow such damaging mineral working. I was encouraged by inclusion of minerals provisions in the Environment Act but I am now concerned that the guidance does not have the necessary teeth. Planning authorities will find it difficult to impose meaningful conditions on operators of sites because their asset value might be affected, thus making the authority liable for compensation. Despite the new legislation the problem of vulnerable sites being worked, which today would stand no chance of receiving planning permission, still exists.
It is all very well to talk about and agree wide-ranging concepts such as sustainable development, but if we do not achieve change on the ground in national parks all of the discussion will be for nothing. I should like to see the Minister undertake to create a special planning regime in order to minimise the damage caused by china clay extraction in national parks.
I should also like the Minister to use the opportunity of the revision of Minerals Planning Guidance 1, General Considerations in the Development Plan System (the key statement of government policy on minerals planning) to ensure that the principle of environmental sustainability is followed. That will benefit the countryside in its widest sense, including the protection of non-critical assets—the general countryside—as well as critical assets, such as the national parks. The revised MPG should not lag behind both local practice and national environmental policy. It must incorporate the principles of environmental capacity and seek to work within them. Strategic environmental assessment has a role to play in achieving the sustainable development goal.
I have already welcomed the targets for the use of recycled materials instead of primary aggregates. It is important that the revised MPG1 provides guidance on appropriate development plan policies and planning conditions which will help to meet them.
The revision of MPG1 presents the opportunity to strengthen policies relating to national parks, where minerals extractions should only be permitted where a national need has been established and there are no alternative locations or other means of achieving the same benefits. That would encourage me to believe that the Government are committed to sustainable development and are taking practical measures in order to achieve it.
5.51 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of RodingMy Lords, I must begin with a profound apology for the fact that it was impossible for me to be in the House to hear the greater part of the debate. As soon as I was informed that this was the date for the debate I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, that I would inevitably be late. I am particularly sorry that I did not hear his speech opening the debate. I promise all those whose speeches I did not hear that I shall read them extremely carefully. I took part in the committee, which is the only Select Committee in either House on which I have served, and I did not wish to
1232
miss the opportunity of saying a few words in the debate. However, because I have not heard the rest of the debate I shall be brief. I hope that I shall not duplicate what others have said.
In paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, I know that I speak for everyone. He was a masterly chairman, who kept us firmly in order so that we only ran about six months over time.
I want to make only three short points. I was not alone in the Committee in being agreeably impressed by the rapid progress that has been made in recent years in developing environmental policy. Perhaps more than any other member of the Committee, I was in a position to compare the Department of the Environment when I left it in 1985 and the reports and evidence from the department presented to us in 1994 and 1995. It is right to mark the contrast and the real progress that has been made.
It is also right to record that perhaps the most notable milestone on that remarkable progress was the publication by my right honourable friend Mr. Christopher Patten of the first of the main reports, Our Common Inheritance. When in 1984, my right honourable friend Michael Jopling, who was Minister of Agriculture, and I embarked on a new policy for the Norfolk Broads in which both the Department of the Environment and the Ministry for Agriculture participated, that was regarded as a notable first. What a long way we have come since then! Ten years ago it would have been inconceivable that we should have heard evidence from a large number of active and committed NGOs which was so full of compliments and praise for what had happened. Of course they were not pleased with everything, but there has been a great change.
There have been two consequences. The first is that, happily, there is now much more common ground on such subjects as atmospheric pollution, the maintenance of biodiversity and the preservation of habitats. I believe that to be wholly to the good. The more common ground we can find the better.
The second consequence, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, adverted a moment ago, is that some of the steam has gone out of the issue. There is no doubt about that. One of the consequences of the Earth Summit in Rio and the commitments that governments across the world made on that occasion was that the public began to recognise that their concerns were being addressed, and they have turned their attention to other issues. The danger is that we lapse into complacency. My right honourable friend John Gummer is perhaps the most positive and energetic Secretary of State in pursuance of environmental improvement that we have had for some time. However, his enthusiasm is not always matched by equal enthusiasm among colleagues from other departments.
That brings me to my second point. Because departments have different perspectives and priorities there can be and undoubtedly are conflicts of policy, with different policies pushing in opposite directions. Early in our deliberations the committee exposed one such conflict. In energy policy, with its emphasis on the regulatory process and pressures of competition, the

1233
objective is clearly to push prices down. Indeed, much capital has been made of the fact that both electricity and gas prices are now very much lower in real terms than they were. It is regarded as a measure of success for that policy that they should be. Yet, in relation to environment policy it is recognised that achieving policy targets, particularly on carbon dioxide but also on sulphur dioxide and NOx, requires reduced consumption. The most effective instrument for reducing consumption is undoubtedly higher prices.
The committee reported at paragraph 4.41 of the Report:
"Tension can exist between competition policy and environmental policy, and, where this is the case, greater reliance may have to be placed on regulations to achieve adequate progress. The 1994 Energy Report … noted that increased competition in the energy market would tend to drive down prices, raise consumption and thereby adversely affect the environment. Such circumstances call as much for a review of the regulatory options available to protect the environment, as for a reconsideration of whether 'the balance of energy prices is correct'".
I have to say to my noble friend that the Government's response was rather bland. Paragraph 54 states that the Government do not believe that there is in general any conflict between their environmental objectives and their objective of promoting competition, or that that necessarily implies that greater regulation may be necessary.
I do not understand that. It was the Minister's own official, Mr. Hobson, who, when asked about that, said (in answer to Question 210 on page 48 of the evidence):
"I think there are several different policies operating here and very often Government policies do not always run in the same direction".
That was a very frank admission. Therefore, it is difficult to take at face value the statement that in general there is no conflict. In fact there were several examples of conflict. That is why we spent a good deal of time talking about the machinery in government for resolving such conflicts. We must all agree, and the committee placed great emphasis on the need for cost-effective measures to reduce consumption: more insulation, power efficiency, and so on. However, price is a crucial incentive. We stressed that point at paragraph 4.37 of our report, which I am sure has already been mentioned.
Witnesses pointed to the Government's efforts to increase VAT on fuel, on which they were defeated in another place. However, that still leaves an unacceptable situation where VAT is 17.5 per cent. on energy-saving materials and equipment and only 8 per cent. on energy consumption. On any rational view, that cannot be right.
My third point relates to the role of the Treasury on which, I am sure, a great deal has been said. My only excuse for adding a few words is that I believe I was the only member of the committee who has been both a Treasury and an Environment Minister. Therefore to some extent I saw the issues from both sides.
We were grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for allowing us to hear from Treasury witnesses. I have to say that Mrs. Anthea Case (my first-ever private secretary) and her colleagues proved very helpful. Indeed, I was particularly sorry not to be present on that occasion because I had much wanted to hear what they said. However, I read the exchanges with fascination. I
1234
am sure that other noble Lords have covered many of the aspects, but perhaps I may refer to two passages from the Treasury evidence. On almost the last day of evidence, Treasury witnesses gave evidence to the committee. At question 1929 Mrs. Case was asked by my noble friend Lord Skidelsky whether specific considerations applied to environmental taxes such as the difficulties which are faced in seeking to quantify externalities. He asked whether that was a specific difficulty. Mrs. Case replied:
"Yes, it is. There is a challenge in terms of whatever tax one is talking about in devising measures which are robust, soundly-based and workable".
She later stated:
"We are treading in newer territory than some other areas of the tax system".
Indeed, she was very frank on that.
That brings me to my last point. We make the point clearly in the report. The Treasury must seek to become more proactive in this matter and less reactive to other departments. The Select Committee recognised a greater role for economic instruments. That is in many cases central to the Treasury's function within the Government but as yet it had to confess that it had not made much progress. We asked the Treasury to do more.
I am not alone in feeling that the two-sentence response which we received from the Minister on this issue was perhaps a little less than adequate. After reporting the committee's recommendations, at paragraph 90 of the response, it stated:
"This is already happening. Examples include the wide cooperation among Departments on economic instruments such as the landfill tax".
We spent a good deal of time on the landfill tax. It was very nearly the only initiative that the Treasury can be said to have taken in this field. Yet there are many more areas in which the Treasury could act.
I conclude by referring to one such area. I refer to natural gas for powering road vehicles. My noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara has led a valiant fight on that issue. I thought that the Treasury rebuttal of the case for a significant reduction for the duty on natural gas was, to say the least, unconvincing. I had originally written "sophistry", but thought that that might be a little unkind and crossed it out.
I understand the anxieties of Treasury Ministers because I have been a Treasury Minister. There is anxiety not to anticipate Budget decisions and concern to have a free hand when fixing taxation. However, the public anxiety regarding atmospheric pollution from vehicles is now intense. I believe that a great deal more weight needs to be attached to that anxiety. I believe that natural gas could make a material contribution over the years to the reduction of that pollution. That is one of the most important of our recommendations. I hope that it will be heeded. I recognise the difficulties for my noble friend on the Front Bench in saying much about the issue tonight. But I hope that he will convey to his right honourable friend in the Treasury that there was much strong feeling among the committee on that.
Finally, we were well served by our advisers. I should like to join others in thanking them very much.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, I believe that I am the last Member of your Lordships' Select Committee to speak tonight. I add my thanks to my noble friend Lord Tombs. He has been described as being a bit of a tyrant. All I can say is that he was a delightful tyrant. I add my thanks, too, to our Clerk and our two specialist advisers without whom I am not sure we could have produced our report. It was a big and lengthy exercise with a mass of evidence. I measured that evidence by weight—a total of 5 pounds but 5 pounds of good value.
Our chairman gave us a masterly tour today of the issues which arose in our assessment of the Government's performance. The record is patchy with some notable weak points. However, taken as a whole, it is, I believe, not too bad. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, put it well when he asked: who would have thought 10 years ago that we would have been having this detailed discussion? Certainly, no one can doubt the enthusiasm, understanding and commitment of our Secretary of State. One only wishes that one could say the same in each of those respects about the Treasury.
Sustainable development has become the slogan of the decade. All this struck me with increasing force as we took evidence. But the more you delve into what it really means—there are at least 50 definitions advanced—as one distinguished economist said, the more it falls apart in your hands. Sustainable development has been described as a "convoy of ideas". I suggest that that is apt because convoys tend to consist of a rather ill-assorted collection of vessels.
That brings me to my first point. The enthusiasts include in the convoy factors which have nothing to do with the common sense meaning of the word "sustainable". For example, what does the destruction of that fine piece of landscape, Twyford Down, have to do with sustainability? And please do not let us obfuscate the issue by using high-flown phrases such as natural capital or critical capital. Vandalism is vandalism whether it is by a government agency or anyone else.
Nor should we kid ourselves—and here I so thoroughly agree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, who, sadly, is not in his place—that we can somehow quantify in a scientific sense how much a Twyford Down or a Stonehenge is worth. I admire the temerity of those economists who believe that these matters can be quantified and the quite extraordinary ingenuity of their attempts to do so. I believe that it was Oscar Wilde who described a cynic as one who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. If he had been alive today, he might well have addressed his remarks to the Highways Agency or the Treasury.
In short, let us restrict the use of the term "sustainable development" to matters which are based on science—pollution and resource-type issues—and let us deal with ethical and aesthetic issues separately. Let us recognise, as does our report, that there are limits to the value of cost benefit analyses, some aspects of which are beyond technical refinement.
My second anxiety is that even when the concept of sustainable development is used in an appropriate context, the green lobby, or some elements of it, tend to
1236
abuse it by wild generalisations, poor science and sloppy economics—in other words, the tendency of all fashions to exaggerate. At the risk of being politically incorrect, I find myself, somewhat to my surprise, much in sympathy with some of the recent broadsides delivered by Richard North and Professor Wilfrid Beckerman. All that would not matter too much were it not for the fact that this tendency to exaggerate and to reach wildly generalised conclusions plays into the hands of the real philistines. I like to think that our report is by contrast a model of balance and restraint so that where we are critical the Government should sit up and take notice. What, then, should we make of the Government's response? It seems to me that the response can be welcomed in those policy areas which are primarily the responsibility of the Department of the Environment, but that the further one gets from the DoE, and perhaps also from MAFF, the less satisfactory is the response. My noble friend Lord Tombs referred to the DTI's attitude towards funding the Energy Saving Trust. There is the attitude of the Department of Transport to transport targets, which can most simply be described as one of mañana. There is also the negative response, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, presumably the hand of the Treasury, in the case for reduced rate VAT on energy efficiency. The Treasury seems unaware of the possibilities under the sixth VAT directive. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, referred to other instances where the Treasury has been, to put it charitably, pretty off-hand in its response. I shall not repeat them. My noble friend Lord Porter spoke with authority on the need for policy decisions to be based on good science. One might also add good economics. All this is pertinent, as we note at paragraph 2.23, when it comes to involving that much abused notion, the precautionary principle. As the noble Lord noted, the Government failed to respond on that.
Nor have the Government shown much recognition of the need to be particularly careful when proposed actions give rise to irreversible changes. Sometimes the results of actions which turn out to be damaging can be reversed or repaired. For example, one of the things which strikes me forcefully is how extraordinarily resilient living nature is to much of what we inflict on it. The results are often reversible. But when you have the physical and permanent destruction of a fine landscape—again I cite Twyford Down as a good example—it is gone for good; it is lost to future generations simply because we, today's generation, are selfish. If an action is likely to result in irreversible damage, we need to be extremely careful.
Many of these points are well illustrated in the fascinating oral and written evidence on soil conservation. I prefer the word "conservation" to "sustainability". The noble Lord, Lord Barber, spoke at some length and with far more authority than I could on the subject of soil. I shall try not to repeat points he made. I approach the subject from a slightly different angle and reach a different set of conclusions, not so different that I disagree with him—I totally agree with his remarks—but in the sense that the difficulty of the subject is apparent.

1237
Soils are fairly resilient to the pressures that are heaped upon them. The noble Lord, Lord Barber, referred to the Fens, some of which are being destroyed. Fenland soils will have gone in 100 years from now. That is not exactly an example of good stewardship.
The noble Lord mentioned soil erosion. It usually happens through arable farming in inappropriate places or through using inappropriate methods, for example, in the thin soils of the Sussex Downs. The noble Lord quoted Professor Bullock, and I shall not repeat the quotation. On the other hand, the damage from soil compaction is reasonably reversible, as is the loss of organic matter, usually brought about by changing from a grazing regime to arable cultivation. Here, the Strutt Report has done,
"a great deal of good in making farmers aware".
I have only scratched the surface of the illuminating discussion we had with the professor and others. Overall one has the impression, as with so many environmental problems, of a rather patchy situation, of one where it is very dangerous to generalise, where there is nothing too disastrous perhaps but where it would make eminent good sense to keep up the pressure to improve our national husbandry of this capital asset. I am bound to say that the White Paper strikes me as rather complacent. It is, according to Professor Bullock, a considerable toning down of the original draft, the suggestion being that as a whole range of things are being done, we do not need to worry further about it, do we?
The White Paper reveals the tendency of MAFF first to look at problems on a generalised macro level rather on a detailed farm basis. Examples such as the extremely successful countryside stewardship scheme initiated by the Countryside Commission and the imaginative Tyr Cymen scheme of the Countryside Council for Wales strike me as being the sensible way forward. I am delighted to read in the rural White Paper that the countryside stewardship scheme will be enlarged. Secondly, there is the need for a more constructive use of set-aside, for example, by ring fencing vulnerable soils.
Finally, it is fashionable in some quarters to inveigh against economic growth, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, did at some length and, by extension, against new technologies and products. But surely this is to wildly generalise. In a wider sense, I firmly believe that it is our technology base and our capacity to innovate which, properly used, enable us to protect our environment. A strong and dynamic economy enables us to afford our so-called quality of life, within which the environment plays such an important part.
6.15 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, and to the committee for an excellent report. The committee recognised the good work already done by the Government, and I add my congratulations for the work on ESAs; the stewardship campaign; the national forest to come and the 12 regional forests; and, more recently, the White Paper on rural development, as well as the
1238
continuing work being one throughout the vast field of cleaning up the environment—which is what we are all about.
Naturally, a great deal of the debate concerned the atmosphere and pollution. I echo the words of the noble Lords, Lord Tombs and Lord Chorley, and of my noble friend Lord Jenkin. It is perfectly obvious to any clear thinking person that the use of natural gas in public service transport in our inner cities would enormously reduce pollution. To say more would be to repeat points already made.
The committee refers to the Action Plan on Biodiversity. The report states that some of the targets, as the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, mentioned, were quite precise and others merely exhortatory; for example, to support organic farming. As the House will understand, that is my subject in this "debate.
There has been a considerable problem over the definition of what is sustainable. I refer to the statement by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council mentioned in paragraph 2.6. As a means of defining activities that are unsustainable, it cited:
"the overproduction of some foods in the EU; prolonged use of chemicals for crop protection and control of animal disease, leading to resistance among pests and pathogens and harmful effects on non-target organisms; poorly controlled use of fertilisers, leading to pollution of water and soils".
All those factors are very important, certainly in the organic world. That statement seems to say it all. It is the reason why the organic farmer exists. He does not claim to be any better than his intensive farming colleague, only different. He should have the opportunity to compete and let the public choose.
One of the Government's commitments is towards cross-compliance, which, it appears, was not well received in the farming community generally, but is of course the basis of the organic aid scheme; namely, support is dependent upon specific compliance with a strict sense of farming precepts. The committee (in paragraph 4.5) harbours reservations in this respect because it prefers,
"the principle of transparency and the identification of specific environmental benefits".
Surely that is what organic farmers deliver.
I shall talk to some extent about organic farming. I do not suggest that the whole of British farming should be organic, only that some 5 per cent. or 10 per cent. of it should be allowed to operate.
Paragraph 5.5 refers to a government research project of some £32 million on ways to reduce chemical input. The Government could easily have saved a lot of money by consulting the Soil Association. There is a further £10 million for research into soils and their degradation. Once again they could refer themselves either to the Henry Doubleday or the Elm Farm Research Associations. Those organisations could use such research funds with great facility to promote their own activities and make the case that the Government make.
The argument that we present for organic farming rests on the importance of quality. I should like to give some examples of bad quality which come from bad farming. The first is soil degradation. That has been spoken about already. It is a vital matter which was

1239
ignored in the transition from what was extensive wartime and post-wartime farming into a sudden urge to increase yield at all costs. Certainly that attitude is receding now, which is a good thing. But it is certainly a serious matter.
Your Lordships may have noticed the recent announcement from the Agrochemical Division of Zeneca that it has increased its turnover by 13 per cent. to £1,300 million. That is about £25 for every acre of farmland in the United Kingdom. No doubt that has all been achieved by the successful acquisition of increased market share; otherwise it does not say a great deal for our efforts through the CAP to reduce intensive input. Time was when the chicken was an expensive delicacy and the calories were derived mostly from protein. Today the broiler chicken provides some 3,300 calories of which 2,700 come from fat and only 600 from protein. No wonder such chickens are cheap. They are not particularly healthy either. Nevertheless, they are a vital part of the fast food syndrome and contribute nothing to the health of the nation.
Your Lordships may also have noticed those prestigious sandwiches which had to be withdrawn—admittedly, only temporarily—owing to attacks from the dreaded salmonella. The good news is that they have caught the eggs. The bad news is that the chickens will come home to roost in the fast food chain.
There has also been the bizarre activity, now fortunately at an end, by which cattle were being fed animal protein. My right honourable friend the Minister, Mr. Gummer, in his memorial speech to the Soil Association the other day, said that he was having some trouble with the Danes, who were trying to feed their dairy cattle with fish meal. "Have you ever seen a cow go fishing?" he asked, to some considerable enjoyment. Perhaps I may add that it was an excellent and important speech and I hope that he will forgive me for quoting only the most lighthearted phrase.
Those are all instances of events that just do not happen where organic farming and organically grown produce exist. They just do not happen. Organophosphates are not used. I know that the Ministry is in touch with the three organisations that I mentioned before: the Soil Association; Elm Farm and HDRA. I ask that some of the research funds be directed at them. Indeed, as mentioned on page 62 of the report at paragraph 6.39 there is a need for proof of the benefits of extensive farming. We all agree about that. After all, the CAP, which we are all—at least some of us anyway—so busy trying to reform, was invented to protect the French extensive farmer. Is it not ironic that half our CAP payments go to protect those very French extensive farmers and the other half comes back to help our intensive farmers drill chemicals into their weakening soil, not without the determined help of the agrochemical industry, as I just mentioned.
At the last count, some £111 million were directed at extensification through ESAs, the stewardship campaign and the organic aid scheme. The ESAs and the stewardship campaign have been brilliant. They are remarkable and have had an enormous success. I do not detract from their reputations for one minute. Where £63
1240
million went to them, £1 million went to the organic aid scheme. Such a derisory amount is a measure of the Treasury's view, which I find hard to describe politely, as do potential converts to organic farming who have rejected the offer, as the take-up indicates. As for the proposed doubling to 100,000 hectares, there has been an increase of 3,000 hectares in England, 534 in Wales and 15,800 in blessed, far-sighted Scotland. The Northern Irish have yet even to notice the opportunity. But then, we know that they have other problems with their neighbour's CAP revenues to consider.
The organic farmer has a case to prove, but it is being presented to him as a negative question. The evidence about the quality of organically grown food is clearly believed by the public; and not surprisingly when they are told by the Government that their supermarket vegetables are suspect—from an overdose of organophosphate. But people can have no genuine access to organic food until the acreage under cultivation reaches that critical mass—perhaps half a million hectares—which will allow joint marketing of produce in sufficient quantity and regularity of supply which would induce the modern retailer to stock it. Once that has been achieved, there will be many more pleasant parts of rural England producing nutritious food from land which is being used with more compassion and which is self-sustainable.
6.26 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in welcoming the report and congratulating the committee, in particular the chairman. From the comments of his colleagues today it sounds as though he gave very valuable lessons in benevolent dictatorship as well as environmental issues.
This Government are very good at setting targets. One has only to think of performance indicators and the charter mark. That is why there has inevitably been particular interest in the committee's approach to targets and the Government's response. I share the sentiments of my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley: the Government, having made what he described as a good start, perhaps need a second wind. There is something in the tone of the response which is not perhaps as enthusiastic as it might be. It seems to accept the notion of targets without the detail that one might expect, though I accept that the Government produced their response in a very short period.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, said that steam seems to have gone out of the public's demands. Perhaps it is because they feel that Rio has solved everything. My reaction to that, to quote from the other side of the Atlantic, is "It's probably the economy, stoopid!" It is that which is taking up the whole of people's attention and environmental concerns have dropped down the agenda somewhat, in the way described by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol.
I also share the concern of the noble Viscount, Lord Blakenham, that indicative targets might not be taken sufficiently seriously. I am interested in the distinction between indicative and imperative targets. I welcome the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, with regard

1241
to targets. There is enormous scope for concentration on research in order to reduce the scope for politicising around the area.
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, said that the Government like the market but use the regulations rather more than they sometimes admit. He is right to warn us that we must not pretend to know more than we do and therefore we must apply the precautionary principle. That is where there is a place for regulation. Regulation is a stick. But this whole subject, as many noble Lords said, is very much a subject for carrots as well as sticks. Tax is one of the sticks but it is also the price that one has to pay for a civilised society. As several noble Lords said, it is quite odd that we tend to tax what we want more of—namely, work—and not what we want to reduce—namely, resource consumption.
"No taxation without explanation" is a useful maxim and hypothecation is a useful extension of it. So the landfill tax and the small amount of hypothecation in that tax naturally and rightly attracted attention. How can we expect the taxpayer to pay willingly without transparency and without understanding the reason for taxation? I was struck by the phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, in relation to the landfill tax; that is, that it should,
"engage the enthusiastic support of the consuming public".
I welcomed the committee's comments on the possible roles of the Treasury, to which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, drew our attention. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, gave a choice selection of examples of the different attitudes of different government departments to the issue of the environment. Your Lordships have frequently talked in other debates of the "dead hand of the Treasury". I support every encouragement to the Treasury to lead the way and not to act as a "dead hand". It would be a good thing for the Treasury to be proactive.
As well as understanding, one needs information—indeed, one needs information in order to understand. One cannot over-estimate the importance of information. I find the whole subject of the environment and ecological considerations difficult. It is a scientific and technical subject. Clarity is therefore important. Apart from anything else, clarity leads to real choice. One example is the labelling of products: the more information one has as to what the product contains and what its effect may be, the more choice one has, and therefore the less need for regulation by a government taking decisions on behalf of consumers. I am sure that this Government agree that it is far better for consumers to make their own decisions.
The environment is a difficult subject. There is perhaps more of a place in it for psychologists than for scientists. The noble Baroness, Lady Platt, spoke vividly of low-tech solutions and the changes taking place in people's lives. Making the subject come alive for people is perhaps one of our responsibilities. The noble Lord, Lord Porter of Luddenham, referred to the ozone layer. The question of the effect of chlorine on the environment caught the public's imagination a few years ago. If we can expand on that example, it will be a real advance.
1242
Reports such as this often seem remote from individual lives. I wondered about one development which greatly affects people's lives; that is, the whole question of information technology. I do not believe that there is any reference in the Government's response to how the development of technology will affect the need and the desire for travel. I say that not myself being a "surfer" and being unable to take advantage of computers as much as I would like.
I took on board the comments made by the right Reverend Prelate in relation to information. Information gives one the ability critically to assess one's actions. The right reverend Prelate spoke of our inability to assess what Cabinet committees are doing. He spoke of green Ministers being concerned rather more with green housekeeping than wider issues.
"Environmental assessment" has become an old-fashioned phrase. I hope that is because it is second nature. It should be second nature but not so routine that one fails to see the wood for the trees or to recognise developing knowledge. It is important that government agencies, government at all levels and anyone who does anything which may affect the environment, should stand back and ask what the effect would be of what we are proposing. In that connection, there may be a role for the National Audit Office in drawing our attention to the benefits of such assessment.
I realised, as I made that note during the course of the debate, that I was writing on the back of a copy of my party's manifesto for the local elections in 1994 and that I was actually writing on the back of one section on ecology. It is not my borough which can claim, as we said on this piece of paper, that many local authorities are setting examples,
"by looking at the environmental impact of every decision to be taken by every Council committee".
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, referred to the important developments being made by local authorities under the heading of local Agenda 21 projects. As knowledge develops, so do our aspirations. The noble Viscount, Lord Blakenham, referred to the World Bank using other indicators than merely narrow economic ones. Alternative indicators which better reflect the performance of the economy as it affects the long-term welfare of citizens are important. I support the call made by the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, for the World Bank to invest more in research.
Returning to targets, the noble Baroness referred to the report in which the CBI said:
"The Government need to provide a more supportive framework of relevant, achievable and enforceable policies where the benefits outweigh the costs of action".
I was struck during the debate by the commonality of aspiration and language. But we all know that fine words are not enough. As both the right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, said, the politician's job is to will the means; if need be, to legislate; and, certainly, to lead in setting the goals. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, said that we do not know the preferences of future generations but we do know that children now feel that their elders are too shortsighted and unambitious in this area. They

1243
recognise that targets need constant review and constant rolling forward. I claim no originality for the thought: man's reach really should exceed his grasp.
6.37 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, and his committee on undertaking an incredible task. I believe it was an "impossible" task, and I use that word advisedly. They contributed in many ways to our understanding of a number of different issues—just count them—raised in this debate over the past three hours. The task that this House imposed on the committee was too wide-ranging and, without in any sense devaluing what has been achieved, covered areas which need to be compartmentalised.
There is an inter-relationship between the topics specifically alighted upon—energy, transport, land use, waste disposal and so forth. There are many others. Tourism is a particularly important area of environmental damage and increasing regard is being paid to what is called "sustainable tourism". A great deal of work has been and needs to be done in that direction.
I culled out of the report a number of important themes, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who has just spoken. I hope that in future we shall concentrate on compartmentalised areas and seek to ensure that we address the over-arching theme that involves them all.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, whose speech was commented upon by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that the steam seems to have gone out of public demand. That point was also touched on by my noble friend Lady Nicol. I wonder whether it is true. After all, concern about pollution in our towns and cities has not abated. I wonder whether it is true when one thinks of the conference that has been taking place in Eastbourne attended by young children who are desperately concerned, and rightly so, about environmental issues above all others. There is a distinction to be drawn with acute crises such as Chernobyl, the Bhopal fire and shipping disasters which lead to pollution and, more importantly, loss of life on a substantial scale. These things inevitably create deep and immediate concern about environmental issues, and the Government are asked to take instant measures, whether in an international forum or nationally.
The chronic crisis is not so noticeable and not so much commented upon in the press, although that is not always the situation, as we have seen in respect of the very great concern over asthmatic conditions, touched upon in the report of the World Health Organisation, diesel particulates being one of the main contributing factors in such cases.
I join with those noble Lords who have called for the wider dissemination of information on environmental issues. It was the whole purpose of the European Year of the Environment back in 1986–87. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, had something to do with that at the time; I certainly had in a European context. The whole basis of the environmental agency which has been established is to ensure that there is a wider
1244
dissemination of available data and information at scientific level and also at popular level. So it remains to be seen whether or not the noble Lord is right: I believe not.
The Treasury has come in for a certain amount of stick, which is not unusual in these debates. I am reminded of what Winston Churchill once said. He likened the Treasury to an inverted Micawber waiting for something to turn down. A number of your Lordships feel that that is the case in relation to many of the things the Department of the Environment would wish to undertake. If I have time, I may come back to that subject later.
The report states:
"The country has a long way to go in implementing policies that would take it to a style of development which could be regarded as sustainable".
That is a very potent message—more potent, I think, than trying to ascertain the best possible definition of "sustainable development". The committee spent a certain amount of time on that—I do not know how much—and found it very difficult to come to a satisfactory definition of what is an elusive issue. However, the committee certainly did its best. I was struck by paragraph 2.10. I think it was too easy for the Select Committee to draw a distinction between,
"major life or planet threatening concerns…which merit imperative action, and…more modest or local concerns which may be capable of negotiated trade-offs".
I do not really know what that means. I believe there are substantial links between the two elements, the major life or planet threatening concerns and local concerns, particularly the contribution of road transport pollution to the greenhouse effect. What are these "local trade-offs" that can be negotiated? Does it make sense to demote local issues in the eyes of the public? Who is actually given the task of categorising these issues in the way the Select Committee suggests?
On policy integration, I very much support most of what the Select Committee's report says. This element was emphasised in Article 130R(2) of the Single European Act, for which I had some responsibility as regards the environment chapter. It was reinforced by Maastricht, which required environmental protection policies to be integrated into the determination and implementation of all European Union policies. This was tremendously important. It showed that the Community, as it was, now the European Union, was putting environmental concerns in a central position. Just as in the Commission's legislative proposals there has been for years an assessment of the effect on small and medium-sized enterprises, so I believe environmental considerations should be similarly assessed in our national policies.
In each government department there is supposed to be a "green" Minister addressing these concerns, but I wonder whether they are actually environmental watchdogs or guardians of the departmental interests against the undue intrusion of environmental concerns. I do not believe that the committee take the view that what has been established is anything like strong enough to protect environmental interests.

1245
Powerful criticisms have emerged, particularly in paragraph 6.9 of the report, and I believe that the Government's response is unconvincing. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to it, I think, as "bland". The paragraph suggests reasonable satisfaction with what has been developed. I do not know how that can be so. There is too much secrecy about the development of environmental policy, and indeed about other policies. That is evidenced by the fact that the parliamentary commissioner forced the Government to release details of committees which had been set up to advise on environmental standards and which they preferred to keep quiet about. It is important to know who sits on these committees. Why did the Government behave furtively about it? It is very important to know what goes on in these committees. Why should the representatives on the committees appear, from the information we are beginning to get, to be mainly from industry? There are others with an interest in environmental policy. I am not in any sense debasing the interests of industrialists; they have a major role to play.
The question of scientific uncertainty figures quite substantially in the report. I very much welcome the comments made. Of course, in so many areas it is impossible to arrive at a situation of scientific certainty. In the past we justified inertia all too often on the basis that the scientific facts were not sufficiently well known. I remember the whole issue of pollution from a large combustion plant. It was denied over and over again that this large plant in Britain was damaging forests in Germany and lakes in Scandinavia. It was sometimes said that the matter was de minimis. It was not; it emerged that the plant was a powerful contributing factor. It is right therefore that we should act on the basis of the precautionary principle. You cannot wait until you know everything before you take decisions. We have to act on the balance of probabilities, not on proving something beyond reasonable doubt.
Of course, conflicts of policy can arise. The report is absolutely right when it says that sometimes you have to make political decisions rather than scientific ones. Perhaps I may give an example, which is not all that well known. When problems arose with the level of radioactivity in foodstuffs following Chernobyl, the European Community, as it then was, immediately put in place a fairly arbitrary set of rules to deal with the situation. Those rules either had to be validated or something put in their place on a more certain basis. The nuclear powers—if you like, Britain, France and Spain—wanted rigid rules. The others wanted a much more liberal regime. It was not possible to bridge the gap. I remember being approached by the permanent representative of the United Kingdom, who said, "We don't like what you're doing"—I was proposing a solution halfway between the two warring camps—"because it is not scientific". I said, "You say that your proposed regime is scientific. The Germans are saying that their liberal regime is scientific. How do we arrive at a decision?" For four weeks no legal protection was afforded the people of Europe. There was a void. Eventually, something very much like the Commission's proposals were accepted. It was not a scientific solution; it was a political one. That is not altogether desirable but it is that which the committee has recognised.
1246
The committee warns against the deliberate or inadvertent devaluation of the precautionary principle. That is absolutely right. My noble friend Lord Desai commented emphatically on a conclusion reached in paragraph 4.36, which says:
"The Treasury should be actively looking for ways to shift the burden of taxation onto pollution and the use of resources, and away from income and capital".
My noble friend has long supported that principle. I am glad that it is underlined in the report.
Should we have confidence that the Government have learnt from their past mistakes in relation to the protection of our environment and environmental interests? One looks back to the case of North Sea oil and the squandering of the windfall this country had, all to pay for tax cuts which the Government made in relation to the general election at that time. Oil was being pumped out as rapidly as possible; there was no attempt made to husband our resources. It was a mistake for which we are paying today.
That brings me to a point made emphatically in the report and touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. Paragraph 4.41 states that,
"increased competition in the energy market will tend to drive down prices, raise consumption and thereby adversely affect the environment".
That point has not been satisfactorily responded to by the Government.
I wish to say a few words about transport, which is not sufficiently dealt with in the report. Some time ago we debated a report on sustainable mobility. Its conclusions are not touched on in any major way in the Select Committee's report. I shall not go through all the conclusions but the report said:
"Investment in public transport must be increased, and greater priority should be given to public transport in allocation of road space".
That committee based its conclusion on environmental considerations as much as anything else. It said:
"Investment in rail services must be increased … There should be no major expansion of urban road capacity … We support the principles of favouring land-use development which reduces reliance on private road transport".
It added:
"The Government should produce a coherent statement of transport policy for all modes including objectives, funding arrangements and practical implementation".
All those factors were bearing on the issue of sustainable mobility. In other words, environmental considerations were not playing a sufficient part in the Government's transport policy.
The noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, called for an integrated transport policy—a complementary role for the different modes of transport. I have been asking for that in this House for the past five years or more. It has been asked for in another place by my colleagues there. I am glad that the noble Viscount should have alighted on that very important issue. What are the Government's overarching national objectives for transport policy, particularly in relation to the environmental considerations which we are now debating?
We have to move away from an approach to transport policy which seeks to balance the competing perspectives of the economy, the environment and

1247
freedom of choice. That has resulted in trade-offs and compromises. Our aim should be to integrate environmental, economic and social considerations into transport policy. That is the view of the Labour Party. I shall be very interested to hear in that context the view of the Government.
This has been an interesting debate but at the end of the day we should ask ourselves this question. Does the Department of the Environment, accepting that the present Secretary of State has made much more progress than many of his predecessors—I shall not say all of them because that would be grossly unfair to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin—have more real power than a decade ago? Or does that real power still reside in the economic departments and in the Treasury? I hope to see the Department of the Environment, particularly as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is a Minister there, being given far more power because I have some trust in his good sense and certainly in his sense of humour. I fear, however, that that is unlikely to happen under the present regime.
Although I have criticised the report it is valuable in many respects. I certainly believe that the noble Lord who chaired the committee did a magnificent job.
6.59 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, we have certainly had an exceedingly interesting debate on what is a vast subject and to me, a very complicated one. I would like to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, and his colleagues on the Select Committee on the magnificent job of work they did. I shall not fall to the blandishments of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, at this juncture and give a dissertation on the Government's proposals for an integrated transport policy because that might be more appropriately left to another day. I believe that he was slightly unfair when he complained about government secrecy. The fact is that the Government are constantly consulting a wide range of interested parties on policy, such as industry, consumer groups, environment groups, farmers and so on. They have held 30 consultative meetings on the sustainable development strategy, so I do not believe that there is too much secrecy there.
I have a certain sympathy with my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith who finds "sustainable development" a curious expression. I find that it needs minor exertion of the mental processes to realise exactly what it does mean. It really means development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. That was a point about which the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, was concerned. As the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said, we do not know what future generations will want and that is perfectly true. But we have to try not to wreck the environment for them when their turn comes.
Sustainable development seeks to reconcile the needs of economic development with the need to protect the environment. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, in a most erudite speech, was right when he said that there was concern for the environment and that
1248
that will not go away. He said that people valued creation in all its beauty and variety. I believe that the right reverend Prelate was right. I believe he also said that sustainable development brings the policies for the protection of the environment right into the heart of everything that the Government do so that we can try to ensure that economic development and environmental protection go together hand in hand. They ought to be in harmony. Over-emphasis of either one not only diminishes the other, but the whole suffers.
The Government's document on sustainable development ran to almost 300 pages. For the committee to have tried to review all that would have been a tremendous task and would have run the risk either of great delay or of over-simplification. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, on having avoided both those pitfalls. The Select Committee's report concentrated on how to implement the policy and it took a few of the most important policy areas in order to illustrate developments.
The noble Lord, Lord Tombs, warmed my heart when he said twice that he congratulated the Government. I thought of the vicar who, before the collection was taken, said, "All contributions are gratefully received". The report will certainly help us in government to crystallise our thoughts as we and others move towards a judgment in 1997—five years after Rio—of the effectiveness of our programme.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, hoped that Her Majesty's Government would get a second wind over this as it is so important. I agree with him that it is important, but I am not sure that we need a second wind because the first one is doing pretty well already. Sustainable development concerns us all. It is not enough for the Government, or if I may say so with respect, even this House or another place, to ponder the issues, to initiate policies or to pass new laws, important though all those things are. What we have to do is to engage the whole nation: to change the styles of people's lives. A number of your Lordships are fully engaged in this, through the Government Panel, the Round Table and Going for Green.
We all need to review how we live so that we can, in the words of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, stop cheating on our children. That can be done, for instance, by using energy more efficiently; by cutting down on vehicle pollution and waste; or by just being more environmentally friendly shoppers.
The committee has recommended that, if we are to make real progress towards sustainable development, the Government need to set a range of challenging targets, but targets which must be realistic. If targets are to be of practical use, they really have to be supported by scientific analysis and by an assessment of what they will cost and what benefits they will bring, including the cost and benefits to the environment.
Most of the targets which we have already set are described by the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, as "imperative" or "firm" targets. They are intended to be legally binding. Many of these result from agreements at international level. It is essential that these kinds of targets should be properly enforced and properly

1249
monitored, both at home and abroad, in order to secure the benefit to the environment which was expected of them and in order to ensure that they do not distort competitiveness.
There can, of course, be a value in setting targets which are not legally binding in this way. They are sometimes called "indicative" targets. They serve a useful purpose where, for example, the goals are fairly long term and where they may need to be reviewed or adjusted; or, for instance, where the issues are too complicated to be reflected in a single target, but where they might be better expressed in a broad manner. Again, they can be useful when action cannot be taken by the Government alone, but where a co-operative and voluntary effort is required.
A good example of that might be the Government's wish to see a doubling of woodland in England over the next half century. We included that, which is an indicative target, in the rural White Paper which we published on 17th October. It should be achievable, given the present incentives and the changes which we wish to see in the common agricultural policy, but it stands to be adjusted in the light of changing circumstances.
We intend to bear in mind the value of both kinds of target as the years go by and as we negotiate agreements internationally. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford was keen to have targets for departments to adhere to. I can see his reasoning, but it might well be phenomenally difficult to put in place. He was concerned that ministerial papers for the Cabinet and its committees should include an assessment of any significant environmental costs and benefits. He wondered who determined what was appropriate and who assessed the net environmental cost.
The answer is that in the first instance the Minister and his department whose papers are under discussion, are responsible. Other departments have the opportunity to comment, including my own. Environment ministers will be present in Cabinet or committee. I am not aware of any serious difficulties here, but we shall certainly keep the system under review. A departmental group of economists is about to review the detailed application.
The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, was concerned about the limits to cost-benefit analysis. Some of the things that we value most cannot be priced. I agree with the noble Lord so much over that. I remember my father saying that the greatest values in life were truth, beauty and goodness. I value those because none of them can be tabulated or quantified, but they are important. It is vital to ensure that these matters are considered carefully in any environmental assessment and weighed in the balance even when they are unquantifiable.
Perhaps I may refer to the item which has been referred to by a number of noble Lords; namely, transport policies. They are already strongly influenced by the need to meet national targets for reducing various emissions. The Department of Transport has recently encouraged local authorities to adopt targets which will suit their own local transport strategies, and many authorities are making good progress in that direction.
1250
The Government's mind is open on the case for adopting new types of transport targets, perhaps at a national level. We invited views on this in the recent consultation paper called Transport: The Way Ahead. Any new targets, though, should be carefully chosen to ensure that they are aimed correctly. They should be achievable and people should be made fully aware of the costs of meeting them.
The noble Lord, Lord Tombs, wanted to see encouragement of gas-fuelled engines, as did my noble friends, Lady Platt and Lord Jenkin. I have seen a gas-fuelled bus and one with a diesel engine fitted with a particle trap. To a simple layman both those things impressed me enormously. However, when my noble friends go on and ask, "What about lowering the tax?" I am bound to give them the answer which I know they will expect, which is that I cannot anticipate the Budget, but I understand what they mean.
My noble friend Lord Caldecote asked what action would be taken on particles. There is considerable scientific concern about the health effects of particles and we have asked several of the advisory groups to study the matter. Those groups are the Expert Panel on Air Quality Standards, the Committee on Medical Effects of Air Pollution and the Quality of Urban Air Review Group. Their reports on various aspects of particle pollution will be published shortly and the Government will produce their national air strategy for consultation before the end of the year. That will set out our plans for tackling all air pollution in this country, including from particles.
My noble friend Lord Caldecote was concerned about vehicle emission standards. The fact is that vehicle emission standards were tightened in 1993 and further tougher limits will apply from 1996. The Government's air quality strategy includes serious measures to control transport emissions. The recommendations from the expert panels on air quality standards will be published shortly. The views of your Lordships' Select Committee on targets are a particularly valuable contribution to the debate on transport. We have said that we shall produce a further report after we have been able to absorb all the views expressed.
The Select Committee made a number of comments on agriculture. I was glad that it recognised the Government's continued desire to reform the common agricultural policy. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Blakenham said that he thought that the common agricultural policy was not sustainable in its present form and that more emphasis should be placed on the environment.
My noble friend also mentioned grants with regard to waste handling facilities. Such grants are no longer available on a country-wide basis, but the Government are committed to making grants available in the nitrate-vulnerable zones once they have been designated. In addition, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is spending £3.2 million in 1995–96 on research and development into ways of dealing with farm wastes.
The noble Lord, Lord Barber of Tewkesbury, was also concerned about the work of developing indices of pesticide use to measure the environmental risk.

1251
Obviously, policies on agricultural inputs must be soundly based and must not oversimplify what are very complex matters. The Government's policy is to limit the amount of pesticide use to the minimum necessary for the effective control of pests, compatible with the protection of human health and the environment. The indices will enable long-term trends to be monitored and will allow comparisons to be made between different agricultural practices.
My noble friend Lord Clanwilliam was concerned about the organic aid scheme and said that it was inadequate when compared with the schemes for environmentally sensitive areas and the Countryside Stewardship Scheme. The organic aid scheme should not be compared with other environmental schemes as though it is an alternative. For many farmers, it provides an additional payment on top of other environmental aids. In addition, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food spends about £1 million every year on research and development into the economic aspects of organic farming.
My noble friend Lord Addison referred to problems with the extraction of minerals, especially in national parks. I agree that there is a serious problem which goes to the root of sustainable development. There are new provisions in the Environment Act and I think that we should give them time to work. Agriculture's relationship with the environment is peculiarly complex and it is not easy to reduce that complexity to a simple set of basic targets and indicators. However, the work that is currently being undertaken on indicators of sustainable development should help to illuminate the possibilities and problems. We shall consider the issue further when we come to the 1996 White Paper on sustainable development and the environment.
The noble Lord, Lord Barber, was concerned about the quality of agricultural soil. The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution is just coming to the end of a two-year study on soil. We should await its report before coming to too many conclusions. The commission comprises scientists, economists, business and farming interests and others. It took evidence in public from a wide range of experts. Its report is expected to be published in the new year and the Government will respond to it publicly.
My noble friend Lord Norrie asked some questions about planning. The Government's planning policy on major developments in the national parks is clearly set out in paragraph 3.6 of planning policy guidance note No. 7. Guidance on the application of that principle will be set out in the forthcoming guidance circular on the operations of the new national park authorities. All proposals for major developments in national parks should be tested against the criteria of need and whether there are suitable alternatives. Those proposing major developments will have to demonstrate clearly why they consider that the development is appropriate for a national park, commensurate with the established guidance. My noble friend also asked about targets and national parks. The parks will be required to demonstrate their performance against various targets relating to their several functions as part of the normal
1252
process of bidding for funds and reporting progress. I should like to take up my noble friend's invitation to write to him on the point about the duties of public bodies.
The Select Committee stressed the need for the proper integration of economic and environmental policies and asked for a restatement of how at present we set out to achieve that. Our response did that. We also agreed in our response that, given the progress that has been achieved on green housekeeping, the time is right for meetings of green Ministers to take on a wider range of issues which they can discuss. Green Ministers will also keep under review the opportunities to publish further information about their collective work.
The Select Committee also recommended that the Government should pursue the wider use of economic instruments which are designed to give business and others financial incentives to help to protect the environment. The Select Committee's suggestion is welcome because economic instruments can often be more sensitive than regulations. But regulation and voluntary action both have a part to play too. The important thing is that we should seek the best possible mixture of the three different approaches.
The noble Lords, Lord Porter and Lord Barber, referred to the precautionary principle, which is widely quoted in international discussions and agreements. The Select Committee's report cautioned against devaluation of the precautionary principle. The Select Committee thought that it had occurred in the Government's climate change programme and said that, as energy efficiency measures pay for themselves, why should they be described as precautionary action? The Government find that interpretation too narrow. Energy efficiency measures are both precautionary action and self-interested. Other countries take the same view. Pointing to the financial advantages certainly helps to promote energy efficiency.
The Select Committee criticised the slow pace of change. In fact, there is now a growing list of examples of the practical and successful use of those economic instruments. Probably the first and best-known example was the preferential tax treatment which was given to unleaded petrol. That has contributed towards a major reduction in lead in the air. We also introduced the system of increasing the duty on fuel by 5 per cent. above the rate of inflation each year and, of course, we announced proposals for the landfill tax which, incidentally, is now at an advanced stage of preparation.
The noble Lords, Lord Desai and Lord Beaumont, wanted to move from taxes on income to taxes on resources. As the noble Lord, Lord Desai, knows only too well, that is a big subject so perhaps I may excuse myself from commenting on it at this juncture.
The landfill tax marks something of a departure in both environmental and fiscal policy. It is the first use of a new tax in the United Kingdom which is designed to help achieve an environmental objective, and it reflects the Government's intention to use taxation to help to protect the environment. The landfill tax is a recognition of the fact that taxation systems can be used

1253
to promote activities which are better for the environment, while reducing taxes which damage economic activity.
We would like to move further in that direction. But, introducing more market-based approaches is much more complex than some people might realise. It is not only important to get the technical aspects right. We also need to establish the effect which a new economic instrument would have upon the market, and how it would interact with environmental regulations.
Some of your Lordships referred to the Treasury, saying that it is responsible for the slow pace of change. Kicking the Treasury is usually considered to be good sport, if for no other reason than that one is not likely to find many people who take the opposite view. But occasionally it can be unfair. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said only in the last Budget:
"I want to raise tax on polluters to make further cuts in the tax on jobs".—[Official Report, Commons, 29/11/94; col. 1098.]
I agree with the committee that there will always remain an important role for regulation which can never be replaced by just market-based approaches. This includes cases where regulations are needed to prevent unacceptable health risks or where they are needed in order to protect vital environmental resources. There will also be cases where much can be achieved through voluntary actions by firms, the public sector, voluntary groups and individuals.
I was deeply impressed by the noble Lord, Lord Porter of Luddenham, who said that he had discovered a molecule, even though it lasted for only one-thousandth of a second. I have never met anyone who has discovered a molecule. In my churlish way, I wondered how, if it was there for only one-thousandth of a second, he knew that it existed. I am sure that he had a good scientific instrument which told him that.
The committee recommended that government should take the lead in helping to get public awareness about environmental issues translated into action. I believe that the committee is right and the Government are prepared to do that. A number of important things have already been done. One particularly important achievement is that part of the sustainable development strategy which is specifically aimed at involving ordinary citizens; that which we called Going For Green. It started about a year ago and it has concentrated on making people more aware of how they themselves can contribute to a better environment. That includes ensuring that pupils grow up with a proper understanding of the issues which will affect their future.
Sustainable development is a fast-moving sea and many things are happening. The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, said that we should carry out our obligations beyond Europe. We agree and we are doing that. At the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 we signed up to Agenda 21, which was a global programme of action for sustainable development. That recognises the inter-dependence of nations and the need for international co-operation. The United Kingdom has taken a lead in following up the Rio Summit and has used its influence to promote
1254
co-operation and progress between developing and developed countries on very important environmental issues, such as the ozone layer.
My right honourable friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, launched a rural White Paper last week. It sets out a new vision for the future of our countryside and it explains how sustainable development can be put into practice in rural areas, building on the strengths of the countryside and those who live and work there. Research is also underway to investigate and to produce a good practice guide on sustainable development for local planning authorities in England. That will be published in early 1997.
The preparation of our air quality strategy is well advanced and we intend to publish it for consultation within the next few months. Improving air quality is a major environmental objective and one where we agree that targets can lend a clear sense of direction. We also intend to publish the waste strategy for England and Wales before the end of the year.
We shall consider what has been said by so many people and we also wish to consider the points that your Lordships have made today. We hope to go to consultation shortly, as the Environment Act requires, on a further text of a draft order which will be laid before your Lordships and another place early next year.
This has been—certainly for me—a fascinating debate, providing perceptions on a number of issues for which I have, with a certain amount of temerity, found myself taking on some form of ministerial responsibility. It has raised questions of both principle and practicality. As I said at the beginning, sustainable development covers a very wide canvas. It is at the heart of government policy. It has a long-term perspective and it involves all sections of society. I can assure your Lordships that I have listened with interest to your contributions on this far from easy subject. We shall certainly take note of what your Lordships have said both tonight and in the Select Committee report.
7.24 p.m.
Lord Tombs: My Lords, we have had a comprehensive and rewarding debate during which many points of importance have been made. I am sure that the House will be delighted to hear that I have no intention of revisiting them. Hansard will provide an invaluable supplement to the committee's report.
It seemed to me that two general topics cropped up during the debate, neither of which were addressed in the report. The first was the need for more urgency; what one might term the "near-Apocalyptic approach". The second was the loss of momentum in the UK as well as elsewhere. I wish to take just a couple of minutes to discuss those two topics.
When considering the urgency and becoming desperate about the state of the environment it is good to look back at history; to look, for example, at the Reverend Malthus who last century predicted doom and starvation and almost the end of the planet. It is also good to look back 50 years at the achievements of technology and the wide variety of topics. Good

1255
examples, which I jotted down, are energy, medicine, communications and agriculture. Looking back at the progress made in those four areas during the past 50 years, in my judgment there is no need to be worried about the next 50 years.
Society will not be changed; it will not be revolutionised in its attitudes or values overnight. Therefore, we are in for a long haul, assisted by faith in technology.
As regards the loss of momentum, which I confess I can see some arguments for, enthusiasms come and go and perhaps in some cases sustainable development is the victim of its own success. But I am convinced that there is a "no slowing" by the Department of the Environment, although I have to say that the Government response could be seen as supporting the proposition.
In co-ordinating the policies and actions of a dozen departments, the task of the Department of the Environment, to which it brings great energy and stamina, is unenviable. Naturally enough, the commitment of individual departments varies enormously, and in the report we drew attention to some laggards. As has been said today, and as we stated, the Treasury deserves special mention in that respect.
How do we maintain the momentum that we have achieved during the past 10 years? I should like the Government to consider an annual report and debate in which the report is made by the lead department—that is, the Department of the Environment—and progress is reviewed during the year. Failing that, I suggest to the appropriate authorities regular reviews by Select Committees. One or other of those mechanisms is needed because the whole effort is essentially inter-departmental. A lead department, however good, cannot bridge those gaps without some support from outside.
I and my colleagues are gladdened by the widespread acceptance of the arguments and conclusions of the report. I personally was grateful for the opportunity of chairing the committee on such a fascinating topic and being with colleagues who were well informed, good humoured, hardworking and, as you have heard from their comments on the chairman, very tolerant.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Edgware General Hospital
7.27 p.m.
Lord Rea Lord Rea rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will reconsider their decision to close the accident and emergency department and acute bed provision at the Edgware General Hospital.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on the whole, I steer clear of debates which discuss the future of individual hospitals. I realise that governments of all persuasions must sometimes take locally unpopular decisions in response to demographic and public health changes and to medical advances which allow a speedier turnaround in hospitals. During the past decade we have seen
1256
nationally a reduction from just over three acute beds per 1,000 of the population in 1982 to some 2.25 beds in 1992. The trend has continued. Greater London, including the special health authorities, has experienced a faster decline from just over four acute beds per 1,000 of the population in 1982 to 2.5 in 1992. Again, the trend has continued. The current level of beds per thousand is not very different from the national average in the country as a whole. By now, it is probably below it, quite apart from any proposed closures that are now in the pipeline.
The situation in other conurbations is similar but the decline has been slower than in London and more in line with national trends. In other conurbations, the average has gone down from four beds per thousand to just over three per thousand in the same period whereas, as I said, in London the level has gone down to 2·5 per thousand. A fall of 1·5 beds per thousand may not sound very much but applied to the 6·3 million population of London, it amounts to nearly 10,000 beds closed in the period of 10 to 12 years up to 1992.
I suggest that we have already reached an irreducible minimum, given the age structure of our population and its present state of health. In fact, we may have already gone too far in London. As a GP, I know both personally and from talking to colleagues that the situation over the past five years has become very tight indeed and it is getting worse not only in inner London but also in outer London. It is often very difficult to find a bed for an acutely ill patient.
Sir Bernard Tomlinson's report concentrated mainly on inner London. One reason that he felt that fewer beds were necessary in inner London was that patients attending inner London hospitals who lived in outer London could and should be treated and admitted where necessary by the hospital trust in their home districts, where the costs in fact were usually lower. However, as he subsequently said, he was not able to take the figures for outer London fully into account. Had he done so, he would have found that very few hospitals in outer London had any spare capacity. Edgware General and Barnet General Hospitals are both in that category.
As the Minister knows, the 400 acute beds at Edgware General Hospital, which the Wellhouse Trust currently plans to close, will not be replaced in the area of Barnet Health Authority. The new hospital at Barnet, when stage 2 is completed, will also have approximately 400 beds; that is the same as now. The question is where the patients currently using the 400 beds at Edgware General will go.
It was suggested to me by the chief executive of the project team at Edgware General Hospital, which I visited last week, that those patients will be absorbed by various other hospitals; for example, by Northwick Park Hospital, where 45 new beds are planned, and the Royal Free Hospital, and that some would go to the new Barnet General Hospital, possibly replacing patients from Hertfordshire or the New River health authorities which are now using the Barnet General Hospital and which would use other hospitals.
But there are also problems in other areas. That raises a number of issues. All those other hospitals are themselves under pressure. The Royal Free Hospital is

1257
quite popular with Edgware residents because, unlike some of the others, it is relatively accessible, being only six or seven stops along the Northern Line. But to accommodate extra patients would involve the construction of a new building or five beds would have to be squeezed into ward bays designed for only four beds. That would lower standards of comfort to patients and would make it difficult for staff to maintain standards of care.
If the Barnet General Hospital is able to decant the patients which are coming from other health authorities, the Wellhouse Trust will lose some of the contract income which it receives at present and which it badly needs in its parlous financial state.
In fact, the decision to concentrate expensive acute care and the major trauma unit on one site was driven by the chronic mis-match between the cost of running Edgware General and Barnet General Hospitals and the weighted capitation funding of the health authority. There was not enough money to run the two hospitals. The health authority says that the decision to concentrate on the new Barnet General Hospital was clinically driven. Given the chronic under-funding of the two hospitals, I can understand that clinical staff may well opt for that. It will be much easier to provide services of a high standard in a brand new hospital rather than in the old Barnet General Hospital or in Edgware General Hospital, blighted as it is by a bleak and uncertain future.
In that decision, the needs of the population seem to have been forgotten. Edgware contains several wards with quite a high prevalence of social deprivation and ethnic minority immigrants. It also has two-thirds of the population of the whole health authority area conveniently clustered around Edgware General Hospital with quite frequent buses connecting residential districts to the central area where the hospital is. People are used to the hospital and find it friendly.
Travelling to other hospitals, with the possible exception of the Royal Free, would be expensive and will not be at all easy because of poor public transport. Bus services may well be provided from the Edgware General site to the new Barnet General Hospital, but it will still be six miles away and 45 minutes in time and it will not be free whenever anyone wants to visit auntie or mum in hospital.
A much lower proportion of the population of Edgware has access to cars than does the population of Barnet. It could be said of the wealthier people of Barnet in relation to the less well-off people of Edgware, "To he that hath shall be given a brand new hospital and from he that hath not shall be taken even the hospital that he hath".
I have not spoken about the closure of the accident and emergency department. I accept the argument that for major trauma, a well-equipped consultant-led unit is best. But I think that it is quite inadequate to replace Edgware's accident and emergency department, which has 40,000 attendances per year, if not more, with a nurse practitioner-run accident and treatment service. I have nothing against the work of nurse practitioners. They can play an enormously useful role. But they need medical backing and, so far, that is not planned.
Preliminary talks with local GPs are about to start. But will there be full-time medical backing for the nurses? I suggest that there must be if the unit is to be useful and respected.
I was told that a local hospital is planned on the Edgware site, keeping many of the buildings in operation. If so, where is the great saving coming from? I like the sound of that proposed hospital, especially if it includes an acute psychiatric unit, which is much needed. But why should there not be also some medical beds and some beds attached to the minor accident and treatment service for people who are not sufficiently ill to be transferred to the Barnet accident and emergency department but too ill to go home? There are many possibilities. I am merely putting forward a few suggestions.
I understand that £28 million is to be raised to pay for stage 1B, the second part of the building of the new Barnet General Hospital. Could that money, which will almost certainly have to come from government sources and not from the private sector—there is quite a lot of difficulty as regards the operation of the PFI scheme in this case—be spent on the Edgware General site with an intelligent split of acute services between a smaller than planned Barnet General Hospital, which would equate with its smaller population, and the current perfectly adequate site and buildings at Edgware General, which is where the people are?
I have gone on for rather longer than I meant to and I have not even mentioned the possible role of improved primary care. I am delighted that that is receiving increased financial support, but however good primary health care becomes it cannot, in the short run, make any difference to bed needs. In deprived areas particularly, improved primary health care may even find undiagnosed, treatable conditions which can be helped by hospital treatment. I give your Lordships the example of arthritis of the hip which a less literate, articulate person may not present adequately to the doctor if there was only a cursory primary health care service. Cataracts are another example. The possibility of increased beds being necessary as a result of improved primary health care was recently pointed out by the King's Fund Report. It certainly equates with some work that I am doing at present.
The Secretary of State for Health said in July:
"I will not allow anything to happen to the NHS in London that does not lead to an improvement over what we have now".
I think that there is good reason to question whether the proposed changes in Edgware will produce any improvement in healthcare for local people. In fact, I believe that there is a serious danger that the current plans will lead to chaos. There is a danger that lives will be lost as a result of taking acute services away from a major centre of population, as well as siting the accident and emergency department away from the main line railway and the M.1 motorway where there is always the possibility of a serious accident. The accident and emergency department of Edgware General Hospital is now very well situated to cope with such incidents.
Finally, I should like to mention a survey of a random sample of 200 residents of Barnet Health Authority which was carried out by Dr. Colin Francome, who is

1259
Reader in Medical Sociology at Middlesex University. The people he interviewed lived close to Barnet Hospital and Edgware General Hospital. They represent a random sample throughout the health authority area. Those people were asked whether they supported the current plans to close the accident and emergency department and acute beds at Edgware General Hospital. He reported:
"Despite interviewing over 200 residents we were unable to find any who supported the decision. It is rare if not unique to find such unanimity on a subject".
Of course, we can always expect local residents to support their hospital, but that result is quite unusual. I hope that the Minister and her right honourable colleague the Secretary of State will bear it in mind as well as all the other points that I made.
7.43 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for introducing his timely and important Unstarred Question in such a comprehensive way. He gave your Lordships a very authoritative description of the particular problems of Barnet and of the two hospitals which are subject to change. I believe that my noble friend also illustrated the way in which the particular problems of Barnet and of the closure at Edgware General Hospital reflect some of the questions and discussions which we have had in this House about the general situation in London healthcare over the past few years.
I should like to focus not on the particular problems of Edgware, although they are, of course, relevant to the general description that I want to discuss about London's problems, but on the way in which they demonstrate the general issues which we have discussed so often. I believe that it has become generally accepted in the House—and, indeed, in a wider discussion on the needs of Londoners for particular healthcare—that there is and has been for some time a need for change in the pattern of services enjoyed by the residents of the capital.
As we delved more deeply into the issues which have been highlighted by the different reports about particular problems of London as a whole and the specific issues which arise around individual hospitals, we learnt and understood—and we on these Benches would say that we have learnt such lessons rather quicker than some people on the other side of the House—some more points about the particular needs of London which were perhaps less clear when we all embarked on the discussion in which we agreed that some change in the provision of services was needed.
I believe the points that my noble friend made about the closure at Edgware General Hospital do in fact, as I said, reflect many of those points on which we have begun to learn some lessons which perhaps were not as clear as they were when we began to discuss these issues.
The first point to which my noble friend referred to in some detail as it applied to the Barnet healthcare situation was the question of bed numbers in London, the needs of Londoners for acute care in their particular
1260
sociological and demographic position, and the relative problems of comparing apples and pears—for example, of comparing inner and outer London and the difficulties into which we have got many times in your Lordships' House when trying to agree whether or not those questions were easily resolvable.
My contention is that we, as I said, have not been able to resolve those issues. There are queries over the important question regarding the needs for acute beds in London which are not clear. We have the conflicting evidence of experts like Professor Brian Jarman and the inner-London chief executives all of whom seem to suggest that there is a need to maintain the level of bed provision in inner London and, indeed, in outer London. Then we have other assertions that those figures are based on different bases and are, therefore, not relevant for comparison. I mention that because it is one of the fundamental questions over which there is a difficulty of analysis and, therefore, a difficulty about taking hard and fast decisions.
My noble friend referred to the role of the PFI and its potential for funding Phase IB of the new provision of healthcare in Barnet. That is something which, in a sense, was not even on the agenda when we began to discuss the substitution of provision in London. The role of the PFI has become of relevance much more recently than that and, as my noble friend very vividly described, could in fact lead to greater complexities and uncertainties about the way in which the needs of that particular population are to be fulfilled.
Then there is the further question about the shift of resources from the acute sector to primary care and the primary sector, something upon which the Government (and, indeed, those of us who hope that there can be some successful change in the provision of services) have based an enormous amount of their confidence in making the changes that they propose. However, we really do not know—and, again, this is something over which queries have arisen very recently—whether any shift of resources to primary care would in fact reduce the demand for acute beds or whether it would, as is sometimes suggested, increase it. That, again, is another major question over which there is still a query and upon which we do not have the kind of hard and fast basis of knowledge that we need in order to take such very swingeing decisions about the transfer of services.
However, what we do know is that during the last period emergency admissions to hospitals have increased; and, again, that was not evident, in the way that it is now, at the beginning of our discussions. But there does not seem to be any general answer as to why that is so. The fact that emergency admissions are increasing is a new factor and a different problem as regards the provision of services. It is something that we should certainly be concerned to try to answer more adequately than we can at present before we make further changes in the reduction of acute sector beds in London.
The nature of the primary care with which we seek to replace acute care is another area which is still rather grey. We know that in some areas replacing A&E provision, as is suggested at Edgware General, with small injuries units can be successful. I know my part

1261
of London, West London, better than this part, and that has been done rather successfully in West London by the transfer of an A&E department to a small injuries unit at St. Charles Hospital in North Kensington. However, at the St. Charles Hospital the transport links are good, St. Mary's Hospital major accident and emergency department is close and the back-up is extremely successful and has worked well in the past 18 months since the transfer was made. There seems, on the local evidence, not to be a basis for being so confident about the same thing happening in Barnet. As I understand it, Barnet was shown in the report published in the summer to have the worst ambulance service in London. That is not something which leads one to have great confidence in any decision to move A&E—in the "blue light" sense; that is, the old-fashioned sense of a major accident and emergency department—to a small injuries unit while there are still such major queries over the provision of back-up services.
All of these matters are reflected in the intensity of local feeling against these changes which my noble friend Lord Rea has described so vividly. When she introduced these changes, the Secretary of State at that time, the right honourable Mrs. Bottomley, said that the changes would not be made, particularly on the accident and emergency front, until she or her successor could guarantee that the ambulance services and other back-up arrangements were in place and that there was some visible provision of replacement beds in Phase (IB) of the Barnet Hospital. However, I fear that I join those members of the local pressure groups who are so concerned about this matter in having a lack of confidence in the reality of that coming about near enough in the future to make it possible to take these basic decisions at this time. I have begun to think that much of this planning for the future of the service in London is what I would call the "virtual reality" of health service strategy.
On a previous occasion when we debated this matter in your Lordships' House the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, told me that the results of the deliberations of the London Implementation Group were there for all to see. However, since the noble Baroness told me that, I have spent some time asking many people who work at the coal-face, as it were, of the London health services to show me the visible demonstration of what is happening as regards the transfer of resources which we were all told would replace the closures of acute services. On the evidence of some not entirely convincing examples the pattern of services does not seem to have changed as visibly, as obviously or as comprehensively as one might have thought as a result of the injection of resources and the confidence which has been displayed in them from the centre on the part of the Department of Health.
We now have a new Secretary of State, as my noble friend Lord Rea said. In the past few months he has been seen to be perfectly honest and to be much less rigid as regards sticking to some plans and being firm in his convictions that they were absolutely right than his predecessor was. One could almost describe him as having been mollifying in areas such as pay demands
1262
and the question of management costs in the health service. I hope that he can display some of the same flexibility as regards the service in London. As I have said, there are many reasons for delay in pursuing these radical changes which are being suggested in an area such as Barnet. It would be flexible and, as I say, in line with the degree of concern and the willingness to look again at old problems in a new light that the Secretary of State has demonstrated if he were to agree to a moratorium on this decision. There are special factors about London which we are only beginning to understand. Inquiries are now taking place on the particular problems of mental health services and the particular problems associated with long-term care and the problems which my noble friend Lord Rea mentioned of social deprivation in the capital.
There is, notably, the new King's Fund mark two inquiry into the state of services in London in the future. I declare an interest as a member of that commission. The fundamental issue for Londoners is to retain their confidence in the NHS and to retain the confidence that the NHS will maintain a level of services which people can feel secure about even if those services are to be provided in a rather different form. I end by referring to the comments of the new Secretary of State in an article which he wrote soon after he took office with regard to the service in London,
"it is vital that health authorities command the confidence of both the professionals who work within the health service and the patients the health service is there to serve".
Those are all reasons for this decision to be reconsidered.
7.55 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, I am pleased to respond to the noble Lord and indeed to the noble Baroness on this issue. It is an important topic, as the noble Baroness has said. This debate gives me a valuable opportunity to explain to your Lordships' House the significant improvements in healthcare that the Government have approved for this part of North London. Not only will there be a brand new hospital at Barnet (which is already under construction) but Edgware Hospital will continue to have an important future as a local hospital providing valuable services to local people.
I am well aware that the future of Edgware Hospital has recently been the subject of at times heated debate in another place. Honourable Members have quite rightly represented the concerns of their constituents on this matter and your Lordships have indeed reiterated some of those concerns here tonight.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health has made clear that he does not intend to revisit the decisions taken by previous Secretaries of State. In implementing those decisions, however, he is committed to ensuring that, at each stage of implementation, the quality of services is at least maintained and wherever possible improved. The future changes at Edgware are designed to provide higher quality, improved services for patients. The current split site arrangements and consequent duplication of facilities between the Barnet

1263
and Edgware sites (both managed by the Wellhouse Trust) are not only inefficient, but are detrimental to good patient care.
The health authority has plans for the future which provide for facilities to be developed at both Barnet and Edgware. The plans offer a better quality of service to patients as well as more efficient use of resources. That is in accordance with the intentions of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State who has made it clear that plans for future healthcare in this part of London must deliver high quality services to patients both in Edgware and in Barnet.
Those plans have emerged from a process of extensive and thorough consultation. The Barnet Health Authority and the trust have consistently sought to involve the public in their deliberations through a series of public meetings and the distribution of leaflets and articles in the local press. They have gone to great lengths to explain the compelling reasons and the benefits for patients from the planned changes.
As I said at the start of my speech, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made clear that he does not intend to revisit decisions taken by his predecessor. It is important for me to stress that the future of Edgware Hospital as a significant provider of healthcare is not in doubt. The hospital will continue to meet wide-ranging needs of people in the area through extensive provision of services.
As your Lordships will be aware, a large proportion of patients making use of hospital services do so either at outpatient clinics or increasingly through day case provision. These services will continue at Edgware. The health authority and trust are also considering proposals for the development of accident care for the people of Edgware as well as services for elderly people and for children and a new rehabilitation service on the Edgware site. Final decisions on the precise nature of services to be provided at Edgware still have to be taken.
It must also be emphasised that the changes at Edgware Hospital will not occur overnight. They are dependent upon completion of the redevelopment of Barnet General Hospital and the expansion of services at Northwick Park and the Royal Free Hospital. Only when the alternative facilities elsewhere are completed and are accessible and capable of providing an improved service to patients will the major changes take place at Edgware.
As your Lordships are aware, it is intended that the full range of acute services will be provided at the redeveloped Barnet General Hospital. I can assure your Lordships that the facilities being developed will be of a very high quality.
Work began in November last year on a £29 million first phase of the redevelopment. Taking forward the decision on Edgware will mean that the second and final phase can go ahead at a cost of 33 million. In effect, this will mean the construction of an entirely new hospital offering excellent specialist acute facilities. The new Accident and Emergency Department will be one of the most up to date in London capable of treating 70,000 patients a year to the highest clinical standards.
1264
Patients admitted to the new Accident and Emergency Department who require further specialist treatment will transfer within the Barnet complex to relevant units quickly and safely. This contrasts with the present situation where some admissions through A&E have to be transferred between the Edgware and Barnet sites to receive appropriate treatment. That is a situation which we could not allow to continue.
I listened very carefully to the noble Lord's anxieties about the apparent reduction in capacity. It is true that eventually there will be fewer beds than at present within the Wellhouse Trust, although precise numbers are still not clear and will be affected by decisions yet to be taken. However, your Lordships will be aware that bed numbers are only part of the picture. Developments in medical procedures and greater investment in community and primary services are changing the nature of healthcare provision across the country, not only in North London.
The noble Baroness mentioned the increase in emergency admissions. We recognise that that is the case. It occurs not only in London but is a countrywide situation. The NHS is coping very well with that pressure. However, the department is looking at what may lie behind the rise in emergency admissions. We have recently established four pilot studies in different parts of the country to inform decisions on the assessment of the rise in admissions and how that can be addressed through the commissioning process.
That brings me to the relevance of primary care in the overall plans for the area. That is of course an essential feature of the services. As the Edgware hospital changes its role and becomes more of a local hospital so will local primary services need to adapt to the changed circumstances.
We fully acknowledge that local GPs will need time to develop human and financial resources to manage the shift from secondary to primary care. They will need to be closely involved in the development of community services on the Edgware site. Taking this into account, I should inform your Lordships that through Barnet's primary healthcare development fund an investment of £17 million over a five-year period will be made to improve local services.
Projects at present under way include the extension of nursing for terminally ill people at home, improvements in GP surgeries and an outreach ophthalmology clinic. Projects planned for the future include increases in community nursing staff, a new GP surgery in the Burnt Oak area, further training of GPs to carry out minor surgery and the introduction of community physiotherapy. We believe that all of these developments will provide a framework in which the new Edgware hospital will succeed and prosper.
I have listened carefully to the concerns expressed tonight by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, about transport provision. Of course I acknowledge that travelling will be more difficult for some patients coming from the Edgware area. However, the majority of the services currently provided at Edgware will remain.

1265
Where services are being concentrated at the Barnet site, patients will continue to have access to a free NHS bus service operating between the two hospitals. Special arrangements will be made for elderly and infirm patients who are less mobile.
The noble Baroness raised a particular concern about the problems of transport in relation to accident and emergency provision. I can assure your Lordships that the health authority has taken careful account of the fears expressed about this. So far as concerns ambulance cover, the health authority intends to provide additional investment over and above the significant increase already agreed this year. Two additional ambulances and crews will be funded at an extra cost of £320,000.
We appreciate the deeply held views on this issue. However, we remain convinced that the proposals already approved and those in the making will lead to improved services for the local community in both Barnet and Edgware. The plans have been long in the making, and have been determined only after lengthy consideration and consultation.
Some of the current facilities are below the standards we believe patients should be able to expect. The Barnet Health Authority has a statutory duty to
1266
ensure that residents of the area are provided with a comprehensive health service meeting the full range of their needs. The plans now being developed will ensure that in that part of London services will match the very best. We believe that they will serve the needs of local people, not only now but well into the 21st century.
Lord Rea: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down could she develop the short statement she made that GPs will be involved in the proposed new local hospital? What is envisaged? Will there be a primary healthcare unit inside the hospital? Will GPs be associated with the minor accident and treatment service? How far have plans developed and is the health authority in touch with local GPs about that proposal?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we recognise that any provisions or changes that are made need to involve local GPs. The details are being worked out at the moment. There will be further consultation by the health authority, and it would be wrong of me at this moment to pre-empt that consultation.
House adjourned at six minutes past eight o'clock.

  Legal Education and Conduct: Report of Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee
  Legal Education and Conduct: Report of Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee
  Electricity Consumption in Wales
  Electricity Consumption in Wales
  Berkshire: Local Government Structure
  Berkshire: Local Government Structure
  Satellite Dish Sizes
  Satellite Dish Sizes
  University Air Squadrons
  University Air Squadrons
  Queen's University (Belfast) Air Squadron
  Queen's University (Belfast) Air Squadron
  MoD Hospital Units
  MoD Hospital Units
  Prisoners: PPG Testing
  Prisoners: PPG Testing
  Imprisonment for Fine Default
  Imprisonment for Fine Default
  Parkhurst Prison Board of Visitors: Vacancies
  Parkhurst Prison Board of Visitors: Vacancies
  Mental Health Act Detainees Released under Supervision
  Mental Health Act Detainees Released under Supervision
  Adoptions: Reduction in Numbers
  Adoptions: Reduction in Numbers
  Prescription Charges Equalisation
  Prescription Charges Equalisation
  Mental Illness Hospitals: In-Patients
  Mental Illness Hospitals: In-Patients
  Mr. John Smeaton
  Mr. John Smeaton
  UN Population Award Laureates
  UN Population Award Laureates