Sitting of 5 November 1997

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

Road Safety
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Allen.]
9.34 am
Mr. David Kidney: It is 10 years since the committee chaired by Dr. Peter North prepared its report on our road traffic laws. Since then, most of the changes in the laws affecting road traffic have been based on its recommendations. Ten years on, I believe that it is time to take a fresh look at road safety, for two reasons.
First, the committee did not directly consider the issue of road safety; it was not within its terms of reference, a fact acknowledged in the report by its author. Secondly, many changes have taken place in the past 10 years. The volume of traffic has increased enormously and road safety technology has made huge advances. There is also the recent phenomenon of road rage, most graphically brought to our attention recently by the tragic deaths of Toby Exley and Karen Martin in an incident west of London.
Another factor is the strength of feeling of bereaved families that suffer the loss of loved ones in killings on our roads. They see that the law is not effective enough to prevent those deaths or to punish those who cause them. That view was prevalent at the time of the North committee report, which mentioned that bereaved families felt that the criminal law was too lenient to those who caused deaths on our roads. That that strength of feeling has continued—and hardened—over the past 10 years, despite changes in the law as recommended by the committee, is testament enough that something more needs to be done.
I do not claim that this debate alone constitutes a thoroughgoing investigation of road safety, but I hope that it contributes to a continuing interest in road safety during this Parliament. In my contribution to the debate, I wish to concentrate on two road safety issues: drinking and driving, and speeding.
The scale of the problem of drinking and driving is all too apparent from the figures. Every year, more than 500 deaths on our roads are due to illegal levels of alcohol consumption by one or other of those involved. A quarter of those deaths are children. More than 10 people die every week. Another 40 people per week avoid death but suffer serious injury. In fairness, those figures were worse at the time of the North committee's deliberations by a factor of two, but since 1993, the reductions obtained following the committee's report have come to an end. Many people speak of our having reached a plateau.
230
A plateau where 500 people die each year because of drink driving is not an acceptable point to stop. We must seek new measures to reduce deaths.
Every death on the road involves personal tragedy for many people. I should like to give one example from my constituency, to illustrate how far and wide the effects can run. The family of Mrs. Ingram in Penkridge included a brother, Gordon Husselbee, who emigrated with his wife to Australia. Last year, Mr. and Mrs. Husselbee returned for a once-in-a-lifetime reunion with their family in Penkridge. During the trip, they went out for a day to Ashbourne with two other family members, another couple. As they returned from a lovely day out, their car was struck by a lorry, killing the two men in the car and seriously injuring both women. The driver of the lorry was found to be three times over the legal limit for alcohol, even though he was working at the time.
The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), who is not in his place, has particularly asked me to make it known that he, too, wishes to join me in extending sympathy and condolences to the family on their tragic double loss in 1996. He also shares my determination that changes should be made to prevent similar deaths in the future. The hon. Gentleman represented Penkridge until the general election, when boundary changes removed it from his seat.
Alcohol impairs a driver's capability, and the more alcohol that is consumed, the greater the impairment. I believe that the legal limit should be reduced from 80 mg in 100 ml of blood to 50 mg. That would save lives year in, year out. There is public support for such a change, and it is also supported by the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety and the British Medical Association. I also believe that there is a proposal to harmonise the level at 50 mg across the European Union, but that is not why I believe that such a change should be made. I have made that suggestion because I believe that it is right for the roads of Britain. What is the Government's view?
After Mrs. Ingram and her family recovered from the natural grief that they felt at the loss of two members of their family, they suffered frustration and anger at the way in which the criminal system dealt with the driver who caused those deaths. They therefore determined to make a difference themselves, and from the market towns of Staffordshire they have collected a petition of more than 10,000 signatures calling for changes to the way in which the legal process deals with drivers who cause deaths through drink-driving. The Minister has kindly agreed to meet the family after the debate to receive their petition.
That petition calls for the immediate suspension of a driver's licence when he or she has caused death through drink-driving. It also advocates more use of the charge of manslaughter and greater opportunities for medical advisers to deny a driving licence on medical grounds.
A principled approach to reducing the number of deaths through drink-driving requires punishment that reflects the seriousness of the offence; an effective deterrent and consistent education. The punishment should reflect the revulsion felt by decent people when an innocent life is taken because of the irresponsibility of someone who drinks and drives. In 1994, 18 charges for manslaughter were brought, but not a single conviction was achieved. In 1995, there were just four convictions. In appropriate cases, manslaughter should be the appropriate charge.

231
It is also wrong that drivers who cause death because of their excessive consumption of alcohol should continue to be at liberty to drive their vehicles between the time of the death and their eventual appearance before the court for sentence—often many months later. At the moment, the only possible restriction available is when a court imposes a bail condition that a person should not drive, but sometimes even the appearance at court is delayed for many weeks if the police bail a person from the police station.
A driver's licence should be suspended immediately if he is charged with a drink-driving offence. It is up to him to apply to a court before his trial if he considers that there is a reason why he should be entitled to keep his licence. Prison sentences should also be longer in appropriate cases when irresponsible drink-driving has led to death on the roads.
The best deterrent is when drivers know that there is a high risk of detection. That has led some to call for random breath testing by the police. Police powers to administer roadside breath tests are already quite wide. They can test after a road accident; after observing moving traffic offences; and if they suspect that a driver has consumed alcohol. The Government could help to strengthen the current law if they established uniform practice by all police forces. For example, Staffordshire police policy is to administer roadside breath tests after all road accidents, and all year round.
Effective education about the dangers of drink-driving should also be given all year round. In recent years, we have become accustomed to hard-hitting advertisements on our television screens just before Christmas and sometimes at the height of summer. All-year-round education would make a difference.
Those who drive under the influence of drugs represent a growing problem, but the technology for the detection of such drivers lags behind that aimed at discovering those who drink and drive. The dangers posed by that practice are increasing.
Speed is a bigger killer than drink-driving. In 1996, the then Minister estimated that 1,200 lives had been lost in the previous year because of excessive speed, including 160 children. Given that that is equivalent to more than 20 lives lost every week, urgent action is required.
A partnership has been established between the Staffordshire police force and the county council, which has led to a big investment in speed cameras and radar for the detection of drivers over the speed limit. The county town of Stafford is a speed enforcement zone. There are warning signs on every road entering the town and an abundance of speed cameras. They are sited according to laid-down criteria relating to fatal or serious accidents in a set period. That programme has dramatically reduced speed and injuries. Average speeds have dropped by 6.5 mph and the injury/accident rate has fallen by 29 per cent. That mirrors the evidence of the first pilot scheme that was conducted in west London in 1993, which led to average speed reductions of 10 per cent. and a fall in the injury/accident rate of 21 per cent.
The availability of resources for such a high-profile, consistent campaign against speeding is a problem. The Staffordshire police could not have afforded to buy all the
232
necessary cameras for that strategy without the support of the county council. That reflects the strength of the partnership between the two organisations. The administration of speed camera detection involves the installation and maintenance of cameras, and the imposition of fixed fines. All those processes cost money. Will the Government consider adding an amount to the fixed fine to be paid to the police to cover that administration? That the speeding motorist should pay a slightly higher fine is in keeping with the notion that the punishment should fit the crime. The use of more cameras adds to the deterrent.
We should also educate drivers to understand not just that it is wrong to break the law, but that inappropriate speed causes accidents, injuries and deaths. Sometimes, drivers fail to see the need for particular speed limits—more needs to be done to establish in their minds the link between particular speed limits and the requirement for them to observe them. I commend such developments as local speed plans, safe routes to school and highlighting the special need for caution on rural roads.
Each year, an unacceptably high number of adults and children die on our roads. Responsible drivers want to drive in ways that minimise the risk of death and injury to other road users. A responsible Parliament will want to encourage and guide improved road safety through road layout designs and signs, vehicle specifications, driver training and testing, public education and the enforcement of our criminal laws, including effective punishment that commands widespread public support.
Parliament is not alone in seeking to achieve those ends—many organisations are willing to help. They include the police, local government, PACTS, which I mentioned earlier, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and even, I am pleased to learn, Vauxhall, which recently launched a campaign for children to be seen and to be safe on their way to and from school each day under the title, "Glow power—It's cool to be seen."
Today's debate comes early in the new Parliament. Perhaps we should look on our mission of improving road safety as a journey—naturally, a road journey. We sit in the driving seat, barely having switched on the engine and checked the rear-view mirror. I hope that today we shall signal our intention to move forward. From today, we must travel—wisely and safely, of course—towards our journey's end, where we shall want to look back with satisfaction on the fact that fewer people have been injured on our roads and fewer killed.
9.49 am
Mr. Peter Bottomley: The House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) for raising this subject and for the way in which he introduced the debate. I suspect that there will be both all-party agreement and Government action on the two specific points that he made, which I shall rehearse and emphasise.
The first is that if someone has been caught above the legal limit for alcohol when driving, it is clearly right that their licence should be suspended—whether or not there has been an injury—until the case has come to court, with the sole exception of the accused person going to court and asking the court for special permission to have the licence back until the case is heard. That should be the way forward. It is wrong and anomalous that someone

233
who has committed an offence—in all senses, an absolute offence—should be able to delay the beginning of part of the punishment by the arbitrary factor of when the case comes to court.
If I were apprehended in Victoria street with a dangerous weapon, I would not be given the weapon back until the case involving the charge of carrying an offensive weapon was heard. I hope that what the hon. Member for Stafford has said will help the Minister for Transport in London to negotiate with other members of the Government—the Law Officers and the Home Office—to ensure that it becomes mandatory or, if not mandatory, conventional that a licence is suspended until a case comes to court. Clearly, if there are exceptional circumstances, those can be heard by the court, but it should be an exception that a driver carries on driving until the case is heard after having been apprehended and arrested for being above the legal limit for alcohol or for refusing to take a blood or breath test.
The second point raised by the hon. Member for Stafford that I want to reinforce strongly is that the costs of speed cameras and red light cameras should be recycled through charges. 1 do not want to delve into ancient history, but we had the same sort of argument over the enforcement of the parking meter system that the Ministers of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will be having with Ministers from other Departments about this issue. The central Exchequer got the benefit of the penalties for overstaying at a parking meter, but the local authority had to find the costs of enforcement. That was changed and led to the City of Westminster, for example, receiving an immediate increase in income of £3 million a year; more important, however, was that the change made the parking meter system effective.
The task facing us is to make camera enforcement effective—not because we want to catch more people, but because we want more drivers to behave in the way that they would if they saw a liveried police car behind them or at their side. Only if enforcement works can the deterrent effect be achieved and that simply requires agreement on the recycling of all or part of the penalty, so that it becomes a charge and the system becomes a net cost regime.
I should declare, as is stated in the Register of Members' Interests, that I give evidence on occasion to lawyers in America on a civil liability case relating to small four-by-four vehicles. It is not relevant to the debate except that, as a result, I might be called an expert on road casualty reduction.
In general, we should try to move our debates away from road safety to the specific expression, casualty reduction. We could achieve a great increase in road safety without affecting the decisions that drivers like me make, which lead to the deaths of about 3,500 people a year. The reason for concentrating on casualty reduction is that that is what has been happening since the number of road deaths peaked at between 8,000 and 9,000 a year. The hon. Member for Stafford rightly referred to the increase in traffic and, in another debate, I would say how we can help to improve the position of those who walk and those who cycle, but today we are concentrating on motorised vehicle casualties.
There has been continuous progress and, speaking as a former Minister, I do not want to sound as if I am saying that my period as a Minister was when the process started.
234
I see the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) in his place: he was one of the founders of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day), who worked as the co-chairman of that body for a long time. It is also right to acknowledge the effective work of Jeanne Breene, who was the director before Robert Gifford of PACTS, and who now leads the European Transport Safety Council.
To pick up the position in 1986, which was about the time of the North report on road traffic law, I support the hon. Member for Stafford in saying that it is time to have another review of the law. I do not believe, however, that the North process was the particular factor that led to the drop in casualties.
In 1987, we set the target of cutting casualties by a third by 2000, regardless of the increase in traffic. We made a mistake—I made a mistake—because it was not possible to achieve that for slight injuries and we should have said so at the time; but we were right to set targets for death and serious injury resulting from accidents, which create gaps in families and cause as much pain as terrorism or homicide.
We hope that the Government will continue to make progress towards setting new targets, by category and with some idea of how those targets will be achieved. We need to consider pedestrians and the two-wheelers, both pedal powered and motorised. We need to consider passengers and drivers. We need to understand what has happened in the past.
I want to make a criticism of our media and then praise them. The criticism is that, since the world's most famous car crash happened in Paris two or three months ago, I have not spotted in the British or continental press any comparison, over time and by country, of seat belt-wearing rates, of the incidence of drink-driving or of the changes in the casualty rate in various countries. That is not the only thing that matters—there were other aspects to the death of the princess and her companions—but had they died because they had trodden on a land mine or been assaulted with a machete, people would have started to ask, "What about land mines?" or, "What about machetes?" It is no good covering such a crash, which gets almost the whole world paying attention for a week or longer, while ignoring the question of what can be done about rates of drink-driving, which might have dropped in some countries more than in others.
My praise for the media is that the fact that drink-driving became unfashionable, against the culture of young people in the late 1980s, was in large part because of the then sole national pop music station, Radio 1. When the controller, Johnny Beerling, approved of Radio 1 treating drink-driving as a news and current affairs issue for young people, he and the disc jockeys made a big difference to the outcome. I shall quote the figures, and I hope that anyone in the media who reads our debate will pay attention to them and start asking how we can transfer that success to the middle-aged, which is the age of most Members of Parliament. The number of people dying in drink-drive crashes fell from 1,800 18 years ago, to 1,200 in 1986, to less than 600 now. Those figures are dramatic.
The same rate of improvement is possible for older people. but only if we do not rely on hard-hitting advertisements or a hard-hitting judicial approach. I shall not argue against sentencing solutions, but it is the culture that makes the biggest difference.

235
If, when I am out of an evening—at a pub, club, party or someone else's home—people expect me not to drink alcohol before driving, that is more powerful than the legal limit. If, as a host, I feel an obligation to have alcohol-free drink within reach of those who are driving, that is more powerful than changing the legal limit. If, when people such as me are charged with driving with excess alcohol in their blood, magistrates ask with whom I was drinking and where I had been—not to charge the other people, but to make them feel part of that social culture—we shall get the same improvement among older people that we got among younger people.
It has become fashionable to say that we do not need to spend money on new roads. That is wrong. In far too many communities, shopping centres, residential streets and school precincts are dominated by passing traffic. Whatever impact we can make with traffic management arrangements, we still need to remove traffic, wherever possible, from where people are.
The A27 bypass in west Worthing may not go ahead, but we need to ensure that the county council and national Government have the necessary resources to build the roads that reduce casualties.
Part of the reason for the reduction in the number of deaths has been the money spent on new through roads—not just on road traffic management schemes, although they are vital.
If, in five or 10 years' time, we can say that the number of deaths has fallen from 3,500 to 2,500, or to below 2,000, that will show that we have continued with measures that work. The very worst approach is to do things just because they sound good.
We must continue with the things that work best; very often they are also the cheapest option. In that way, we can fulfil our responsibility to cut the number of casualties effectively.
10 am
Mr. Hilton Dawson: I want to echo the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), and to concentrate on one aspect of road safety—safe routes to schools—with illustrations from my constituency.
It is deeply ironic that some of the most dangerous parts of our roads at crucial times of the day—very early in the morning and the middle of the afternoon—are near our primary and secondary schools. It is even more ironic, perhaps, that because parents have become increasingly worried about their children's safety on the way to and from school, they have begun to take their children there by car—thus compounding the problem and making the roads busier and more dangerous.
In my constituency, several schools are on dangerous roads, and, like many hon. Members, I receive a great deal of correspondence and a great many telephone calls—not to mention representations at my surgeries—from constituents who are concerned about the problem.
Most recently, in the town of Poulton Le Fylde only a few weeks ago, a young person was seriously injured when she was knocked down near her former primary school on the way to her high school. The incident took place in the area of Carr Head lane and Hardhorn road,
236
both of which are near the two schools concerned, Baines high school and Carr Head primary. Fortunately, although she was seriously injured, she is making a good recovery. As often happens after such accidents, a massive campaign to make the roads safer around those two schools has been launched, led by that redoubtable campaigner, Mrs. Hughes, of Poulton Le Fylde. A petition has been got up, there have been interviews on the local radio and press, and local politicians have been lobbied.
Two weeks from now, I shall chair a meeting that will bring together huge numbers of parents, the police, the county council highways department and the borough council. In our well-meaning way, we shall all desperately try to find a solution that will make the roads safer. Some of those roads are winding roads; one of them has a particularly dangerous bend in it. None of them was built to carry the amount of traffic that now uses them, or to accommodate the amount of traffic that routinely parks along them at the very time when children are going into or coming out of school.
At the meeting, we shall discuss crossing patrols. Indeed, Mrs. Hughes and her friends have already secured a new school crossing patrol for the area. We shall talk about a new zebra crossing, about traffic-calming measures and about reducing speeds to 20 mph. At some point, we shall have to discuss the understandable but unacceptable methods used to allocate priority as between road safety measures. We shall have to examine the number of serious accidents—fortunately, no deaths yet—that have occurred in the area. In short, the whole point of the meeting will be to prevent such tragedies in future.
The point will be made that by taking preventive action and recognising the dangers, local people may be able to alleviate the problem, but, at the same time, they may undermine their case for road safety improvements. No doubt our discussions will be quite heated at times, but I hope that we shall be able to make real progress and to improve safety on the roads near those two schools for the children who use them.
We need a fundamental reordering of priorities; more attention must be paid to the needs of vulnerable pedestrians—children and older people. The Government need to get to grips with the problem, perhaps in the transport White Paper. Local authorities need more support in the work of creating safe routes to schools. The reordering of priorities to which I referred must result in road safety for vulnerable people not being tacked on to the end of debates but being kept at the forefront of everyone's mind.
10.7 am
Mr. Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) for initiating this morning's debate. Britain's road safety record is good, but there is no doubt that it can be improved on. We often hear the past 18 years mentioned in derogatory terms; in this case, we can congratulate the previous Administration on what they achieved in that time.
The hon. Member for Stafford outlined certain measures which he believes will help. I agree with increasing the number of speed cameras and reviewing the drink-driving laws. As he dealt with that in some detail, I shall touch on it only briefly.
The transport priorities that my party supports will contribute, directly or indirectly, to improving road safety. I refer to maximising the potential of rail for the carriage

237
of freight and passengers; to reducing traffic totals; to a shift from private to public transport; and crucially, to reducing the need to travel. We must implement planning measures and initiatives such as teleworking to good effect, so that people do not have to get in their cars at all. Local authorities have a key role in dealing with road safety and I shall outline some of the measures that my local authority, the London borough of Sutton, of which I am still a councillor, has introduced in the past two years.
The first measure that I commend to the House is STEPs—the strategic traffic and environment projects—which is a traffic-calming initiative. We have worked out criteria on which to introduce traffic-calming measures based on, for instance, the number of schools, rat runs, and accidents in a given area, and whether cycle paths exist there. We then identified the top priorities for traffic-calming measures within the borough. Rather than address each road piecemeal, we have dealt with all the traffic-calming measures in a particular square to ensure that traffic-calming measures do not simply shift traffic to a parallel road with no speed humps or other such measure. That has been successful and we have been gradually—regrettably, all too gradually—working our way round the borough introducing traffic-calming measures.
We are working hard on a network of safe cycle paths, which I occasionally use, and we want to introduce cycling in parks. May I take this opportunity to ask the Home Office to respond as quickly as possible to our request for a change in the byelaws? The council has introduced a mileage allowance for council employees using their bicycles to get to work or to council business. It introduced a "leave your car at home" day, which was supported by the health authority and many large businesses locally. I participated in that interesting exercise on a day when I had three or four constituency visits to make and it was pouring with rain. I concluded that it was achievable but not very easy.
Like many other authorities throughout the country, the council has introduced small-scale measures such as flashing lights to warn motorists when they are approaching a school. Those operate when children travel to, or return from, school. However, we want local authorities to have greater powers in respect of road safety. Speed cameras have already been mentioned. Local authorities, in consultation with the police, should be able to install those and use the revenues generated by them to improve traffic safety in their boroughs. Traffic wardens, who are now the responsibility of local authorities, need further powers to take action against non-moving traffic. We also want more 20 mph limits in appropriate places.
Those are some of the specific proposals that have been made. Another key measure that would directly or indirectly improve road safety is our pledge to increase the number of police by 3,000. People are deterred by the chance of being caught, whether for speeding or for drink-drive offences. Driving tests or probationary periods also need to be reviewed because there are far too many boy racers dashing around. At the risk of stereotyping, I shall describe them to the House: they wear their baseball caps the wrong way round and one can hear their loud sound systems blaring at traffic lights. They have only just passed their test, and believe that they are the local Schumacher and know everything that they need to know
238
about driving. Unfortunately, they have learned the mechanical skills of driving rather than how to anticipate problems.
Further significant improvements in road safety could be achieved by introducing the full range of measures that I have outlined. Had those measures been in place, I may not have had the visitor that I had to my advice centre a couple of weeks ago. He was a postman who had been in a hit-and-run accident and has since been trying to get back his job with the Post Office. We want to reduce those tragedies still further. Should the Government decide to legislate on any of those measures or review the law, the Liberal Democrats would support them.
10.14 am
Mr. Barry Sheerman: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) on introducing this debate. I also congratulate the Minister for Transport in London on her new post. I have not had a chance to do so since she took over, and I hope that we can all work carefully and well together on the important issue of road safety.
May I issue a warning to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford? If he gets involved in road safety, he will get rather a reputation. Those of us who have been interested in the subject for many years have become known as eccentric. It is strange that the core of us who have, over the years, tried to maintain the House's interest in road safety are regarded as slightly odd, but it is also the most satisfying part of one's work. I spent many years in opposition—from 1979 until six months ago—and one of the few achievements in my career has been to make a difference in the number of people who have died or been seriously injured on our roads.
I became involved in this issue because my first private Member's Bill was the Children in Cars Bill, which was accepted by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). We moved on to a wonderful fight to achieve seat belt legislation, which was a Back-Bench success against the leaders of both main parties in the House. I mark that up to show that Back Benchers can make achievements over Ministers, if Ministers do not always go along with us. The reduction in the number of casualties shows the importance of seat belt legislation.
When I first came to the House, 1,000 young men a year were being killed on motorcycles. If 1,000 young men had been killed in a foreign war, one could imagine the debate in this House. One of the proudest achievements that our little group can boast is that we took on the motorcycle lobby and the Japanese manufacturers, and came up with proposals, which were eventually accepted by Ministers, for training motorcyclists and making large motorcycles less available less quickly. We have seen the results.
In that struggle, we formed the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, of which we are extremely proud. We learned early on that, if we wanted to make changes in respect of road safety, we would have to build a partnership between politicians, Ministers, police, road safety organisations outside this place and every concerned citizen. The best way to form partnerships is not to have "hearts and flowers" campaigns. I have seen those come and go and they do not work. The campaigns that work are those based on good science,

239
good technological information and best practice world wide. Adopting or adapting best practice in a society like ours, whether it is in Australia, Canada, the United States or elsewhere, can often be valuable, but applying good methods and involving the best brains in the business is also important. We made sure that we brought together the academics, medics and other experts.
Increasingly, responsibility for the legislation that we used to pass has moved to Europe. I do not regret that, but many of the changes that we need to make—construction, use and much else—depend on achieving a Europe-wide, positive move. We set up the European Transport Safety Council, which is now one of the most respected transport safety lobbies in Europe. We must not forget that we must work with our European partners to bring the standards across Europe up to our standards, and then all improve together. Many of our people increasingly drive not just on United Kingdom roads, but on European Union roads, and some of those roads are extremely dangerous. We must broaden our horizons to protect our constituents' interests.
We are on a plateau, and more changes are needed. Too many people are losing their lives or suffering dreadful physical damage that affects their entire lives. We must continue to reduce casualty figures. One of the most important measures is speed control. That must be done intelligently, and the Government will have to provide more money for speed cameras and enforcement.
If we are interested in safety on the roads, we must not be seen as ghastly people who want to hang, draw and quarter offenders or lock them up for a long time. I do not want to do that to any of my fellow citizens; I want to prevent them committing the crime in the first place. Deterrence works, and the most effective deterrent is if people know that, if they go on the road and speed, or go on the road having drunk, there is a high chance that they will be caught. I want to save their lives, as well as those of their victims on the roads. A drink-driving accident destroys at least two families.
We need enforcement in relation to drink-driving and speeding. I do not know the Minister's mind on that, and sometimes, even within this exclusive company, we disagree. I have always been a champion of random breath testing. It must be introduced, as it is effective in cutting down the number of people who drink and drive.
I agree with the former Minister, the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley), who said that it is imperative to change the culture, so that it becomes unacceptable to drink and drive or to speed. When that happens, we shall know that we have succeeded.
All the statistics show that children—and, to a lesser extent, old people—as pedestrians, and as cyclists, are especially vulnerable. The number of children involved in accidents is extremely worrying. Why, in particular parts of our towns and cities, are there more incidents in which children are killed or seriously injured? The picture is complicated, but we must confront it.
As someone who still has a couple of children at school, I notice as I drive around at school time that there is a relaxation in seat belt wearing among children, which concerns me greatly. One sees very few convictions for not having a child sitting safely in a car. The worst thing is for a small child to sit on an adult's lap in the front
240
seat. I thought that that had been pushed out of our culture. I hope that my hon. Friend will speak to her colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment about renewing awareness that it is unacceptable behaviour to carry children in cars if they are not secured safely.
Enforcement is the key. We must maintain a cross-party approach. Sometimes there is a little party political argy-bargy, but not much. By and large, people of good will have worked extremely hard to make road safety a success. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford will not get any medals; he will get a reputation for slight eccentricity, but I welcome him aboard.
10.23 am
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I congratulate the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) on securing the opportunity for a debate of such importance.
Four years ago, I introduced the "Health of the Nation" strategy, which looked for key areas in which we could reduce ill health, disability and death. One of those was accidents, in which road safety is a critical element. That was certainly an area in which the strategy of cross-party alliances was welcomed by the then Opposition.
I endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman). I have been pleased to see the way in which the present Government have built on the focus of prevention in health. 1 am confident that the introduction of collaboration between the Department for Education and Employment, the Department of Health and other arms of government will be maintained. I used to say that any number of ambulances or health services could to little in the face of the deaths and injuries on the roads.
I pay tribute to my close and hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley). It is true, as the hon. Member for Huddersfield said, that those who become preoccupied with road safety tend to have a sharp concentration on the subject. Attitudes have changed, and my hon. Friend is entitled to a considerable degree of credit for that.
I shall speak about a constituency issue. Road safety—the well-being of people passing through my constituency—is an ever-greater problem. In a debate yesterday, the Minister for Transport in London said that, in the face of growing congestion, there were three options:
"first, to make better use of existing infrastructure; secondly, to manage demand; and thirdly, to provide new infrastructure."—[Official Report, 4 November 1997; Vol. 300. c. 225.]
Hindhead on the A3 is at the centre of a major strategic route between London and Portsmouth. The entire road is now dualled, except for the 4.1 miles in my constituency. The hon. Lady and the House will realise that, with Portsmouth being the second busiest international passenger port in the country, and with the efforts to regenerate Portsmouth and the Isle of Wight and the consequent economic pressures, there is growing anxiety about the danger in the Hindhead area.
Legislation, speed cameras, road humps and all the other measures that make such a difference in many situations will have no impact at Hindhead. The Government are conducting a review of trunk roads. They also have a consultation exercise on integrated transport

241
strategies. I hope that those reviews will consider the interests of road safety and economic regeneration in constituencies that are not my own, but are part of the region. It is a cross-party issue, and I am confident that, had we alerted them, the Liberal and Labour Members representing Portsmouth and the Isle of Wight would have been with me today, because they feel as strongly on the matter. I hope that the Minister will add her contribution from the road safety perspective to the arguments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) kindly visited my constituency recently. He was inundated by individuals who were complaining about the danger to passengers, pedestrians and road users in all the associated villages—in Milford, Witley, Grayswood, Thursley, Tilford, Shottermill and Beacon Hill. Throughout my constituency, there is deep alarm that the rural areas are being used as rat runs, with growing numbers of incidents.
When I met representatives of the National Farmers Union recently, the crucial issue that they raised was the danger to their members from the growing volume and speed of traffic on the A3, and the lack of alternatives.
I congratulate the Government on articulating their commitment to economic opportunities, prosperity and the gateway to Europe. However, if that results in ever-larger lorries, greater congestion and more traffic of all sorts using our roads, it will be a tragedy if, on every occasion that the Minister is asked to comment on the A3 at Hindhead, it is in relation to another death or serious injury. The area has critical landscape value of international significance, and there are also economic arguments in favour of the scheme. I am waiting for an opportunity to meet the Deputy Prime Minister with an all-party delegation in order to spell out those arguments.
My constituency has traditionally been a resting place between London and Portsmouth. Horses and carriages used to stop at various inns in the area. As a result, there are many extremely good pubs which are—thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West—also selling alcohol-free beer. I would hate my constituency to become known as people's final resting place between London and Portsmouth. Unless there is an announcement about the A3 tunnel at Hindhead, I fear that that may happen.
10.30 am
Mr. Christopher Chope: I join other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) on introducing the debate. He made some pertinent points. If I were to make any adverse comment about his speech, it would be that he stopped short of developing his argument about the growing concern about those who drive while under the influence of drugs. There must be scope for making a breakthrough in that area similar to that made previously in relation to those who drive under the influence of alcohol. I hope that the Government will respond to the increasing pleas from all quarters for action on that front.
Mr. Kidney: In fairness to me, I think that I am correct in saying that the Department is funding a three-year study into the effects of the consumption of illegal drugs on road deaths. That study has been under way for only one year. What I said about the consumption of drugs was based on the first year's figures. As my hon. Friend the
242
Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) said, we must move forward on the basis of scientific evidence and research, but the relevant research is not yet complete. If I stopped short in advancing my argument, I did so because we are short on evidence.
Mr. Chope: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but we must increase public awareness of the dangers associated with driving while under the influence of drugs. Many people do not seem to be too worried about it.
I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) for his typically sage comments. He and the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) pleaded for the Government to concentrate on practical measures that work, which I am sure strikes a chord with everyone concerned about the issue. The Road Traffic Act 1991—my hon. Friend did much work preparing for it—has been the backbone of many changes that have given new powers to the police and local authorities to improve road safety. My hon. Friend reminded the House of the difficulty involved in persuading the Home Office to give local authorities the power to enforce and recover fines for illegal parking. That great battle in Whitehall was eventually won and we are now seeing the benefits of that victory.
There is a plea coming through today's debate for the same sort of imagination to be applied to the conflict between the local desire for more speed cameras and the standard response that the police cannot afford them and that more speed cameras will result in additional costs that must be borne by local people. If the revenue from penalties imposed for speed infringements went to local authorities rather than into the Consolidated Fund, authorities could make progress and invest in more road speed cameras just as they are investing in improved parking enforcement arrangements in London and other towns and cities.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South—West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley), whose constituency I took great pleasure in visiting again recently, pleaded for action regarding the A3 Hindhead bypass. I hope that the Government will listen to her pleas. There is no point in having trunk roads with bottlenecks, such as occur at Hindhead. Bottlenecks affect the operation of the whole route and cause people to divert onto other routes. Action must be taken in that regard.
The Government have inherited a fine legacy of sustained road casualty reduction. This country has the safest roads in Europe. There were fewer road deaths in the United Kingdom in 1996 than in any year since records began in 1926. The number of drink-related road deaths has more than halved in 18 years and there has been a substantial reduction in both deaths and serious injuries. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) for paying tribute to the success of the previous Government in that area.
Despite that success, there is still much to do. I shall concentrate on what must be done at a local level, because that is where the biggest impact can be made. Local road safety schemes were encouraged by the previous Government. It is estimated that 1,500 casualties and 200 deaths have been saved each year since 1991 as a result of the investment of £170 million in local safety schemes.
With local safety improvements, good road maintenance is also important for road safety and casualty reduction. It is estimated that between 100 and 200

243
accidents every week are related to road surface defects. It also appears that the number of such defects is increasing rather reducing. Between 100 and 200 road accidents a week are caused by defective road signs and traffic signals. Again, the number of defective road signs and signals is increasing. More than 1,000 accidents a week involve skidding. The Transport Research Laboratory estimates that well-maintained, high-skid-resistant surfaces can halve the number of wet-weather accidents. Speed often contributes to such accidents, but let us not ignore the fact that the road surface can also play a significant part.
The message is that good road safety and casualty reduction cost money. I have one question for the Minister, which I hope she will answer today: will she guarantee that local authorities will receive no less money for highway maintenance and road safety schemes next year than they are receiving this year? That is not a very strong demand; we are not asking for more funds—although obviously every hon. Member in the Chamber would like more expenditure in that area. Local authorities and those concerned about road safety locally fear that there will be a significant cut in the resources available for highway maintenance and road safety schemes next year. I hope that the hon. Lady will be able to allay their concerns.
Privately financed local schemes are related to that issue. Essex and Dorset county councils, to name but two, have invested substantial resources in developing imaginative and innovative private finance initiative schemes for roads for which they are responsible. Essex county council has been promoting the Southend-Chelmsford road scheme. Six fatal accidents have been suffered on that road during the past 18 months. Tremendous road safety benefits will result from road improvements, but I am concerned that the Department—perhaps at the behest of the hon. Lady or of her noble Friend the Minister for Roads—has sent back those schemes. I hope that the hon. Lady will assure the House today that they have not been sent back in order to delay Government expenditure on roads, which seems to be part of Labour policy. Delaying decisions saves money, but it is done at the expense of casualty reduction.
I know that there is a parliamentary briefing today on the completion of the A66 in North Yorkshire. A county councillor, Michael Heseltine—no relation to my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine)—is leading a deputation seeking a commitment from the Government on further action on and investment in the A66, again making the point that the dualling of that road would enhance and improve road safety and ensure casualty reduction.
There is plenty for the Minister to get to grips with, but if she gives resources to local authorities they can continue to make important safety improvements such as those that have played a critical part in the overall success of this country, which is the envy of road safety experts throughout the world.
10.40 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) on securing this Adjournment debate and affording the House the opportunity to discuss the important issue of road safety.
244
Hon. Members on both sides of the House made interesting and informed speeches. The only slightly sour note came from the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), who made a somewhat half-hearted attempt to make a party political point on local authority funding. He asked questions that he knows I am in no position to answer at this stage, and which are bitterly ironic given that, year on year, the previous Administration cut local authority funding for the very issues that he now deems essential.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) for his kind welcome. I must tell him that hon. Members who express concerns on road safety are not deemed odd by me, my Department or the Government, and his informed and detailed contribution to the debate confirms us in our judgment.
The United Kingdom has one of the best road safety records in the world. We have not reached this position by accident or as a result of some special trait in the British character but by hard work and careful planning over several decades. Thirty years ago, almost 8,000 people were killed on our roads each year. The death toll has now fallen to less than half that number—around 3,600. I pay tribute to my noble Friend Baroness Castle who, as Minister of Transport, laid the foundations for so much that has followed. It was she who in 1967 introduced the 80 mg drink-drive limit and the breathalyser—an act of great political courage at the time—the 70 mph speed limit on motorways, the goods vehicle operator licensing system and many other vital reforms.
However, it is unacceptable that we still have around 10 road deaths a day—a toll which would rightly be deemed scandalous if it occurred in almost any other transport mode. We are determined to bring down the number of these avoidable deaths and are working on a long-term target for 2010 and a strategy to achieve it.
In 1987, a target was set: to reduce by a third road traffic casualties by the year 2000 compared with the average for 1981 to 1985. Progress has been good. In 1996, deaths on the road had reduced by 36 per cent. to 3,598, and serious casualties by 40 per cent. to 44,473. The total number of casualties, however, has remained the same—about 320,000—but traffic volumes have risen by 50 per cent. since 1981 to 1985. The chance of being slightly injured in a road accident has gone down by a quarter and of being killed or seriously injured by nearly two thirds, but we cannot be complacent.
It was therefore announced on 15 October that the Government will set a new road safety target for beyond the turn of the century. Work is in hand to consider what new measures might be productive in terms of casualty reduction and to recommend a target figure and a coherent road safety strategy within which that reduction can be achieved. An announcement is planned for the latter half of 1998. Progress towards the new target will be monitored every three years so that the assumptions made when the target was set can be re-examined. The process will take full account of our policies on walking, cycling and public transport, reflecting the Government's work on an integrated transport policy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford clearly stated his concerns about drink-driving when he highlighted its tragic consequences in the case of his constituent, whom I will have the pleasure and privilege of meeting later

245
today. The campaign against drink-driving, sustained since the mid-1970s, has reduced the number of deaths in which illegal alcohol levels were a factor to around a third of the level when the campaign started. I can assure the House that we shall launch another hard-hitting Christmas campaign on 2 December. However, about three years ago, the steady improvement in the drink-drive figures seemed to bottom out and we are actively looking at ways to give it a further push. We have been listening carefully to road safety organisations and looking at research on measures taken in other parts of the world.
Among the issues is whether the 80 mg limit, set in 1967, is still appropriate. The basic evidence of risk has been refined by later research, but not fundamentally changed. Public opinion towards the drink-driver has changed a great deal and much of that change is due to the very successful campaigning by my Department and its predecessors. Most heartening is the attitude of teenage drivers, who take a far more responsible view than I recall from those of my generation. Unfortunately, however, that sense of responsibility is not reflected by drivers in their 20s, who are disproportionately involved in drink-drive accidents. It is at that group that most recent Government campaigns have been targeted.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) referred to boy racers. The Road Traffic (New Drivers) Act 1995 provides that should a new driver amass six points on their licence they will lose it and will have to pass the test again.
We must not deceive ourselves that a lower limit would solve all the problems. Half of those convicted by the courts were driving at levels at least twice the current limit, so there are several issues to address, besides the limit itself.
I noted carefully what my hon. Friend said about random breath testing and see the attractions of it, but I am not sure that there is any persuasive evidence that powers to test randomly would mean better enforcement. The Association of Chief Police Officers is not seeking a power to conduct breath tests at random. That, it argues, would be a waste of resources. It does, however, recommend breath testing after all injury accidents, and all forces now do that. Roadside tests now number 780,000 a year. The Association of Chief Police Officers has for many years sought a general power to conduct breath tests that would target the hard core of persistent drink-drivers. It is clear, therefore, that we must look carefully at whether we can improve the effectiveness of police powers.
Existing legislation provides the courts with a comprehensive set of measures and penalties to deal with drink-drivers. A drink-drive conviction almost invariably results in automatic disqualification for a minimum of 12 months. For a second conviction within 10 years, the minimum period of disqualification is increased to three years. Those who are convicted with alcohol levels of at least two and a half times the legal limit must present themselves for medical assessment before being pronounced fit to hold a driving licence again. The courts have powers to require convicted drink-drivers to become "learners" again for a period following the end of the disqualification and to order interim disqualification where there is an adjournment before sentencing.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: I know that these issues go beyond the Minister's Department, but will the
246
Government be open about the debate between Departments on the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Stafford, which is supported on both sides of the House, that when someone has been arrested for being over the limit or for refusing to take a test they should automatically lose their licence unless they get a positive approval from a court that they should not until the case is heard? Open government would help the rest of us to know the debates within government.
Ms Jackson: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I can assure him that one of the benchmarks of this Government is the drive that Departments should communicate with each other. I shall certainly raise the point that he has made. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that someone who has been charged with an offence is not a convicted person. I understand, of course, the hon. Gentleman's concern that a driver who has been charged may continue to drive until his or her case is heard. The answer is to ensure that cases come before the courts speedily. The Government are working on proposals to reduce delays throughout the criminal justice system.
Hon. Members have taken up the issue of driving under the influence of drugs. It is correct that the Government are funding an inquiry that will examine the matter.
Speed is of particular concern to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and other hon. Members. We have made enormous progress on drink-driving; combating excessive and inappropriate speed is now the major challenge. Last year, about 3,600 people were killed and 320,000 injured in road accidents. Speed is a major factor in an estimated one third of all road accidents. But for people driving too fast for the conditions, more than 1,000 people might still be alive and 100,000 might not be suffering injuries, many of which are serious and permanent.
This is not exclusively a matter of reducing speed limits; we must get drivers to obey existing limits. There exists a wide variety of measures to persuade or prevent drivers from exceeding speed limits. They all help to reduce accidents and casualties. The long-term solution, however, must be to change our attitude to speed. Speed is not glamorous, not desirable and not sensible. It can kill and maim. That is why my noble Friend Baroness Hayman recently launched our kill your speed campaign—to make us aware of the potential consequences of exceeding speed limits.
Mr. Sheerman: I welcome the kill your speed initiative, but, at the same time, there is a great accent on speed in the advertising, especially on television, of new cars. We must do everything that we can, including approaching the Advertising Standards Authority, to reduce the impact of such advertising. We constantly read or hear of cars accelerating from standstill to 100 mph in a few seconds and being great performers at 120 mph. It is essential that we tackle the advertisers.
Ms Jackson: My hon. Friend makes a valid point and it is one which I have had occasion to raise with car manufacturers in the past. Their consideration of the points that I was making was quite marked. I can make no promises, but the manufacturers are listening.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford mentioned the effectiveness of speed enforcement cameras. Experience shows that they are most effective at sites with a history

247
of speed-related accidents. Drivers tend to slow down for the cameras and speed up again once past them. Where it is necessary to reduce traffic speeds along a series of roads, cameras are less likely to succeed than, for example, traffic-calming measures.
My hon. Friend also raised the issue of the ability of highway authorities and enforcement agencies to place more cameras. There is a long-standing principle that money from court fines goes to the Consolidated Fund, from which it is not generally possible to divert money to fund enforcement costs.
A simple solution that is often suggested is to decriminalise speeding. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford presented other ideas for raising additional funds. At a time when we are highlighting the dangers and terrible consequences of speed, we believe that decriminalisation would send out the wrong message. I can assure my hon. Friend that, with Home Office colleagues, we are examining the funding arrangements for cameras to ascertain whether there is a way to make better use of existing cameras and increase their use where needed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) expressed concern about the speeds at which vehicles are driven near schools, a concern which the Government and, I am sure, all hon. Members share. Finding ways to reduce speeds and accidents around our schools is vital in taking forward the Labour party's manifesto commitment to improve road safety for school children. It is an increasingly common view that roads adjacent to schools should have 20 mph speed limits. The view is promoted for the best of all possible reasons, but drivers, as I have had occasion to observe, do not always respect speed limits. To be successful, therefore, 20 mph limits should be supported by traffic calming, as the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington said.
It makes sense to adopt a local zoning approach. A proper 20 mph zone with supporting traffic-calming features is much more likely to be effective in reducing speeds and, therefore, accidents.
248
One of our concerns is that an increasing number of parents are driving their children to and from school. The results of surveys tell us that the number of children being driven to school has doubled in the past 20 years and that journeys to school now account for one in six cars. We understand why parents want to drive their children to school. They think that children will be safer in the car than on the pavement, and our record on child pedestrian casualties adds weight to that argument. It is, however, a vicious circle; the more children are driven to school, the more traffic there is on the roads and the higher is the risk to child pedestrians. We must find a way to make routes to school safe for children so that they can walk and cycle and to encourage parents to allow them to do so.
Many schools and local authorities throughout the country already have school travel plans in place. Many more are working with parents, governors and children to find a solution that is safe and works for the school. The charity SUSTRANS designs and builds routes for cyclists, walkers and people with disabilities. It has set up a safe routes to school demonstration project with 10 schools in various parts of the country. It is essential that child safety is always a priority. It is not only walking and cycling which we wish to encourage. When children live too far away from school to walk, there may be suitable bus services that will avoid the need to drive.
My Department has provided research funds for two projects that involve examining how to reduce the number of children being driven to school. We shall embark on further research in this area. We shall also examine journey types as part of the fundamental review of transport to consider how we can make walking and cycling to school realistic and safe options for our children. These are serious and complex, but vital, issues.
I assure the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) that road safety is central to our White Paper on integrated transport. The concerns of her constituents are replicated throughout the country. That is why the Government are determined to put in place measures that will continue to decrease the number of people who suffer death or injury on our roads.

Agriculture (Wales)
10.57 am
Mr. Cynog Dafis: In seeking the debate, my colleagues and I were fulfilling an undertaking that we made during the summer recess when, of course, we were all on holiday, as the Minister knows. At meetings with farmers, we promised them that we would raise in Parliament, as soon as it reconvened, the grievous crisis that is besetting the farming community in Wales and, by extension, the grievous crisis that is affecting the entire rural community. That was our undertaking and I am glad to be able to fulfil it.
Farming in general is under pressure these days, but it is generally accepted and well understood that the crisis is worst of all in the hills, and 80 per cent. of Welsh farm land is in the hills and so officially categorised as being among the less-favoured areas.
It is legendary that farmers always complain, and there is something in that. It is fair to say, however, that they are not unique in that. It is important to understand that the situation now is different. I cannot remember a time when there was such profound gloom, such pessimism and so little laughter among farmers. Their complaints these days are not shot through with satire and teasing as they have been in the past. They are genuinely pessimistic and gloomy.
Farmers fear for their livelihoods and for their very survival. More radically, they foresee the loss of a way of life. They ask specifically whether the new Labour Government care about farming and about the countryside, by which I do not mean just the landscape, which is terribly important, or wildlife and biodiversity, which is even more important, but the countryside, its people and its communities. Do the new Government care? That is the issue.
Farmers' minds remain open, especially in Wales, where many of them are part of the non-Tory majority. It is important for the Government to understand that political point. In Ceredigion, by far the majority of farmers are among the non-Tory majority. The Labour party should bear that in mind, because at some time it may need their practical support, albeit indirectly through other parties. Farmers are rapidly coming to the conclusion that the Government do not care: that is what they believe, and will say so.
The Government are on trial, and their credibility is at stake. If they care, they must show that they care. For a range of reasons, Plaid Cymru hopes that they will show by their actions that they care.
Let us make no mistake about it: there is a real crisis. Not since the war have so many things gone so badly wrong at the same time. A combination of problems is pressing down on farmers. Beef prices are worse than they were last year due to the continuing effect of the BSE crisis and the export ban, and the effect of a strong pound.
The strong pound has depressed prices across all sectors of Welsh agriculture. The high prices of lamb last year partly compensated for the low beef prices, although not all farmers keep both sheep and beef cattle. The strong pound does not affect prices only by disadvantaging exports and facilitating imports; it also significantly reduces the value of European support payments, so it has a double effect.
250
Farmers feel that whatever they do, they cannot win. Higher lamb prices in early 1996 led last year to a reduced sheep annual premium, but lower lamb prices this year will not lead to an increase in that premium, because it is calculated on the European Union average price for the whole year, which this year is high. Welsh hill farmers receive a double whammy: United Kingdom prices are lower because of the strong pound, and Welsh hill prices are lower still, even though the product that farmers bring to market is first rate, because lambs do not come to market until later in the year when prices are lower. By all accounts, SAP payments will be down and not up next year.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does my hon. Friend accept that in 1995–96, as many as 40 per cent. of Welsh cattle and sheep farmers in less-favoured areas—where 80 per cent. of Welsh farmland is located—had incomes of less than £10,000? That was with the higher prices to which he referred, so the prospects for this year are devastating.
Mr. Dafis: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) for making that point. Income levels this year are certainly significantly lower than £10,000. On top of the problems that I have already described, there has been a sharp reduction—about 20 per cent.—in the price of milk, partly due to the strong pound. Worst of all, that reduction has coincided with Milk Marque's new collection charge system. We understand why Milk Marque introduced it, although its detail is questionable.
The combination of the reduction in price and the new collection charge system is driving farmers with up to 40 or more milking cows out of milk production while they can cut their losses. They have been driven out peremptorily, because they are losing money in production. The holdings that cease milk production will remain for a while producing beef and sheepmeat, thus exacerbating the problems in those sectors, until they are absorbed into ever-larger holdings, adding a further twist to the spiral of decline in our rural communities.
There is also the possibility of quota moving out of parts of Wales. The Welsh Office should keep a careful eye on that.
Farming unions reckon that 69 per cent. of farms in less-favoured areas in Wales have a net farm income of less than £10,000 a year: 80 per cent. of agricultural land in Wales is in less-favoured areas. Interest payments and reinvestment must be funded from net farm income, which leaves precious little on which to live.
It is small wonder that the results of a recent National Farmers Union survey were depressing for the prospects of hill farmers. It found that 64 per cent. of hill farmers are over 50, and of them, 18 per cent. are over 60: so it is an aging population. Of those who responded to the survey, 82 per cent. had children, and 43 per cent. of them stated that their children would not take over the running of the farm after them. There is a strong prospect of a mass exodus.
The reasons given by young people for not taking up farming were income levels, 74 per cent.; lack of long-term stability, 48 per cent.; and long working hours, 50 per cent. It is difficult to do anything about the last factor, because farmers have always lived with long

251
working hours. However, it would make a big difference if the first two factors were tackled. It is the combination of factors which young people find so depressing.
The evidence shows that there is a real danger that farming in the less-favoured areas could go into steep decline. The problem is as serious as that. No wonder farmers are depressed. Unlike us, they see at first hand this decline taking place each and every day.
The effects of such a decline on social and cultural life, including the Welsh language, which we must bear in mind all the time, on the natural environment in rural Wales, which requires people to maintain it—we should make no mistake about that—and on the economic vitality of rural areas, would be far reaching and deeply harmful. Farmers and their children contribute enormously to the economic vitality of rural areas. We cannot afford to lose the tradition of entrepreneurialism not just in farming, but in other sectors of the economy.
We should also consider the loss of the complex and invaluable inherited skills of farming communities that cannot easily be recreated. A series of national vocational qualifications or even a degree in agriculture does not make a farmer. That skill is inherited: it is intricate, complex and rich. In 15 or 20 years, if not sooner, we may rue the loss of those skills. I am sure that in 15 years' time we will need people in agriculture more than we do now.
In that context, farmers see a Government who are not even seeking to stabilise the situation, let alone launch a rescue operation. They see a Government who want to grind them down even further. Cuts in over-30-months scheme compensation have led to a reduction in receipts from barren cows—an important part of milk farmers' income—of 60 per cent., with average prices down from £760 last year to £311 this year.
The Government are refusing to take advantage of European Union compensation for sterling revaluation, although all other eligible EU countries have done so. Ireland has just delivered top-up support for BSE-affected farmers to the tune of £17 million—£50 per beef animal. Farmers are asking whether that is fair competition in a free and open market, and, clearly, the answer is no.
Of immediate relevance is the Ministry of Agriculture's pre-empting of the outcome of this year's review of hill livestock compensatory allowances by freezing payments at 1996 levels, and its cancellation of the supplement paid last year in recognition of the BSE crisis, which amounted to some £9.6 million for Wales and £60 million for the United Kingdom as a whole.
There have been successive cuts in HLCAs since 1992. Ministers did not mention that last night. Those cuts reflect doubts in Government about the validity of HLCAs as support mechanisms. Along with others who understand the position far better than I do, I disagree strongly with that perception: if we consider the other options, we conclude that HLCAs are the best.
Maintaining production in the hills is vital. Animals of the highest quality are reared extensively in the hills, and the highest welfare standards apply. Hill farming, however, labours under disadvantages, and there are few opportunities for diversification. There may well be a need for change in the way in which HLCAs are designed,
252
particularly to strengthen modulation, in which my party believes. We should, however, be suspicious of the view of some conservationists that HLCAs have caused both social and environmental problems. HLCAs are probably the best method of maintaining stock farming in the hills, and there is every reason to support the unions' view that they should be kept and restored to their 1992 real value. We also support, as a separate issue, the view that the BSE compensation supplement should be retained.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing time for the debate. Is he aware of recent research carried out by Aberystwyth university, that austere body which I know was also attended by some Conservative Members? According to that research, for every 10 full-time jobs in upland agriculture there are some 25 in the supply industry. The crisis affects not just agriculture, but life in rural Wales as we know it. Does my hon. Friend agree with that?
Mr. Dafis: The only thing with which I might disagree is the adjective "austere". I never noticed much austerity at Aberystwyth, at least among the students.
My hon. Friend has made an important point. It is well known that one of the best ways of putting money into the rural economy is to put it into farmers' pockets, because they spend the money locally. They do not go on foreign holidays, or buy outside their areas. We should also bear in mind the complex links between agriculture and all kinds of other sectors, and the possibility of developing further links through value addition. Farmers are currently eager to consider such prospects, but it is difficult for them to do so when they are under such pressure.
I have mentioned a number of ways in which the Government could help farming at this critical time. Another way in which they could help is by applying themselves seriously to the task of lifting the beef export ban. I think that we can all agree that, whatever applied in the past, there is no longer any justification for retaining it.
I am glad that the Government are adopting the date-based export scheme, which enables animals born after 1 August 1996 to be exported. They have put that scheme on the table in Europe, alongside the certified herd scheme. The date-based scheme is far preferable to the certified herd scheme, and—given that passports are available from that date—perfectly practicable and safe.
The question is, how hard are the Government pushing the scheme? How high a priority is it in their diplomatic and negotiating activity in the European Union? In rural Wales it is a top priority, and we expect the Government to reflect that through the intensity of their lobbying. They, too, should make it a high priority. The lifting of the ban would not deliver all the results that we want overnight, but it would be a tremendously important threshold to cross, recreating abroad the confidence in beef as a product that has already been recreated in the United Kingdom.
Mr. Lembit Öpik: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the issue is no longer the safety of British beef—which is the safest in the world—but

253
marketing confidence, both in the United Kingdom and in Europe? That is what we need if we are to get our beef back on to the European market.
Mr. Dafis: Absolutely—and lifting the export ban is crucial to that.
Before I end my speech, I want to say a little about reform of the common agricultural policy. Farmers accept that CAP reform is necessary, that it is coming and that it will probably have to be radical. They accept that some of the problems besetting them, and besetting rural areas, are a consequence of the worst aspects of the CAP. The principle of environmental management payments as the main mechanism for support is gaining widespread acceptance among farmers. What is essential is that the distinctive needs of Wales, and the distinctive views of Welsh farmers, are strongly represented in the process of considering CAP reform.
The priorities of Welsh fanning are not those of the south of England. Indeed, in certain cases there are conflicts of interest. For example, the Farmers Union of Wales—like Plaid Cymru—supports sensible and flexibly applied modulation: I use that dirty word again. The dominant voice of English farming does not support modulation. I want a clear commitment that, in this as in other matters, the United Kingdom Minister of Agriculture, who makes policy—not just the Secretary of State for Wales, who, by and large, is able only to influence—will listen to and take account of the voice of the people and the farmers of Wales. The time for him to start doing that is now, while discussions about CAP reform are proceeding.
Mr. John Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that there are also lowland farmers in Wales, particularly in my constituency? When the Minister of Agriculture takes the needs of farming in Wales into consideration, he should take account of all farming, not just hill farming.
Mr. Dafis: Absolutely. I dare say that there are conflicts of interest about that even within Wales at times; it is never a simple issue. We need the kind of CAP reform that will deliver good, sustainable, healthy agriculture everywhere. Specific hill-farming issues need to be considered, however, and CAP reform is relevant to those issue.
I repeat that the Government's reputation is at stake. I am glad that meetings have taken place recently, and I listened carefully to what the Secretary of State for Wales said: he recognised the existence of severe problems that might have far-reaching effects. What we want now is action, and I want to hear what that action might be.
11.18 am
Ms Jackie Lawrence: I speak as a Member who has inherited part of the former constituency of the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis), so I am aware of many of the difficulties that he has mentioned.
During the past six months, I have had several meetings with farmers in my constituency to listen to their concerns. I have met groups from the two Welsh farming unions. It is interesting that only one supports modulation, so it seems that Plaid Cymru is meeting the needs only of
254
one section of Welsh farmers. I have taken time to visit several holdings of various sizes and types, with differing sectors of interest.
The one message that comes back from all those farmers is their sheer desperation at the constant and extensive battering to which every aspect of agriculture has been subjected in the past few years. At those meetings—I am sure that the hon. Member for Ceredigion will agree about this problem—farmers also spoke of the delay between action and its impact on the rural community.
For example, the beef sector, which is of great importance to west Wales, has been struggling with the consequences of the former Government's ineptitude and bungling of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy issue since the mid-1980s. Although farmers in my constituency welcome the current Government's moves to get the ban lifted, the long-term financial and economic effects still live on.
The dairy sector has had to cope with the former Government's decision to negotiate quotas within the European Union for only 80 per cent. of United Kingdom domestic demand, while the Irish Government negotiated quotas for 120 per cent. of their domestic demand. The natural consequence has been Welsh and UK farmers sitting by, unable to produce more, while imports flood in from elsewhere to satisfy domestic need. With the additional burden to dairy farmers of Milk Marque collection charges, is it surprising that independent organisations predict that, by 2000, 50 per cent. of the UK's milk will be produced by only 7,000 major dairy farmers? In addition, arable farmers in Wales were incensed at their unequal treatment by the previous Government compared with their farming colleagues in England.
Coupled with all that is the feeling among fanners that they are being squeezed from both sides—as a result of the misfortunes suffered by the industry in recent years and, at the other end of the spectrum, by the large retail outlets that are dominating markets and reducing even further farmers' diminishing capacity to make a living. There is no doubt that that is exemplified in the National Farmers Union's national survey of hill farming published this week, to which the hon. Member for Ceredigion referred. Sixty-four per cent. of farmers who replied to the survey were over 50 years of age and 18 per cent. were over 60 years of age. Eighty-two per cent. had children, but 43 per cent. of those said that their children would not be taking over the running of the farm when they retired.
That is worrying enough in general terms, but in Wales those facts have even wider cultural and social implications than in other parts of the UK. The rural economy throughout the UK is underpinned by agriculture. In addition in Wales, culturally and linguistically, unique communities rely on the economic success of agriculture. Therefore, when our farmers suffer, it threatens the very fabric of Wales's individuality.
Of particular concern to me and my constituents is the fate of hill farmers. Only two weeks ago, I visited a 200-acre hill farm in my constituency and heard the plight of the 40 per cent. of hill farmers in Wales's less-favoured areas whose net incomes are less than £10,000 a year.

255
None of the children of the group of farmers whom I spoke to were entering farming; they were seeking employment in other sectors with better earning potential.
In my maiden speech, I said that there was an exodus of 11.54 per cent. of young males aged 16 to 24 out of the county, but, at the same time, an influx of 27.6 per cent. of males aged over 65. That has already had an impact. If it is unchecked, areas such as west Wales will eventually exist simply as areas of recreation and retirement for people who have spent their economically active lives elsewhere.
The new Government have already made bold and positive moves that will secure the future of a living countryside, thereby showing their commitment to halt the decline. As has been mentioned, action by the Minister to end the beef ban is welcome. Before the election earlier this year, Labour was the only UK political party to send a delegate to the conference on rural development to seek positive ways to revitalise our rural community. The new Welsh Assembly at last offers real opportunities for Welsh farmers and rural communities to have their voices and specific demands addressed regionally.
All those policies show a firm commitment to preserving and enhancing rural communities and the agricultural basis on which they depend, but they will all take time to implement. In the meantime, many of our farmers are suffering unwarranted hardship and financial crises. I ask the Minister to examine ways, as has been done in health and education, of providing more short-term financial assistance to our farmers, if that is at all possible, within the Government's sensible and stabilising long-term policies, both to address the neglect of 18 years of Conservative Government and to ensure that
"with safe land in sight—the ship does not sink before it gains the shore".
11.25 am
Mr. Richard Livsey: It is good to follow the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence). She has been doing her homework in visiting farms in her constituency, which is the best way to find out precisely what is going on. I thank the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) for raising this topic, which is vital in my constituency, a mainly farming area, with up to 25 per cent. of the population dependent on farming in one way or another.
Hill farms, upland farms, small dairy farms and smallholdings have all been badly hit, particularly in the past two years or so. Upland farms, which come between hill farms and lowland farms, have a less robust support system than some of the hill farms, and they have been particularly badly hit, and—I say this as an agriculturist—the push factors out of farming are acute.
Between 1992 and 1997, hill livestock compensatory allowances were cut twice by the Conservative Government. Those HLCAs are in the less-favoured areas and are a social support mechanism. They are vital for maintaining people in the hills and uplands. Clearly, that is crucial in areas of Wales such as my constituency, where practically nowhere is less than 400 ft above sea level.
256
The previous Government muddled the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis with HLCA payments. They used the HLCA mechanism to add on a special one-off £60 million payment. Fair enough, the money was needed, but it was for only one year. The present Government are religiously cloning the previous Government's budget and now we have a crisis. I sincerely hope that that budget will be consolidated and changed into HLCA payments.
The rise of the pound against the European currency unit of 20 per cent. has created huge problems, particularly in terms of the reduction in ewe premiums of up to 40 per cent. We do not have to be magical mathematicians to realise that if a farmer has a 600-ewe flock and the ewe premiums have gone down from approximately £20 to £12, that is a big loss for that farmer.
For small upland dairy farms, there are lower cull cow prices as a result of the over-30-months-scheme weight limits and lower milk prices. Smallholdings are in crisis as well. Farmers have occasionally cried wolf when the situation has not been as serious, but it is really serious now, and all the farms to which I refer are family units.
In the current financial year, one county council smallholding in my constituency will be £19,500 down on the previous financial year. It is not difficult to see where that is coming from—the reduction in milk prices of £13,500; the reduction in barren cow prices of £3,000; and the reduction in calf sales of £3,000, all in the past 12 months. It is not this Government's fault; it is the result of all sorts of things that happened under the previous Government. We have a major crisis on our hands. The farm comprises only 50 acres, but three children have been reared there. Now, the farmer rightly says that this is the worst crisis in agriculture since the 1930s, and I do not think that that is an overstatement.
One particular plea to the Minister is to chivvy up his Department and get the ewe premium payments expedited. Many farmers in Wales have not received them; they would make a big difference to them on the threshold of winter. The previous Government cut staffing, so it has taken a long time to expedite the payments.
I recently visited three farms in the famous area of Beulah. The Beulah ewe is known worldwide as a first-rate breeding ewe. It is the dam of the Welsh mule. The farmers whom I visited enjoy a fantastic vista across to the Cambrian mountains. We could see nine family farms spread out in front of us, but only two of them had sons who could carry on the business. That is a major crisis.
One farmer I visited had two daughters, one of whom had worked on the farm—but even she, as a professional shepherd, had left because she could earn more money working as a shepherd in Wiltshire than she could earn on the family farm. As the hon. Member for Ceredigion said, net farm incomes are too low to support two people. Indeed, the Welsh farm management survey has forecast a reduction of 40 per cent. in farm incomes in the current financial year. That is a huge crisis for farmers. Young farmers are not prepared to stay at home and live on a poverty wage. Who can blame them? But that means that the countryside will rapidly depopulate. We have already heard this morning statistics on the average age of farmers in upland Wales.

257
The all-Wales agri-environmental scheme is about to be introduced, and the Liberal Democrats welcome that. However, it appears that it will not be as well financed as the pilot Tir Cymen scheme. It is vital that the overall income used for production purposes on our upland farms is compensated for in the agri-environmental scheme. There must be no less money coming in to support our family units.
The whole rural economy is in crisis. The powerhouse agency must have a sound and thrusting strategy for small businesses. It must ensure that rural families have sufficient income from off-farm activities as well as from on-farm activities. There is the whole question of changes from 5b funding to objective 2. I understand that a great deal of 5b money has not been claimed in Wales, and we must get access to that.
What are the solutions to the problems that I have outlined? We must have the £60 million BSE payment—which was one-off—incorporated into HLCAs. The HLCAs must be restored to their 1992 levels, before the Tories cut them, plus inflation. We have to secure green pound compensation, which will greatly assist the impact on the ewe premium and on milk prices. We must raise the weight limits on the over-30-months scheme. We must take up the European Union retirement scheme, which the previous Government would not do. I well remember the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), in a previous decade, saying that he would not touch it. He was wrong to take that view.
We must adopt the European Union's scheme for young farmers, which gives them access to funding, so that they can obtain working capital to help them make a start on their farms. We must ensure that the Agenda 2000 proposals take into account an element of modulation on a UK basis and, indeed, on a Welsh basis, to support family units.
Clearly, we must ensure that the beef export ban is lifted, and we must prevent sub-standard beef imports. That would be an important move. In the beef industry, many livestock farmers would like additional support for beef heifers coming off upland farms. The price for heifers is rock bottom. A real crisis confronts family farms in upland Wales. When I talked to farmers, as I did over the summer, I was told that they were having to sell their beef herds because they could not make them pay. That leaves only one enterprise in our hills—sheep. That is a real crisis.
11.35 am
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) on securing time for this important debate. I welcome the contributions of the hon. Members for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence) and for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey). Many of the points of real concern to the agriculture industry have already been aired. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire referred to the crisis surrounding entrants into the industry.
One major concern is that the average age of people in the agriculture industry is steadily rising. Young people no longer want to come into the industry. Therefore, packages to support young farmers are important. I think in particular of pensions and of the European Union schemes. When I visited France with the Select
258
Committee on Agriculture, I found young farmers from Wales taking up the offers available in that country. They could not stay in Wales because there was nothing on offer.
The immediate crisis facing the industry in Wales must be set against the background of continuing concern about the viability of the industry in general. Indeed, we need to look at the viability of the whole rural economy. It is important to put the debate into the context of the employment crisis, but that must be set against the background facing the rural economy year on year. We cannot look at agriculture in isolation—it must be part of an integrated rural strategy, bringing the strands together. If the economic powerhouse is to make a real impact in rural Wales, it must ensure that the integrated approach is uppermost in its policy.
Although agriculture faces major problems, it is still the major player in the economy of rural Wales. We have heard eloquent speeches, from both sides of the House, about the immediate crisis facing the industry. For example, we heard about the problems surrounding the strength of the pound; the green pound and its effect on commodity support; the BSE crisis and the previous Government's refusal—and, so far, the refusal of this Government—to ask the European Union for additional support; the reduction of support through the over-30-months scheme; and the continuing ban on exports.
I am pleased that certain moves have been made to resolve the crisis. If the Government secure a raising of the ban on beef exports, that will boost confidence and aid the marketing strategy of the beef sector. That should be an immediate aim.
We have also heard much about hill livestock compensatory allowance payments. There is no immediate prospect of an increase in those payments. Farmers are aware that although prices have been frozen this year, the prospect is that they will be frozen again next year. A freeze is likely, because the Government have adopted for at least two years the previous Administration's spending plans.
Unless Ministers are prepared to consider switching money from other budgets in the Welsh Office, farmers face the prospect that HLCA payments will again be frozen next year. The effect of such a freeze on farmers in difficult areas will be devastating. This year, therefore, farmers are making the case that the review should be a real one and should not be conducted against a background of frozen payments.
Current pressures on the industry are adding to the underlying problems that it faces. There are two major concerns on the horizon—common agricultural policy reforms and Agenda 2000, and the World Trade Organisation talks. We must consider how the industry will be supported, because it must be supported. People from every part of the political spectrum realise that agriculture cannot survive without support in some areas in Wales and other parts of the United Kingdom. The nature of support for the industry will change over time, but it must have support.
For all types of reasons, Plaid Cymru Members support the shift from headage payments to agri-environmental payments, although we place some caveats on that support. First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion made clear, agri-environmental payments

259
must be regarded as part of a package rather than as the entire answer. Commodity support—added to the agri-environmental part of the equation—must be retained in one form or another.
Secondly, the Government must show clearly that they are committed to keeping their side of the bargain. Let us acknowledge the fact that, currently, the European Union finances 100 per cent. of commodity support. The problem with agri-environmental payments is that they must be co-financed. Based on the record of recent Governments, however, we cannot rely on European payments being co-financed. Whenever European Union support required matching income, the Conservatives Government refused to do it properly. The result has been that farmers in other parts of the European Union receive co-financed support, annually giving them greater income buoyancy.
A question that Ministers will have to answer is whether they will ensure that a shift to an all-Wales agri-environmental scheme is properly financed. We should remember that the Tir Cymen pilot scheme has been largely successful, building on the previous environmentally sensitive area schemes—some of which were successful, although others were not. Although the results of ESA schemes have been patchy, the Tir Cymen scheme has built on their successes and examined the possibilities of co-farm management.
The Tir Cymen scheme has been generally successful because it was targeted; the available pot of money was not spread too thinly and it dealt with only one geographical area. The problem with an all-Wales scheme is that, unless the Government realise that more money must go into the system, only one of two options will be available. The first option is that the butter will have to be spread more thinly, which—because there will be no incentive—will deter many farmers from entering the system. The second option is to prevent some farmers from entering the scheme.
An all-Wales scheme can work in only one of those two ways. The real fear among Welsh farmers is that the second option will prevail, and that the rules will be rigged to prevent some farmers from joining the scheme. Many farmers believe that such an outcome is likely, although I hope that Ministers will convince hon. Members that it is not.
The point made earlier in the debate about CAP reform was well taken, because such reform must be made. I am sure that all hon. Members believe that allowing 80 per cent. of the aid to go to 20 per cent. of farmers is a grotesque situation. I should tell the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire that Plaid Cymru Members support modulation, because we believe that help must be targeted. We support modulation not to ensure that those with large farms continue to fill their pockets with European money, but to ensure that the Welsh traditional family farm receives targeted support and that cuts under CAP reform do not disproportionately hit small family farms. Most farmers in Wales share those objectives. In targeting aid, we shall not only reduce the CAP budget but ensure that farmers who really need help receive it in the most beneficial form.
HLCA payments have always been regarded as socio-economic payments, assisting farmers who farm in difficult areas. There is even a system within HLCAs that
260
distinguishes specially disadvantaged areas from disadvantaged areas. HLCA payments have always been made on the basis that more assistance should be given in the areas where it is more difficult to farm. Over the years, many people have examined different systems of providing such support, but no one has yet devised a better one. Everyone has been forced back to the conclusion that the current system is the fairest way in which to provide money. Although I realise that we might have to re-examine the current system to ensure that it is properly targeting payments, it is broadly accepted by the industry.
The Government's decision to freeze HLCA payments this year is no different from the decision made by the previous Government. I remember so well hearing an agriculture Minister say at a sitting of the Select Committee on Agriculture, "Of course, we shall have to consider reducing HLCA payments to farmers in years in which their incomes go up. That must be seen not as support in the traditional sense, but as support when incomes are low. Payments are increased when farmers' incomes are low and go down when incomes rise." Over the past 10 years, however, the problem has been that payments have been cut when incomes are high, but have never been increased when incomes are low. Over the past 15 years, in real terms, HLCA payments have been eroded considerably.
By observing the lines on graphs, we know that, ultimately, HLCA payments will simply disappear. That is the obvious outcome. For many years, there has been a type of shadow-boxing in progress, in which farmers argue and lobby for greater HLCA payments. Although Ministers listen, they do not listen properly, because the payments are never increased. The payments are withering on the vine. We can predict that, in about 10 years, the value of the payments will be virtually nothing.
What is the Government's policy on HLCA payments? Do Ministers want them eventually to disappear? If so, what do they think should replace them? Everyone involved in the debate realises that if support is withdrawn, agriculture will simply cease to exist as a living industry in some areas of Wales. My hon.Friend the Member for Ceredigion touched on an important point when he said that we are talking not only about the economy of rural Wales but about the fabric of rural society. Hon. Members who have visited farms in rural Wales realise the difficulties facing those farms.
There is a consensus among all politicians that support is necessary. The difficulty has always been to ensure that that support comes at the right time. As it does not come at the right time, there is a continual drift from the land, and agriculture becomes an aging industry. Agricultural colleges are failing to attract students because young people no longer see agriculture as an attractive industry.
This year's crisis is immediate, and the Government need to deal with it, but I should like the Minister to give us an idea of how he sees the future of agriculture. Do the Government have any plans to attract young people into the industry in future? Do they see agriculture forming an important part of an integrated rural strategy? Do they have any real policies to breathe life back into the countryside?
11.49 am
Mr. Gareth Thomas: I welcome the initiative of the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) in securing this debate on an issue of great importance to

261
all the people of Wales. However, I found his remarks to the effect that the Government do not care about agriculture not only inaccurate but rather offensive, especially to Members of Parliament such as me who represent rural constituencies and who have a good relationship with the farming unions and, I am pleased to say, with the farmers themselves.
The Government have inherited an extremely difficult situation. As was outlined by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in yesterday's debate, which I know the hon. Member for Ceredigion attended, mitigation of the hardship suffered by hill farmers unfortunately has a price tag. The most realistic assessment of that price tag is that it would cost no less than £440 million this year to introduce the measures that the hon. Gentleman suggested in respect of the over-30-months scheme, revaluation of the green pound, agri-monetary compensation and so on. The remarks made by the hon. Member for Ceredigion bear the hallmark of irresponsibility, because his party will never have the opportunity to introduce legislation and will never have responsibility for the economy of the United Kingdom. It is all very well for him to press for those measures, but, realistically, given the extremely difficult situation that the Government have inherited, they are not possible.
Having said that, I urge my Government colleagues to look again at the hardship being caused, especially to hill farmers in Wales. I am prepared to accept and trust that the Government are heading in the right direction—they have a constructive dialogue with the European institutions and with the farming unions.
It is fair to say that agricultural policy is nowadays inextricably linked with European policy. If European policy is wrong, as I suggest the Opposition's policy is wrong, agricultural policy will inevitably suffer. It is of grave concern to many farmers in my constituency that the Conservative party seems so aggressive towards Europe. It has an ideological fixation or phobia about Europe, which I am afraid will harm agriculture in the long term. A great many agriculturists feel that there is benefit in a single currency or that, at the very least, it is harmful to shut out for 10 years, as the Opposition are, any possibility of joining a single currency. Fluctuating prices and instability are added features of the difficulties confronting many farmers. The Government's more pragmatic approach to European policy is to be welcomed—it means that the general approach to agriculture is far more realistic.
I welcome the Government's initiative in introducing an all-Wales agri-environmental scheme, learning from the lessons that came from the development of Tir Cymen and the environmentally sensitive area schemes. I also welcome the fact that reform of the common agricultural policy is a priority for the Government. It is essential that resources be diverted from price support in the long term. Although there is scope for price support, and I wish it to continue, in the long term there has to be movement towards environmental support and conservation. Farmers in my constituency in particular know that. I recently visited an upland farm, Plas Matw, owned by Mr. Tecwyn Evans. I must congratulate him on the conservation work, especially the protection of hedgerows, that he has undertaken with the support of the Countryside Council for Wales and the Agricultural Training Board. I welcome the Government's initiative in that respect.
262
The Government have inherited a difficult situation, but they have a constructive dialogue with the farming unions and the European institutions. In the long term, I expect that the hardship confronting farmers, particularly in Wales, will be mitigated. The Government have every sympathy with them, but, unfortunately, it is a very difficult time for everyone, and I am afraid that the Government have to prioritise.
11.55 am
Mr. Lembit Öpik: I, too, thank the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) for securing this debate and enabling me to make a few brief comments about family farms and smallholdings. I shall not rehearse all the arguments again, but I wish to emphasise the great importance of protecting family farms and smallholdings, not just for the present but for the foreseeable future.
My constituency, where the largest town has only 12,000 people and where there are no others with even 10,000, depends on farming and rural life not only for its culture and for a sustained economy, but for its very existence. If farming is threatened, Montgomeryshire, and places like it across Wales, will fall into serious economic decline.
The hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence) made an important point about depopulation, which is being experienced all over rural Wales. Young people are tempted to leave the world of agriculture and rural life for the simple reason that it is easier to make a living and have a sustained and stable income by going to the city. According to one projection, the number of retired people will increase by 31 per cent. in some parts of mid-Wales over the next 13 or 14 years, so we have another social crisis in the offing.
Hill livestock compensatory allowances and the other payments that we have discussed need to be regarded as a form of social payment, not just as support for the agriculture industry. I counsel the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) to be a little more cautious. He accused some Opposition Members of irresponsibility because we are calling for more money. Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that many of these payments are a substitute for unemployment benefit and other direct benefits that would have to be paid if farms collapsed? Let us make no mistake about the fact that many farms and smallholdings are on the verge of collapse, for the reasons that have been outlined. I would go further and suggest that it is probably cheaper to make these payments to the agriculture industry than to pay the money through the benefits system. Farmers work hard for a living; by and large, the smallholders have to work the hardest of all.
It is clear that the continuity in terms of culture and economic survival provided by the family farm is vital to the countryside. That continuity is threatened when the sons and daughters of farmers find it easier to leave the countryside. Again, I suggest that the payments and the security that they represent are a guarantee that reassures the offspring of farmers that there is a future for them in farming.
I must mention the plight of new or young farmers coming into the business, because the enormous "in-going cost" of becoming a farmer these days has not been mentioned. We would welcome the Government giving serious consideration to ways of making it easier for new entrants to come into the agricultural market.

263
The voice of the countryside is sometimes drowned by the shout of the city in the Chamber. Today, we have heard from hon. Members who evidently care about agriculture in Wales. I counsel the Government to take on board the points that have been made and to recognise that the issue is not saving money from the countryside, but saving the countryside. That is why we desperately require funds.
11.59 am
Mr. Nigel Evans: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) on securing it. I am delighted to be able to contribute because, as a Conservative Member for a rural English constituency, I have spoken to farmers in my constituency and in Wales many times. The Conservative party is still the second party in Wales, with 100,000 more votes than the Liberal Democrats and almost twice as many votes as Plaid Cymru at the general election.
We know how difficult times have been for hill farmers recently. More than 55 per cent. of farmers now feel that hill farming is not an attractive career option. That is very worrying. We have heard how the population, particularly in the less-favoured areas, is aging. There is a great fear that there will be nobody to take on the farms after those people. The Government have an enormous task to prove their rural credentials. They should act on four main issues to benefit rural farmers in Wales and save the industry from decline: the hill livestock compensatory allowance review; the over-30-months scheme; the revaluation of the green pound; and the lifting of the beef export ban. Those issues have all been mentioned today. Other problems include the falling price of milk, the pressure of quota and charges for carrying milk.
Labour's planned minimum wage could prove disastrous, leading to the closure of small businesses and job losses in rural Wales. We all know that farms in the less-favoured areas operate close to the margins of profitability or even below them. To afford wage costs and operate within the law, some small firms will have to shed labour. That could be a real problem. The alternative is a big increase in black market labour, without the protection of health and safety legislation. That will lead inevitably to the rundown of rural villages, as people move away to look for work. Our countryside will then decline. We have already heard that, for every job on the farm, there are at least two and a half outside.
The HLCA areas are important for the management of the countryside, for tourism in Wales and for the economic vitality of various parts of Wales. The previous Government maintained their commitment to hill farmers, paying out £107 million in HLCAs in 1995. Despite a tough Government spending round, the rates for 1996–97 were not cut. We provided an extra £60 million on HLCAs because of the effect on hill farming incomes of the BSE crisis, which is still affecting many farmers.
Ms Lawrence: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Evans: I shall give way in a moment, but I want to build up a little head of steam first. I have only 10 minutes, because I know that the Minister will want to answer many of the points that have been raised.
264
The £60 million increase in payments for the 60,000 United Kingdom farmers who claimed upland livestock subsidies was announced by the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in November 1996.
Ms Lawrence: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm whether that £60 million was put in the spending plans that this Government took over?
Mr. Evans: The £60 million would not have been in the Government's spending plans, because nobody could have predicted the huge scale of the BSE crisis. Some £1.4 billion was spent to support the agriculture industry after the rise of BSE. We are asking the Government to consider the needs of farmers in HLCA areas carefully, to ensure that they get the support that they desperately need. The Government seem to have pre-empted the review, even though, as we know, they love reviews.
In 1995–96, HLCA payments to Welsh hill farmers reached £27.2 million. A similar figure is expected for 1996–97. Planned expenditure for the next year is £36.4 million. Labour does not share our commitment to hill farming. The Government plan to announce a cut in the HLCA back to 1996 levels, wiping out the £60 million supplement. Such a move will fail to take into account the current trends in hill farming incomes. Government figures for 1994–95 show that 69 per cent. of farmers in the less-favoured areas of Wales had a net farm income of less than £10,000—and the Government have the nerve to talk about a minimum wage.
Cuts in compensation for Welsh farmers without reference to economic conditions and incomes in the hills and the less-favoured areas will mean savings for the Government, but cuts in income for all hill farmers, putting some of them out of business. The cuts will mean deprivation and depression for many rural villages. The Government are not listening to Welsh farmers, not consulting them and giving many of them no chance.
A recent National Farmers Union survey showed that farming incomes were back to below 1988–89 levels.
Mr. Chris Ruane: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise the damage that the previous Conservative Government did to the rural economy? They presided over it for 18 years, during which there was Alar in the apple industry, anthrax in the pig industry, botulism in the food processing industry, listeria in the dairy industry, salmonella in the poultry industry, E. coli in the meat industry and BSE in the beef industry. Does he believe that that strengthened or weakened the rural economy in Wales?
Mr. Evans: If the Government had sat back and done nothing to support the farming industry, with those problems, it would have been a complete disaster. I have already mentioned the enormous £1.4 billion support on BSE. The Government's reactions in the next three or four years will be interesting. There have been incidences of E. coli in Scotland since this Government came to power. We shall not scaremonger in the appalling way that certain Labour spokesmen did when we were in government. Some of the comments made when the BSE crisis began did not help hill farmers in Wales. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recall the right hon. Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) asking:
"Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that public confidence on this issue is hanging by a thread?"—[Official Report, 20 March 1996; Vol. 274, c. 376.]

265
Matthew Parris succinctly remarked the following day in his column that she then proceeded to cut it. I know that the hon. Gentleman was not in Parliament then, but some of the statements made by other Labour Members at that time were not helpful to hill farmers in Wales or any other farmers throughout the country.
A recent National Farmers Union survey showed that farming incomes were back to below 1988–89 levels. It also showed that 74 per cent. thought that the main reason for young people not taking up hill farming was the low incomes. The president of the Country Landowners Association has predicted that hill farmers face tough times unless the Government boost special payments to keep their incomes above the breadline. He said:
"HLCAs were originally brought in to compensate farmers for the natural handicaps to farming in LFAs. Now more than ever, this policy is justified and higher rates are needed for LFA farmers to survive."
By cutting the HLCA, the Government are acting ahead of the outcome of the annual review of the state of hill farming. It is like a judge passing a life sentence for murder before he has heard any of the defence's evidence. It is an irresponsible act worthy only of a Government who have shown themselves untrustworthy and unable to keep their word. They say whatever they feel like at the time. If it turns out to be inconvenient later, they simply drop it. It is a betrayal of our farmers' trust.
The over-30-months scheme provides farmers with compensation for the culling of cattle over 30 months as they come to the end of their working lives. The culling of cattle over 30 months was one of the conditions for the lifting of the beef ban agreed at the European Council of Ministers meeting in Florence in 1996. By the time of the general election, more than 1.2 million cattle had been culled under the scheme.
We have already heard how wonderful the Government are, with their pro-communautaire policies and their relations with our European neighbours. At the time of the BSE crisis, they said that the Conservative Government were not doing enough to lift the ban, but the ban has not been lifted since 1 May. We want the Government to do more. They said that they had good relations with Europe. They almost gave the impression that if they were elected on 1 May, the ban would be lifted on 2 May. That has not happened. It is damaging to the industry in Wales.
In March 1996, before the BSE crisis, the average price reported by the Meat and Livestock Commission for a grade 1 cull cow was 95.3p per kilo liveweight. That made an 800 kg cull cow worth about £760. With the new weight limits and prices, the same animal would be worth only £311, an enormous drop in farmers' incomes. The accusation against Welsh farmers, and against farmers generally, was that the system was being abused. That is an ill-founded, ill-considered accusation against hardworking, decent farmers. I ask that the Government take measures to review the decisions that they have taken, which are hitting farmers in Wales so hard.
On green pound revaluation, the value of sterling has risen strongly since the general election, caused at least in part by the four interest rate rises since 1 May. That has led to a further revaluation of the green pound and means that the value of common agricultural policy support prices in sterling has fallen. The agreement at the June 1995 Agriculture Council allowed member states to freeze
266
the green rate applying to CAP direct payments. We exercised that right to protect British farmers against revaluation. The freeze protects the value in sterling of more than 60 per cent. of CAP expenditure and is worth a massive £440 million over two years. To compensate for the effects of the strong pound, the Government can apply to the Commission for further compensation to help farmers whose CAP payments have effectively been reduced by the strong pound. The Government should take that course of action at the earliest possible time, which would go some way to helping Welsh farmers.
Mr. Llwyd: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Evans: No, I said that I would finish at 12.10 and I aim to do that.
I ask the Minister to reverse the weight limits, seek greater compensation and give real assistance to farmers through the hill livestock compensatory allowance, to help farmers in their time of need. They do not need an insensitive Government who look the other way. Welsh farmers deserve better; if they do not get it, the loss of the livelihoods of thousands of Welsh farmers will lie with this Government.
12.11 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Win Griffiths): I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) on his success in the ballot and on taking the opportunity to raise matters of great importance to the rural communities of Wales. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence) and for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) and the hon. Members for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey), for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) and for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), all of whom made thoughtful contributions.
The hon. Member for Dribble—I mean Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), I was getting him confused with Tom Finney—can say all that he likes now but the huge crisis that we face is the doing of his Government. He knows that all his demands for expenditure were left unprovided for in their Red Book estimates in the last public expenditure round. That is part of the problem with which we have to deal.
As to lifting the ban, when one considers that we were left in a trench as deep as the Marianas in the Pacific, it has to be recognised that we have already made huge progress in increasing the European Union's confidence in the measures that we are taking to ensure that it can be lifted. I assure all the hon. Members who raised the matter that we give it the highest priority. It is the opening of export markets to British produce that will make the fundamental difference.
Mr. Evans: We all agree that lifting the ban would boost Welsh farmers. Can the Minister give us any idea of when he believes that it will be lifted?
Mr. Griffiths: I would love to be able to, but 1 can say only that we are giving the matter top priority. The sooner it happens, the better, but I cannot set a deadline because that would look as if I were holding our European colleagues to ransom. I assure the House that it is a top Government priority.

267
While agriculture accounts for only a small part of total employment in the Principality as a whole, in the rural areas of Wales it is the dominant occupation and one on which scores of other jobs depend. The rural economy depends on healthy agriculture. The Government's commitment to agriculture remains very firm. We believe that an efficient and competitive farming industry in Wales is an essential part of our rural economy and vital to the cultural and social life of rural areas.
The number of people engaged in the industry is declining, as it has for decades but, thankfully, in Wales it is a modest decline. It is inevitable that, as farming methods improve and productivity rises, the number of farmers will decrease, but we recognise that those who continue to work in agriculture are entitled to a reasonable measure of support from the community as a whole, not least because of their role in preserving the landscape that is so valued by millions of townspeople. While the number of farmers continues to decline, their impact in rural communities remains as strong as ever.
The Government have a large number of market support measures, such as the sheep annual premium scheme, the beef special premium scheme, arable crops area payments, hill livestock compensatory allowances, the agri-environment programme, the environmentally sensitive area scheme, and Tir Cymen. An integrated countryside and agricultural information service provides free advice to farmers in Wales. We have two grant schemes designed to help companies improve their food processing and marketing facilities. The European Commission has given structural support amounting to £28 million over five years under the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund. Government support has helped to maintain the incomes of those employed in agriculture in Wales over the years. In talking about the Government in this case, I refer to the previous Government, because all those schemes are on-going and part of the European Community process.
Planned expenditure on agriculture in Wales this year is around £250 million. That is a demonstration of our support for the rural economy and a significant contribution from the taxpayer. I recognise that farming is at the heart of community life in the hills of Wales. Farming in the hills of Wales is predominantly the production of sheep and suckler cows. We fully endorse the importance of HLCAs to Wales, where 80 per cent. of the land is in less-favoured areas.
I underline what was said last night and raised again by my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire. The £60 million to which the previous Government so often referred was a special one-off payment. As the hon. Member for Ceredigion pointed out, it should never have got embroiled with HLCAs. No provision was made for it in this year's budget. That is part of the problem that we are dealing with.
I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales have had good discussions with the Farmers Union of Wales and the National Farmers Union in Wales about the difficulties that their members face. Over the next few weeks, we shall consider what they and others have said to us, but, as hon. Members know, the Government are pledged to live within overall public expenditure targets set by the previous Administration. That was part of the
268
basis on which we were elected, but it makes life difficult for us. Having said that, we are considering the situation in the hill farms and of farming in Wales and we are setting up a dialogue, which I shall mention again, for the future.
We want to ensure that hill farmers and those in less-favoured and severely disadvantaged areas continue to receive a high level of support. It is interesting to note that the rate of decline in farming in severely disadvantaged areas is much slower than that recorded in other parts of Wales. The rate of decline in non-less-favoured areas, for example, is just under 20 per cent., whereas it is 2 per cent. elsewhere.
Last year, most of the £226 million of subsidies for the production of livestock in Wales went to farmers in less-favoured areas. Those significant sums of money demonstrate that we are committed to HLCAs.
Hon. Members will be aware that the Welsh Institute of Rural Studies at Aberystwyth has won the contract for the evaluation of HLCAs in Wales. It will be presenting its report to the Welsh Office before the end of the year. As soon as I have read it, I shall send a copy to hon. Member for Ceredigion and the farming unions and I shall also place a copy in the Library so that all hon. Members can look at it. It will be an important contribution to establishing a dialogue between the farming unions and others about the future of agriculture in Wales and how best to support it.
We also face the challenge posed by the reform of the common agriculture policy. In addition to the internal need for that to happen for the good of the development of the European Union, one must consider external factors such as the need for our goods to be competitive on world markets. The World Trade Organisation wants agricultural markets to be opened up. We also want CAP to become more market oriented, with payments decoupled from production, and supply controls removed.
All those issues will be subject to radical thinking and the Government want to play their full part in helping to construct a modern, sustainable and environmentally friendly agriculture policy. The debate has shown that that desire is shared by plenty of other hon. Members. We know that there will be challenges to farmers in adjusting to any new regime. We shall continue to consult the industry and farming unions in Wales about the proposed EC reforms, and we understand farmers' concerns.
We believe that the reform of the CAP is necessary and inevitable and that Welsh agriculture must respond and adapt to the challenge of reform. Unlike the previous Government, this Government will look at constructive ways in which to provide practical help to farmers to make that possible. We need to examine the needs of key sectors in the Welsh agricultural industry, such as the beef, lamb and dairy industries, which will be affected most directly by CAP reform, while looking at the development potential of our other important farming sector, horticulture.
In that context, it is particularly important to develop the range of premium and added-value food products that our industries produce. We shall continue to support the development of food promotion schemes such as farm assurance schemes, which prove the quality of our products and have done much to help them appeal to the retailer and the consumer alike. That is why the work of the Welsh food strategy is so important to the long-term

269
competitive position of agriculture in Wales. I am keen to see that work developed more effectively. I want to see Wales develop a good reputation for first-class food products, which will give us a strong market position in organic and farm-assured foods.
Mr. Dafis: I like what the Minister is saying. I, too, would like to emphasise that adding value to Welsh food and the production of high-quality products are important issues of economic development. That must be borne in mind when deciding the spending priorities of the new development agency. Together with inward investment, such issues will be key, important considerations in the creation of a vibrant economy in rural areas and in Wales generally.
Mr. Griffiths: The Secretary of State for Wales, my fellow Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) and I will use our respective briefs to consider that issue. We want to ensure that our economic powerhouse, to which reference has already been made, adds value to the work of the Rural Development Agency, to strengthen the rural economy in Wales.
The BSE crisis has certainly added to the difficulties that hill farmers are facing. As I have already said, one of our high priorities is to get rid of the export ban. We are also aware that some of the changes that we have announced, together with the OTMS and the difficulties in responding quickly on the revaluation of the green pound, have caused further problems for farmers. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made clear last night, we are still considering the green pound revaluation and have got until January to make a decision about most of the products affected. We want to get to grips with those problems.
In the short-term, it is important to appreciate that we inherited a dire situation. It is therefore difficult to fulfil the Opposition's expectation that we will undo the severe damage inflicted in the past eight years in just a couple of months.
We want to beef up the agri-environment scheme. The hon. Members for Ynys Môn and for Brecon and Radnorshire asked about providing money for whole-farm management to make such a proposal worth while.
270
We have not made any decision about the rates of payment, but we realise that we must make them attractive so that farmers will opt into the scheme. The resources required from 1999 will be considered as part of the comprehensive spending review. We want that scheme to be successful.
It is inevitable that the schemes that provide most added value environmentally will get the money first, but we shall not make Tir Cymen or something like it an all-Wales scheme, in receipt of a fixed amount. That would not be in keeping with the spirit of our proposals. The exact amount of additional resources available will, however, depend on the outcome of the comprehensive spending review. The working group is considering the scheme now. We want to ensure that everything that we do is designed to meet our targets on biodiversity and other commitments.
It is important to us that farming continues in rural Wales because of the associated social, cultural, economic and conservation considerations. I can reassure the House that the Government are committed to re-establishing a prosperous agricultural industry in Wales. When we discussed HLCAs with the farming unions they accepted the existence of a short-term difficulty. We had a positive dialogue about moving the debate beyond the first two years in question to ensure that there is a common approach to the development of long-term strategies.
Mr. Evans: How many farms in less-favoured areas does the Minister think will be able to survive two years? In the last minute, what good news can he give to farmers farming in less-favoured areas?
Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman will know that we face the problem of working within the budget that the Conservative Government considered to be sufficient to deal with those issues. All I can say is that we are looking for ways to provide some short-term help, but there is no question of my being able to trumpet any major figures now, because difficult discussions are still going on. We accept that there is a need to do something in the short term, but it is difficult. I would not wish to raise anyone's hopes, but the point—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order.

River Thames (Transport Safety)
12.30 pm
Mr. Chris Pond (Gravesham): I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a matter that will be of concern to the House and especially to those hon. Members whose constituencies, like mine, border the Thames.
Hon. Members will remember that, last week, a 3,000 lb dredger known as the Sand Kite collided with the Thames barrier and sank. Thankfully, none of the 10 crew on the vessel was seriously hurt and there were no other casualties; nor, it appears, was the barrier seriously damaged, although it was closed as a result of the accident, which was the most serious to have occurred since the barrier became operational 15 years ago. However, the potential impact of the incident was far worse, as the shipping journal Lloyd's List pointed out in its leading article the following day:
"In this case no lives were lost, and the Thames Barrier has demonstrated that it is a good deal stronger than the forepart of a ship. The accident did not coincide with the 100 year North Sea storm surge and a spring tide working against flooding in the Thames Valley. London has survived again. It could have been a good deal worse."
It could indeed.
The vessel involved, although now named the Sand Kite, was previously called the Bow Knight and it is the sister ship of the Bow Belle, which was involved in the tragic 1989 collision with the Marchioness that killed 51 people. In the early 1980s, a third sister ship, the Bow Trader, was involved in a collision with a small passenger craft: and, in 1992, that same ship scored a double hit when it ran into two Thames bridges: the Cannon Street railway bridge and Southwark road bridge. I can understand why the owners wished to drop the Sand Kite's maiden name.
Such incidents provide a vivid warning of the respect with which we should treat the stretch of water that flows only a few feet from where we are debating today. It is powerful and can be both capricious and dangerous. Hon. Members do not need reminding of the incident involving the Sand Kite—it is still fresh in our memories—and we cannot be certain of the causes of the incident until the marine accidents investigation branch has completed its investigation. My reason for bringing the matter to the House's attention today is that it is a timely warning that proposals being promoted by the Port of London Authority could have serious implications for safety and environmental hazard.
I refer to pilotage direction No. 5, which proposes to exempt vessels of less than 80 m in length from the requirement to take on a pilot in the river; currently, only vessels of less than 50 m are exempt. In the Thames estuary, vessels of less than 90 m will be exempt from having to take on a pilot; the current limit is 80 m. It is a little puzzling that the PLA should be proposing a reduction in pilotage at this time. Recent incidents should surely have alerted us to the potential dangers of unpiloted vessels. The Bow Trader was exempt from having a pilot on board when it collided with the Southwark and Cannon Street bridges. The Bow Belle did not have a pilot on board when it sank the Marchioness. The Bow Knight, alias the Sand Kite, did not have a pilot on board when it wedged itself against the Thames barrier and sank last week.
Mr. Tony Colman: May I add to that list the Thames bubbler, a larger vessel owned by Thames Water
272
and used to aerate the Thames, which collided with Putney rail bridge? There was no underground service from the south-west of London into central London for some days. The incident occurred in 1991, but it is only in the past few months that the service has been restored, at a cost of several million pounds. Will the Minister, separate from the debate, advise me whether the PLA has changed its way of working, taking into account the incidents involving the bubbler and the Sand Kite?
Mr. Pond: I have no way of knowing whether the vessel that my hon. Friend mentioned had a pilot on board when that incident occurred. Nor do we have any way of knowing whether the other incidents I mentioned would have occurred had the vessels had pilots on board. We can be certain of one thing, however: the likelihood of such an incident would not have been greater with a pilot than without.
I understand that, following the Marchioness tragedy, the marine accidents investigation branch recommended an increase in pilotage standards on the Thames, yet the PLA is proposing to do the opposite. Following the report on the grounding of the Sea Empress at Milford Haven, with disastrous environmental consequences, the Government have ordered a review of the Pilotage Act 1987, yet the PLA is apparently proposing to go it alone and reduce pilotage on the Thames before the outcome of that review is heard.
Mr. Derek Wyatt: Is my hon. Friend aware that although the PLA has requested changes to regulations on pilotage, Members of Parliament whose constituencies bank on the Thames have not been made part of the process?
Mr. Pond: I share that concern. I have had a meeting with the PLA at its headquarters in Gravesend in my constituency, but I am concerned about the extent of the consultation process. I am especially concerned about the importance that the PLA has placed on the views of its pilots and of users of the Thames. Although the PLA has had meetings with pilots, there is no evidence that real consultation has taken place, and that should be of concern to the House.
I was first made aware of the proposals, which will come into effect on 15 January 1998 unless the PLA reconsiders its position, by representatives of the London river pilots and by the Medway pilots, who are major users of the Thames. I raised the matter in oral questions in July and in an early-day motion, also tabled in July and signed by 19 Members of Parliament. The pilots, whom the PLA acknowledges are "the experts", are unanimously opposed to the proposals. In a letter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Medway pilots committee warned that the proposals
"would affect the safety and environment of the Thames Estuary and River".
The PLA denies that risk to safety is involved or that there is an increased risk of environmental hazard. Despite repeated warnings from its own pilots and those on the Medway, the PLA apparently intends to press ahead, if allowed to do so, with its plans for increased pilotage exemptions. We need, therefore, to examine the arguments carefully.
The first of the PLA's arguments is that the vessels to be exempted under the proposals are relatively small. It is, nevertheless, a fact that ships the size of Westminster

273
Hall will be able to navigate the Thames without taking on board a pilot. I would not consider them particularly small. Moreover, as the chairman of the London pilots committee reminded the PLA in a letter dated 30 September 1997:
"Pilots do not consider 'modest changes' to be a realistic description of the proposals for changing the limits above Sea Reach No. I"—
that is, in the river itself. The letter goes on:
"It should be considered that raising the limit by 60 per cent. from 50 to 80 metres results in the deadweight of ships affected increasing … from approximately 700 tonnes to 2,500 tonnes, perhaps more".
It points out that manoeuvrability is generally in inverse proportion to size.
Even if the PLA were correct in its assertion that the vessels affected are relatively small, such vessels can still create hazards for other river users should they find themselves in trouble or acting erratically. What would the House say of a proposal to exempt light aircraft and helicopters from air traffic control? Would we not be slightly concerned that such aircraft might collide with jumbo jets that were subject to directions from the control tower?
An experienced pilot recently wrote to me to explain the risks:
"The non-piloted ships being unaware of the constraints of the larger vessels could either hog the deep water, force the tanker to take evasive action, resulting in grounding or a collision, or just generally impede the safe passage … Having spoken to many large ship masters recently about this review, they express alarm and concern with regards to the considerably increased risks."
An additional implication of exempting so-called smaller vessels derives from the fact that it is on these vessels that newly qualified pilots gain their experience—that is part of the training process for pilots on the Thames. With such vessels exempted, pilots will have to practise on the larger vessels.
The second argument of the PLA—it is a legitimate one—is that the proposals introduce new requirements for vessels above a certain draught to take on a pilot even if they are below the proposed length requirement. The PLA argues that draught is more important than length in determining safety.
I have no objection to the PLA's introducing new draught requirements for pilotage; I am sure that other hon. Members will have no objections either—the pilots certainly have none. The difficulty, however, lies in the suggestion that that should go hand in hand with a reduction in the length requirement. While the PLA is correct to maintain that it is the draught of a vessel, not its length, which determines its likelihood of running aground, the authority also acknowledges that length determines manoeuvrability and, hence, the danger of collision.
The reason for today's debate, after all, is that the House is concerned about a number of collisions on the Thames, including those involving the Bow Belle and the Marchioness. What is more, as one experienced river pilot explained to me last night, draught is no indicator of safety and it is very difficult to police.
I do not want to get myself into deep water dealing with the technicalities, if colleagues will forgive the pun, or stray too far beyond my technical expertise, which is not extensive. However, I understand that it is difficult to
274
police the draught of a vessel because much of it is under water at any given time. Nor is draught a fixed measure. The master of a ship can adjust draught as necessary by shifting cargo, fuel or water in the tanks, and he may be encouraged to do so if it avoids the bothersome business of having to take on a pilot.
Thirdly, the PLA points out that vessels carrying marine pollutants in bulk should be compelled to take on a pilot, regardless of size. The PLA argues that that is a further reason why we should not be concerned about the environmental implications of the proposals. I find that puzzling. The PLA tells us that vessels of less than 80 m do not run a significant risk of collision or grounding. Why, then, should we or the PLA be concerned about whether they are carrying marine pollutants? Is this a sign that the PLA is not wholly confident about the implications of exempting certain vessels?
We must also ask: what are marine pollutants in bulk? Would we consider 15,000 litres of fuel oil an environmental hazard if discharged into the Thames? The PLA certainly did last week, when it made the effort to pump that amount of fuel oil off the Sand Kite as an environmental precaution. It was not being carried as cargo; it was being carried as fuel. The Sand Kite is only marginally bigger, at 98 m, than the vessels that the PLA proposes to exempt from pilotage.
All vessels require fuel oil, sometimes very large amounts of it, just to propel them along the river. Unlike large tankers, smaller vessels are likely to have fuel tanks that are single skinned, posing the risk that the fuel will be discharged in the event of an accident.
The full effects of the PLA proposals are difficult to assess. The PLA cannot tell us with any precision how many additional vessel movements will be exempted under the proposals. It suggests that 1,000 additional movements will take place without a pilot each year—although I have this morning seen PLA figures that suggest the number might be as great as 1,800. Even on those figures, that is a great many more opportunities for incidents such as the Sand Kite crash to occur. The pilots suggest that there could be as many as 4,000 additional exempted movements.
The PLA cannot satisfactorily explain why the changes are necessary. The savings, we are told, will be minimal, and there are no plans to cut pilot numbers still further—they have already been significantly reduced in recent years. While the advantages of the proposals are difficult to discern, however, the disadvantages have been all too vividly illustrated by recent incidents on the Thames.
The port of London is one of the busiest in the world and it is becoming busier all the time. Ships entering the Thames often carry foreign crews with little knowledge of the port of London—or often of English. Pressures on costs have resulted in the so-called lean manning of vessels, so that
"it is not uncommon to find excessive fatigue in evidence amongst ships crews".
All this should point to the need for more stringent pilotage on the Thames. Already, the requirements here are more lax than in any other European member state. Foreign crews who can enter the port of London without

275
a pilot will nevertheless be required to take on a pilot when navigating their home ports on their return. The chief harbour master, Rear Admiral Bruce Richardson, tells me that
"the safety performance of the Port of London has been and continues to be excellent."
On PLA figures, there have been only 15 recorded incidents in the past year. We must be slightly sceptical about those figures. Evidence provided by the pilots suggests that the number could be much higher—they recorded 90 incidents between the beginning of June and the beginning of August alone. Of course, those incidents were of varying seriousness, but we know that all of them could have been dangerous. Just one such incident, involving the Sand Kite, should be enough to warn of the dangers.
I understand that the Secretary of State is technically unable to prevent the PLA from pressing ahead with these proposals, but I am grateful to the Library for eliciting the response from a PLA official that
"although the authority has the power in law to implement any changes in its directions, it would be very unlikely to go ahead if the Secretary of State strongly opposed them".
I hope that the Minister will clarify the position for us. I believe that the proposals should be strongly opposed. Last week's incident should at least cause the PLA to draw breath and think again. The investigation into it could provide important lessons for the PLA and for river users. The authority may argue that the new technology in which it plans to invest will provide additional safety for vessel movements, but the technology is not yet operational and is unlikely to become so for a year or 18 months. Moreover, the PLA should be requested, if that is all that the Secretary of State can do, to withhold implementation of its proposals until the results of the review of the Pilotage Act are complete.
Finally, I hope that the Minister who is good enough to respond today will feel able to use her good offices to persuade the PLA to defer its plans, listen carefully to its experienced pilots, and perhaps take the time to draw lessons from the Sand Kite incident.
12.49 pm
The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) on obtaining this timely debate and thank him for his generosity in allowing interventions by my hon. Friends the Members for Putney (Mr. Colman) and for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt). I shall write to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney on the issue that he raised. If, by any chance, I do not manage to touch on all the points that my hon. Friends have made, I shall forward complete copies of my speech.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham said, the Sand Kite, a dredger of 98 m length, collided with the Thames flood barrier at 6.50 am on Monday 27 October. Fortunately, there were neither casualties nor pollution. The Sand Kite was inbound, laden with sand and gravel. Visibility was reduced by fog to 400 yd. A similar-sized dredger had preceded the Sand Kite a few minutes earlier without incident, but the Sand Kite struck the barrier, started to sink and was then grounded.
276
The marine accidents investigation branch is conducting an inspector's inquiry and the House will agree that it would be wrong to speculate on the cause of the incident until we have that report.
My hon. Friend said that the Sand Kite was previously known as the Bow Kite and averred that she was a sister vessel to the Bow Belle. I understand, however, that the Sand Kite is a very different design, a much larger vessel, and of a different class. The Sand Kite struck the Thames barrier at an angle and no serious damage has yet been found. There is little likelihood of needing to raise the barrier to protect London from flooding between now and 12 November, as tides will be low.
In the light of points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham, may I deal with pilotage and its importance in relation to the general issue of safety on the river? The Sand Kite was subject to a compulsory pilotage direction, issued by the competent harbour authority, the Port of London Authority. The master is a frequent user of the Thames and holder of a pilotage exemption certificate, as is his first mate, who was logged as being the pilot for the passage at the time of the collision.
The current statutory basis for compulsory pilotage is the Pilotage Act 1987. Before the Act, pilotage services were organised by pilotage authorities working out of pilotage districts. The 1987 Act swept those authorities away, and responsibility for the provision of pilotage services was transferred to "competent harbour authorities". The PLA is an example of one such authority. A CHA is any harbour authority with statutory powers over the regulation of shipping movements and the safety of navigation within its harbour, and whose harbour falls wholly or partly within an active former pilotage district.
Under the Act, a CHA may, if it is in the interests of safety, direct pilotage to be compulsory for ships navigating in any area or part of an area in which it has the duty to provide pilotage. Such a direction may apply to all ships, or all ships of a specified description, but may not apply to ships of less than 20 m in length or to fishing boats with a registered length of less than 47.5 m.
The 1987 Act also imposes on CHAs, such as the PLA, certain duties in the provision of pilotage services. It requires each CHA to keep under consideration whether any and, if so, what pilotage services need to be provided to secure the safety of ships; whether pilotage should be compulsory and, if so, for which ships and in which circumstances; and what pilotage services need to be provided. The CHA must establish and keep under review a framework of pilotage operations for its area.
Under the Act, the CHA that has given a pilotage direction must, on application by any bona fide master or first mate of any ship, grant a pilotage exemption certificate—a PEC—if it is satisfied that the applicant's skill, experience and local knowledge are sufficient for the applicant to be capable of piloting the ship of which he or she is master or first mate, and any other ships specified in the certificate, within its harbour or such part of its harbour as may be so specified. The conditions imposed on an applicant must not be unduly onerous, having regard to the difficulties and danger of navigation in the harbour in question. They must not be more onerous than those required to be met by a person applying to the authority to be an authorised pilot in its area.

277
The current law allows compulsory pilotage to be imposed by a CHA only in connection with the safety of vessels in its area. The CHA is obliged to grant PECs to suitably qualified masters or mates, and that exemption may be withheld only where unusual hazards are involved in shipping movements within a harbour.
The 1987 Act reserves almost no role on pilotage for my Department. The Department has no oversight of harbour pilotage and no general information about how competent harbour authorities carry out their functions. As the House will no doubt recall, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has therefore announced a review of the arrangements for harbour pilotage under the Pilotage Act 1987. The review covers the whole of the UK. It is well under way and has involved discussions with the Marine Safety Agency, the three port associations, the UK Harbour Masters' Association, the Chamber of Shipping, the Nautical Institute, the National Union of Marine, Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers, the Transport and General Workers Union and the UK Pilots Association. Visits have also been made to individual ports where local pilots have been consulted. The PLA has offered officials working on the review an opportunity to visit the port on 8 December to talk to the authority's officers, pilots and users.
I am aware of pilots' concerns about proposals put forward by the PLA to alter their pilotage direction. The PLA has been responsible for pilotage on the Thames since the 1987 Act came into force. It has not hitherto undertaken any substantial change to the pilotage directions that it inherited and it has a statutory duty under the Act to review its pilotage requirements. That is the review currently under way, the object of which has been to enhance safety. It has been based on an assessment of risks and seeks to introduce the draught, or depth of a vessel, in addition to the length, as a criterion for pilotage. The PLA believes that the risks of grounding in its area are determined more by draught than by any other vessel characteristic.
The review proposes to replace the single criterion for compulsory pilotage with a combination of length and draught. In that way, the PLA can target pilotage more precisely where risk demands. Certain shallow draught vessels that do not pose a significant risk, which in the past have been compelled to take a pilot on grounds of
278
length alone, would no longer be compelled to do so. Pilotage for vessels carrying hazardous cargoes and passenger vessels will remain compulsory. An added safety feature is the proposal to make the new limits responsive to poor visibility by reducing yet further the allowable draught limitation when visibility is significantly reduced.
I hope that it will be seen that none of the proposed changes to the PLA pilotage regime are relevant to the Sand Kite incident. The Sand Kite and vessels similar to it will remain subject to compulsory pilotage, as will all vessels over 50 m length navigating above Barking creek in the vicinity of the Thames barrier. A system of exemptions from the requirement to have a pilot on board will always be needed. Masters and mates familiar with the harbour should be able to apply for exemption certificates, as now, and be granted them on proof of competence.
At present, ships over 50 m in length navigating the river, and those over 80 m in length navigating the estuary, must be piloted. All PLA PEC holders are required, as a minimum, to make six entries or departures during the previous 12 months, under the guidance of an authorised pilot. For vessels over 100 m, applicants are also required to sit a series of oral examinations. All certificates are subject to annual renewal.
The review of the Act that my Department is undertaking is necessarily at a more general policy level. It is not intended to include case-by-case examination of each CHA's directions. Pilots have asked, and my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham argued, that the PLA's proposals should not be implemented until my Department's more general review has been completed. That is a matter for the PLA. We have no power to insist on it.
I understand that the London pilots are particularly concerned about consultation. The Port of London Authority tells me that it has consulted its own staff, including pilots, and river users and riparian authorities. The consultation process is nearing completion, and I understand that the PLA met its pilots for the fourth time on this subject on 28 October.
Before I conclude—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order.

A5 Trunk Road
1 pm
Mr. Owen Paterson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing the deplorable state of the road north of Shrewsbury to be brought to the attention of Parliament.
I believe that the matter was last debated in 1817, when Irish Members, exasperated by the road stretching from London to Holyhead, which goes back to Roman times, managed to persuade Parliament to commission Thomas Telford to rebuild the road. He found that the condition of the road between London and Shrewsbury was not too bad, but the road from Shrewsbury to Holyhead had to be completely rebuilt. It was described after that time as the finest road in Europe.
There are echoes of that today. A person leaving Dover can drive 200 miles on motorways or dual carriageway. Coming to Shrewsbury, that person will drive on a new dual carriageway built in 1992. There are roundabouts at Shrewsbury, and the road later becomes single carriageway. That person's life is at risk. He passes through Nesscliffe, the first village to be traversed since leaving Dover.
Reaching my constituency, the driver comes to Shottaton, a crossroad that has not changed since Thomas Telford built it. It the most dangerous crossroad in Shropshire. Two miles further on, at Queen's Head, there is the second most dangerous junction. At Oswestry, there are four roundabouts. For the purposes of this debate, I am including the road from the Shropshire boundary on to Ruabon, which is designated the A483. That is also single carriageway. From Ruabon onwards, it is plain sailing—dual carriageway right the way through to Holyhead.
It is extraordinary that we expect long-distance goods traffic and express buses to travel at high speed all the way from Dover, and then suddenly to cope with the demands of a narrow road built in the early 19th century, competing with local traffic, local buses, local delivery vehicles and local people going to school and trying to cross—there are 94 access points to the A5, 23 junctions and 23 footpaths. The result is confusion.
Traffic is increasing. At Moreton Hall, 21,300 vehicles cross on an average day. That is an increase of 44 per cent. from 1991 to 1996. Already this year, there has been an increase of 5.9 per cent. in traffic. There is dreadful confusion, congestion and, above all, an entirely unacceptable level of accidents.
I could read out the most harrowing letters, outlining the human misery caused by those accidents, which are totally unnecessary. I shall give the figures, which speak with a horrible, cold clarity. From 1992 to September this year, between Shrewsbury and Ruabon, there have been 276 accidents; 367 people have been slightly injured; 147 have been seriously injured; and 25 people have been killed.
The West Mercia police have a formula for calculating the cost to the community of accidents. They estimate that slight injury costs us all £10,000, a serious injury £150,000, and a death £1 million. I estimate that the road has cost the country more than £50 million in the past five years.
The only solution is to build a dual carriageway from Shrewsbury to Ruabon. The new dual carriageway round Shrewsbury has reduced the accident rate to levels below
280
the national level. If those levels prevailed on the A5, next year there would be 45 fewer accidents, and two fewer people would die.
The road would not be cheap. Shropshire county council's engineers estimate £48 million for the stretch from Shrewsbury to Oswestry, and another £34 million from Oswestry to Ruabon. However, the payback in simple human terms—the reduction in human suffering and loss of life—would be rapid.
There is also a local economic cost. Oswestry has the highest unemployment in Shropshire at 7 per cent., and the Victoria ward of Oswestry has male unemployment of 13 per cent. However, the Highways Agency has the statutory duty to overrule local planners if any new project would bring extra traffic to the A5 above 3 per cent.
That has already happened. A supermarket project was cancelled at Mile End, and now there is a complete blight on any further development on that site. It is extraordinary, considering the fact that storage, refrigeration and food distribution is a major industry in Oswestry. To deliver just on time to supermarkets all over the country, those distributors need a road that they can rely on. The existing road is not reliable.
Just up the road, at Gobowen, there is the Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt orthopaedic hospital, offering care second to none in the world, serving 8 million people and employing 900. The future of that hospital must be prejudiced if health authorities are loth to risk their patients on the road, which is dangerous and subject to delays. The workings of that major hospital are constantly disrupted by the delays caused by the accidents on the A5, as patients and consultants do not arrive on time.
There is a regional aspect. The Shropshire Gap links the west midlands industrial conurbations and also Wrexham and the industrial area of north-east Wales. Soon, those areas will also be damaged by the constant delays of freight and passenger traffic being held up on the A5. That is bizarre, when one considers that the road has been designated one of the key roads in the trans-European road network—that is the road from Felixstowe, Britain's largest container port, through to Holyhead. Of the 333 miles, 32 miles are single carriageway, and those are the miles between Shrewsbury and Ruabon, which are as narrow as 7.3 m in parts of my constituency.
It would be entirely consistent with the strategy laid out in the Government's discussion paper to invest in a dual carriageway on the A5. The Government would not be reacting in an ad hoc manner to a spirited local campaign, as the investment would be the final link—the final 10 per cent.—in a strategic road, which would conform to the Government's idea of long-term investment in planned integrated trunk roads.
Mr. Christopher Gill: As the House may know, my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) was born and bred in the county of Shropshire and knows the county and its problems well. Is it his impression that over the past few years, since the completion of the Shrewsbury bypass, and the making of the road north of Wrexham into a dual carriageway, the weight of traffic on that section of the A5 through Shropshire has increased exponentially? Does he recognise that some of the so-called improvements that have been carried out on that road have created accident

281
blackspots, which the Government would do well to study, with a view to making the road more capable of carrying the volumes of traffic that currently go along it, and making it safer?
Mr. Paterson: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention: I concur entirely with his views. As I said, traffic at Moreton Hall increased by 44 per cent. from 1991 to 1996 and has grown by 5.9 per cent. this year. My hon. Friend is absolutely correct when he says that some minor improvements have made the situation worse. Queen's Head junction was built in 1986 and is a relatively new road, but it is the second most dangerous junction after Thomas Telford's road at Shottaton.
There would certainly be environmental gains if the road were improved. The village of Nesscliffe, just outside my constituency, is totally blighted by heavy traffic passing through it. Because of the interminable delays and accidents on the A5, heavy traffic tries to find a way around it through the narrow byroads and the little villages of north Shropshire. Those villages and roads are totally unsuited to the heavy traffic that tries to force its way through. Road improvements would produce air quality gains: it is well known that heavy engines running at a constant speed produce less pollutants than engines that stop and start.
There would also be a political gain—I am trying to be helpful to the Government. I am sure that the Minister is well aware of the poor communications between north and south Wales. Plugging the Shropshire Gap with a dual carriageway would sharply reduce the travel time between north Wales and Cardiff.
I stress to the Minister the extraordinary support that the campaign has aroused since a summit was held in Oswestry on 4 July. I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) in the Chamber. I assure the Minister that the project enjoys the full support of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden). I also thank the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) for attending the debate. I have the full support of Shropshire county council, the four district councils and 13 parish councils. The project has the full support of the West Mercia police, the Shropshire fire brigade, the Shropshire ambulance service, the national health service trust at Gobowen, the Confederation of British Industry, the National Farmers Union, the chambers of commerce in Shrewsbury and Oswestry, and the overwhelming support of the business and the farming communities in the area.
Judging from the letters that I have received, I also have the overwhelming support of the people of northern Shropshire. The project also enjoys the support of Shropshire's leading newspaper, the Shropshire Star, which sells more copies in Shropshire than all the national dailies combined. In a short time, it has gathered 13,000 to 14,000 signatures in support of the project. That is a significant number.
I would like an assurance from the Minister that she will discuss the matter with her colleagues in the Welsh Office as the stretch of road north of the Shropshire border does not fall in her bailiwick but is an integral part of the project. I also seek an assurance that the Minister and her ministerial colleague from another place, Baroness Hayman, will come to see the road for themselves. As the
282
project has never been a priority in any previous Government's strategy, I would like an assurance from the Minister that that fact will not prejudice it when the Government discuss the very difficult priorities that they must set for the road building programme.
To give a flavour of the strength of feeling in Shropshire about this issue, I cannot improve upon the words of my constituent Mr. Simon Boyes, a teacher from Ruyton-XI-Towns. On 8 October, he wrote:
"Recently my son was involved in a major accident on this road and is lucky to have escaped with his life. I know that you are leading a cross party campaign for the A5 to be upgraded to a dual carriageway. This, in my opinion, cannot be done any too soon. Be assured you have the fullest possible backing from your constituents of whatever political persuasion for anything that can be done to improve the situation. This is a matter of pressing importance and needs instant action on the Ministry of Transport's part."
1.13 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): I congratulate the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) on obtaining the debate and on delivering such an informed and passionate speech on behalf of his constituents without the benefit of a single note. I also congratulate him on his generosity in taking an intervention from the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) and in referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden). Both the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend have devoted a great deal of time and effort to drawing the attention of my noble Friend the Minister for Roads to the problems on the A5 between Shrewsbury and the Welsh border. The hon. Member for North Shropshire has detailed those difficulties to the House today.
The hon. Gentleman referred to discussions with the Welsh Office about the project. As he knows, funding for that part of the A5 which runs through Wales is a matter for the Welsh Office, and it will be considered with all other requests for funding. The consideration of road schemes is part of the Welsh Office roads review, which runs in parallel with our roads review for England and Scotland.
Mr. Gill: I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. On that point, does she recognise that there is great resentment in Shropshire where we have very inadequate roads? When we cross the border, we generally find that Welsh roads are in much better condition than those in Shropshire. Much more money has apparently been spent on roads in Wales even though the density of traffic and road usage is comparably less than in Shropshire. That causes an enormous amount of resentment, quite apart from the practical problems so ably outlined by my hon. Friend.
Ms Jackson: I shall certainly consider the concerns that the hon. Gentleman has expressed. I knew that part of the road on the Welsh side of the border well as a child, and resentment was clearly felt then on the Welsh side about what was perceived to be unfair expenditure in Wales.
Before I touch on the specific issues regarding the A5, it might be helpful if I explain how the roads review fits into the overall thrust of the Government's transport policies. We are working to develop an integrated transport policy, which provides the immediate context

283
for the roads review. The backdrop to this fundamental review of transport policy is a candid recognition of the fact that we cannot carry on as at present. The predicted growth of traffic and the consequent congestion are unsustainable, and the environmental, economic and social implications are totally unacceptable.
However, the appropriate response cannot be simply to hack away once again at the roads programme without taking any other action. We need to take a much broader view, looking at all modes and using broadly based criteria to assess schemes. One of the encouraging aspects of what is a hugely ambitious task is the degree to which there is agreement that we do need to change.
We need to look at the role of the motor vehicle in providing mobility in a more integrated transport system: one which makes the best use of the contribution that each mode can make; which ensures that all options are considered on a basis that is fair and is seen to be fair; and which takes safety—an essential part of the hon. Gentleman's contribution—environmental, economic, accessibility and integration considerations into account from the outset. It should do that in a way which ensures that we can have confidence in the system and which, above all, is sustainable. That is the context for the roads review. It is an integral part of our integrated transport policy. It is about the role that trunk roads should play alongside other modes in an integrated and sustainable transport policy.
Mr. Peter Bradley: On the road safety point, does my hon. Friend accept that priority should be afforded to people who live alongside major trunk roads, such as the A5? My constituents in the Wrekin, through which the A5 passes, must cross that road occasionally—although they may not use it—at extremely dangerous junctions. I also press the point about the pressure on local roads that is caused when through traffic seeks to circumvent traffic jams and pinch points by rat running through country lanes. I hope that those specific pressures in my constituency and in those of other hon. Members will be considered in the integrated review that my hon. Friend has outlined.
Ms Jackson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, which highlights difficulties, real dangers and concerns that are not limited to his constituents or his constituency. They can be replicated across the whole country, which is why the issues on which my hon. Friend has touched will be central to our White Paper.
The issue that looms largest in the roads review is undoubtedly congestion. On current predictions, if we do nothing, in 20 years' time there will be roughly half as much traffic again on our roads. We could allow increasing congestion to ration road space, but the costs to industry, the environment and society more generally would, I believe, be unacceptable. That leaves us with three broad options—making better use of the existing infrastructure, managing demand and providing new infrastructure.
Making better use of the existing infrastructure is the obvious first choice. It may also be the least painful. Making better use of the network may help to provide a much-needed breathing space, but there must be some
284
doubt about whether it can cater for more than a small fraction of the forecast increase in demand. That means that we have to look very seriously at the other, harder options—managing demand and providing new infrastructure.
Managing demand is a vast topic, cutting across all modes. It encompasses reducing the need to travel, through land use planning and by changing the way in which we live, work and enjoy our leisure. It must include an assessment of the extent to which we can encourage a shift to other modes. Inevitably, it involves controlling demand by pricing or rationing mechanisms—unpopular though they may be.
At bottom, managing demand is about changing human behaviour. It follows that it is an extremely difficult thing to do. I am sure that we could readily achieve a consensus that as a society we should use cars less, but making it happen is another matter. Managing demand has to be a question of carrots and sticks. The carrots include ensuring that there are attractive public transport alternatives and that there are safe and unpolluted routes for those who would prefer to cycle or walk.
Mr. Gill: During her deliberations on these very difficult questions, will the Minister bear in mind the fact that Shrewsbury was effectively cut off from the capital of the country with the withdrawal of the inter-city service from Shrewsbury to Euston some years ago? One of the greatest boons to the encouragement of public transport in our county would be the restoration of the inter-city route from Euston to Shrewsbury. Many Salopians travel to Crewe, Birmingham International and other stations to catch their trains to London. That, I believe, would not happen if there were an adequate inter-city service from the county town.
Ms Jackson: It would be churlish for me to remind the hon. Gentleman why our integrated railways became less than integrated. It may have had something to do with his Government's policy of rail privatisation, but we, as the new Government, have to deal with the situation with which we have been left. He will be aware that we are concerned to ensure that the £1.8 billion of taxpayers' money that goes into our railways every year produces a high-quality railway service for the people of this country. We are continuing to urge Railtrack to ensure that it really does invest the amounts that it claims it is prepared to invest into our railway system, so that more passengers and freight can be moved on our rail network.
Mr. Paterson: I had a meeting last week with Railtrack and Virgin Rail and am pleased to say that they are planning to bring forward by a year, to next summer, the planned date for restoring daily services from Shrewsbury to London. However, in Shropshire we want both. We want better rail services, but we also want, indeed need—this is the point of my speech—a better road, because certain traffic will not go by rail.
Ms Jackson: I am delighted to hear that Railtrack and Virgin Rail are producing the desired results for Shrewsbury. The hon. Gentleman referred to the needs of the people of Shrewsbury. Those needs could be replicated anywhere in the country. The Government are concerned to create a properly integrated transport strategy in which the carriage of passengers and freight can genuinely be shared.

285
Easy access to public transport and good interchanges between different public transport services are critical. However—to refer to my carrot and stick analogy—carrots may get us only so far. We must also look at the sticks.
Telling people that they cannot do something that they have hitherto done, or are continuing to do, will cost them more is never easy. We must also be careful that we do not cut across our objective of creating a just and inclusive society and so make mobility the province of the rich.
That brings us to the third and last option: providing new infrastructure. This is also a very difficult option, both financially and in terms of its potential impact on the environment. Circumstances vary from case-to-case. In some cases a new or widened road may be the only option. In others, it may be the best—or least worst—option. There is no substitute here for rigorous case-by-case examination of the options.
We are looking region by region at the perceived traffic problems and the roads programme we inherited from our predecessors. We regard the existence of a scheme in the inherited programme as prima facie evidence of a transport problem. Apart from the roads already under construction and those on which we took decisions in the accelerated review last July, the Government are not committed to any of those schemes at this stage.
Mr. Lembit Öpik: Will the Minister assure the House that the strategic implications for economic development, in this case for north, mid and west Wales, will be included in such a review when assessing, for example, the A5 trunk road?
Ms Jackson: As I have already pointed out, the whole purpose behind our consultation process and the publication of a White Paper next year is that there should be a strategy to create an integrated transport system not only for the short and medium term but well into the future. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the point that I made earlier: in Wales a similar review is taking place, based on exactly the same principle. We have to have a strategic overview.
Once we have identified the priority problems, the next step is to ensure that all the credible options are properly evaluated. There is no presumption that a road scheme is the right solution, or that a scheme in the roads programme is the best option. We envisage two outputs from this part of the review: first, a short-term investment programme; secondly, a programme of studies to look at the remaining problems—from which we will develop the medium and longer-term investment programme.
The short-term programme will include measures to make better use of the existing network, and new construction schemes. The new construction schemes are
286
likely to come from the inherited roads programme and address priority problems in a way that is consistent with our integrated transport strategy. We will not put schemes into the programme if it is clear that an alternative option could obviate the need for the existing scheme. The right thing to do in those cases is to study the alternatives more fully before reaching decisions.
I now deal with the specifics of the hon. Gentleman's point about the A5 between the west midlands and north Wales. As he said, the A5 is an important transport link in regional, national and international terms. It is designated as part of the trans-European network route known as the Ireland-UK-Benelux road link. Over the past few years, improvements have been made to the Oswestry bypass, the Chirk bypass and its extension over the Welsh border to Ruabon, and the Shrewsbury to Telford improvement.
Other schemes to improve the Wolfshead Weirbrook section and provide a bypass of Nesscliffe have not gone forward. However, the hon. Gentleman has made it quite clear—both to my noble Friend and in his speech this afternoon—that the A5 has a poor safety record in this area. The Highways Agency is well aware of these problems and is considering various options, including options for an improvement at Shottaton crossroads, for which a 50 mph speed limit and speed cameras, are proposed. The cameras will be installed this year, and speed limits will follow once the statutory processes have been completed. The Highways Agency also proposes to introduce camera sites west of Churncote. It is seeking more information on accident problems on particular sections of the road and is looking at options for traffic-calming measures in Nesscliffe.
The whole of the A5 corridor is being considered as part of the roads review. The Government office for the west midlands is seeking regional views on priorities for investment on trunk roads for the region in the context of an integrated approach to transport planning. Officials from the Government office met local authorities from Shropshire and from Hereford and Worcester on 30 September. At that meeting, the local authorities expressed clear support for dualling of the A5 between Ruabon and Shrewsbury. I know that a route assessment study is being carried out for Shropshire county council, which is partly funded by the Highways Agency. We shall take that work into account when we make decisions on the road programme that will emerge from the review.
I must make it clear that a roads-based solution might not be the best one. As I have already said, we want to look afresh at the role of our road system in an integrated approach to transport planning. We seek long-term solutions that will promote sustainable economic development. The criteria are open and above board—integration, environment, accessibility, safety and economy. We should remember that the A5 forms part of the trans-European road network.

Legal Aid
1.30 pm
Mr. Austin Mitchell: I am grateful to have the opportunity to discuss the Government's legal aid proposals because I regard legal aid as embodying an important principle that we should support and empower. Individuals, especially those who do not have the financial means to employ legal services themselves, sometimes find themselves against big organisations, big corporations and power. Legal aid is an important means of addressing imbalances in our society. The people need the law, and now more than ever in view of the complexity and size of the powerful business organisations that they often have to oppose. They need its support and it should be available to them. If we are to have an equal legal system in which individuals have the ability to take on big power they must be backed in some way by public provision.
I am worried because it seems that the Government's proposals tilt the balance against the people in favour of power in a hasty and ill-considered fashion. If the Government's paramount aim is to provide an efficient service for the less well off, which it should be, the obvious approach would he to take the money that is now provided for legal aid—about £1.5 billion—and use it to establish a competing employed service of solicitors and barristers in the form of a public defender service dealing with criminal cases. It would comprise also a nationwide network of law centres dealing with all the civil matters that are raised in the courts. It is worrying that the Government appear not even to have considered such a service. It seems that they have not considered how we can provide better, more efficient, more direct and more committed support. Instead, the Government are engaged in a Treasury raid on legal aid.
Labour Members criticised the previous Conservative Lord Chancellor, Lord Mackay, because his proposals were Treasury driven, yet the Labour Government's proposals seem to be a Treasury nuclear raid on the system which if implemented will effectively destroy it.
I intend to deal primarily with the proposals for compensation cases, which seem to be straightforward and simple and would cut out legal aid completely. I will do so in a spirit which is, of course, helpful to the Government because it will allow them to flesh out their proposals, to tell us what is involved and to demonstrate that the issues have been considered.
Compensation cases are classic instances of the individual against big power—drug companies, industrialists, hospitals or the health service, for example. In many instances, these cases advance the public interest because they prove dereliction of duty and failure on the part of large organisations. In all these instances, the individual is weak when facing the large organisation unless he or she is empowered by some form of public provision.
My hon. Friend the Minister, when he replies, may accuse me of defending vested interests—in other words, lawyers—but instead I am defending the interests of the people, consumers, because they are paramount. I do not care about lawyers squabbling among themselves, with one branch of fat-cat lawyers accusing another branch of being fat-cat lawyers, which is edifying for the rest of us as a spectator sport. The real problem is to decide, against the background of that distasteful argument, how we might best protect the people.
288
First, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister how much will be saved by removing legal aid from compensation cases. Various estimates range from £600 million to £800. Those figures reflect the cost of civil non-family legal aid. What will be the saving? Are the figures to which I have referred net of recovery? Is recovery to be deducted from the estimated saving? If so, the saving will be comparatively small. There will be a massive shift of power against the people to produce a small saving at the end of the day.
I have no doubt that there are abuses in the legal aid system. The Lord Chancellor has told us, and I agree, that the public should not finance unwinnable cases. I am horrified to be told that the public are supporting such cases. If that is happening, I am sure that the Lord Chancellor has the power to stop the public purse being drained in that way. The issue, however, is to deal with the abuses as they occur rather using abuses as an excuse for scrapping the legal aid system.
We must provide an alternative if we are to cut legal aid. The only alternative is to provide legal aid through a network of law centres.
Mr. Andrew Dismore: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Mitchell: I would rather not give way because I have a difficult argument to advance and with the need for speed my argument must be somewhat compressed.
Section 202 of the Local Government Act 1972 gives local authorities the power to set up local services. In many instances, that power has not been developed because of lack of finance. If we are to divert massive sums from the legal aid system, surely they should be used to provide community services such as law centres. What a difference a few hundred million pounds would make to law centres throughout the country, but that provision is not being made. Instead, it seems, proposals are to be implemented prematurely without consultation, research and adequate information. That can be said of the proposals that have emerged so far.
The abolition of legal aid for compensation cases and instead placing emphasis on conditional fees did not appear in the Woolf report. That report focused on giving the courts more control over the legal process. Conditional fees put lawyers back in the driving seat because they will have a vested interest in pursuing cases. The Government's proposal was not recommended in the Middleton report either. Sir Peter Middleton did not endorse it. Sir Peter argued in his report that there could be a gradual transition from legal aid to conditional fees, but he did not recommend that legal aid should be scrapped and replaced entirely with conditional fees.
I have no great argument with conditional fees. I remember when the then Lord Chancellor introduced them from Scotland some years ago—an alien import into the British legal system—to cries of protest from the Law Society and from individual banisters. I would go further and have contingency fees. The legal profession must be able to compete in any way that it finds appropriate. The problem is that we are faced with an untried system and we do not know what consequences it will have. It is being put forward as a replacement for a system that is working and which protects the vulnerable.
My hon. Friend the Minister claims that the Government's proposals will open up justice to a range of people who are now excluded from it because at

289
present the legal system is pricing itself out of use by the people, even those with substantial means. The fact remains, however, that conditional fees, as a replacement, are untried. My hon. Friend has no authority for advancing such an argument. We do not know how conditional fees are working since they have been introduced. We do not know of the problems that ensue.
Mr. Dismore: I specialised as a personal injury lawyer for 19 years. There have been conditional fees for the past two years and the system has been working extremely well, but I accept my hon. Friend's argument that they may not be suitable for every type of case. He may not be aware, however, that John Monks of the TUC, while speaking to representatives of the insurance industry on 3 November, made an interesting proposal that will be advanced to the Lord Chancellor, and that is to extend the trade union legal aid scheme to all people who are injured at work. Trade union schemes are a success story and they are not dependent on legal aid. Perhaps my hon. Friend will care to reflect on these points.
Mr. Mitchell: I encourage the extension of the trade union legal aid scheme: it is obviously important. However, neither that scheme nor conditional fees can replace the substantial sums in legal aid that will be taken away. People who do not belong to a trade union and who are not able to get access to conditional fees will be particularly vulnerable.
It must be proved to me that conditional fees are not only workingI— did not expect them to be a disastrous failure—but are working for the benefit of the people. All that we have is the research undertaken by the Policy Studies Institute, which involved 200 cases seen from the solicitors' and not the consumers' point of view. How difficult is it for consumers to obtain legal aid? What barriers are put in their way? How much are solicitors proposing to charge? How many cases were turned away because solicitors would not take them up? We know nothing of all that. All that we have is a study of 190 or so cases and the fees charged: we have nothing from the users' point of view. It is the users whom I am defending. It is wrong to put so much weight on conditional fees as an alternative to legal aid without any research.
Conditional fees are inherently loaded against the poor. Compensation cases incur substantial up-front costs, such as medical reports, which are expensive. Insurance premiums will be a substantial charge on the system. Insurance companies will want their own medical reports. A poor litigant will have to pay substantial up-front costs before he can even get his case to court. Present charges are £95 for road traffic accidents, £161 for personal injury cases, and a mere £15,000 for medical negligence cases, which are the most difficult. If insurance is to be required, it will load the odds against the poor. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us that the Government will fund the insurance charges for litigants whose income is below a certain level. That would not solve the problem, but it would make the proposal more acceptable.
What cases will be taken? I am sure that conditional fees will work with a sure-fire winner, such as a simple, straightforward personal injury case, but it will be impossible for them to work in a medical negligence case, in drug cases and in consumer product cases. Cases of builders or hairdressers from hell will also be difficult.
290
Conditional fees will not be available in such cases, because the odds will be loaded against them and in favour of cases that will obviously be successful.
What will be the effect on legal practices? Practices devoted to legal aid will be driven out. Only fat practices with large incomes will be able to finance conditional fee litigation, because they will not get a quick return. They will need a large case load to carry them through the lean years. Small practices that presently provide devoted service to legal aid cases do not have large enough case loads: they lack weight and fat, so cases will go to the large practices.
All that is predictable. It is essential for the Government to acknowledge those consequences. I do not want them to abolish legal aid, but if they are going to replace it by conditional fees there should be a period of transition during which the one can be developed to replace the other. Let us have a transitional phase so that we can see that it works. That is the only sensible way to protect the people. The Government propose a sudden, overnight transition. It will take years: there will be no sudden savings. Under a smokescreen of a tax on fat-cat lawyers—with which I totally sympathise—legal aid will be abolished in compensation cases. That is not a responsible policy for any Government, but particularly not for a Labour Government whose commitment must be to protect and empower the poor and those who cannot afford legal services.
Legal aid was becoming expensive. Like the common agricultural policy—which the Government do not criticise much—it is demand led. However, there are ways of dealing with that problem short of abolition. We should consider alternative provisions, such as competition by employed solicitors, or an attack on the restrictive practices of the Bar, which enormously drive up expenses in court cases. It is interesting to note that Sir Peter Middleton has pointed out that these reforms will not damage the incomes of those at the Bar: it is obviously important to reassure the Bar that it will be protected against these changes. We could allow the Crown Prosecution Service to use its own banisters rather than force them to employ outside banisters. More paralegals could be used: legal aid for mediation is not proposed. The Government should not kick away the support provided for the people until they have provided an adequate, proven alternative to protect even more people more efficiently and economically. That is the prime need.
I hope that, as he clarifies Government policy, my hon. Friend will reassure me. The Lord Chancellor used a worrying phrase when he said that it is unfair for the middle classes to pay for poorer people to have services that they cannot afford themselves. Is that the basic new Labour principle behind this reform?
1.45 pm
Mr. David Lock: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) for allowing me to speak in the debate. I want to bring a number of points to the Minister's attention, and to seek his assurance that they will be considered when his Department discusses publicly funded litigation.
I broadly welcome the commitment to conditional fees. They will give unity of commercial purpose between the lawyer and the client, and ensure that they are both striving towards the same goal. They will also open up

291
the courts to many who find the doors closed to them at present. It cannot be acceptable for the state to finance only those cases involving a sufficiently bad risk that no commercial practitioner would touch them with a bargepole.
There will have to be insurance against losing the case and having to pay the other side's costs. What discussions has my hon. Friend had with the insurance industry to ensure that insurance products are available?
I urge my hon. Friend to retain the cost protection against the cost of enforcement presently enjoyed by those who qualify for legal aid. I also ask him to bear in mind the cases, such as housing or human rights cases, in which the main aim of the litigation, even though it is a damages claim, is an injunction or interlocutory relief, so there is no final award of damages.
I urge my hon. Friend to make the 25 per cent. mark-up a statutory limit, or at least a statutory limit to be exceeded only in cases in which a taxing master has considered that the solicitors took an exceptional risk in undertaking the litigation in the first place.
1.47 pm
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I speak as a slightly overweight rather than a fat-cat lawyer, who has had some experience in personal injury litigation. I also speak as one of the vice chairs of the all-party head injury group that meets regularly in the House. One of the valid concerns of that group is that firms of solicitors will not be able to carry the huge disbursements that are necessary to pursue medical negligence or personal injury cases. Typically, lawyers are reliant on medical reports and specialist reports, such as engineers' reports. They will also refer matters back and forth to counsel, all of which costs money.
Smaller firms will not be able to carry those disbursements. The people most at risk are those at the bottom of the pile, and they need to have their cases brought to court. My great fear is that, even with the best will in the world, no firm will be able to take up the cudgels on their behalf.
I hope and trust that the Minister, thoughtful as he always is, will deal with that aspect, because it worries me and many other lawyers. I understand that there is to be a lobby on this subject in the other place next week. I hope that all those who are interested will appear next Tuesday to make their voices heard. I am obliged to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) for allowing me to make that brief point.
1.49 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) for raising such an important issue—even if he did appear to be playing a new role as the lawyer's friend.
From its creation in 1949, the legal aid scheme in England and Wales was vital in enabling people of limited means to enforce their legal rights, and in many ways it was one of the great successes of the welfare state; but, over the years, the scheme has become less and less able to fulfil its original ambitions. I hardly need rehearse the
292
problems, as they are well known to all of us as constituency Members. Eligibility has fallen from 70 per cent. of households to fewer than 50 per cent., spending has outstripped inflation, although fewer people are being helped, and the average cost of cases has been rising and rising, with no way of stopping it or even slowing it down. That is why this Government will fundamentally reform legal aid.
Sadly, the legal profession has proved deeply conservative in the face of previous attempts at control or reform. I understand why it does not want an end to the present system of payment, as it delivers a healthy income, often largely from the taxpayer, irrespective of value for money. The trouble is that, despite huge expense, legal aid is costing more to do less. Civil legal aid has tripled in six years, to £671 million. Broadly, that means that the income from legal aid going to the legal profession has risen by 20 per cent. a year on average over the same period. While civil legal aid continued to rise last year, there were about 13,500 fewer acts of help. We simply cannot go on like that. I want to help more people, not fewer; I want legal aid to be directed to those with unmet legal needs. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees with that.
My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor and I have concluded that—as the first step on the path of reform—because there are areas of unmet legal need but no extra money, legal aid should not be used where alternatives are as good or better. That is why we have decided that those claiming damages or making claims for money should generally use no-win, no-fee arrangements rather than legal aid.
My hon. Friend said that the measure had been introduced overnight. The change will be made, but, obviously, on the first day following it lawyers will continue to obtain their income from all the legal aid cases that they previously had. On the first day of the system, they will perhaps have one conditional-fee case; as the system develops, they will have more and more such cases and, clearly, lower income from legal aid. It will take some time: it is a process of transition. We will not make savings on the first day. Obviously, lawyers will subsequently have no legal aid cases, but the process will not happen overnight. The savings will take many years to work through into the system.
Unfortunately, the lawyers' response has been rapid and all too predictable. They say that the poor cannot use no-win, no-fee arrangements because they cannot afford either the up-front costs of investigating the merits of a case or the insurance against having to pay the other side's costs if they lose—an argument which my hon. Friend repeated. But are the current arrangements, under which the client is expected to meet those up-front costs, the only way of working? Let us go a step further and ask whether they are fair. I have some doubts, and as a result I shall invite the lawyers to consider the following proposition. Why should not lawyers absorb the up-front costs of investigating the merits, bear the risk of the other side's costs and simply factor those into the pricing structure of their overall business?
There have always been lawyers who have taken on cases on the informal understanding that they will not be paid for their work if they do not win. Since 1995, lawyers have also been able to charge their clients a "success fee" on top of their normal prices if they do win. There are few areas of commerce or business in which some money

293
is not put at risk to realise an overall positive return. Why should lawyers in business in the private sector be any different? It may mean that only efficient, professionally competent and busy firms will be able to offer the agreements that we are discussing, but is that not a good thing? Is it not precisely what my hon. Friend's conveyancing reforms achieved, for the benefit of the consumer? His proposals fundamentally changed the way in which conveyancing operated, because he was not afraid to consider alternatives to the existing traditional arrangements. I hope that he will approach our proposals for reform in the same spirit.
It is claimed that conditional fees will not cover some cases that legal aid currently supports, particularly those with a poor prospect of success. I do not consider it fair to help the less well off to sue under legal aid provisions in cases in which the great majority—whose taxes help to pay for legal aid—could not themselves sue. I also cannot see why it is objectionable to keep weak cases out of the courts.
It has been deeply disappointing to observe the speed with which, in the last three weeks, leading lawyers have rushed to use the example of children who were brain damaged at birth to demonstrate that our plans are wrong. They argue that those children, who would receive legal aid now, would not be able to arrange a conditional fee agreement because of the difficulty of their cases. I find it distressing that they need to use those cases in their arguments, or to adopt a moral high ground as if the Government had no regard for the children or their parents.
Mr. Mitchell: Is it true?
Mr. Hoon: I shall go on to deal with that.
Those cases are emotive: they engage strong emotions in all of us. The fact that issues are painful, however, is no excuse for refusing to think the issues through; indeed, it emphasises our duty to do that. Whose interest is served if cases proceed on the slim hope that some benefit may accrue? Not, I suspect, that of the parents, for whom the trauma of unsuccessful and pointless litigation will be added to the trauma of the original damage to the child. Nor will such action serve the interests of the health authority, which has to divert effort and resources to meet the claims, or that of sick people whose care may suffer because of the money diverted to fight cases. Meanwhile, the taxpayer is asked to fund the child's lawyers, and when—as most often happens—the litigation fails, the only people who have profited are the lawyers. They do not do so out of malice or malevolence; nevertheless, they alone stand to gain regardless of the outcome. Is that in the interests of the sick and the injured? Is that the best use that we can make of scarce public money?
The issues are difficult and painful, and I would prefer not to face them; but they must be faced. It must be said that we can no longer allow weak cases to be taken up by lawyers and paid for by the taxpayer irrespective of the cost, and the Government have the right and the duty to say so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock) raised the important question of insurance. We will certainly look at the ways in which insurance may be available in such circumstances. As I have said,
294
however, I think that in the first place it is a responsibility of lawyers in business and private practice to consider bearing the costs for themselves.
Mr. John Burnett: If conditional fees are introduced, will the insurance premiums of those who currently qualify for legal aid be paid by the legal aid fund, and will the fund pay the costs of investigating a case and its merits?
Mr. Hoon: It is for the lawyers to consider whether they should absorb those costs up front as a cost of doing business. If we receive persuasive evidence that that is totally impossible, we may take other considerations into account; in the first place, however, I want lawyers to consider their businesses, and this is a business that they are in.
My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby raised the question whether our action was motivated solely by the need to cut legal aid expenditure, and driven by the Treasury. I emphasise that that is not the case. We will not spend less than is currently contained in the published expenditure plans covering the next three years, but we shall not continue to pay millions more to lawyers to provide ever fewer people with help. The poor can rest safe in the knowledge that they will be able to benefit from conditional fees in money recovery cases while benefiting from the existing legal aid budget for other cases such as those involving family law.
In the longer term, we intend to reform the legal aid scheme further by buying legal services under contract. We will transform the way in which legal aid operates. For too long it has been simply a bill-paying machine, paying lawyers on demand for the work that they choose to do. Instead, it should become a positive system for buying the services that people need. We will establish a system of contracting whereby the Legal Aid Board will buy services from people other than lawyers, such as advice agencies and mediators, and will make suppliers compete in terms of quality and price. That will allow us to help more people pound for pound.
Contracting will give us power to direct services to those in most need, taking account of local demand and the best way of meeting it. That is already a developing reality. The Legal Aid Board is already contracting with agencies such as the citizens advice bureaux and lawyers for legal advice and assistance. The first regional legal services committee has been set up to liaise with local people on local priorities. Here is the beginning of the development of community legal services, and we will move quickly to make it a reality. As elsewhere in Government, we are maintaining our manifesto promises.
I know that my hon. Friend would like a national legal service to be established. Obviously, we want everyone to have access to legal advice, but our preferred approach of delivering services through contracts offers us the flexibility to purchase services in ways that best take account of local conditions. It may well be that when contracting takes place with a firm with high volumes of work—in Grimsby, say—it will be possible in some fields to buy services under a block contract with a unit price per case while in a market town, perhaps in rural Lincolnshire, where there is less volume, cases may have to be paid for on a different and more individual basis. Again, in some areas of legal practice—or in some local

295
circumstances—it may be better to pay for a salaried service, or to buy the time of a supplier rather than a volume of cases. What is more, as the world changes and demand on legal aid and ways of meeting it also change, contracting will allow us to keep the delivery systems up to date. Our proposals will allow for a wide range of flexible services.
The proposals also allow us to refocus legal aid on the problems of the less well off—on the problems of those who need the law to help them to struggle out of social or economic exclusion. I want legal aid to be aimed at social welfare issues and matters of public interest. The diversion of most money claims to conditional fees will help, because we can then use the money that would have
296
been used up in providing traditional legal aid for civil litigation to tackle more effectively issues such as housing, debt, employment, welfare benefits and immigration, and matters of broad public interest.
With legal aid delivered through contracts, we can decide how much to spend each year. For the first time, Ministers will be properly accountable to the House for how much they spend and on what services. The Government will be accountable for how much they spend on legal aid, and how much they spend on other public services such as health and education. As my hon. Friend said, at present legal aid is demand led—
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
  WALES
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  WALES

    Job Creation
    Ms Lawrence: What progress has been made by the Welsh Development Agency in meeting its target in respect of jobs created being based outside the eastern M4 corridor and the A55 corridor. [12375]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ron Davies): One of the WDA's strategic targets for 1997–98 is to create or to safeguard 12,500 jobs within Wales, of which not less than 50 per cent. should be outside the eastern M4 and A55 corridors. The agency recorded 7,870 jobs created or safeguarded up to the end of September, of which 4,018—or 51 per cent.—were outside the eastern corridors. Recently, I met the agency's board and told it of my particular concern about the Pembrokeshire economy.
    Ms Lawrence: Will my right hon. Friend continue to keep it in mind that, in recent years, parts of Wales have suffered a battering, particularly my constituency of Preseli Pembrokeshire? Defence establishments and a Gulf oil refinery there have closed and the power station in neighbouring Pembroke has also been shut down. Will he do all that he can to bring inward investment to west Wales to tackle the local economic crisis?
    Mr. Davies: I most certainly will. I am conscious of the fact that unemployment in my hon. Friend's constituency is 50 per cent. higher than the Welsh average. It is important that we use the resources that are available to us as effectively as we can. I have made it clear that the Welsh Office, the WDA, training and enterprise councils and local authorities should work together in partnership. That team approach is the only way to extend economic prosperity not only to Pembrokeshire but to the whole of Wales.
    Mr. Öpik: Will the Minister give us all an assurance that, as the WDA examines reconfiguring itself in relation to regional development agencies and so forth, all Members representing parts of Wales will be able to make an active contribution to that debate?
    Mr. Davies: I have had discussions with the WDA and it is already discussing with the Land Authority for Wales and the Development Board for Rural Wales the configuration of the new economic powerhouse. As the hon. Gentleman already knows, I am more than prepared at any time to listen to any representations that he, or any other parliamentary colleague, wishes to make to me.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, surprisingly, one of the main impediments to the attraction of large inward investment to south-west Wales has been the shortage of large flat and suitable sites? Will he ensure co-ordination between the WDA, the Welsh Office and local authorities so that that impediment is removed?
    Mr. Davies: I most certainly will. My right hon. Friend knows that the Velindre site, in which he has taken a
    298
    particularly close interest, and the Cleddau Bridge site are two of the strategic sites that have been identified. I shall do all that I can to ensure that those sites are promoted for large inward investment.
    Mr. Evans: It is all very well for the Secretary of State to talk about WDA targets for attracting inward investment away from the A55 and M4 corridors, but an article in one of today's newspapers mentions a damaging row between himself and the President of the Board of Trade about who should have the final say on aid packages to attract inward investment. Therefore, will the Secretary of State for Wales clear up this issue: who does have the final say over inward investment issues? Is it himself or the President of the Board of Trade, or will it be the Assembly?
    Mr. Davies: The targets of which the hon. Gentleman is so scornful were set by my predecessor as Secretary of State for Wales, who is now leader of the Conservative party. I am quite happy to tell the hon. Gentleman the Government's position. It was clearly set out in the White Paper, which was endorsed in September. There will be an agreed relationship between the Department of Trade and Industry, the Welsh Office and the Scottish Office—a concordat will be established. That will be the basis on which the relationship between the DTI, the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament will operate.

    Education
    2. Mr. Caton: If he will make a statement on the progress of legislation affecting education in Wales. [12376]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): The Government have already brought in legislation to fulfil their election pledge to phase out the assisted places scheme. In addition, we shall shortly present to Parliament legislation containing measures on higher and further education and on raising standards of education for every pupil in schools in Wales.
    Mr. Caton: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. He will know of the tremendous economic significance for south-west Wales of Swansea university and Swansea institute. Is he aware of the great concern among academics and other employees in those centres of learning about the current financial position? That was reflected in a letter that all Welsh Members of Parliament received from the heads of the higher education institutions in Wales. They warn of dire consequences if the current shortfall in finance continues. I do not think that they are crying wolf—what does my hon. Friend think?
    Mr. Hain: I visited Swansea university last Friday. It is a fine university. Under the Conservative Government, universities in Wales faced a growing financial crisis. That is why I am pleased—
    Mr. Ancram: Here it comes.
    Mr. Hain: Just wait for it. I am pleased to announce for next year an additional £10 million for higher education in Wales. That new investment will match proportionately

    299
    the package announced in England recently. I hope that this money, allocated despite constraints on public spending, will show that the new Labour Government backs Welsh universities. They are critical to our objective of building a high-quality, world-beating economy in Wales.
    Mr. Dafis: Does the Minister agree that education will be one of the main priorities—if not the main priority—for the Welsh Assembly? Is there not an opportunity to design an education system, educational policies and patterns of provision in Wales that are distinctive and that correspond to Welsh needs? I think in particular of curricula as well as organisation. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Welsh Assembly will be seriously empowered in influencing the pattern of education provision in Wales from 1999 onwards?
    Mr. Hain: Yes, I can confirm that. The new Government have made an auspicious start by publishing the first-ever education White Paper for Wales covering schools. Next year, we shall publish the first-ever education White Paper covering lifelong learning. That is a sign of our intention to establish a distinctive educational agenda for Wales that meets the interests and values of Wales.
    Mr. Alan Williams: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments about the additional money for higher education in Wales. Is it new money, or is it money from elsewhere in the education budget? If it is from elsewhere in the budget, where is it coming from?
    Mr. Hain: It is not money from elsewhere in the education budget—it is additional money, which has come in part from the up-front funding from the introduction of student fees for tuition.

    Welsh Assembly
    Mr. Baldry: If he will make a statement on the outcome of the vote on a Welsh Assembly. [12377]
    Mr. Ron Davies: The Government put their proposals to the people of Wales in a vote on 18 September. I am delighted to remind the hon. Gentleman that the people of Wales recorded a yes vote. There was a massive 30 per cent. increase in the yes vote compared with 1979. The swings in the south and south-east were truly remarkable, from barely 12 per cent. in favour in West and Mid Glamorgan in 1979 to more than 55 per cent. in favour now. In Gwent and South Glamorgan, the yes vote rose from well under 10 per cent. to more than 40 per cent. We now have a unique opportunity to improve the governance of Wales and I look forward to introducing legislation at the earliest opportunity. We have a mandate, but it is important that we continue to broaden and deepen our support.
    Mr. Baldry: Does the Secretary of State accept that—although he tried so hard in that answer—almost three quarters of people in Wales did not support the proposals, which can hardly be described as the settled will of the people of Wales? In those circumstances, it must be right for the legislation to be scrutinised carefully. Will he give an undertaking that any Bill dealing with the proposals
    300
    will be introduced in the House and not in another place, and that it will be considered, as a constitutional Bill, on the Floor of the House? Is it not surprising that we have yet to see the Bill published, and is that not a rather dismal reflection on the stewardship of the matter?
    Mr. Davies: Not at all. The hon. Gentleman raises a number of issues, and I shall try to deal with them. In the referendum of 18 September 1997, 25 per cent. of the people of Wales voted against the proposals. He has no basis on which to claim that those who did not vote in the referendum were expressing opposition. I cannot give him the guarantee that he requests on introducing the Bill into one or another House, because that is a matter for the Government's business managers. I can tell him, however, that I am anxious that there should be proper scrutiny of the legislation as it passes through the House. I have always made it clear that I expect the Bill to be published by the end of this month. I made that statement at the start of the legislative process, and I am happy to repeat it today. I expect the Bill to be published before the end of this month.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Does my right hon. Friend expect the Assembly to meet in north Wales—for example, in the county of Flintshire? Does he expect the Assembly to have plans to improve road and rail communications between the north and the south, bearing in mind that many people in the north think of Cardiff as a faraway place?
    Mr. Davies: Those are interesting questions, but they deal with matters that the Assembly itself will have to decide. The purpose of devolution is to empower the Assembly to deal with those matters relating to Wales that are best dealt with in Wales. The Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), is examining ways in which we can improve road and rail links between north and south Wales—an important matter. As for the Assembly meeting in north Wales, it will have the right to choose where to meet. I certainly expect the Assembly to have its headquarters in Cardiff, but there will be a north Wales committee. The Assembly may well decide to meet in various parts of Wales when it wishes to examine matters of current concern.
    Mr. Wigley: I congratulate the Secretary of State on the historic result of the referendum and the establishment of a Welsh national assembly. Does he agree that one of the main reasons why people voted yes was the Assembly's potential for developing the economy of Wales, not least in the context of reorganisation of the Welsh Development Agency and other agencies dealing with industry?
    In that context, will the Secretary of State give the House a categorical assurance that the powers that have been enjoyed by the Welsh Development Agency to attract inward investment to Wales will not be undermined by the action of other Ministers, and that the power will be there to do the much-needed job of raising Wales's gross domestic product from the current 83 per cent. nearer to 100 per cent? We are at the bottom of the league table of regions and countries in Great Britain, and we shall need those powers, and more, to get a solution.
    Mr. Davies: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman—I congratulate him on achieving that new status—that the

    301
    economic future of Wales was central to the devolution debate. I pay tribute to the work done by members of Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats in achieving the yes vote, which was an historic performance by all three progressive parties in Wales.
    The right hon. Gentleman asked specifically about the powers that will be available to the Assembly to attract inward investment and deal with other economic development matters. I remind him of the statement made in "A Voice for Wales"—the White Paper on which the referendum campaign was based—which was:
    "Financial assistance to industry will remain subject to common UK guidelines and consultation arrangements to be set out in a published concordat."
    That is my policy, and that is the Government's policy. I strongly support it.
    Mr. Rogers: Does the Secretary of State agree that it would be far better if Opposition Members ceased to refight the battles of this summer, accepted that the people of Wales have asked for a Welsh Assembly and contributed constructively to the establishment of a democratic institution which we all want to work? Does he agree that there is no point in fighting old battles and that we have to look forward?
    Mr. Davies: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments. He has for many years made known his views known on Welsh devolution. I am delighted that he, like many other people in Wales who had reservations about the proposals, now accepts the outcome. I agree that it is a great pity that the Conservative party in England does not talk to the Conservative party in Wales. The Conservative party in Wales, what little there is, has now accepted that there is no turning back the clock. It wants to play a constructive part in building the new democracy, and it is a pity that Conservative Front Benchers do not learn some lessons from it.
    Mr. Ancram: Does the Secretary of State recall that, on the morning after the vote, the Prime Minister scrubbed his celebration visit to Cardiff—which, incidentally, had voted no—and in Downing street told journalists that he would now listen to the people of Wales? Does the Secretary of State accept that, whatever else they might do, the votes revealed the real and legitimate fears of people in certain parts of Wales that a Welsh Assembly would permanently ride roughshod over their interests? What listening has been done since 18 September, and what fundamental changes are proposed to the plans—or was it just one more bit of prime ministerial hollow rhetoric that he will ignore by riding roughshod over the voice of the people of Wales?
    Mr. Davies: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is stuck in a time warp. Politics has changed, and the vast majority of people in Wales now understand that there will be a new democracy. No prime ministerial visit was arranged for Wales for 19 September. What I remember from 19 September was my announcing the Government's determination to proceed with the devolution plans on the basis that it was a very good morning for Wales.
    As for the right hon. Gentleman's second point, I propose to create an advisory committee, which will consist of representatives of all political parties in Wales. I am delighted that members of Plaid Cymru, the Liberal
    302
    Democrat and Labour parties, as well as representatives of business, industry and the voluntary sector in Wales, have all undertaken to co-operate in the process. I hope that, if the right hon. Gentleman is sincere in his protestations about building a consensus and listening to people with reservations, he will, in turn, be prepared to play a full part in the process.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: Is it not good that we have an example of yet another manifesto commitment being delivered and endorsed by the people? Is there not now a new obligation on the Conservative party to recognise that the people of Wales have endorsed the proposal and an obligation on the other place to recognise that it is not elected and should have no place in seeking fundamentally to alter what was proposed by the Government and endorsed in the election and the referendum?
    Mr. Davies: I am delighted to be able to agree with my hon. Friend. I refer him to an article in the Western Mail this morning, which appeared under the heading "Devo-vote linked to surge in optimism". The London editor of the newspaper says:
    "A wave of optimism is sweeping across Wales as consumers indulge themselves in a pro-devolution spending boom celebration".
    The article reports an economist as saying:
    "The pro-devolution votes have unleashed an unprecedented wave of optimism in both Wales and Scotland".
    The only people who are going to be left behind are those on the Opposition Front Bench.

    Special Advisers
    Mr. Nicholls: What role his special advisers played during the referendum campaign in Wales. [12378]
    Mr. Ron Davies: My special advisers played an active role supporting my ministerial colleagues and me throughout the referendum campaign. Their wide-ranging duties included analysing policy, advising on presentational matters and liaising with Members of Parliament from my party and those in other parties and campaigning groups in Wales that supported the Government's policy. They were both pleased to be on the winning side.
    Mr. Nicholls: Would not the right hon. Gentleman's account of the work of political advisers in the campaign be fuller if he drew attention to the fact that one of his special advisers telephoned Blaenau Gwent council, asking it to put pressure on the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith), saying that if he did not co-operate, access would be denied—or possibly even granted—to the right hon. Gentleman? Is not that attitude to constitutional propriety more reminiscent of the late Mr. Fawkes, whose happy demise we shall be celebrating today? Does the right hon. Gentleman have confidence in a verdict that gave him such a very small majority, obtained only through a massive expenditure of public money and by strong arming his hon. Friends?
    Mr. Davies: I am afraid that the allegations to which the hon. Gentleman is referring are ancient history. Let me remind him that both my special advisers were properly

    303
    employed in line with the Cabinet Office advice of 20 May. As I have said, they carried out a wide range of duties. The hon. Gentleman will be particularly interested to know that, on those occasions when it would have been unwise of me to use my car, my special advisers arranged taxis for me.

    House Building
    Mr. Prior: What representations he has received concerning the building of extra houses in Wales. [12379]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Win Griffiths): I have received the Welsh Local Government Association's housing manifesto for Wales, which urges an increase in social housing provision.
    Mr. Prior: Does the Minister agree with the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning that the green belt is up for grabs?
    Mr. Griffiths: There is no such thing as the green belt being up for grabs in Wales. Under current planning guidance in Wales, there is no green belt. However, earlier this summer, I wrote to all Welsh planning authorities asking them to consider those places where it would be appropriate to have green belts because of the danger of one settlement running into another.
    Mr. Hanson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the release of capital receipts by the Government will provide a great boost to the building of local authority homes, if local authorities wish to build? Will he welcome that release of capital receipts for authorities such as Flintshire, which is ploughing money into new house building and refurbishments this year?
    Mr. Griffiths: Under the capital receipts initiative, more than £9 million will be available this year and more than £33 million in the next financial year. Local authorities will be able to put forward proposals on how that money might be spent. They will be able to provide more new houses if they act together with housing associations, bringing in private capital. One way or another, the capital receipts initiative is good news for housing and people in Wales.

    Beef Crisis
    6. Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: When he last met representatives of the farming unions to discuss the beef crisis in Wales. [12380]
    Mr. Win Griffiths: My right hon. Friend and I met both farming unions in Wales on Friday 30 May and again just over a week ago. Welsh Office Ministers and officials have had discussions with both unions on numerous occasions.
    Mr. Jones: I thank the Minister for that reply. I also thank him for his contribution to this morning's debate. I particularly welcome the Government's initiative on attempting to lift the beef ban, which was made more difficult by the actions of the previous Conservative Government. Does he recognise that there are immediate
    304
    concerns in the beef industry about the over-30-months scheme, the green pound and the value of sterling? Can the Government do anything in the short term to alleviate those real problems?
    Mr. Griffiths: I can give no categorical, cast-iron assurances of significant action in the short term, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that, although we are not yet convinced that there is a proven case for tackling any aspect of the green pound revaluation, we have given an undertaking to continue reviewing that. We have until next January to make final decisions on most aspects of the green pound revaluation. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall continue to keep that under review.
    Mr. Gareth Thomas: Is my hon. Friend aware that many farmers in Wales deplore the Opposition's negative attitude to Europe? Many farmers know that agricultural policy is inextricably linked with European policy. Does he agree that it is high time that the Opposition took a more realistic approach to Europe?
    Mr. Griffiths: That is certainly the case. It is a pity that the previous Government were so anti-European—virtually at war with Europe. This Government have much improved relationships with Europe. They will be further improved next week, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will visit Brussels for discussions with, among others, the Agriculture Commissioner.
    Madam Speaker: Order. Let me remind hon. Members that they can ask only questions for which the Government are responsible. The Government have no responsibility for what the Opposition do.

    Higher Education
    Mr. Keith Simpson: What meetings he has had with students to discuss higher education in Wales. [12381]
    Mr. Hain: I am due to meet the president of the National Union of Students, Wales at the beginning of December. I recently met a deputation of students in my constituency.
    Mr. Simpson: I am sure that, in addition to many hon. Members, many students in Wales will be interested by the Minister's answer to Question 2, in which he admitted that a large portion of the money that was to be allocated to universities in Wales would come from raising tuition fees for students. Is that not absolute hypocrisy, given that, during the general election campaign, the Prime Minister said categorically that student fees in higher education would not be raised?
    Mr. Hain: The Prime Minister did not say that. It is a bit rich for Conservatives to complain about the situation in higher education. They reduced many of our universities in Wales to near bankruptcy. Under the previous financial regime, they saddled students with huge debts. We are introducing a new system that is fair to students, to parents, to universities and to our country. It will establish higher education on a sound basis and give our students the opportunities that they deserve.
    Mr. Touhig: I believe that my hon. Friend is aware of a letter from the Department for Education and

    305
    Employment to his office in Cardiff alleging serious irregularities in the use of European social fund moneys at Gwent tertiary college. Will he investigate those allegations and make a statement to the House?
    Mr. Hain: I am aware of the allegations. My officials are keeping me informed about the progress of the investigation.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Livsey: What steps he will take to assist local authorities facing reductions in local services. [12382]
    Mr. Win Griffiths: We are well aware of the financial pressures on local government in Wales and will do what we can in the forthcoming revenue settlement to recognise them, although the room for manoeuvre in 1998–99 is relatively small.
    Mr. Livsey: Will the Minister consider removing the cap on local government expenditure in Wales to enable local communities to benefit from not having their services under the extreme pressure that they face at present?
    Mr. Griffiths: We in the Welsh Office have had a constructive debate with the Welsh Local Government Association and, in particular, with the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance. A package of proposals has been put forward to which Councillor Shaw from Powys county council made an invaluable contribution. We are considering those proposals. On the basis of our last meeting, we believe that there will be a way forward in this difficult year and that, while it will not lead to the removal of capping, there will be sufficient room in the system to keep everybody happy at least for the coming year.

    NHS Trusts
    Mr. Rhodri Morgan: What progress has been made by his Department in reducing the number of NHS trusts in Wales. [12383]
    Mr. Win Griffiths: The Welsh Office is currently consulting on proposals to create a single ambulance trust for Wales, and hon. Members for Welsh constituencies will have received a copy of the consultation document. In addition, a finalised plan for reviewing the number and shape of the other NHS trusts in Wales is due to be completed by April 1999. The document was distributed on 30 September. A copy of the project plan has also been placed in the Library of the House.
    Mr. Morgan: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. How will he get round the problem that will be caused in the Cardiff area by the likely proposal to merge the two big hospital trusts, University Hospital of Wales and Llandough, given that their expected deficit at the end of this financial year will be more than £7.5 million? That is equivalent to 35 per cent. of the total expected deficit of all the trusts in Wales. Does my hon. Friend agree that in the Cardiff area it is not so much a question of NHS trusts as NHS bust?
    Mr. Griffiths: I have every confidence that the management of both trusts will be able to bring the
    306
    projected deficits down this year and will continue to ensure that their trusts perform well for their patients and in terms of financial efficiency. As for which trusts may or may not combine, or the shape of services after 1999, I have no predictions to make.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    The Prime Minister was asked—
    Mr. Evans: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 5 November. [12355]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, I launched a White Paper setting out the Government's commitment to sustainable development and the elimination of international poverty. I shall have meetings with ministerial colleagues and others later in the day.
    Mr. Evans: Will the Prime Minister confirm that his decision to give away the essential British veto over European research matters now means that he will not be able to block plans by other European Union countries to increase the budget by 24 per cent., which means a £2 billion increase in that budget? Will not the British taxpayer now have to pay higher taxes because of his betrayal of the British national interest?
    The Prime Minister: No. I do not think that I have ever heard such nonsense. I am rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not make a case for a referendum on the Amsterdam treaty, but perhaps that is because, a couple of days ago, Lord Howe said:
    "Fortunately, the public has reacted to this proposal with complete indifference."
    [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] The simple answer is no. We protected the national interest fully at Amsterdam in contrast to the negative, foolish isolationism of the previous Government.
    Helen Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there will be widespread welcome for the first White Paper on international development to be published for 20 years? Will he tell the House whether it will deal with the needs of children, millions of whom die under the age of five because of poverty?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that it is an important White Paper. It will allow us to put our aid and development programmes on a sound footing. In particular, it means that any money that is spent abroad by this country is spent on the basis of long-term programmes that work not just to the benefit of those individual countries but for the long-term benefit of the developing and developed world.
    Mr. Hague: Has the Prime Minister seen reports that the European Commission wants to extend to tens of thousands of smaller British firms regulations that now apply only to large multinationals? Can he confirm that British businesses are opposed to that? Can he confirm that the Government are opposed to that? Now that he has

    307
    signed away our veto by signing up to the social chapter, can he also confirm that there may be nothing that he can do to stop that?
    The Prime Minister: No. We have already made our position clear; we do not believe that such extensions are sensible. It is simply a Commission proposal at present. Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman that the biggest extension of qualified majority voting was agreed by the Government of which he was a member.
    Mr. Hague: I am asking the Prime Minister about the social chapter. Given that he is opposed to these regulations, does he now regret signing away our veto? Can he give small businesses a guarantee that he will prevent those regulations coming into force—yes or no?
    The Prime Minister: As I have already made clear to the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] As I have already made clear, joining the social chapter is manifestly in Britain's interests because this side of the House does not believe that treating people fairly and getting a good deal for the country are inconsistent objectives.
    Mr. Hague: Now that we have had the old propaganda, let us have an answer. Can the Prime Minister give a guarantee that he will prevent the regulations to which he is opposed and to which British small businesses are opposed—yes or no?
    The Prime Minister: We have already made it clear that this is a Commission proposal and that we do not believe that it should be extended. The right hon. Gentleman is making a pretty transparent attempt to hide the fact that his party is hopelessly divided on the issue. Indeed, just a few weeks ago, the Leader of the Opposition said:
    "The days of disunity, factions and wings, groups within groups … is over"—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House does not have to listen, but hon. Members must be heard. Let us hear what the Prime Minister has to say.
    The Prime Minister: I thought that they would enjoy hearing the words of the Leader of the Opposition. He said:
    "The days of disunity … is over. It's finished. It's out. And as long as I am leader it will never come back."
    I do not think that we need lessons from the right hon. Gentleman in leadership.
    Mr. Hague: It is no good the Prime Minister giving the answers he prepared last week to the questions he is being asked this week. If he has such faith in his negotiating power, will he make a better fist of negotiating in the social chapter than he made of the border control agreement? Does he not regret boasting to the House in June that if we wanted to opt into the border control agreement no other country could block it? Now that the Foreign Secretary has said that that was a misunderstanding and other countries could block it, is it not clear that what the Prime Minister said in the House was wrong?
    The Prime Minister: For 18 years the Conservatives failed to get a deal on border controls. It is this party that
    308
    got the deal on border controls and, for the first time, it is a legally binding deal. I simply say this to the right hon. Gentleman: when are we going to hear about this referendum?
    Mr. Hague rose—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Leslie, this is not a football match.
    Mr. Hague: We have got used to the Prime Minister dodging questions at these sessions, but we have not been used to its becoming more pathetic as the questions go on. The fact is that he went to Amsterdam, signed away this country's legal rights by accident and came back with a letter saying, "Don't worry about it." That is not very good for a lawyer, is it? After all this, is it not obvious that the assurances that he offered businesses about European regulation before the election are like the assurances he gave to students and to people with pension funds—absolutely worthless?
    The Prime Minister: After the past couple of weeks, I think that business prefers our position on Europe to that of the Conservatives. I simply say to the right hon. Gentleman that we not only got a good deal for this country in Europe; we managed to set the country on a different path in our relations with Europe that allows us to play a part in leading in Europe, not to be perpetually isolated in Europe. Whatever he may say, I think that a large number of people who support the Conservative party want this country to behave sensibly in Europe—and we will.
    Mr. Pike: Will my right hon. Friend recognise that it is hypocritical of some Conservative Members to decry the fact that we are not able to take into account the wind chill factor in cold weather payments when, within the past 12 months, they have blocked a Bill that would have done exactly that? Is it not true that, as a result of our changes to value added tax on fuel, we have given a far better benefit to every pensioner in the country than the wind chill measure would have given them?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Conservative party broke the link with earnings for pensioners, it would end the tax relief on pension contributions, and it was responsible for the greatest pensions scandal—the mis-selling of pensions—the country has ever seen. The Conservatives promised that they would never raise VAT and then doubled it. My party promised to cut VAT and kept the promise.
    Mr. Ashdown: Will the Prime Minister confirm that one of the Government's key commitments is to equal opportunities throughout the United Kingdom?
    The Prime Minister: Yes.
    Mr. Ashdown: I am grateful for that confirmation. Will the right hon. Gentleman then tell me how that commitment is consistent with the fact that the Government are to require English, Welsh and Northern Irish students at Scottish universities to pay for their fourth year, whereas Scottish students and students from every other European country will not have to pay?

    309
    That means that students from the south of Ireland will have their fourth year in Scotland paid for by the British taxpayer whereas students from the north of Ireland will have to pay for it themselves. How does he justify that?
    The Prime Minister: No, that is not entirely accurate. Students from inside the European Union but outside the United Kingdom last year numbered some 350; they will not be eligible for maintenance loans so they will be in a worse position than British students, whether English or from other parts of the United Kingdom.
    Ms Ward: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it remains the Government's intention to prohibit the introduction of the rapid draw lottery known as Pronto, based on the American system Keno? Does he agree that if it were introduced it would damage the national lottery and give rise to great concern about an increase in gambling?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that concern. I understand that the Home Secretary is considering a number of representations on the subject and will announce a decision shortly.
    Mr. Day: Can the Prime Minister explain why, if someone commits murder and terrorist offences against the people of Bosnia British troops are dispatched to arrest him and bring him to trial, whereas if someone commits murder against the people of the United Kingdom and terrorises them for 25 years, all he will feel is the warmth and glow of a prime ministerial handshake?
    The Prime Minister: It is difficult enough to achieve a settlement in Northern Ireland without that type of utter perversion of the truth. The plain fact is that we shall seek to bring terrorists to justice wherever they may be, but it is important that we try to seek a long-term settlement in Northern Ireland. I supported the Conservative Government through every difficult decision that they had to take on this issue because in the end that was manifestly in the interests of the country. I very much hope that the Conservative party can put aside party differences on this and do the same.
    Ms Oona King: Is the Prime Minister aware that on this day in the Chamber in 1940 the then Prime Minister commended civilians on their courage during the first years of the second world war? Subsequently, 60,000 British civilians died in that war, 30,000 of them Londoners. Does the Prime Minister agree that we should provide an adequate memorial for the civilians who died? Will he therefore call in the planning application for the Hermitage site so that a fitting memorial can go up? If the poppies that we are all wearing today are to have any meaning, we must give those people a suitable memorial.
    The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend. I cannot give a commitment on any particular planning application, but we shall obviously consider her representations carefully. As for the civilians who died during the war, everyone in this House—especially the generations of us who grew up after the war—realises the debt that we owe not just to the troops who died but to the civilians who gave their lives, often in difficult circumstances requiring the greatest courage.
    Mr. Page: The Prime Minister will remember that just before the summer recess, in response to a question from
    310
    a Conservative Member, he said that he thought that the green belt was a good thing. Is he aware that in Hertfordshire a recent poll carried out by the local council showed that 95 per cent. of those who responded agreed with him by rejecting Hertfordshire county council's structure plan to build on the green belt? Will the Prime Minister support the majority of Hertfordshire voters in their campaign against building on the green belt? Will he call in the plan and ask the county council to examine regeneration as a solution, rather than destroy the green belt in Hertfordshire?
    The Prime Minister: I shall not comment on the application to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention. I recall the question that I was asked. I drew attention to the fact that the proposals about which I was being asked had been drawn up by the previous Government. Of course we support the green belt and it is important that any planning applications are considered in conjunction with our support.
    Mr. Savidge: On law and order, does my right hon. Friend recognise the need not only to allay continuing and legitimate public fears but to discourage illegitimate vigilantism of the sort that my constituency suffered earlier this year, by introducing measures to protect the community from sex offenders who pose a continuing risk? Will the Prime Minister outline his plans to deal with that problem?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the range of powerful new measures we have already taken to improve the criminal justice system. He is also right to point out the public's concern about the risks posed by sex offenders who are not already subject to the Sex Offenders Act 1997. We shall therefore announce today new powers to protect the public from such sex offenders. Community protection orders will be applied to sex offenders whose conduct poses a serious threat to children and the public. I hope that those measures will go some way towards allaying the public's justifiable fear about these matters.
    Mr. Fallon: May we now have a straight answer to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition's question? If the Prime Minister genuinely believes that the Commission's proposals for new regulations and penalties for the information and consultation of employees should not apply to British small businesses that employ as few as 50 employees, how can he guarantee that under the social chapter the proposals will not be applied to them?
    The Prime Minister: I have made our position absolutely clear. Moreover, in the end the choice is whether we want to be part of the social chapter or not. This side of the House says, unhesitatingly, yes and I believe that the vast majority of British business wants a better, more constructive fresh start in Europe.
    Mr. Charles Clarke: Following my right hon. Friend's meeting on sustainable development this morning, will he take this opportunity to reinforce the Government's commitment to a fully sustainable, integrated transport strategy? Is he aware that many parts of the country, including East Anglia, have suffered from severe

    311
    underinvestment in road and rail transport links over the past two decades? Following the Government's welcome review of transport and trunk road policies, what prospect can he offer those parts of the country?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the importance of transport policy as part of our policy of sustainable development. That is precisely why we have committed ourselves to our own proposals and targets and why we have been part of the European Union's commitment to proper binding targets for the long term. The Kyoto conference, which is coming up shortly, will provide a further opportunity for us to take international action. In the meantime, at the conclusion of our consultation on transport policy, I hope that we can offer for the first time the genuine prospect of a proper national integrated transport strategy, which has been overdue for a long, long time.
    Miss Widdecombe: In view of the tremendous improvement in inward investment that the previous Government secured for this country through maintaining a flexible labour market—I welcome the cheer on the Labour Benches for it—will the Prime Minister now please answer a question that he has had a great many chances to answer? This is a simple question and he has had lots of time to go through his notes. Given that much of that flexibility will be removed under the social chapter, to which he has signed up, how will he guarantee to small businesses that they will not suffer from those inflexibilities?
    The Prime Minister: There are no proposals under the social chapter to stop flexibility. That is the simple answer. We have a simple choice: we can be part of discussions in Europe or be shut out from them. That is precisely why British business would prefer us to be engaged in discussions that might affect it, rather than excluded from them. If the right hon. Lady wants to know what British business really fears about Europe, it fears the policy of her party, which she and the person sitting next to her—the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke)—do not agree with.
    Mr. Soley: We recognise the importance of the family to social structure and to individual welfare, and I know that my right hon. Friend is aware of the concern about the lack of integrated policies on the family under the previous Government. Can he tell us what this Government have done to bring about an integrated policy towards the family, bearing in mind the importance of that issue for Britain?
    The Prime Minister: As I said at conference, we have set up a ministerial group that is looking at every aspect of family policy. Part of the reason we have laid such emphasis on getting the long-term unemployed back to work and on trying to deal with the problems of education in our education system is that those are two of the ways in which we can best strengthen family life. As we have made clear throughout, whether in the tax and benefit system or in any other area of policy, the family is an essential part of British society and we should do everything that we can to support it.
    Mrs. Gillan: The small and medium businesses in this country have—[Interruption.] It is
    312
    worth trying the question a different way round. Small and medium businesses in this country have already faced four interest rate rises and a raid on pensions under this Government. Will my right hon. Friend confirm—[HON. MEMBERS: "Come over, then."]Will the right hon. Gentleman-it is tough on this side—confirm that, under the Labour Government, those businesses, as well as having to deal with millennium compliance and prepare for the euro, will have to take on board the working time directive—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—the parental leave directive—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]part—time rights for workers—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—the burden of proof in sex discrimination, and now new workers councils? Would he advise business voters in Winchester and Beckenham to vote for such commercial suicide?
    The Prime Minister: I know that it is tough on that side, but we will just have to disagree about the social chapter. I believe that many small businesses welcome our proposals, not least the cut in corporation tax to the lowest it has been, with particular reference to small businesses. I repeat—although I do not think that we will greatly advance the argument between us—that what business fears is a business community trying to do business with the rest of Europe and a Government who end up being isolated and separated from the rest of Europe. That is why, if the hon. Lady had the interests of business at heart, she should join us—as I thought for a moment she would—rather than continue to support the views of her party leadership, which are contrary to the best interests of business.
    Mr. Stringer: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that in 2002 the Commonwealth games will take place in Manchester. The games will bring jobs and prosperity to my constituency of Manchester, Blackley and to Manchester and the north-west generally. Has he considered to ways in which the games could be used to improve the image of our country internationally?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, we certainly have considered that. It is tremendous for Manchester and for Britain that we will host the Commonwealth games in 2002. We are confident that they will be highly successful. The Government and the UK Sports Council are working closely with the Manchester team. There is an interdepartmental group to assist Manchester in the delivery of a successful event. We are delighted that Manchester is hosting the games. We know that they will be a great success and the Government will give them every support.
    Mrs. Ballard: I am not going to ask the Prime Minister about small businesses. Exactly one year ago today, the then Leader of the Opposition described the national health service as being in a state of crisis and the Tories' spending plans as a sticking plaster to get them through the election. As hospital waiting lists are now increasing, and as the Department of Health confirmed today that expenditure this year will be less in real terms than it was under the Conservatives, how would the Prime Minister describe this Government's spending plans?
    The Prime Minister: I would describe them in this way: we have allocated an extra £300 million this year—

    313
    that is a fact—and we will allocate another £1.2 billion next year over and above the Conservative spending plans. Of course I am aware that the health service and hospitals face very difficult times. We cannot put right in six months the problems of 18 years—we accept that—but this Government are committed to the national health service and we are starting, in difficult circumstances, to put more money into it.
    The Liberal Democrats can call for more money for everything, but they do not have to deliver it. Labour has to deliver it, and we shall do that in the best way possible in the interests of the future of not just the health service, but the country.
    [12360] Mr. Gunnell: Does the Prime Minister agree that, when schools develop excellence in some specialism, such as technology or languages, it is important that the wider community of local schools benefits also? How will the Government's policy ensure that help goes to the many and not just the few?
    The Prime Minister: The purpose of the announcement that has been made today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is to ensure that the benefits of specialist schools reach beyond those schools. The number of such schools will increase from 260 to about 330 by next September, when we will want to increase the number further. We hope to devote about –9 million in private sponsorship to developing those schools. It is precisely because we are insisting that those schools share their resources with the schools around them that we can say that the policy will benefit the many and not the few.
    Mr. Trimble: Last Thursday it was four, by Monday it was 12, and by yesterday 20 workers were suspended without pay by Coats Viyella for wearing poppies. One of the 20 workers suspended is a veteran of the Falklands war. Does the Prime Minister agree that, when the House enacted the fair employment legislation it never intended it be used to produce this sort of result? Will he assure the House that the review of that legislation will ensure that this sort of thing never happens again and that British workers will never again be penalised for wearing poppies at work?
    The Prime Minister: Of course I agree that people should not be penalised for wearing poppies. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that both traditions and both sides of the community in Northern Ireland want to support what happened in the second world war and realise that people of whatever religion made tremendous contributions in fighting and in winning that war.
    Mr. Mitchell: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will join me in welcoming today's White Paper on
    314
    international development. It is the first such paper for 20 years—so shamefaced were the Conservatives about their record of cutting aid from 0.5 per cent. of gross domestic product to 0.27 per cent. last year. The White Paper is doubly welcome because it puts the moral dimension back into aid by cutting prestige projects such as the Pergau dam and focusing on the poorest of the poor in those countries. Does my right hon. Friend agree also that aid will be undermined unless we reach agreement about debt and stop the debt treadmill in poor countries, which are spending an increasing proportion of their overseas earnings on debt repayments?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He knows that there will be a statement shortly on the Government's White Paper. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that we must focus aid on the poorest countries while ensuring that it is not wasted on projects such as the Pergau dam—which was a scandal under the previous Government—but is spent in a way that contributes to countries' overall development.
    My hon. Friend will know that the money that is raised in making the Commonwealth Development Corporation into a public-private partnership will go into aid and development, so that will increase our resources there. In relation to the debt burden, finance Ministers, under the prompting of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, agreed a series of measures to relieve debt in the developing world. We support that very strongly indeed.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does the Prime Minister agree that the United Kingdom is trading in an international—not just a European—arena? Is he further aware that we are highly regarded because of our relatively low-cost economy, which is growing, and that our unemployment is coming down, unlike most countries within Europe'? Why does he seek to reverse that by signing up to European social chapter and other regulations? That may be popular in the Confederation of British Industry, but the CBI does not represent British industry. We do; and it does not want them.
    The Prime Minister: I should congratulate the hon. Gentleman on, for the first time in my memory, being on his party's message. It was very well delivered, too. We are just going to have to disagree on the social chapter. The fact is that there are no measures in the social chapter that will cause problems for British business. That idea is absolute nonsense. We were told before the election, I seem to recall, that if Britain signed the social chapter half a million jobs would flood out of the country. It has all been nonsense. What is important is that we are part of the debate in Europe. The Government of this country—and this is in the interests of business—stand up for British interests best when they play a positive, constructive and forward-looking role. If the Conservative party does not learn that soon, it will spend a long time in opposition learning it.

International Development
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement about international development. I am today publishing a White Paper, entitled "Eliminating World Poverty: A Challenge for the 21st Century". It will be available in the Vote Office when I have finished speaking.
The White Paper sets out the Government's policies for the sustainable development of the planet. That requires greater progress in eliminating poverty. Nearly one in four of the people of the world live on the margins of human existence. That is morally repugnant and threatening to future security and stability. Our manifesto made it clear that we would give much greater priority to international development than the previous Administration. The creation of my Department, and the fact that it is headed by a Cabinet Minister, reflects that, as does the publication of the White Paper. It is the first White Paper on development for more than 20 years.
Considerable progress in poverty elimination is now possible. The past 50 years have seen great advances. On average, people live longer and in better health. More people have clean water. More are literate. More people have escaped from poverty in the past 50 years than in the previous 500 years. However, because of population growth, more people are living in abject poverty than ever before.
The challenge of development is to apply the lessons of success to enable the poor to work their way out of poverty. We are committing ourselves to refocus our international development efforts on poverty elimination. That can be achieved only through economic growth, which benefits the poor, and through measures that provide education and health care and enable the poor to develop their talents. As Michel Camdessus, managing director of the International Monetary Fund, said recently:
"We support high quality growth. This means growth that results in a permanent reduction in poverty and greater equality of economic opportunity."
We shall measure our progress against clear, internationally accepted targets that have been agreed at the great United Nations conferences and drawn together by the development committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The key target is to halve the proportion of people living in extreme poverty by 2015. The targets also cover environmental conservation and human development. We want everyone in the world to have access to basic health care, education and clean water. The targets are challenging, but they are both affordable and achievable if we can mobilise sufficient political will in the world system to achieve what can be achieved.
We shall pursue the targets in partnership with developing countries that are committed to them. We shall offer such countries a longer-term commitment of support, more resources and greater flexibility in using those resources. Our aim is to ensure that good Governments succeed. The nature of our partnership will depend on the circumstances of each partner country and how we can best help. We shall also work in partnership with other donors and international institutions in pursuit of the targets. Britain has unique international links, which we intend to use actively.
316
British business, voluntary agencies and our research community have a vital contribution to make to the eradication of poverty. We have held discussions with all those sectors, which are keen to make a greater contribution. British business is increasingly clear that ethical business means good business in every sense and is keen to contribute to development. The aid and trade provision, which lacks poverty elimination as its central focus, will end. We are, however, keeping the option of providing mixed credits within agreed country programmes if they can contribute to the primary aim of reducing poverty. We shall consult the private sector when preparing country and other development strategies.
We shall also transform the Commonwealth Development Corporation into a public-private partnership that will increase the flow of private investment to the poorer countries. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced last month, we shall seek to enlarge the resources at the CDC's disposal by introducing private sector capital, with the Government retaining a substantial minority holding and a golden share. The CDC will act as an ethical and socially responsible investor in poorer countries, with the proceeds from the sale, I am glad to say, being ploughed back into the development programme.
The White Paper is not simply about aid. It covers the full range of Government policies affecting poorer countries. We shall ensure much greater consistency across the range of Government policies, including environment, trade, investment and agricultural policy. All will take account of our sustainable development objectives. We shall give particular attention to human rights, transparent and accountable government and core labour standards, building on the Government's ethical approach to international relations.
We shall use our influence to promote political stability and social cohesion and, wherever possible, to resolve conflict. I recently announced a doubling of my Department's resources for de-mining. I shall be signing for the United Kingdom the international convention on anti-personnel land mines in Ottawa next month.
We must also do more to reduce the external debt of developing countries. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer launched a new initiative at the Commonwealth Finance Ministers' meeting in September. I have also set in place arrangements to write off aid debt owed to the UK by lower-income Commonwealth countries that are committed to pro-poor and transparent policies. We shall do all that we can to mobilise stronger international commitment to debt reduction.
The Government also attach great importance to increasing development awareness in Britain. Every child should be educated about development issues so that they can influence the shape of the world that they will inherit, and every adult should have the chance to influence the Government's policies. We shall establish a working group of educationists and others to improve development education. We also intend to establish an annual development policy forum representing the many strands of society with an interest in international development. We shall publish an annual report explaining how we shall secure the objectives described in the White Paper, and what progress has been made against the international development targets year on year. We shall also consult widely on the case for a new international development Act.

317
The resources that the international community has made available to support the development process have shamefully declined over recent years. The previous Administration almost halved Britain's development assistance as a proportion of gross national product. The Government will reverse the decline in UK spending on development assistance. We also reaffirm our commitment to the 0.7 per cent. UN target.
Every generation has a moral duty to reach out to the poor and needy, but the present generation carries an extra responsibility to ensure that the international development targets are met. If we do not, there is a real danger that by the middle of the next century the world will simply not be sustainable. Population pressures, environmental degradation, conflict and disease could impose catastrophic pressure on the planet.
The White Paper sets out how we can make progress. We should not overestimate what we can achieve alone, but we should not underestimate what we can achieve with others. The new British Government commit themselves in the White Paper to working for a major advance in poverty elimination and the building of a more just and sustainable future for all the people of the world.
Sir Alastair Goodlad: I thank the Secretary of State for making her statement to the House, and for giving us good prior notice of it. I assure her, as I did earlier in the year, that international development is an issue in which both sides of the House take the deepest possible interest. Does she share my belief that an informed debate on this subject before too very long would be helpful, and that the Select Committee on International Development should examine her document thoroughly before we have a full debate?
Does the Secretary of State recollect that aid policy was reviewed only three years ago? Does she accept that the White Paper broadly reaffirms the priorities and policies that were set then? Does she recognise how very welcome is the Government's commitment to seek to halve the number of people living in absolute poverty by 2015, and does she acknowledge that the target was set by the previous Government? Does she accept that the adoption of the 2015 target—which, as she said, is an extremely ambitious but none the less realistic target—is a tribute to her predecessor, Lynda Chalker, whose achievements the House and many people throughout the world respect and the White Paper underlines?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the White Paper reasserts the four key points for development set out in the Conservative Government's review of aid? They were that the purpose of aid is to promote sound political and economic policies; stronger health and education services; sustainable development; and co-operation with our international partners.
Does the Secretary of State acknowledge, as businesses do, that the aid and trade provision, which was introduced by a previous Labour Government, has provided important projects that have benefited developing countries as well as boosted British enterprise? Which of the criteria governing ATP cause her particular problems, and which of the projects approved since 1993 would she have cancelled?
For which countries will the mixed credits to which the Secretary of State referred be available, and in what amounts? Which in-country programmes will be increased
318
to reflect the current and projected levels of ATP funding? Will the mixed credits in aggregate be more or less than the current ATP budget? Pending clarification of that, recipient countries and the business community will feel that—how shall I put it?—the Government emerge from this part of the White Paper with, at best, mixed credit.
I remind the Secretary of State that the House is still waiting for the details of the proposed public-private partnership for the CDC. Will she join me in paying tribute to the work done by the CDC? Does she agree that the longer the details for the new arrangements are kept secret, the more uncertainty it will bring to the CDC and those who want to work with it? Can she say how the new entity will be financed in terms of debt and equity, how much she expects to be the proceeds from the sale of the majority of the Government's interests, whether the sum would constitute a net increase in the aid budget and when the new entity will come into being?
Does the Secretary of State accept that tied aid has enabled British firms to benefit from British aid programmes over the years, as well as the recipient countries? Does she agree that any untied British aid must be given in conjunction with other donors, because unilateral untying, like universal disarmament, would ultimately be pointless?
The Secretary of State acknowledged the work done by the previous Government to reduce third-world debt. Will she confirm her support for the Jubilee 2000 initiative, and say what measures will be taken to ensure that debt relief is linked to good government and sound economic criteria? Will she say how much of the aid debt to which she referred, owed to the United Kingdom by lower-income Commonwealth countries committed to pro-poor and transparent policies—potentially up to £132 million—she is writing off, and tell us when that will happen? Will she also tell us how she sees the Government's role in the world's campaign against corruption in this context?
The Secretary of State mentioned the impact of population expansion on developing countries, but I do not think that I heard her commit the Government to continuing to support the family planning programme sponsored by her Department and by the United Nations. I am sure that the House would be grateful if she did so.
Does the Secretary of State wish to take the opportunity to endorse the OECD report that praised the quality of bilateral British aid? Can she tell us what measures the Government will take to ensure that that quality is maintained, and that there is proper oversight of multilateral donor organisations? In particular, what plans has she to improve the management of the European Union's environmental aid during the British presidency? Will she join me in paying tribute to the dedication of the civil servants and non-governmental organisation employees whose professionalism has contributed so much to the present high regard in which British aid is held?
I am sure that the Secretary of State shares the House's concern over today's news about the latest evacuation on Montserrat. Does she agree that the people of Montserrat desperately need the British Government's help to provide housing, safeguard health, build an airstrip and bring about a return to the self-sufficiency of which the island is proud? Does she agree that British dependent territories should have first call on British aid for all reasonable

319
purposes? Is she aware that the previous Government used the contingency reserve to support Montserrat, and that the present Government should do the same?
The Government's support for the United Nations' 0.7 per cent. public aid target is not new; but will the Secretary of State undertake that it will now be met in the lifetime of the present Parliament? Will she confirm that there is a larger UN target of 1 per cent. of gross national product, which takes into account public and private money, and that in the last financial year the United Kingdom exceeded that target by more than a third? It was second to the Netherlands in GNP percentage terms as a donor of aid to the developing world. Will the Secretary of State commit the Government to continuing to exceed that larger target, and will she acknowledge that it is not the source of funding that matters, but its application? Will she tell the House whether she expects to increase the amount of money disbursed for bilateral aid?
Will the Secretary of State pay tribute to the private investors who are creating real jobs with real investment in the developing world? Will she confirm that the 2015 target for cutting poverty is accompanied by a target for achieving world free trade by 2020? As she has said, trade and prosperity are linked, and although she has readily signed up to the first date, will she now say that she supports the second?
Does the Secretary of State accept that she has inherited an internationally acclaimed aid programme, underpinned by a bipartisan determination to tackle development issues, and that our role in opposition will be to ensure that our targets are kept to and that that legacy is not squandered?
Clare Short: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support for the White Paper. I agree that the Select Committee's announcement that it intends to scrutinise it is welcome to everyone, because we want the broadest possible agreement about how to take this matter forward.
The right hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that the targets were set by the previous Government. I have paid my tributes, and they were genuine, to Lynda Chalker, but the Conservative Government cut her aid programme and restricted many of the things that she wanted to do. The Conservatives make her a saint when she is no longer the Minister, which I am not sure she would appreciate. The targets were set by the UN conferences and drawn together in the OECD's development committee report. That is the beauty of them: they are already agreed internationally, so we can all co-operate in implementing them.
On the aid and trade provision, the best of British business agrees that business does not want subsidies to bring forward programmes which do not help development that eradicates poverty. The ATP took us into countries and into projects that were not the highest priority—it took us to Pergau. The right hon. Gentleman should be ashamed to bring that up. His Government put forward that programme, which was found to breach our law by the British courts. That is why we are getting rid of the ATP—it has not been effective in supporting poverty eradication and it brought Britain's development programme into disrepute.
320
There are no figures for future mixed credit. We have said that if the private sector can come in behind a country's strategies, bringing in investment that helps to benefit that country and to eradicate poverty, the leverage that can properly come out of the aid budget will be made available. The aim is not to distort priorities, as the ATP did, but to help development that helps the poor.
On the CDC, details will, of course, be brought to the House. The reforms require legislation, so there will be full scrutiny in the House. I have an idea of what the sale might raise, but I would not dream of putting that before the House now. However, we shall report fully and the House will have a full chance to scrutinise the proposals. The purpose is not only to keep the CDC as a development organisation—the Government stake and golden share will secure that—but to increase private sector flows into the CDC, so that there is more private sector investment in the poorest countries. There is no uncertainty in the CDC: it is absolutely delighted with the proposals and keen to take them forward, working closely with me and my Department.
There has been much misunderstanding about tied aid—the World Development Movement got itself in a muddle on that. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, traditionally, all programmes coming out of countries' aid budgets have involved firms in this country and the OECD has said that that sometimes leads to inefficiency. We in Britain are saying that our tied aid is down to 20 per cent. We want increasingly to source in developing countries, because that helps their international development, and we want multilateral untying because that increases efficiency. Unilateral untying would mean just that French, German or Dutch firms could come in to fill the gap, which would not benefit developing countries in any way.
We certainly admire the work—particularly that of the Churches—on the Jubilee 2000 campaign, which highlights the problem of debt, which is a barrier to development in some of the poorest countries. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced to the Commonwealth Finance Ministers' meeting, we are keen to do everything in our power—we have put in more resources and more effort—to speed up the implementation of the heavily indebted poor countries initiative. We want every country that is heavily indebted to be on track by 2000, which is in tune with the aspirations of the Jubilee 2000 campaign.
I cannot off the top of my head tell the right hon. Gentleman how much is already committed of the £132 million that I have made available for the cancellation of Commonwealth debt. We have already reached agreement with six or seven countries and talks are taking place with some others. I shall certainly let him have the information immediately.
On the right hon. Gentleman's point about corruption, there is no doubt that this is a time when we can make great advances. Corruption hurts the poor. Both developed and developing countries have been implicated, so the OECD is now calling for all countries to make the offering of a bribe to a public official in a foreign country a criminal offence and also to cease making bribes tax deductible—which they were in this country until two years ago. To his credit, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), stopped that. Britain has put its house in order, and every other country must also do so.

321
Together, we must bear down on corruption. At the annual meeting of the IMF and the World bank, there was a new statement on dealing with corruption. There is the possibility of a real advance. It is the poor whom corruption hurts and we must all do what we can to eliminate it.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me to endorse the praise for British aid administration. Let there be no doubt that my Department is second to none. We have high-quality civil servants and the quality of the administration of our aid programme is admired internationally. It is sad that the programme was halved under the previous Administration—[Interruption.] It was; it was halved from 0.51 per cent. of gross national product to 0.27 per cent. It was halved in terms of the international target of 0.7 per cent. The Opposition know that and should not try to hide behind Jesuitical points.
My Department and I are working together to develop the White Paper and then to implement it. My officials are the best—and now they will be able to do their best with a Government who are committed to their endeavours, instead of holding them back from what they can achieve.
The right hon. Gentleman was right to say that one of our targets for our presidency of the European Union—apart from getting the mandate for the Lomé renegotiation right and incorporating the international development targets in that—will be to improve the quality of the EU performance. It could be much better. A great deal of our spend goes that way, so we must improve its performance.
The news on Montserrat is bad indeed. The volcano is erupting and, even worse, the levels of ash are very serious. There is great worry about the health and safety of the people on the island. Conservative Members should be careful not to think of this as a cheap party political issue, as most of the present arrangements were put in place under the previous Administration. It is an enormously difficult emergency because the behaviour of the volcano has kept changing.
I very much agree with the right hon. Gentleman about housing on Montserrat. In fact, 50 of the houses that I authorised in July are now ready. Unfortunately, they are not occupied because of the strike by electricity workers on the island, which is not helpful. My view is that some of the larger projects must be pulled together into a sustainable development plan. I am under pressure to build an expensive prison on Montserrat. I really think that that should come later. First, we should make people safe and see how many of them want to stay on the island; the prison can wait. Some people think that big projects are the answer, when in fact current services for some people are just not good enough. It is a serious difficulty.
The right hon. Gentleman called for an increase in our aid contribution, which was a great cheek. He then rightly said that public and private investment was needed, but at the moment private flows go only to the 10 most developed of the developing countries. If we rely only on that, the poorest countries will never take off. That is why we need overseas development assistance as an investment in the take-off of those countries' human development and the sort of economic arrangements that will enable them to create economic growth that will benefit the poor.
The right hon. Gentleman's last point was that he wanted efforts to be bipartisan. I welcome that. As I have said to him before, this is the most noble and most
322
pressing imperative for humanity. Not only is it morally pressing, but the world will be unsafe in 25 to 30 years' time for everyone, no matter how privileged now, unless we make progress. I hope that both sides of the House will unite in seeking to do that.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I am glad to be the first Labour Member to welcome warmly my right hon. Friend's White Paper. Does it not paint a significant contrast between this Government and the previous Government? Whereas we did not see such a White Paper in the 18 years of the previous Administration, it has taken this Government only six months to produce one. Will she comment further on her plans for women? I know that she is particularly interested in that aspect of the issue. Women in impoverished countries often suffer doubly, because they are oppressed by political and cultural outlooks that make a poor life even worse for them. I look forward to hearing her plans.
Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her remarks. She is absolutely right. The fact is that 70 per cent. of the world's poor are women and children, and that we cannot make progress without strengthening women's position. It is now absolutely proven that educating girls is transformatory. In the poorest countries, however, girls are excluded from education. We will not succeed in development unless we achieve as a priority the objective of universal primary education. Strengthening the position and confidence of women who care for children, and increasing their access to credit, so that they can increase family income will also be absolutely key to making progress.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: Like the rest of the House, I welcome the White Paper, which is being produced after 20 years. I welcome also the emphasis that the White Paper—after much consultation, on which I congratulate the Government—places on my chief concerns: primary education, health and welfare of women, and women's access to health and family planning services. I suspect, however, that the White Paper is strong on words and weak on action. I am very worried by the number of times that the word "encouraged" is used and by how little commitment there is to establishing processes to put proposals into practice.
The White Paper announces that there will be a welcome end to the aid and trade provision, which achieved such notoriety under the previous Government. So far, however, the signs have not been encouraging. The Government's ethical foreign policy sits uncomfortably with arms contracts recently negotiated with Indonesia. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ask a question."] Surely we should be leading the world in reducing tied aid. I was disturbed to note that, in Montserrat, aid was being used to employ a British contractor.
Madam Speaker: Order. I must call the hon. Lady to order. She is not required now to make all the comments that she is making. Back Benchers, too, are not required now to make comments. The exchange between Front Benchers took 30 minutes. As many hon. Members would like to ask a question, I will have to have brisk questions to the Minister if they are to be called. I know that the

323
Minister will respond with brisk answers, because she is very articulate. I expect the rest of the House to be likewise.
Dr. Tonge: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker; I misunderstood the purpose of the statement.
I should like to say—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ask a question."] This is a question. I have every confidence in the Secretary of State—if she is able—and in her Department to deliver the aims of the White Paper. I warn her, however, that the road to hell is paved with good questions. Does she carry the rest of the Government—the Department of Trade and Industry, the Treasury and all other Departments—with her, or not?
Clare Short: The hon. Lady is a new hon. Member, and we will therefore have to be a little patient. I know, however, that her intentions are good. I forgot to reply to the right hon. Member for Eddisbury (Sir A. Goodlad) on family planning, but she has also raised the issue. Almost half the people in the world do not have access to family planning, which is a grave breach of their rights and ability to raise healthy and educated children. Our commitment to universal basic health care includes a commitment to reproductive health care and to an expansion in provision for everyone in the world, so that people can make their own decisions about their own family size.
I should explain to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) that a White Paper is an analysis and a statement of permanent Government intent. We are currently engaged in the process of adjusting all our staffing and budgeting, and big amounts of money are moving around within my portfolio. A White Paper is meant to be a long-lasting statement of policy purpose. Implementation follows, and she will see it.
I hope that the Select Committee on International Development will examine the tied aid issue. There is so much muddle in the debate; it would be helpful if everyone—including the World Development Movement—learned the meaning and particulars of tied aid and how best to make progress. The hon. Lady was misinformed on that matter, also.
White Papers are Government White Papers. If the hon. Lady thinks that a White Paper can be published without the support of the Treasury and that the aid and trade provision can be got rid of without the support of the Department of Trade and Industry and the Prime Minister, she does not understand how Government works. This White Paper commits every Government Department. We are united in that commitment and we shall ensure that it is implemented across all our policies.
Mr. Stuart Bell: The House will welcome the Secretary of State's noble imperative of attacking world trade—[HON. MEMBERS: "World poverty."] I am sorry—I am confusing my concepts. I have not read the White Paper, but will she confirm that on the back of trade we can expect a rise in living and labour standards in third-world countries? While the International Labour Organisation is an appropriate forum
324
for that, will she confirm that there is a role for the World Trade Organisation to help build labour and social standards in developing countries on the back of trade?
Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He will know that the projections of increased wealth in the world from globalisation are very large indeed, but if the process is not well managed, there is a risk that it will marginalise some countries and cause growing inequality within countries. That is why we need support for core labour standards and a strengthening of the ILO.
There are interesting arguments about whether there should be some minimum human rights conditions in the WTO. That argument will continue, but most developing countries are opposed to the idea. Therefore, the way to make progress is through the ILO. We are strengthening our commitment to its work, to core labour standards for everyone and, especially, to the eradication of hazardous child labour.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Will the Secretary of State accept my congratulations to the Government on their attempts so far to maintain the lead in international forums such as the G7 and others on third-world debt relief, a lead which was first established by Lord Lawson and my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), the previous Prime Minister?
The Secretary of State pleased and surprised me by referring with approval to the approach of Michel Camdessus of the International Monetary Fund. Does that mean not only that she is approaching new Labour, but that she is committed to conditionality in debt relief and that debt relief should be tied to compliance with well-judged IMF programmes? Does she accept, as old Labour did not always do, that debt relief with those conditions is the right way forward, because it ties debt relief to good economic policies that deliver sustainable development and does not simply restore credit worthiness to regimes that might squander precious moneys?
Clare Short: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. In fact, Britain's lead on debt relief started under a previous Labour Government, but I have paid full tribute to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's contribution and to that of his Government. However, he will know that some countries say that Britain keeps taking the high ground but not producing too much money. I am sure that he is familiar with the idea that many countries thought that his initiatives were of that kind—good on analysis but short on resources. I pay genuine tribute to the leadership that Britain has given under the previous Government, under the previous Labour Government and now under this Government, with the Chancellor's efforts on debt relief. However, we must do more.
I have enormous regard for Mr. Camdessus. I recommend anyone who worries about the IMF's track record—people were entitled to do so in parts of the 1980s—to read his speech at the last annual meeting, in which he made a commitment to high-quality growth. That is growth which reduces poverty, promotes equality, sustains the environment and respects people's traditions. Earlier, when the IMF imposed conditions that required some of the poorest countries to charge for basic education and health care, it went too far. Mr. Camdessus is much better, and the IMF is healthier in his hands.

325
I absolutely agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there has to be conditionality for debt cancellation. If Mr. Mobutu were still in power, I would not be in favour of cancelling his debt. Debt cancellation has to support Governments who want to deliver to the poor. It is because debt hurts the poor that we have to take action. We want to get behind the right kind of conditionality which supports good Governments who encourage human development and the type of economic growth that is sustainable and which helps the poor.
Ann Clwyd: I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on establishing so quickly the principles according to which she will work in her new Department. I congratulate her especially on the focus on poverty and on women—we all know that investment in women is very good investment.
As the person who brought the scandal surrounding the Pergau dam to the House's attention in the first place, may I ask my right hon. Friend to confirm again that there will be no link between aid and arms in her Department, unlike under the previous Government who linked the two rather too often in the cases of Malaysia and Indonesia?
I am glad that we are aiming to spend 0.7 per cent. of gross national product on aid. Does my right hon. Friend have any idea of the time scale in which that might be achieved? We have had that aim many times in the past, but it is important to establish the time scale.
Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I pay my respects to her work on exposing the Pergau scandal. Of course there will be no repeat of Pergau, because what happened was illegal. The previous Government were hauled through the courts for breaching their own laws. There will be no link between aid and arms sales under this Administration. It was illegal under the previous Administration.
The aid and trade provision has gone because it distorted the use of aid funds and took them to countries and projects that were not a priority. We are very keen on the availability of credit to attract inward investment that will promote development, but such credit must satisfy proper tests.
Many hon. Members have not thought through the logic of our commitment to reverse the decline in our aid spend. Because the target is a percentage of GNP, considerable year-on-year increases are needed to reverse the decline. How fast we reach 0.7 per cent. depends on economic growth. To keep our promise, we have to make substantial year-on-year increases. That commitment has been upheld by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. The previous Labour Government went steadily up to 0.51 per cent. Labour's record is good.
Mr. Bowen Wells: That is because GDP went down under Labour.
Clare Short: No, it did not. Sadly, the figure came down to 0.27 per cent. under the previous Administration. We shall reverse that and reinstate our proud record.
Mr. Wells: The Select Committee on International Development looks forward to welcoming the right hon. Lady next Thursday for a long discussion on such matters. As she knows, I object strongly to the ATP and have
326
always opposed it. I am delighted that she has ended it. Will she join me in a campaign against countries that subsidise their exports and get work that would otherwise come to this country? It would be a disaster if she did not join me in a campaign—and, indeed, lead the campaign with the enthusiasm that only she can provide—to get Germany, France and Japan, the three countries which are also difficult on debt issues, to abandon ATP with her, so that jobs for our people are not put in jeopardy.
Are the mixed credits that the right hon. Lady is proposing expected to take the place of ATP? Will she assure the House that any money saved on ATP will not be taken away from the aid budget?
Clare Short: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I very much welcome the Select Committee inquiry. I want our commitments to be deeply shared across the country to strengthen any Government's endeavours. The work of the Select Committee will help us with that and I look forward to giving evidence.
I share the hon. Gentleman's objective of preventing other countries from misusing their aid budget. That is why it is right for us not to untie our remaining tied aid unilaterally. Wherever possible, we shall source in developing countries, but then use our willingness and the OECD campaign, which has given a good lead, to get multilateral untying so that dubious motives are removed from everybody's aid programme. If we untied unilaterally, French and German companies would be able to come into our aid programme, which would be a nonsensical way to make progress. I repeat the commitment in the White Paper to do everything that we can to ensure multilateral untying and to use our influence in any way that we can.
There is no question of the money that went into aid and trade being taken away from the aid programme. It will be redirected to the objectives that we have outlined today.
While I look forward to discussing it with the Select Committee, I am certain that under the conditions laid down in the White Paper, there is no risk that mixed credits could be abused. If we can help in developing countries by, say, paying for feasibility studies or initial costs to draw a large-scale investment into, for example, rural transport where the poor cannot get their produce to market, it will be a proper use of the aid budget. The OECD, however, has a test. It must be proved that such assisted projects could not have worked commercially. It has been tightening up on that. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's objectives and will happily work with him on them.
Mr. Robin Corbett: May I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend and our Government on the publication of the White Paper and the setting of measurable targets on which an annual report will be given to the House? May I especially welcome the moves to ensure that all pupils learn more about development issues so that they will be better able than many of their parents to understand the importance of such issues in a shrinking world?
Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The beauty of the targets is that they are internationally agreed. If we could get the international system to work

327
towards them, and measure progress in country after country, year on year, we could move the international system forward and be clear about when we are succeeding and when we are failing. We could achieve considerable progress. Our commitment is to report to Parliament every year against those targets and to encourage everyone else to do so.
I agree about young people, in our country and world wide. If we do not make progress, the dangerous future will be their adulthood. If we do not make progress on poverty elimination, when today's little children are my age, they will be living with catastrophe. We owe it to them to ensure that they understand what is going on in the world and how to make progress. We are committed to driving that forward, and to considering how we can bring better materials into the national curriculum and teacher training so that we will have a generation that can take command of its future and understand how important all this is for them.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: I wish to make two small points. First, does the right hon. Lady agree that in all the talk about Government-to-Government conversation, development is increasingly seen as responding to the needs expressed by the poor themselves? That is fundamental.
Secondly, I have not yet seen the White Paper, but I hope that it deals with the fact that of the poorest of the poor, the 5 or 6 per cent. who are disabled are unquestionably at most disadvantage. Will the Secretary of State give a commitment not to forget them?
Clare Short: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The point about Government-to-Government conversation, where we can get it and where we are dealing with good Governments committed to poverty eradication, is that we can work with a country that wants to introduce universal primary education by giving support for teacher training, books and administrative systems. We could perhaps help finance departments to get rid of wasteful spending and redirect money and so create sustainable, long-term universal services. That is the best way to work, but it works only if the people of the country involved know the plans, own them and are able to participate and push their Government forward. We get success in countries that are committed, and where public opinion understands the commitment and pushes the Government to make greater progress.
The hon. Gentleman is right. Poverty makes people ill, and sickness makes people poorer. That is the tragedy of people without health care who live with dirty, polluted water and who are constantly sick. They and the disabled become poorer and poorer. Giving them the chance to have a decent livelihood is key to eradicating poverty. Without that, people with sickness and disability will remain on the margins of human existence and we will not achieve what we must achieve. I give him that assurance.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: My right hon. Friend said rightly in her statement that conflict was a catastrophe for the planet. In those circumstances, is there in her Department a paper on the effects of sanctions, which have devastating results for the poorest people and
328
often no results at all for the leadership of the country against whom sanctions are imposed? Will she reflect on the effect of sanctions?
Clare Short: My hon. Friend is right. The world history of conflicts since the end of the cold war reveals that they have been concentrated in poor countries. They are caused by poverty, and those conflicts, in turn, create poverty and instability, which affect civilians and create refugees. As a key to development, we must prevent that and build people's life possibilities instead of their descending into war.
As my hon. Friend knows, and as I have said to him before, I am keen that we should do what we can to refine the sanctions instrument so that its hits the elites more. My Department is doing work on that; it is difficult, but there is room for more progress. I hope that we can take that work forward, and I expect him to continue to prod me about it.
Sir David Madel: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the former Prime Minister of Israel, Shimon Peres, is constantly warning that a poor middle east is a very dangerous middle east? With that statement in mind, when the Government assume the presidency of the European Union, will they step up efforts with our partners to get clean proper water supplies to Gaza and the west bank? Without the lifting of living standards from the bare minimum in those two areas, the agreements between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation simply will not stick.
Clare Short: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern. We are all desperately worried about the middle east peace process which is not going forward as rapidly as we would wish. He will be aware that we have considerable programmes in Gaza and on the west bank, but the constant closure of the borders and people's inability to work are reducing income levels and creating yet more poverty and desperation there. I can give the hon. Gentleman our commitment to continue to work on the west bank and in Gaza and, as a Government, to do everything we can, particularly during our EU presidency, to bolster the peace process.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: May I positively welcome my right hon. Friend's White Paper? As she will know, over the years, the British Government have sponsored many projects which are not good. They have not been properly evaluated by outside contractors or, indeed, by departmental people when they have been required to do so. Will she re-examine project evaluation arrangements within her Department?
Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend who has so noisily defended ATP—there may have been a little movement on it which I welcome greatly.
In the past, there has been an obsession with inputs in development and not enough evaluation. We need high inputs, but we also need to evaluate what succeeds. We should not just squabble about inputs. ATP distorted projects, but that does not mean that every ATP project was bad; merely that many were not as good as they should have been.
I absolutely guarantee to my hon. Friend that we have introduced arrangements for strong evaluation. We are getting rid of ATP and, in future, any collaboration with

329
the private sector to increase inward investment will be evaluated. The British private sector wants an ethical reputation at home and abroad. If we succeed in development, we shall be looking at the big markets of the future. British firms want to be known for doing good-quality business. They do not want a cheap subsidy for a second-rate project. I guarantee to my hon. Friend that evaluation is about quality projects.
Mr. Oliver Letwin: Will the right hon. Lady tell us something about the dog that did not bark in her statement—the question of tariff barriers and non-tariff barriers? Does she agree that one of the major contributors to improving the lot of poor people in poor countries is to remove those tariff barriers and non-tariff barriers? Can she explain why she did not mention that?
Clare Short: I invite the hon. Gentleman to read the White Paper. I would have loved to stand here and read the whole thing to him, but I do not think that you would have permitted that, Madam Speaker.
The hon. Gentleman is quite right that tariff barriers are important. It is important that the least-developed countries get good access to developed markets and can take up that access. We have firm, detailed commitments to achieve that. I believe that, if we get it right, the private sector will want to invest in some of those countries so that access to the EU market is gained. That will bring development to the poorest. That is the approach which we want to adopt, and I promise the hon. Gentleman that there is a significant section in the White Paper on that matter.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the cancellation of debt that was supposed to aid third-world countries in the course of the past 18 years under the three Chancellors of the Exchequer who have already been mentioned was not all that it was cracked up to be? It is significant that, during that period, about £5 billion was written off as irrecoverable debts that benefited the four top clearing banks—Barclays, Lloyds, Midland and National Westminster, all of which now have Tory Members of Parliament or ex-Members of Parliament on the board. Will she give an assurance that, under the new regime, if any money is to be written off, it should be the debt of poor third-world countries?
Clare Short: I defer to my hon. Friend's knowledge of the banking sector, which surprises many people. I would not dream of challenging his detailed grasp of these matters. The big debt write-off that is needed now is debt to the International Monetary Fund and the World bank, which would ease public sector and government debt around the world. I assure my hon. Friend that there will be no rip off of the aid programme in any way whatsoever; it will be used to promote development for the poorest and nothing else.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Not only will the House welcome the statement, but many outside the House will welcome it. The Secretary of State referred to education and, as the recipient of many letters from children pressing these issues, I understand the role that that plays in Northern Ireland.
330
I want to press two questions. First, is there a staged augmentation to reach the target, because that is where we have gone wrong all along? The Government have failed, but one has to admit that the voluntary organisations, and especially the Churches, feel that their world development appeal has also failed to reach its target.
Secondly, when there is an attempt to increase the capital of the Commonwealth Development Corporation by private investment, may I take it that that is not intended to be a loophole so that private investors invest money in the CDC when they might previously have given it to the voluntary agencies that do so much good work?
Clare Short: I know that the hon. Gentleman receives many letters; I receive letters from him enclosing some of those letters. I agree that these matters inspire deep feelings across the country, and I admire our people for having those concerns.
The hon. Gentleman says that we have not worked strongly enough on targets before. The paradox is that, world wide, more people have escaped from poverty in the past 50 years than in the previous 500 years of human history. We have made great progress: fewer children die, people live longer and more people are literate, but population growth is very fast and there are, therefore, even more people living in great poverty. The beauty of the current position is that we know what would succeed, if only we applied it more effectively and more broadly.
We now have targets agreed by the whole international community and if we can get the Commonwealth, the United Nations, the European Union, all the donor countries, the World bank and so on to work towards those targets, we will be able to measure progress and make significant progress. That is the opportunity presented by these times. I hope that we can all get behind that commitment and that Britain can make a contribution towards leading it.
On the CDC, the hon. Gentleman should be absolutely assured that there will be no loophole whatsoever. The CDC will remain a development organisation; it will make a stronger commitment to ethical principles and the Government will retain a big stake and a golden share so as to hold it to those objectives. That is what the organisation wants, but it will now be able to raise money from other sources. British pension funds—the growing ethical pension fund movement—and some of the Churches might want to take a share in what will be a big, leading ethical investment organisation which will help to lever investment into the countries that currently do not receive it.
There is no danger. Most investors will not be investing the cash that they give to charity, and I hope that people will continue to do both. I hope that people who are concerned about development will press their pension funds to invest in bodies such as the CDC, or think of buying a stake themselves, while continuing to make charitable contributions as well.
Mr. Chris Mullin: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, especially her reference to the link between human rights and aid and debt relief. An early test of our commitment to that link will be our attitude towards Jamaica, Belize, Trinidad and the other

331
Caribbean countries that display an atrocious disregard for human rights and are in the process of reneging on their international obligations. Does she have any plans in that respect?
Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is important to spell out the fact that human rights include political rights, the right to education, and social and economic rights. A commitment to human rights unites the north and the south of the world. I would add that we are also talking about the right to free expression, the right to a job and the right to a decent life—we want to reinforce them all.
I have arranged for talks with Jamaica and Belize on whether they will qualify for the initiative on Commonwealth debt that I have announced. If my hon. Friend would like to talk to me some more about his concerns, I shall make sure they are taken into account in that process.
Mr. Denis MacShane: I join in the chorus of welcome for the White Paper, but is my right hon. Friend aware that it will also be welcomed by many people around the world? She referred to third-world Governments, but she might care to make a distinction between what authoritarian Governments say about some of the linkages she has mentioned and what the people in their countries—the workers, the Churches and the organisations—have to say about them.
I invite my right hon. Friend to consider the idea of incentives and rewards—of linking access to trade to good behaviour in the areas of human rights, environmental and labour standards. Finally, I invite her to set an example herself by serving in her Ministry coffee supplied by Café Direct; and to have a word with her parliamentary private secretary, the Chairman of the Commons Catering Committee. Early-day motion 362 invites him to ensure
332
that coffee and tea produced under fair trade conditions are served in the palace of Westminster. That will put into effect action, not words.
Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I agree that trade is very important. We want to back good Governments who are struggling to make progress much more, so that they succeed and so that people who live under bad Governments are given hope and are offered examples of good Governments elsewhere. We need to establish solidarity with the people who live under bad Governments by, for instance, working with NGOs.
We are negotiating in the European Union on the general system of preferences to produce the sort of positive incentive system that my hon. Friend has described—greater preference for protecting environmental and core labour standards. Many people think that the World Trade Organisation should move in that direction, but that will not be achieved in the short term because so many Governments oppose it. That is why we need to make progress through the ILO and the general system of preferences.
As for coffee, I have told everyone what a fine Department I have. We already serve fair trade coffee there; my PPS has been discussing the matter and he may have an announcement to make before too long.
I am glad that the British people are becoming ethical consumers, forcefully telling supermarkets and shops that they want guarantees that their produce has not been made using child labour and is the result of decent labour standards for those who produced it. I hope that such practices will spread throughout the country, and that firm after firm and local authority after local authority will commit themselves to buying ethically sourced goods. Of course, the British people want good produce, but they want to know that the labour overseas used to make it was properly paid and treated.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. We must now move on.

Points of Order
4.32 pm
Mr. Gary Streeter: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It relates directly to my constituency and is of enormous concern to the people of Devon and Cornwall.
Yesterday, the Ministry of Defence announced that the refit contract for HMS Argyll would go to Rosyth dockyard in Scotland instead of to Devonport dockyard in Devon. That decision is contrary to expectations and is causing widespread concern. Are you, Madam Speaker, able to require the Secretary of State for Defence to come to the House to explain this bizarre decision and to reassure me that it was made for sound commercial reasons and not just because he had come under party political pressure from heavyweight Labour Scottish Members?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that I can deal only with procedural matters, not with matters of Government policy. I cannot bring a Minister to the Dispatch Box to give the reasons that the hon. Gentleman requires, but he is wise enough to know that there are other methods—Adjournment debates, parliamentary questions, and so on—by which to raise the matter and to try to elicit some further information.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you draw attention to the need for Members to be a little briefer in questioning Ministers during statements and perhaps even private notice questions? What we saw today was almost an abuse of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) tells me that 48 questions were asked.
Madam Speaker: I did not count the number of questions, but I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. I have noticed in recent times that questions on a statement, not only from Opposition Front-Bench Members but from Back Benchers, are very long indeed. I sit here and listen to hon. Members making great comments about statements without coming to any point of view or asking a question. The House seems to be moving away from asking questions; hon. Members are too concerned with commenting on the statement that has already been made.
I have noted the hon. Gentleman's point. I noticed that the questioning from the Opposition took longer than the statement. I always keep a record of how long it takes to make a statement and how long it takes to reply to it.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(4) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
DELEGATED LEGISLATION

  SOCIAL SECURITY
  That the Social Security (Lone Parents)(Amendment) Regulations 1997 (S.I., 1997, No. 1790) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Dowd.]
  Question agreed to.

War Widows and Pensioners (Equal Treatment)
4.35 pm
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to end the differential treatment of war widows and war disablement pensioners by local authorities; and for connected purposes.
The Bill will require local authorities to disregard totally war disability pensions and war widows' pensions when making assessments for housing benefit and levels of council tax benefit. It follows earlier initiatives in previous Parliaments by a number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who is in his place today.
In Northern Ireland, where the Government are effectively the housing and rating authority, there is a total disregard. That is to the credit of Her Majesty's Government. Hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies can take justifiable pride in the knowledge that every local authority in Scotland exercises in full its right to disregard war widows' pensions and war disability pensions when assessing for housing benefit or council tax benefit.
The overwhelming majority of local authorities in England and Wales now also exercise in full their discretion to disregard those pensions when making such assessments. That follows an effective campaign by the Royal British Legion, which reduced the number of local authorities refusing totally to disregard those pensions from 40 per cent. to some 45 or 46 councils, which remain resolute in the view that they should take the pensions into account.
I was interested to see today that Ian Townsend, the Secretary-General of the Royal British Legion, described it as "iniquitous" that some 6,000 pensioners out of 300,000 are disadvantaged in that way. It is clearly unfair and anomalous, and the House needs to remedy the problem.
A war pensioner can lose up to one fifth of his or her pension if he or she receives council tax benefit, and as much as 72p in the pound if he or she also receives housing benefit. A pensioner deafened by artillery fire in the second world war, for example, might receive benefit of £50.55 from the Department for Social Security in recognition of that disability, but he will lose £32.44 in reduced council benefits and keep just £18.11 to compensate for his deafness if his council refuses to disregard the pension that he receives for his war service and his disability. In effect, it is a local tax on war pensions, sometimes at nearly twice the highest rate of income tax paid by the richest in the land—in excess of 40 per cent.
You know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that characteristically I speak en message. In the course of my research, I was pleased to see that for its November/December 1995 issue Saga Magazine approached the Labour party for an official statement, and that Labour party headquarters stated in respect of the matter:
"It is a cop-out on the Government's part. It should legislate to say that war pensions are either counted or ignored, and not give councils the discretion. Obviously, we would like war pensions to be ignored."

335
I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) for taking the trouble to come to the Treasury Bench this afternoon. He will recall the following words:
"The Labour party recognises the unfairness of the current situation, although you will understand that many decisions about what improvements might be made to the current social security system may have to wait until we are in government."
Those are the words that many of us, as candidates in the last election, were commended to include in our letters in response to the important representations made to us by veterans organisation about the issue.
We are now in government. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pointed out, we have not been in government very long, and we cannot wave a magic wand to put right all the wrongs. Nevertheless, my ten-minute Bill provides a legislative opportunity to try to remedy the unfairness. I hope that I will have the Government's support in this attempt.
It is clearly unfair to the pensioners that there is not parity of treatment throughout the United Kingdom, and that they might have the misfortune of living in one of the local authorities which, unlike those in Scotland and the vast majority in England and Wales, do not recognise that war pensioners and war widows are special. I want us to act now so that not just 95 per cent. of local authorities in the UK disregard the pensions, but 100 per cent.
I will not list the 46 local authorities that are failing their pensioners. That would be invidious and would take too long. I ask hon. Members to make representations to their local authorities to ascertain whether their authorities are in that category. Hon. Members who represent areas
336
whose councils do give a total disregard might share my indignation. It is unfair not only to the pensioners, but to the council tax payers in those areas, as they are meeting their full moral obligation.
I hope that the House will support me and give me leave to bring in the Bill. There is unlikely to be any hon. Member who objects to it. I do not want hon. Members merely to acquiesce in the matter by their silence. That would allow some local authorities to continue to act unfairly. We must be proactive.
We—especially my hon. Friends—must impress on Ministers on the Treasury Bench that even if my Bill cannot become law, they should take the principle on board at an early legislative opportunity. The Government already do so in Northern Ireland as the Province's housing authority and the rating authority. Failure to disregard war pensions is clearly anomalous and grossly unfair to pensioners and to those good local authorities that have adopted the recommendations of the Royal British Legion and others, who recognise that war widows and people receiving war disability pensions are a very special category.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. John McWilliam, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. John Austin, Mr. David Tredinnick, Mr. David Winnick, Dan Norris, Mr. John Burnett, Mr. John Cryer and Mr. Ivan Henderson.

War Widows and Pensioners (Equal Treatment)
  WAR WIDOWS AND PENSIONERS (EQUAL TREATMENT)
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay accordingly presented a Bill to end the differential treatment of war widows and war disablement pensioners by local authorities; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 28 November, and to be printed [Bill 77].
Orders of the Day

  Magistrates' Courts (Procedure) Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.45 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill makes small changes to existing laws for certain minor offences. Although a modest piece of legislation, it is none the less significant in its potential to remove unnecessary burdens from many of those working in magistrates courts, the police and probation officers, affecting about half a million cases per year. It will also lead to reductions in delay in the magistrates courts—a key Labour manifesto commitment. Its main element was suggested by an efficiency scrutiny commissioned in 1994 to examine administrative burdens in the criminal justice system.
  It may be helpful if I mention the current procedures that will be affected by the Bill. At present, the Magistrates Courts Act 1980 allows defendants on certain charges to return a plea of guilty by post. A significant proportion of such pleas are for summary traffic offences, such as exceeding speed limits. Offenders who are ready to admit their guilt and accept the penalty determined by the court for their particular offence can do so quickly and efficiently by post, saving both their own time and that of the courts. On average, some 38 per cent. of those summoned by post return guilty pleas by post.
  However, about 35 per cent. of defendants simply do not respond to the summons at all. Some clearly will not respond for quite legitimate reasons, and the law has full and satisfactory remedies available to them. However, the plain truth is that a great many defendants simply ignore a summons as a means of delaying their personal responsibility in the judicial process. When a summons receives no response, the court must almost inevitably adjourn the case in order to decide whether there is any point in proceeding with the charge or to try further steps to get the defendant to court. Courts must be capable of hearing cases in the absence of the unco-operative defendant as quickly and as efficiently as possible.
  Under current legislation, a summons will usually include what is known as a "statement of facts"—in essence, that is a very short summary of the details of the case as recorded by the police. This information is sufficient for a defendant to acknowledge his or her guilt by post. However, if a defendant pleads not guilty or enters no plea and simply fails to respond, the Crown Prosecution Service must take the prosecution forward, for which the statement of facts is no longer sufficient.
  That is why the efficiency scrutiny that I mentioned earlier suggested that the police should prepare a witness statement, as specified by section 9 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, and serve it with each summons. That would ensure that admissible statements were available to the court at the first scheduled hearing, whether or not the defendant responded. Clause 1 of the Bill establishes this. It permits a plea of guilty by post where either statements of fact or section 9 witness
  338
  statements have been served with the summons. When a statement of facts is served with the summons, the procedure for a guilty plea will be exactly the same as at present. When a section 9 statement is served instead, it may be used as a summary of the facts, for a guilty by post plea, or to prove the case if no response is received to the summons.
  The Bill provides two further refinements to procedures for minor summary motoring offences. At present, when a defendant is convicted of a summary offence under the traffic Acts, previous endorsements on his or her driving licence may be taken into consideration by the court when sentencing. However, if an offender has not produced his or her driving licence to the court, previous endorsements on it cannot be considered until the court has served notice on the defendant of its intention to cite previous convictions by using a print-out of the driver's record from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency.
  Courts can request the print-out when issuing a summons so that it is available in court at the time of sentencing. However, once again, unco-operative defendants delay proceedings, since the court is obliged to adjourn after conviction and then notify the offender of its intentions, causing significant delay. The only way in which the court can proceed at the same hearing to convict and pass sentence is by ignoring any previous endorsements. That is a manifestly unreasonable situation which clause 2 of the Bill will remedy. It allows for the DVLA print-outs to be used by the court to prove any previous summary convictions, but removes the requirement to serve notice of that fact on the convicted defendant.
  Clause 3 of the Bill removes one further snag in dealing with summary road traffic offences. Although courts can disqualify a defendant in his or her absence, they may wish the defendant to attend court to hear in person the reasons for disqualification. With minor motoring offences, cases are increasingly decided on the basis of written statements served on the defendant prior to trial. They are generally admissible in court as if they were oral evidence, but they do not satisfy the specific current statutory requirement for information to be substantiated on oath in order to issue a warrant. The clause allows the court to issue a warrant for a disqualification hearing without the need to substantiate the information on oath. The clause was proposed by a number of senior criminal justice practitioners and will serve to rectify a situation that makes no sense in the current process.
  The remaining two clauses of the Bill are simply administrative, updating a number of references in related legislation and allowing implementation of the Bill to be delayed until the necessary changes to court and police documentation can be effected.
  To test the efficiency of the proposals compared with the existing procedures, after the efficiency scrutiny had reported, a pilot project was conducted in Gloucestershire and Lancashire, from September 1996 to the end of March 1997. The outcomes were remarkably successful for all agencies involved. Up to 77 per cent. of "Bill procedure" cases were concluded—proved and sentenced—at a first court hearing, compared with 23 per cent. using the existing procedures. Some 86 per cent. of cases were proved at that first hearing. Adjournments were dramatically reduced—the average number of hearings dropped from 4.67 to 1.35 in Gloucestershire, and from 3.15 to 1.22 in Lancashire.

  339
  Reductions in the average time taken from date of offence to the conclusion of the case were also significant—from 144 to 95 days in Gloucestershire, and from 139 to 84 in Lancashire. It is also interesting that prosecutions for minor road traffic cases rose by more than a third in Gloucestershire and Lancashire during the pilot period. Not surprisingly, all the criminal justice agencies involved in the pilot have indicated their clear support for the proposals set out in the Bill, which free valuable resources by reducing a very considerable proportion of the routine administrative burdens borne by all in processing minor motoring offences.
  These savings are generally not realisable in cash terms. They represent an estimate of the resources released for use on other work, by expediting the processes in these minor motoring cases, but they are every bit as valuable to the criminal justice system as additional funds would be. I think that these results speak for themselves.
  The Bill has passed all stages in the other place unopposed. I hope that the House will be able to give these modest but useful measures the same support and favour as they received there.
  I commend the Bill to the House.
  4.51 pm
  Mr. Edward Gamier: In another place, the entire proceedings of the Bill took 52 minutes—Second Reading lasted 40 minutes, Committee stage took seven minutes, and Third Reading five minutes. During the brief Second Reading debate, Lord Mishcon said:
  "short Bills, however meritorious, deserve short speeches."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 July 1997; Vol. 581, c. 1523.]
  I agree, at least on this occasion, and intend not to delay the House unduly.
  It is worth noting, however, that the Bill's Second Reading in another place was but the overture—a quiet and well-ordered one—to the Second Reading of the Nuclear Explosions (Prohibition and Inspections) Bill. For us, however, the business managers have prepared something different to follow—the Fossil Fuel Levy Bill. Who said that life in the Lords was dull and that explosive debates happen only in the Commons?
  It is also, perhaps, worth noting that this is the third time that the Minister and I have squared up against each other since we took up our respective posts. The first was in Committee upstairs. The second was last Wednesday, when the hon. Gentleman's instructions were clearly to trot, not gallop, but in all circumstances to ensure that he took 45 minutes to complete a 10-minute course. I congratulate him on his obedience and on his ability, for the third time, to come before us with an order, announcement or Bill that is the product of the Conservative Government and Conservative policy.
  As Lord Kingsland made clear, and as the Lord Chancellor candidly admitted, the Bill is the product of the efficiency scrutiny survey initiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) when he was Prime Minister. As Lord Kingsland said in another place, it is
  "a sad fact that in the magistrates' courts nowadays it often takes almost as long to bring a guilty plea to court as it does to bring a not guilty plea to court."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 July 1997; Vol. 581, c. 1520.]
  340
  The Bill will go some way to correct that.
  The Opposition welcome what is, after all, our own Bill, and we trust that magistrates throughout the country will do so as well. It is, after all, lay magistrates who deal with the overwhelming majority of criminal cases, including motoring cases, that come before our courts. Anything that we can do to ease their burden without adversely affecting the quality of justice is to be encouraged. Anything that we can do to avoid police time being wasted through adjournments and unnecessary waiting for cases to come on is again to be encouraged.
  The evidence emanating from the pilot study in Leeds and from the other studies mentioned by the Minister suggest that the Bill's provisions will be effective in, among other things, achieving huge additional savings in the administration of justice.
  The Lord Chancellor said in answer to a question from one of his noble Friends in the other place that he would make inquiries about how best to achieve the necessary changes in practice to ensure that police officers received adequate warning that they were no longer required in court. Is the Minister able to tell us the result of those inquiries? Three months have passed since the Lord Chancellor said that he would make them.
  As proceedings on this Bill will, I trust, not be lengthy, the Minister will have extra time to read more carefully his written answers, if only for his own safety. If he reads column 786 of the written answers of 28 October in Hansard he will find that he answers as though he were the Lord Chancellor himself rather than his Parliamentary Secretary. If I may say so, the hon. Gentleman is becoming complacent. If this and earlier occasions are anything to go by, the Conservative party has done all his work for him. He cannot expect us to continue to check his written answers for him.
  I hope that the Bill will be given a swift passage.
  4.55 pm
  Mr. Alan Hurst: Before there is any doubt, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I refer you and right hon. and hon. Members to my entry in the register of interests as a partner in the solicitor's firm of Law, Hurst and Taylor.
  I do not wish to incur the wrath of the House as my senior colleagues on both sides of the Chamber have been particularly brief. It is clear that the Bill is not a controversial measure. I welcome it because it is a useful step in speeding up the process of motoring cases that come before the magistrates courts, and the overwhelming number of cases that they deal with are precisely of the sort that the Bill looks towards.
  This very day 1 have spoken to a senior clerk to the justices in my county of Essex. He thoroughly welcomes the proposals and believes that they will greatly aid the efficiency of the courts.
  At present, the normal process is not to have a section 9 statement on the file. Having acted as a prosecutor in motoring cases in the past, I am well aware of the rudimentary nature of many of the motoring files that come before the courts. It would not be normal practice at present, as a first start, for there to be a section 9 statement on the files. The implementation of the Bill will mean that the police will have to change their process, and officers will have to ensure that each file has on it a section 9 statement, which thereafter can be used as

  341
  evidence in the court. If they do not do so, the case will be back where it was before and no progress will have been made. I am reassured by the pilot studies that the police believe that this is a useful innovation and that they—along with the Justices Clerks Society, no doubt—support it.
  Clause 2, which deals with print-outs, takes up another cause of interminable delays in magistrates courts. Rarely is a print-out to be found upon the file at first hearing. Even if a defendant appears, the case will be adjourned to the next hearing if he does not have a licence for a print-out to be obtained. The licensing authority at Swansea is certainly better than it once was in providing print-outs, but there continue to be problems. Sometimes that is the fault of the defendant, who has not been accurate in giving his full name and date of birth. Sometimes searches need to be made against any number of names, and occasionally against more than one date of birth, to ascertain the correct details. Without that information, the print-out is abortive. Clause 2 is a useful addition to process in that both the print-out and the section 9 statement will be on the file.
  Clause 3 allows the warrant for arrest to be issued using a section 9 statement, which is the substantiation of the case. That will allow the process to move to a conclusion in two hearings.
  The Bill is not one of the monuments of legal reform. Those who practise in the courts will be aware that it will not overnight solve all the problems of delay. However, I am reassured by the fact that people who practise in the courts, given the aspects of the Bill that concern them, seem to have shown their support for it. The Bill makes a start with the speeding up of the process.
  The rights of the defendant are preserved and remain untouched. If an error in the process occurs, and if someone is convicted without proper service, he can apply to the court with a declaration that he is not that person or that he was not served, and the process will be reopened.
  The Bill has the advantage of preserving the liberty of the subject and speeding up the process. That is remarkable progress. Although the Bill is not large, the principles behind it are well founded.
  5 pm
  Mr. John Burnett: I must also declare an interest as a partner in a firm of solicitors. I am surprised that there are not more hon. Members present as some of them will have an interest in the Bill, especially the provisions that deal with motoring offences.
  The Bill is uncontroversial and welcome. It has been considered in the other place, and its provisions have been widely scrutinised and investigated. There have been at least two pilot projects. However, by removing at least one procedural step in the process, it will place an even
  342
  greater responsibility on the police to ensure that the facts, especially those set out in section 9 statements, are correct. Ministers will no doubt remind the police of their additional responsibilities under the Bill.
  Some people, for genuine reasons, such as service abroad, will not receive a summons. As the Minister reminded the House, there are remedies for such individuals. I hope that Ministers will consider how notice of such remedies should be highlighted in the summons, and that the courts' existing right of recourse to the records of the DVLA will be drawn to the attention of defendants. I also hope that the Bill will pass speedily into law.
  5.2 pm
  Mr. Hoon: With the leave of the House, I shall respond briefly to the points made. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) on his considerable expertise in this area. In future, I shall know where to look for advice and assistance when the Department introduces technical measures dealing with the intricate details of administration in magistrates courts. He has shown by his remarks that he has considerable expertise, and I thank him for his support. He probably answered his own questions about section 9 statements and the use of the print-out. These provisions were tested in a number of pilot projects which I can assure him showed that the rights of defendants will be preserved and that the approach of the police is thoroughly satisfactory.
  I thank the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) for his support. The only issue raised by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Gamier) concerned the attendance of police officers. There is no legal requirement on police officers to attend court when a plea of guilty by post has been entered under the section 12 procedure. It is, however, the customary practice of the Metropolitan police to provide for the routine attendance of a police prosecution liaison officer to handle multiple motoring cases, as the volume of motoring cases in the Metropolitan area is sufficiently high to make that a useful, time-saving measure. However, that does not seem to be the practice in provincial magistrates courts. There is always room for improvement in liaison and communication between the courts, police and prosecution, and my Department and others are continuing to work on various initiatives in support of that.
  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter, and I hope that he is satisfied by my response. I thank the House for allowing me a further opportunity to speak.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

  Fossil Fuel Levy Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  5.4 pm
  The Minister for Science, Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill consists of only two clauses and is concerned entirely with the fossil fuel levy. It deals with the types of electricity on which the levy can be charged. It is important because the levy has an influence on electricity prices to consumers, a matter about which hon. Members on both sides of the House are doubtless concerned. It is also important because the levy is the main means of raising the funds used to support renewables technologies for the generation of electricity, a subject which is very important for the environment, for the tackling of our targets relating to global warming and for our future energy needs.
  A soundly based levy is important if we are to drive forward those vital renewables technologies and provide a support system for them. The arrangements for supporting renewables in Northern Ireland are different from those in the rest of the United Kingdom, and the Bill will not extend there. The Bill will ensure that there is a level playing field in the generation of electricity, maintain the existing levy on nuclear electricity generated in England and Wales and bring under the levy for the first time imports of nuclear electricity from France. Making all electricity from nuclear sources—including electricity from abroad—subject to the levy, thus removing a market distortion, will produce savings of around £70 million for electricity consumers. Nuclear electricity will not have an unfair advantage over other sources of electricity, such as coal. Furthermore, the Bill will enhance support for renewable energy sources and ensure that the financing of the levy is put on a sound basis.
  The purpose of the fossil fuel levy is to provide funds to support the development of technologies for electricity generation from renewable sources. The stimulation of generation from renewables is an important part of the Government's policy to achieve diverse, secure and sustainable supplies of electricity. Renewables generation also has an important part to play in securing our proposed target for the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. by 2010.
  Support for renewables generation has not always been the main purpose of the levy. In the past, the greater part of the levy in England and Wales has been used to provide support for the nuclear electricity generating industry. That is no longer the case. The nuclear generation industry received more than £7 billion of support from the levy before the newer parts of it were privatised last year. Apart from some money still collected for Magnox plc and British Nuclear Fuels plc to repay them for undercollections in previous years, the proceeds of the levy are now used to support renewables, and, from next year, all the levy income will be used for that purpose. In the current year, the levy is expected to raise approximately £266 million, about 60 per cent. of which will be paid in support of renewables technologies.
  Under the present arrangements, two types of electricity supplied by electricity suppliers licensed under the Electricity Act 1989 are subject to the fossil fuel levy:
  344
  electricity from fossil fuel sources and electricity produced under the terms of the non-fossil fuel obligation or the Scottish renewables obligation arrangements. That means that, currently, electricity generated in England and Wales from nuclear sources under NFFO arrangements also attracts the levy.
  All the output of nuclear generating stations in England and Wales is contracted under the primary nuclear contract, which is itself an NFFO arrangement. Consequently, that nuclear electricity is subject to the fossil fuel levy. The primary nuclear contract is due to expire on 31 March 1998 and, if no action is taken now, the nuclear electricity currently generated under that contract will no longer be subject to the levy. That would create slight upward pressure on the electricity price in England and Wales. It is that small upward movement in electricity price that the Bill will avert. I think that hon. Members will therefore welcome it.
  The upward pressure on prices would happen because of the way in which the fossil fuel levy and the electricity market in England and Wales operate. Licensed electricity suppliers have a commercial incentive to minimise the cost of the electricity they purchase. When they buy electricity that is subject to the levy, they must also pay the levy on that electricity. In that way, the levy raises the costs of licensed electricity suppliers. In effect, the price of electricity to the supplier includes the cost of the levy. As a result, suppliers are willing to pay generators a higher price for levy-free electricity, provided the price does not exceed the total cost, including the levy, of leviable electricity.
  As generators of electricity that does not attract the levy can command higher prices, the market is distorted in their favour. Without the Bill, nuclear electricity would be levy free from 1 April 1998 and benefit from precisely the market distortion that I have described. Although the amount raised by the levy is fixed, the cost of the market distortion would have to be met by electricity consumers in England and Wales. The effect that I have described is well known to companies in the electricity industry as the green ticket.
  The Bill would prevent the distortion in favour of nuclear generators. It amends section 33 of the Electricity Act 1989 so that all electricity from nuclear sources supplied by licensed electricity suppliers will be subject to the fossil fuel levy. That will result in nuclear generators competing on equal terms with fossil fuel generators. That goes some way towards ensuring a level playing field.
  In Scotland, the situation is different. Nuclear-sourced electricity is not subject to the Scottish renewables obligation or to the NFFO arrangements, so it is not subject to the levy. Instead, Scottish Nuclear has a contract, called the nuclear energy agreement, with Scottish Power and Scottish Hydro-Electric, under which it is required to provide all the electricity that it generates to Scottish Power and Scottish Hydro-Electric. That contract expires in 2005 and I am advised that the likely effect of the Bill in Scotland is that Scottish consumers can expect a small downward pressure on prices.
  Yvette Cooper: Is my hon. Friend aware of the pressure that the coal industry is under and of the anxieties of miners, whom I represent, in Kellingley and Prince of Wales collieries for their future?

  345
  What are the Government doing to ensure that coal gets a fair deal in energy markets and can compete fairly on a level playing field?
  Mr. Battle: I thank my hon. Friend for her questions. I am aware of her representations and those of many of my hon. Friends. We are concerned, not least because the main company is—how should I put it?—negotiating contracts, I hope, with the generators to ensure that there is a market for that coal. I understand that those conversations are going on—I should have hoped that they had gone on earlier—and I hope that they can be brought to a successful conclusion to ensure a future for Britain's coal industry.
  We are taking action to do what we can to ensure that there are diverse and secure supplies of energy, including coal. I shall give some examples. Six things come immediately to mind. First, the Government are taking strong action to block subsidies to German and Spanish coal. Secondly, we have recently set up a review of the electricity pool—the buying mechanism through which electricity is sold—to ensure that there is a level playing field. Thirdly, we are ensuring that generators have to offer their unwanted coal-powered stations to RJB Mining.
  Fourthly, we are encouraging the regulator to prevent generators from passing on excessive costs under the early take-or-pay gas contracts to ensure that there is no uneven playing field. Fifthly, my hon. Friend may appreciate that the Bill removes the advantage that nuclear and imported electricity from France enjoys—it will no longer be able to receive a subsidy, as it were, and distort the playing field. Sixthly, we are working hard to find ways in which to support clean-coal technology. Coal presents environmental challenges and we have to consider technological ways of addressing them to ensure that coal has a long-term future.
  Mr. William Cash: I am much encouraged by some of the Minister's remarks, but are the Government prepared to amend and investigate the treaty that regulates imported electricity? That serious question goes back to a previous Labour Government. I do not want to make just a party political point, but that question requires some analysis.
  On the questions of the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) about coal, following my Adjournment debate last week, I understood that there was to be a meeting on Monday or Tuesday between the Minister and representatives of the coal mining industry, but I understand that it has been delayed for weeks. Will the Minister explain why? Exactly how does he propose to handle the important questions of hon. Members on both sides of the House?
  Mr. Battle: On the European rules, the Bill is well within the guidelines, as it were, and practice. We see no problems. The lines have been cleared so that we can ensure that the levy is applied and removes any inconsistencies. It is accepted in the energy market as a whole that the distortion is there; we are removing it. The aim is not to penalise French electricity, but it is unfair that it receives an extra that sources here do not.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) asked for and arranged a meeting, and he wanted me and the Minister for the Environment to be
  346
  present to ensure that energy, opencast mining and environmental questions were considered together. My hon. Friend the Minister had to go to America for a meeting on carbon dioxide emissions, so he said that he would not be available for the meeting. I was prepared to go ahead with it, but my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley thought that it would be better for the three of us to meet so that energy policy and the environment were considered together. We acceded to that wish and that is why the meeting has been postponed.
  I am available to meet hon. Members individually or together at any time to discuss these important and serious matters. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make representations personally, I shall be happy to meet him.
  Mr. Bill O'Brien: We appreciate the way in which my hon. Friend is collecting knowledge on the coal mining industry and we welcome some of his suggestions to address some of the imbalances in it. May I take up one of the six examples that he raised—generating electricity from gas? We are given to understand that, apart from perhaps the Drax power station, the majority of base load electricity is generated from gas even though in many instances its unit cost is higher than electricity generated from coal. Will he consider that customers of electricity-generating industries are not receiving the best possible value? In addition to making representations on that issue, will he check that matter and whether customers are getting the best value from the way in which the generating industry operates?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I know that the Minister is trying to be as helpful as possible, but I must point out to hon. Members that interventions must be brief if we are to have a proper debate. Some hon. Members have said that they want to catch my eye later, so we want the debate to flow.
  Mr. Battle: I appreciate that hon. Members want to raise the wider issues and I will respond in that spirit within your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  My understanding is that the power stations that go straight into base load are nuclear. The levy will even the playing field because they will no longer be in a position to do that. The real base loaders have been the nuclear generators.
  I accept that there is concern about gas. There is an argument about the unit cost of gas versus the unit cost of coal. Some say that the unit cost of coal is lower; others that that of gas is lower. I cannot go into the details now. Last month, the electricity regulator capped the generation costs that can he passed on to the electricity supplier. We must not forget that there are a number of players: the people who dig the coal in the mines, the power stations, the transmission system and the regional electricity supply companies. Those companies will not now be able to pass on to their customers the costs of the so-called sweetheart deals for high-priced, gas-fired power that they signed under the previous Administration. That move was made in response to requests by my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) and others.
  The six key actions that I have described—I shall now add a seventh, on gas—are not just ideas thought up tonight, but actions that have already been taken. We came into office six months ago last Saturday and

  347
  we have had to deal with the problems that we inherited. We have taken careful and patient steps to ensure that there is a genuine level playing field. We must ensure that other sources of fuel, including coal, are not treated unfairly and priced out of the market. It is in that spirit that this Bill should help in the short-term, as well as in the medium and longer term.
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: The Minister referred to clean-coal technology. Is it his intention to extend the levy to embrace research and development into that technology? He referred to supporting the technology, but he did not say how that would happen.
  Mr. Battle: We have seriously considered that matter. Indeed, when the Bill was in the other place Lord Ezra tried to move a related amendment, but it was ruled out of order by the Clerks and the lawyers who advise us on our proceedings. Lord Ezra's proposal did not fit into the scope of the Bill because it dealt with raising the levy, not with spending it.
  One purpose of our review of the non-fossil fuel obligation is to determine what we can do to support clean-coal technology. That means not only connecting what has been happening in the energy directorate, but linking that to what has been happening in science, engineering and technology under the Office of Science and Technology. Research has been and is being funded, but we need to move forward and get that to the market.
  It is not generally understood that it will not be the Government who build the first clean coal-powered station, any more than the Government build a particular laboratory. It will be done by a company, and there are some who are already coming forward with practical proposals to use that technology to provide a cleaner way to burn coal. We welcome that and want to respond as positively as we can. Unfortunately, this Bill is not an appropriate vehicle for doing that because it deals with revenue raising, not revenue spending.
  Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister is referring to the Bill and its long title. As it is a Government Bill, it would have been perfectly possible for the Government to have adjusted the long title in the light of the difficulties experienced in the House of Lords. I do not know whether there would have been merit in doing so, but I find the hon. Gentleman's argument difficult to follow.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The long title of the Bill is a matter for the Government. It was established at the point of the Bill's inception. I am allowing a wide debate on the subject. If the hon. Gentleman and others have points that are germane to the Bill and its effects, I am sure that they will have the opportunity to put them.
  Mr. Battle: It may seem that our intention is to deal with the fact that the nuclear industry does not have to pay the levy. The Bill was conceived, and the long title written out, very early on in this Parliament. It has been discussed in the other place and it is only since then that, in the light of the questions being asked in the coal
  348
  industry—because one of the players in that industry was not negotiating the contracts—there has been pressure to extend the long title of this single-purpose Bill.
  We were ahead of the game in tackling the uneven playing field on the import of French nuclear energy. We cannot now change this Bill to deal with the questions that have arisen. I can only tell hon. Members that we will do our utmost to back clean-coal technology as a way of guaranteeing a future for coal burning.
  Although the Bill provides a welcome downward pressure on electricity prices in Great Britain, we need to be concerned about the effect on the nuclear generators that will forgo the opportunity to benefit from the market distortions I have described. Nuclear-generated electricity accounts for some 25 per cent.—that is the annual average—of total supplies in Great Britain. As long ago as 1995, the previous Government flagged up the need to review the issue. That was reported in Hansard on 27 July 1995. The question mark over the future of the non-leviable status was raised by Labour when we were in opposition, when we debated the privatisation of the nuclear industry and British Energy. That question mark was confirmed at the time of the privatisation of British Energy, so the markers have been down since then. The industry is well aware of that and, with proper prudence, will have taken account of the possibility of this Bill in their planning process.
  Hon. Members will be concerned about the Bill's effect on imports of electricity from France. I must make it clear that we are not in the business of discriminating against French electricity. We will fully abide by our European Union obligations. As soon as the proposals in the Bill enter into effect, all French imports will be subject to the fossil fuel levy. The market will not then be distorted in a way which encourages people to buy French nuclear electricity instead of domestic supplies. It is right that British generators should be able to compete on equal terms with the French. I am determined that British electricity should not be disadvantaged any longer.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, speaking at the Earth summit in New York, underlined the Government's determination to put environmental concerns at the heart of the decision-making process. We have set ourselves challenging targets on cutting carbon dioxide emissions. While we must be practical about what we can achieve in the short term, new and renewable energy sources, including wind, hydro, wave, waste, biomass and solar, can and will make a significant contribution to achieving those targets and to longer-term sustainable energy use both in this country and internationally as we move into the 21st century.
  Last year, renewables generators, including large-scale hydro-electric plants, supplied a mere 2 per cent. of the United Kingdom's total demand for electricity. The majority of renewable electricity is supplied by hydro generation, mostly based in Scotland. Generation from renewable sources other than large-scale hydro plants increased by 7 per cent. in 1996. In England, Wales and Scotland, there are currently 195 renewables generation projects generating electricity under the NFFO arrangements. Further projects are planned.
  We want to ensure that there is continued growth in generation from renewables. As a first step, I have already announced that I intend to make a further NFFO order,

  349
  which will encourage a range of renewables technologies in the current framework of support. I hope to make an announcement about that later this year.
  On 6 June 1997—to meet our aims and to determine how we will provide targeted and effective support for renewables technologies—the Government announced a review of new and renewables energy policy. The review will include an examination of what is necessary and practical to provide 10 per cent. of the United Kingdom's electricity from renewable energy sources by 2010. We do not intend that productive avenues of support should be rejected or that sensible reforms should be ignored. As soon as I am able to do so, we will present the results of the review to the House.
  For those sound reasons, the Bill empowers the Secretary of State to make all electricity supplied by licensed electricity suppliers subject to the levy. The power will enable the levy's scope to be extended to include renewables electricity that is produced outside the NFFO and the Scottish renewables obligation arrangements, such as large-scale hydro plants.
  It may be that—as I should like to happen—as renewables technology progresses and is able to compete directly with other types of plant, renewables plants no longer need the benefit of levy-free status. They should therefore be drawn into the levy so that they can support other sources of renewables that require development. If we reach that point, we will have to think carefully about whether resources can be better targeted on newer emerging renewables technologies.
  The Bill has only two clauses and I did not expect it to prove so controversial. Nevertheless, I hope that the House will not divide on it but will welcome it. It creates a level playing field and takes practical action—even in the short time that the Government have had in which to do so.
  5.31 pm
  Mr. Michael Fallon: I reassure the Minister, and the nervous Government Whip, that the Opposition will not seek to divide the House on the Bill. I can only say, however, that it is an orphan of a Bill. In the other place, Lord Haskel attacked the Bill's title, saying he believed that it was inadequate. Now the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry, who is in charge of the Bill in the House, has admitted to us that the Bill is inadequate and out of time and that it does not cover half the issues that he wished it could cover. In this debate and in Committee, we shall certainly be probing those points and ways in which the Bill can be improved.
  The Bill is the second one in a week from the Department of Trade and Industry, and it is yet another Bill about tax. Last week, the House considered a Bill to tax the airwaves—which would be the 18th tax increase since the Government came to power. This week, we are debating a Bill to tax the real waves—wave power and wind power—which would be the Government's 19th tax increase. The Minister was a little bashful about that aspect of the Bill. He did not reveal to us that the Bill will not only extend the levy to the nuclear industry, for entirely understandable reasons, but that it proposes to allow the Government to take power to extend the levy to all types of renewable energy.
  In another place, it was explained that the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry has not yet decided whether to exercise that power. He does not yet have a programme
  350
  to exercise that power, but he wants the House to give him such power. Hon. Members are entitled at least to ask him why he is taking under the Bill the rather bizarre power to tax renewable energy to support renewable energy. It is a rather curious concept, particularly now. Just as successive non-fossil fuel obligations are working to achieve price convergence, the Department of Trade and Industry proposes a levy or fresh tax on precisely the energy resources that we originally attempted to encourage in the levy itself. I really wonder what type of incentive is being provided to producers of wind power and of hydro-electric power.
  Mr. Battle: The hon. Gentleman said that it is a tax-raising Bill, but it is a tax-reducing Bill. Its net effect will be to reduce the levy by 0.5 per cent.—which is not a major reduction but is heading in the right direction.
  Mr. Fallon: The Minister knows very well that a levy is a tax. His somewhat excitable June press release claiming that the Bill would somehow save £70 million cannot be justified. Everyone knows that the nuclear industry would have been brought within the levy's scope and that the savings that he suggested are purely hypothetical. If he believes that what he has just said is accurate, perhaps he will tell the House—given that so much hydro-electric power is produced in Scotland—what the likely price increase will be for Scottish electricity consumers because of the Bill.
  The levy is reasonably well established by now, although, with its different bands and orders, it has become relatively bureaucratic. Opposition Members believe that, if the levy is to be continued and applied as the Minister would like it to be—to all non-fossil fuel sources—we will have to be much clearer about the levy's aims and about how it will he spent.
  We have to admire the Minister's candour. He said that it is simply a Bill about raising the levy, and that we cannot talk about how the levy will be spent. He even suggested that that matter might be dealt with most appropriately by another Bill or on some other day. That is a curious concept for a measure that raises revenue designed for a specific purpose. Nevertheless, the Minister cannot bring himself to widen the Bill's scope to include clearer objectives, so that Parliament and electricity consumers can see what they are getting for the extra cost involved in raising the levy.
  Opposition Members should like the levy to be justified—as it must always be justified to Parliament—against the background of a much clearer energy policy. The Government justify it based simply on a Government review. By my calculation, six different reviews are in progress, making it impossible for hon. Members to reach a firm view on the levy level or the types of programme on which it should be spent.
  First, there is the Minister's own review of renewables. What has happened to that review since he announced it? Why is he proceeding with the Bill before we have the result of that review, and therefore before we can discern a little more clearly exactly which forms of renewable energy are worth supporting and before we can thereby justify the levy?
  Secondly, a separate review of clean-coal technology is in progress, which, in another place, Lord Haskel confirmed is a fully fledged review. I think that many

  351
  Labour Members would like to have a clearer idea of the results of the review on clean-coal technology before we attempt to justify this levy.
  Thirdly, the Minister's Department is conducting a more general review of the utilities, of the electricity regulator and of his power to impose controls and tax on the electricity industry. We do not have the results of that review either.
  Fourthly and—bizarrely again—outside the Minister's own Department, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is conducting a review of combined heat and power. The results of that review, too, should be important to anyone considering the fossil fuel industry, its future and the type of levy that we impose on it.
  Mr. Michael Clapham: The hon. Gentleman is using various arguments to request justification of the fossil fuel levy. Can he tell the House what justification was given when the levy was first introduced, in 1990? If he can, he is certainly a better man than the previous President of the Board of Trade, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine).
  Mr. Fallon: The hon. Gentleman will recall that the levy was originally introduced at the time of electricity privatisation. Indeed, it was introduced in the statute that gave effect to the original White Paper on electricity. It was felt that it was worth continuing to support non-fossil fuel sources of energy, including the nuclear and renewables options. That was the purpose of the levy, and successive orders have slowly developed and encouraged different forms of renewable energy in particular and have ensured that they play their part in providing the electricity available to generators. That is why we are a little surprised that the Minister is taking a power—he is being fair to the House and is not, I presume, proposing to exercise it immediately—to tax the very renewables that we have encouraged through the levy. We are hoping for an explanation of that.
  I was concluding the list of reviews whose results we need to see before we proceed with the levy. The fifth is the Minister's own review, which is a welcome review of the electricity pool arrangements. The Minister will admit that one of the objectives of that review almost certainly is to see whether the price of the base load effected through the electricity pool needs to be changed and whether it can be made more transparent and competitive by reducing the dominance of the base load by only a handful of generators. Again, we should have the results of that review before we go any further with the business of extending the levy.
  The final and sixth relevant review is the Finance Act review, a duty imposed by the House through the Finance Act on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the consequences of reducing value added tax on all energy-saving materials. The Chancellor promised us the results of that review by 31 October. That is important because it is only through the results of that review that we shall be able to see how the Government reconcile their target, which is a welcome target, of reducing CO2 emissions by 20 per cent. by 2025–25 per cent. of those
  352
  emissions come from residential homes—with their decision to cut VAT to 5 per cent., a decision which will increase residential emissions by some 250,000 tonnes of carbon every year. That decision will cost the Government some £485 million in the forthcoming financial year, a sum equal to nearly twice the amount that will be raised by the levy under discussion. We need to be told how the Minister is going to reconcile those two policies.
  Unless the Minister can give us an explanation, we will be bound to say that the Government are confused. On the one hand, they want to encourage the greater use of energy by cutting VAT on energy; on the other, they are committed to reducing it. The Government are now proposing to tax non-nuclear sources. If I was feeling uncharitable, I could describe the Bill as a pretty anti-green Bill. I wonder how the Minister's greener friends would welcome a Bill which, for the first time, gives him the power to tax the very sources of renewable energy that we have been trying to encourage for so long.
  We might be more charitable towards the Minister and the Bill if he were doing something about the fossil fuel industry. I suspect that the very good attendance for this debate, especially by Labour Members, reflects a widespread concern about what the Minister is doing about our coal industry. While he tinkers with the levy, as Members with closer connections to mining constituencies than I know better than I, some 50,000 jobs are at stake—20,000 in the coal industry and 30,000 in related services.
  Mr. Battle: When the hon. Gentleman was previously a Member of Parliament representing, I think, Darlington, he was the parliamentary private secretary to the Secretary of State for Energy. Later, in 1993, he appeared on a programme called "The Power Game" on Tyne Tees Television and said:
  "With hindsight, we privatised things in the wrong order. Perhaps we ought to have privatised the coal industry first.
  It should be run like a business and I wish we had handed it over to the great mining companies in this country. like RTZ.
  It is all about going out and finding the cheapest source of power, not about employing people in mines."
  Now let the hon. Gentleman read out his list of the unemployed to me.
  Mr. Fallon: Let me make it clear to the Minister that I do not withdraw one of those remarks. Had we introduced private finance into the coal industry earlier, the industry would certainly be in better health than it is now. I remind the Minister what happened the last time British Coal came to a Government with a list of proposed closures. The Conservative Government did not wash their hands of the industry. On the contrary, they imposed a moratorium on pit closures, as those in the House at the time will remember. They encouraged negotiations with the generators on new coal contracts. We did not simply say, as the Minister is now saying, that we hoped that the contracts would be concluded; we encouraged the generators to reach a successful conclusion of those contracts. Indeed, that was the purpose of the moratorium that we imposed on pit closures. We also introduced private finance into the coal industry, something which I wish we had done earlier, to give pits a better chance of being saved.
  Mr. Clapham: The hon. Gentleman refers to colliery closures. Is he aware that in 1993, the Select Committee

  353
  on Trade and Industry reported to the then President of the Board of Trade and made 39 recommendations which would have created a market for 65 million tonnes of coal and ensured the industry's future? However, the President of the Board of Trade threw out all the recommendations and caused the crisis that we now face.
  Mr. Fallon: No, I do not accept that. In fact, it was the President of the Board of Trade who imposed the original moratorium on the list of pit closures presented to the House.
  I ask hon. Members to choose whose words they support. Last Wednesday, there was a rather truncated Adjournment debate on the coal industry secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). The Minister replied to that debate. Hon. Members would have had a better chance to contribute had it not been for the extraordinary scenes that we witnessed during the debate on the Wireless Telegraphy Bill, which involved Labour Members reading out telephone directories.
  In The Times of 24 October, Rev. John Roden, the industrial chaplain for the coal areas of Selby, is reported as describing the Government's position on energy policy as pathetic. He said:
  "There is widespread disillusionment–95 per cent. of miners voted for a Labour Government. I doubt if they will again."
  Mr. Vernon Coaker: I challenge the hon. Gentleman to come to the coalfield areas in and around Nottingham that I represent and to those represented by other Labour Members and to ask people there whom they choose to run the coal industry—the Tories or a Labour Government who are trying to deal with the mess left by the previous Government.
  Mr. Fallon: I am happy to accept that challenge. I hope that the miners whom the hon. Gentleman represents are happy with the Minister's intervention and with what is allegedly being done, or not done, to save the collieries now at risk. It is getting very late in the day to save some of those collieries, and I should like the Minister to be a little more active in that respect. Indeed, if the Minister has a fossil fuel policy, let us not have it in dribs and drabs—a few words in last Wednesday's Adjournment debate and some words of comfort tucked away in his speech today. Instead, let him publish his policy and then organise a debate on it so that the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) and other Labour Members who have a genuine and long-standing interest in the coal industry can consider what can be done to help the coalfields. I accept that those hon. Members might want to criticise our performance in government—that is fair enough—but the Labour party is in government now.
  I have made it clear that we shall not oppose the Bill tonight, but we shall continue to seek useful opportunities to let the House speak for our coalfields. We shall seek clarification in Committee on the muddle that is the Government's energy policy. We shall also seek to ensure that the new, wider levy powers are properly accountable to Parliament and are used for clearly defined objectives.
  5.50 pm
  Mr. Michael Clapham: The fossil fuel levy should have been called the nuclear subsidy, because it is clearly a subsidy to the
  354
  nuclear industry. Between 1990 and 31 March 1998, when the levy comes to an end, it will have raised more than £9 billion to subsidise the nuclear industry. In other words, we have all had a levy on our electricity bills so that the nuclear industry can remain viable.
  I asked the Conservative spokesman why the fossil fuel levy had been introduced, because when the Select Committee on Trade and Industry considered the issue for its report, "British Energy Policy and the Market for Coal", published in January 1993, we asked the then President of the Board of Trade and the chairman of Nuclear Electric the same question. There was a great deal of confusion in the comments made then and people appeared to be unaware of the purpose of the levy. The report says, on page 62, paragraph 121:
  "The President told us that it is 'a charge on the consumer in order to enable the nuclear industry both to clean up and to provide for cleaning up the old nuclear plants."'
  When the same question was put to the chairman of Nuclear Electric, he said:
  "The purpose of the Levy is really two-fold: to comply with the Secretary of State's 9 November 1989 statement that Nuclear Electric should be cash positive and, secondly, to help fund pre-existing liabilities."
  That was added to by the finance director of Nuclear Electric, who said that
  "the Levy was never attached to any particular cash flow that Nuclear Electric has to pay. It was specifically described to ensure that Nuclear Electric remained cash-positive."
  In other words, nobody knew what the purpose of the levy was.
  When the Select Committee started to look at Nuclear Electric's balance sheet, we saw that £3 billion of the levy income available to it from 1990 to 1998 was used for other purposes. It is, in fact, being used to fund an investment programme. We know that a huge capital investment programme was launched from the levy. Sizewell B was built with money raised on the levy. The levy has enabled Nuclear Electric to fund its large capital programme without incurring debt. It was clearly a subsidy to provide the nuclear industry with cash for investment and to ensure a positive cash flow.
  The Select Committee was concerned about the huge amounts of money being raised and used in that way and recommended that there should be other uses for the levy. Paragraph 127, on page 64 of the report, says:
  "Our recommendation would make it possible either to reduce the Levy or to use an average of £380 million a year during the remaining five years of the Levy for other purposes".
  Those "other purposes" were clean-coal technology. When the report was debated in the House, the President of the Board of Trade rejected all 39 recommendations. We are facing the current dilemma because the money that could have been made available for investment in clean-coal technology was never realised.
  Mr. Bill O'Brien: I am sure that my hon. Friend will include the Grimethorpe scheme, which made extensive research into clean-coal technology. If the Conservative Government had not withdrawn funding, we would have had clean-coal technology by now. What is my hon. Friend's view on that?
  Mr. Clapham: I thank my hon. Friend for that prompting. The endeavour at Grimethorpe colliery was

  355
  supported by 20 other countries. It would have provided the opportunity to deal with our problems on the burning of fossil fuels, as well as enormous opportunities for British exports. Unfortunately, following the closure of Grimethorpe, the experimental plant was quickly demolished.
  The fossil fuel levy, or nuclear subsidy, has contributed to keeping United Kingdom electricity costly for United Kingdom consumers. The Select Committee was so concerned that it recommended that a large part of the levy should be used for other purposes. That did not happen because the President of the Board of Trade did not accept the recommendations, which has left us with the dilemma that we are facing.
  At Kyoto in December, the Government will take the lead to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases world wide. Some commentators have suggested that the Government face a difficult choice between the environment and maintaining a United Kingdom deep coal mining industry. I do not believe that to be the case. It is possible for the Government to take a clear lead on environmental issues, while providing a framework for a stable coal industry.
  I came into the Chamber a little late. I heard my hon. Friend the Minister referring to several initiatives, but I may have missed some. If I refer to issues that he has already covered, I apologise.
  The United Kingdom has already made significant reductions in CO2 emissions. The advances that have been made in the UK are not always appreciated. Since 1970, emissions have fallen by 20 per cent. Emissions from coal burning have fallen by 52 per cent. during that period, although emissions from transport have almost doubled. Between 1990 and 1995, emissions from power stations fell by 18.5 per cent. Clean-coal technology, together with combined heat and power, can cut CO2 emissions by up to 50 per cent. compared with conventional coal plant. That takes CO2 emissions down to the same level as that of a gas-fired power station. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister is prepared to consider coal-burning heat and power units.
  CO2 emissions from developing countries are rising at an alarming rate. It is estimated that they represent 35 per cent. of total emissions and predicted that they will rise to 50 per cent. by 2020. The main two sources of those emissions are China and India. To give the House an idea of the expansion of coal burning using conventional plant in China, let me point out that China is adding 15 GW of coal-fired generating capacity every year. That is an enormous amount, equivalent to half the total UK electricity capacity being added every year. Earlier, I mentioned export opportunities. The worldwide implementation of clean-coal technology is essential if we are to tackle the problem of global warming in the long term. Simply closing coal mines in the United Kingdom will have little effect.
  As the Minister knows, the problem has been made worse because the electricity market is not cost reflective. The pool system is price reflective. When he reviews the pool system, I hope that he concentrates on making the pool reflect costs rather than price. If that happened, coal-fired power stations, which are the cheapest on the grid, would be available for base load use, rather than being pushed out of the market.
  356
  Having heard what the Minister said, I believe that he is looking at a framework in the short and medium term to give UK coal mining a stable future. Such a policy will allow the Government to preserve employment, contribute to energy diversity and take a lead on the environment. Those objectives are mutually compatible. We can have a diversified energy policy in which coal makes its contribution and, using clean-coal technology, we can meet the environmental targets that we have set ourselves. As my hon. Friend the Minister already knows, miners at some collieries fear that they face redundancy by Christmas. There is not much time. I urge him to take the necessary decisions over the next few months to ensure that coal survives as part of electricity production in Britain and that miners' jobs are preserved.
  6.2 pm
  Mr. Philip Hammond: The Bill's stated intention to remove a potential anomaly in the market when the nuclear contracts change next year is in itself uncontroversial, but it is wrapped in a permissive form that endows the Minister with additional powers. To introduce it when reviews are still under way and before we know their conclusions raises broader issues.
  The fossil fuel levy, and the non-fossil fuel obligation that it finances, was a successful policy introduced by the previous Government. It was intended to support renewable technologies as they moved towards convergence with market pricing. After seven years of the NFFO regime, more than 200 projects are in operation and nearly 500 MW of renewable power is being generated. In the last NFFO round, the average bid price was more than 1p per kWh lower than in the previous one. The regime has fostered the development of renewable technologies and has been a success.
  The Minister now asks the House to approve a broadening of the base of the levy and to give him greater discretion in applying it, without giving us any information about spending plans. I understood his point on that and I, too, have read the debates in another place. I understand that the Bill is strictly related to the revenue-raising side of the equation, but the spending side is also important if we are to understand what sort of scale of levy we might be letting ourselves in for. This is essentially an hypothecated tax that falls on electricity consumers, and its level will be determined entirely by the Government's spending intentions.
  Mr. Battle: The hon. Gentleman is a little confused. The amount of the levy now and in future is entirely dependent on the cost of support for renewables that come in on a bidding round each year. It is not a tax-raising measure in the way that he suggests. That has always been the case and will remain so. He cannot make such an analogy and say, "This is a tax, tell us how much will be spent." We wait for people to bid for different projects. His Government set that up; I thought that it was heading in the direction of being helpful, and we want to continue that. He cannot have it both ways.
  Mr. Hammond: I understood the Minister perfectly. I think that I was heading in the right direction. I am seeking to establish whether the Minister's review, and the other Government reviews, could lead to a broadening of the scope of the NFFO obligation, which would be

  357
  financed from the fossil fuel levy. At present, the levy is low and the marketplace distortion that we are talking about avoiding would be relatively small. Are we being asked to avoid a market-distorting anomaly to deal with the much more serious situation that would arise if, after the conclusions of the Government reviews, the levy were to be raised as a result of the broadening of the NFFO commitments to take in other areas?
  We have heard already about clean-coal technology. Is it possible that support for clean-coal technologies might be included within the remit of the NFFO arrangements and thus fall on the fossil fuel levy? Might additional energy-saving insulation measures be included? Might the promotion of other technologies not currently within the very narrow remit of the NFFO regime fall there as a result of the reviews? I merely seek reassurance that we are not paving the way for a potentially open-ended tax on electricity consumers to finance Government projects that may in their own right be laudable, such as the greenhouse gas reduction targets and the increased renewable energy targets. If the levy is allowed to become an open-ended tax on energy consumers, it will seriously affect consumers and the competitiveness of British business.
  Mr. Lansley: My hon. Friend rightly mentions concerns about the extent of the levy and its impact on electricity consumers. Is he aware of Eastern Electricity's proposal to invite electricity consumers voluntarily to pay a tariff to go towards the support of renewable technologies? Is not that a preferable way in which to move?
  Mr. Hammond: My hon. Friend anticipates my next point. The non-fossil fuel obligation has undoubtedly been a success, but we must ask ourselves where we should go in future. There is evidence that many consumers are willing to pay a premium for renewable, or green, energy. Studies in the United States, Australia and New Zealand, and even limited market experience, have already shown that there is a potential market for green electricity. That offers us the prospect of less need for taxation through the levy and the subsidy of renewable energy, and a greater choice for consumers, who can make the decision for themselves to pay for green power.
  I should be grateful if the Minister confirmed how broad the review is which is currently under way and to what extent it interfaces with the other reviews in his Department and elsewhere in Government on energy-related issues. Can he assure us that there is no danger that, in future, the fossil fuel levy will be used to finance a broader range of initiatives other than the renewable energy initiative that it currently supports? It is important for us to understand the scale of the levy that we are being asked to pave the way for.
  The Minister is taking general powers to subject to the levy renewables outside the NFFO. He may have in mind large-scale hydro projects. Can he assure us that the Bill will not be used at some future stage to move the goalposts for renewable energy technologies that are moving towards convergence and which see on the horizon the possibility of operating unsupported and unsubsidised in the market? The levy may be a small element, but it would be sending the wrong signals, for example, to those considering large-scale wind projects to
  358
  move the goalposts now and to suggest that, as they moved outside the NFFO framework, they would be subjected to the levy.
  Can the Minister also assure us that when he considers the imposition of the levy on hydro projects at some future date, he will take special care when dealing with the pumped storage facilities that exist in north Wales? I say that for two reasons. First, it seems iniquitous that electricity that is generated from potential energy that has been created in the first place by the use of leviable electricity should be subjected to a levy again. That is equivalent to an element of double taxation. Secondly, and perhaps more important, I share the aspirations of my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on the growth and creation of a green power market in the United Kingdom at the level of the consumer. The ability to store green power—as far as I am aware, the only effective way in which to do that with present technology is through pumped storage—is critical to allowing that market to develop. I hope that the Minister will not do anything to discourage that development.
  Can the Minister assure us that there will be no temptation to impose other than a uniform rate of levy through the Bill? In other words, can he assure me that he will not seek to micro-manage the energy equation, by applying different rates of levy to different sectors of the industry? Can he give us an idea of the specific time scale of the reviews that he mentioned? How will they relate to the NFFO 5 announcement, which I believe will be made later this year?
  6.13 pm
  Mr. Bill O'Brien: I support the comments of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) about some of the issues that he raised. We should use the fossil fuel levy to introduce a comprehensive energy policy, which I hope would include clean-coal technology. It is important that we have a comprehensive energy policy that includes coal, gas, nuclear power and the renewables that have been referred to in the debate.
  I cannot support the hon. Gentleman's demand for an explanation from my hon. Friend the Minister about where the money gained from the fossil fuel levy will be spent. As my hon. Friend has already made clear, he is open to bids for the most efficient and cost-effective use of that money. That is the right approach. Before my hon. Friend makes any final declaration, I hope that he will take into consideration the request made by hon. Members, the electricity generating industry and the coal industry to pump-prime clean-coal technology.
  When we consider the development of the energy industry in the near future and in the long term, coal should be given its rightful place as a provider of a resource for the generation of electricity. There is an abundance of it and it is now produced so efficiently that, in the past six years, production per man shift has increased enormously, while costs have fallen by nearly 50 per cent. Not all of that cost reduction has, however, been passed on to the consumers of electricity.
  When we consider the use of the money gained from the levy, it is important that we think about the future of the entire generating industry. I plead for the retention of the mining industry, at least at its present capacity.

  359
  With regard to the future of the fossil fuel levy and the possibility of using other sources to generate electricity, the contracts between the coal industry and the electricity generating industries should be extended for a further period until those industries have settled down to a stable future. That cannot be achieved until we have addressed the problem of imports.
  I was pleased to note that the Minister said that the Government are doing everything they can to tackle the problem of subsidies on imported coal, because they put our miners at a disadvantage. We are asking not for favours, but for fairness. We should not be importing coal that is subsidised when our people have to produce it at unit cost. I am pleased that the Minister has made it clear that he will take that factor into account.
  We should extend the contracts between the coal industry and the electricity generating industries until we have a level playing field—it is more like a battlefield at the moment. It is important that that problem is resolved, because it is not just miners and mining communities that have suffered, but the engineering and manufacturing industries. If one visits West Yorkshire, one can see the factories where thousands used to be employed in the manufacture of equipment for the mining industry. They, too, have lost out. That is why it is important that we have a proper policy on the generation of electricity.
  I accept that the terms of the Bill are narrow, and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the future of the coal industry. I want to make it clear to the Minister that because of the problems facing our constituents, and our comrades and colleagues in industry—mining, manufacturing and engineering—my hon. Friends and I are speaking not from the head, but from the heart. What we are looking for is a comprehensive energy policy. With the support of my hon. Friend the Minister, and by following up some of the points that he made tonight, we can reach that goal in the near future.
  I accept that the question of emissions is still outstanding, but it is more important to address the problem of sulphur dioxide than that of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide makes up about 2 per cent. of total pollution, so we should be paying greater attention to the other 98 per cent. Although a view has to be taken on the environment, we can achieve our aims in that respect through clean-coal technology.
  In considering the fossil fuel levy and how the revenue is to be distributed, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to take account of the plea made here tonight. I would ask him, if he can, to influence the extension of the contracts, to allow the coal industry and the electricity generators to get their act together. They must deal with the problem of subsidised and therefore cheap imported coal. There is also the question of the level playing field in electricity generation involving nuclear power and the fact that electricity imported from France will no longer be subsidised. The latter problem has been a crime within the industry for some time, but is now to be resolved via the Bill.
  Finally, when my hon. Friend the Minister is taking applications on where to spend the money, will he consider making a contribution to the national coal mining museum in West Yorkshire? I doubt whether any hon. Member would object, and the museum is in need of some assistance.
  6.21 pm
  Mr. Andrew Stunell: The Liberal Democrats have no objection to the Bill, so we will not divide the House either. I thank the Minister for his positive and helpful presentation of the case, but I want to register some concerns and I hope that he will feel able to respond when winding up the debate.
  We are concerned, first, about what the fossil fuel levy does not cover and, secondly, about what it apparently does cover. There is also the overriding issue of how it fits into a strategy to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. by 2010. We are a third of the way through the two decades between 1990 and 2010, so we need to hear how the Government expect to reach that minus 20 per cent. figure.
  I am pleased to see that the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) is back with us. The Conservatives seemed to find themselves caught betwixt and between various policies. I was interested in their contention that they had clean hands—the debate so far has been about clean coal, not clean hands—but we should remember that the changes in carbon dioxide emissions seen so far have largely been the accidental by-product of decisions on the coal industry taken by the previous Conservative Government.
  First, I shall look at some of the things that the fossil fuel levy does not cover. In another place, Lord Ezra pointed out that it does not cover solar heating, anaerobic digestion or solar-voltaics. Some of those are remote and esoteric topics; solar heating is often seen as somewhat impracticable in this country, yet most Members of Parliament have solar-heated homes, which is why we do not have our central heating on in July and August.
  I want the Minister to give an assurance that, in parallel with this legislation and fully recognising that the Bill is limited in its intention, he will widen the scope for those forms of renewable energy technology that will be eligible to make bids. The Minister was rather obscure when he said that the bid system would dictate the level of the levy. In fact, there is a framework within which those bids can be made and it would be good to hear that it will be as wide as possible, so as to include the topics raised by other hon. Members and by Lord Ezra.
  I am also concerned about what it seems the levy might include. I was going to quote from Utility Week, but I do not need to, because the Minister made my point. The point is that there are circumstances in which the levy would be imposed on renewable energy source producers. That is entirely self defeating and quite wrong, and the Liberal Democrats will certainly oppose any such move. It cannot be right to use the levy to worsen the economics of renewable energy production and then to take the money and invest it in improving the economics of renewable energy production. When talking about the nuclear industry and the need to ensure that the levy covered it, the Minister mentioned removing the market distortion. It would be perverse to remove the market distortion in one sector and impose it in another. I hope that the Minister will feel able, on mature reflection, to give assurances about the scope of, and the intention behind, his remarks.
  I want to raise two other matters: first, the level of the levy and, secondly, clean-coal technology, which has been the topic of much of the debate so far. Both are linked to

  361
  the answer to the question: how does the Bill fit into the overall Government target of reducing carbon dioxide emissions?
  The levy has been reduced significantly since it was first introduced, which has—at least notionally—cut the amount available for the development of renewable and sustainable energy production. When the levy was reduced along with support for renewable energy, it was opposed by Liberal Democrat Members. I believe that the Minister said that, from next year, 100 per cent. of the levy would go towards renewable energy production. That would seem likely to raise the total amount invested from about £160 million to about £260 million. If I have interpreted the Minister's remarks correctly, that is very welcome, but it will be interesting to hear from the hon. Gentleman whether we are in fact back to neutral yet, or whether, next year, we will still be investing less than we were at the beginning.
  Lord Ezra, the Trades Union Congress and many Labour Members have made the point that the fossil fuel levy ought to be available for so-called clean-coal technology. I do not want to endorse those sentiments entirely. We must recognise that the cleanest conceivable coal-burning technology is still dirtier than any form of renewable energy generation and almost certainly dirtier than gas.
  However, it is significant that, whatever cleaner sources of energy generation are used in the United Kingdom until 2010 and beyond, much of the developing world will be increasingly heavily dependent on coal for its energy needs. The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) mentioned China and India, which cannot realistically expand their energy use without expanding their use of coal. Both, incidentally, are also investing heavily in renewable energy.
  Whatever one's view of how coal production should develop in this country, there is a healthy and expanding export market for clean coal technology, and it would be good to hear from the Minister that he intends to foster a climate in which British expertise can be profitably exported.
  The Liberal Democrats welcome the Bill and will support it, but we want to hear from the Government that it forms part of a coherent strategy to achieve the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions that the Government have set themselves. Failure to put the Bill in that wider context, for reasons of short-term political expediency, would be a great shame and a great hindrance to the achievement of targets that will prove to be vital to this country and the whole world.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Vernon Cooker: The Minister's speech was most welcome and he is to be congratulated on it. He has offered hope to many of the miners who live in and around my constituency and in Nottinghamshire, and to miners' families and communities throughout the country. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) to cast aspersions, but the Minister has had to deal in the past few months with the appalling situation that he inherited. In meetings with miners and others in the industry, the Minister has tried to deal with the practical problems that he inherited.
  Some of the points that the Minister made deserve to be widely disseminated throughout the country. He promised a review of pool prices. Many people in the
  362
  coal industry feel that prices are rigged against the coal generators. My hon. Friend has delivered the review that many in the industry have long been asking for. Miners have also been demanding a challenge to the subsidies given by Germany to its coal industry. My hon. Friend has today told the House that he will challenge those subsidies to ensure that they are removed, as far as possible.
  People in the coal industry and the coal communities have been asking the Government to invest in clean-coal technology; now my hon. Friend has stated that that is to be the policy of the Government. During the campaigns against the pit closures that were announced by the previous Government, and the campaigns to defend coal communities, people always mentioned the unfairness of coal having to compete with nuclear-generated electricity—they demanded action on that. Today, the Minister has told us that he will get rid of that anomaly. He said that nuclear-generated electricity will have to compete on equal terms with coal. As my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) said, we are not asking for favours for coal or for exemption from competition. Our miners and their industry and communities are merely asking to be allowed to compete on equal terms.
  The Minister is to be commended for dealing promptly with the difficult legacy that he inherited and for coming up with practical policies and positive solutions.
  There is a great deal of anger and frustration in the coalfields, where people feel let down. After today's statement by the Minister, many of those people will feel that, although they have not got everything they want, at least the Government are listening to them and allowing them to compete on equal terms, thereby protecting their jobs and communities.
  6.33 pm
  Mr. Battle: I thank all hon. Members who have joined in the debate. Although it is only a small, two-clause Bill, it concerns highly technical matters and our debate has been wide ranging. 1 do not use that term disparagingly; these are indeed complex matters. As someone told me recently, the energy questions that we face today will bring together the key questions of the 21st century. Hon. Members have tried to discuss them in all seriousness; over the short, the medium and the long term, we shall have to face these questions together.
  The whole point of the Bill is to get ahead of the problem. On 31 March 1998, at the beginning of the next financial year, French nuclear power will lose the levy, as will the nuclear industry in England and Wales. That is why we needed to legislate in this Session. Once the other reviews are complete, we may need other legislative changes; they can be achieved in other Sessions.
  The Government's energy policy is to provide a secure, sustainable and diverse supply of energy; that includes renewables and coal, combined heat and power, solar power and other forms of energy to which hon. Members have referred. We must also face up to the challenge of reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
  The purpose of the Bill is to sort out the way in which the levy is raised and who should pay it. Contrary to the suggestions of Conservative Members, the Bill is not a tax-raising measure. Indeed, it will stop electricity prices rising because it will ensure that the nuclear energy

  363
  business continues to contribute to the levy. The Bill will actually force a minor reduction in prices. We want the inclusion of renewables; they need support, as fledgling industries and technologies, to be able to compete in the energy markets of the future.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) said that the fossil fuel levy was doing more to help the nuclear industry than renewables under the former Administration. The Bill will reverse that. He and others referred to clean-coal technology at Grimethorpe. The real tragedy is that the research was done there, but the technology was patented by the Swedish-Swiss company ABB; so we now have to buy back from abroad clean-coal technology that we invented in this country.
  We need a levy on nuclear imports from France, because of the need for fair competition. We will also ensure that the levy on nuclear-generated electricity in Britain remains. The Bill will ensure that nuclear does not have an unfair advantage over other fuel sources, including coal.
  The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) asked whether the scope of the levy will be broadened as a result of the reviews. I can only say that it is not the purpose of the Bill to do that, precisely because broadening the scope of the NFFO would need new legislation. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) mentioned that aspect, too.
  Lord Ezra wanted the Bill to be expanded to include all combined heat and power schemes; others have entered bids for the inclusion of solar, photo-voltaics, hydrogen fuel cells and so on. We are looking into all those, but we had to conclude that it would be wrong to include them in the Bill. The House will in due course have an opportunity to discuss any proposals to widen the scope of the NFFO.
  The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge also asked about a levy on pump storage. I acknowledge his point about double taxation, and we will certainly look into it.
  I hope to have the findings of the renewables review in the coming two or three months. The utilities Green Paper is expected early in the new year. The review of electricity trading arrangements will be set up by Christmas under the Director General of Electricity Supply, and its conclusions will come in the first half of next year. These reviews are not in never-never land; they have definite timetables. We shall ensure that those timetables are stuck to.
  The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge suggested that he was against the NFFO altogether. I had the impression that he was saying that we did not need it and should leave it to private companies. While we welcome Eastern's initiative in encouraging green electricity, we need to give the whole thing a boost, which was the whole point of the NFFO including at least an element of renewables. We are happy to take that up and push it much further.
  364
  There is some concern about extending the levy to include renewable sources of electricity outside the NFFO and Scottish renewables obligation arrangements. The arguments are balanced. Levy-free status for renewable electricity would give those generators an advantage, enabling them to charge higher prices, but some of those receiving the benefits may, in time, not need the special support and may be well able to compete by themselves. It may be better to target support raised through the levy on promising renewable projects, using technologies that are only just emerging and would repay such encouragement. If some of the renewables take off and become perfectly able to survive in the marketplace, why not use them to support the other sources?
  Mr. Stunell: Will the Minister outline the criteria that he will use? When it comes to putting a levy on renewables, the crucial point is whether they can stand it and whether it affects their competitiveness and ability to expand.
  Mr. Battle: That is the whole point. The purpose is to support and encourage renewables, which is why we are supporting the structure and have put forward the NFFO proposals. We intend simply to say that, at some time in the future, instead of coming back here to legislate, we may be able to do even more to support fledgling renewable technologies, some of which the hon. Gentleman mentioned in his speech.
  In response to many of the points made by my hon. Friends tonight, the Government will continue, patiently and systematically, to attempt to clear up the mess left by the previous Government in the energy market. The previous Government decimated the coal industry. It is all right for the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) to say that the Conservative party wants a moratorium. The previous Government imposed a moratorium and then flogged off the whole industry—the electricity supply system and the generation and transmission system—leaving no levers behind for us to intervene as he now suggests.
  Faced with that problem, we have taken strong action. We have blocked German coal subsidies within Europe; reviewed the electricity pool; ensured that generators offer any unwanted power stations to mining companies; and encouraged the regulator to prevent generators from passing on excessive costs on the early take-or-pay gas contracts. Tonight, we are removing any advantage that the nuclear industry and imported electricity would have had, and thus creating a level playing field.
  I hope that this small but necessary Bill will be another step towards achieving our energy policy of secure, diverse and sustainable energy supplies. The levy is the main source of support for renewables generation, and the Bill will continue to ensure that the levy is soundly based. I commend it to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

  Ministerial and Other Salaries Bill
  6.42 pm
  The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): I beg to move,
  That, in pursuance of the Parliament Act 1911, this House directs that the provisions of section 1(1) of that Act shall not apply to the Ministerial and Other Salaries Bill.
  The motion is simple and straightforward. It directs that the provisions of section 1(1) of the Parliament Act 1911 should not apply to the Ministerial and Other Salaries Bill. The aim is to avoid any confusion that might otherwise arise because the House of Lords did not consider this money Bill within a month of receiving it.
  Under section 1(1) of the Parliament Act 1911, if the Lords do not pass a money Bill within one month after receiving it from the Commons,
  "the Bill shall, unless the House of Commons direct to the contrary, be presented to Her Majesty and become an Act of Parliament on the Royal Assent being signified, notwithstanding that the House of Lords have not consented to the Bill."
  The Bill was received by the House of Lords on 24 July, but the Lords rose on 31 July without considering it. The allotted month therefore expired during the parliamentary recess. The Lords considered the Bill and passed it on 16 October. This motion will provide that, as the House of Lords has consented to the Bill, it is presented for Royal Assent in the normal way.
  6.44 pm
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The Conservative party supports the measure and the House has already approved it. It has reappeared today because of a technicality in the House of Lords' handling of the matter, so it would be perverse in the extreme not to support today a measure which we supported in July.
  I note that the Bill will not do away with the need to obtain parliamentary approval for special orders where a structural change is necessary. I also note that if it is necessary, at some time in the future, to change the formula that underlies the linking mechanism—after all, the motion is before us because there has been a change—Parliament will have to approve a new order setting out a replacement formula. Those are useful safeguards and we support the motion.
  Question put and agreed to.

  NHS (Freedom of Speech)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jane Kennedy.]
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Jim Cousins: This is an extremely important subject. When I saw the statement by the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 25 September, committing himself and the new Labour Government to protecting the freedom of speech in the national health service, I felt that an important step had been taken. My hon. Friend made it clear that the issue could not be disconnected from an overall concern for openness and accountability in the conduct of public services, or from considerations about how NHS staff carried out their work, and the circumstances and constraints of their work.
  In making that important commitment, the Government were also making it clear that they understood that questions of freedom of speech could not be disconnected from questions of practice, conduct and behaviour. Questions of freedom of speech could not, therefore, be disconnected from some of the unfortunate uncertainties of what constitute good practice and good conduct, as the case that I bring to the House's attention today illustrates all too clearly.
  As I speak today, I bear in mind the words of Professor Liam Donaldson, now chief executive of the NHS regional executive in the Northern and Yorkshire region, who pointed out clearly some of the dilemmas facing doctors and medical staff when they seek to exercise their freedom of speech. He said:
  "On many occasions I was told by those making the referral"—
  or a complaint
  "of their reluctance to report problems because they thought that nothing could or would be done, or because of the tendency in such cases for early involvement of defence societies and their lawyers. Moreover, whereas doctors' colleagues were often willing to report concerns confidentially and informally they were extremely reluctant to go on the record. Some considered that this would amount to disloyalty; others feared giving evidence in a hearing or believed that defamation actions would be launched against them."
  Those, of course, are precisely the dilemmas faced by doctors in seeking to exercise their freedom of speech—which the Government rightly wish to defend—in the context of their practice.
  This debate—which is less limited than I had envisaged—is about how doctors work and the standards to which they work. It involves the way in which doctors work with each other and the trust that patients place in them. Such trust is fundamental. The abuse of that trust, no matter how rarely it occurs, is always to be taken seriously. The principle of informed consent stands as a protection both for doctors and for their patients. It is to seek openness and accountability in the exercise of the principle of informed consent that I speak today.
  My dilemma is that on the same day that my hon. Friend the Minister was issuing his statement, my constituent Mr. Sinha, a consultant gynaecological

  367
  oncologist—a cancer specialist—at Gateshead's Queen Elizabeth hospital was issued with an instruction by the chief executive of that hospital in the following terms:
  "I must instruct you that you must not under any circumstances discuss issues regarding the GMC and"—
  a consultant is named—
  "with any patient."
  That is an instruction without any condition or qualification.
  Were my constituent Mr. Sinha to accept that instruction, he would be in breach of his duties under the British Medical Association guidance to doctors. I have on two occasions asked the chief executive of the Gateshead hospitals trust to explain what legal or contractual authority could possibly give rise to an instruction in such sweeping terms. I am still waiting for an answer.
  Today's debate, therefore, is about freedom of speech. Let us not confuse freedom of speech with whistleblowing. A whistleblower can leak and can spin. A person seeking to exercise his freedom of speech does neither. Such a person doggedly pursue his rights, responsibilities and duties through the procedures and under the guidance that he comes across, in trying to carry out his duty as he sees it. Such people may be awkward, persistent, inconvenient and sometimes difficult to handle, but that is the nature of those who pursue freedom of speech. Those who seek to leak and to spin are under no such limitations.
  I am in a peculiar position tonight, as there has been a great deal of press speculation and, I understand, a press release this afternoon from the NHS regional executive, which speculates about this debate. In the light of that press speculation—although I admit that I do not have the precise text of the NHS executive press release, as the executive did not elect to send it to me—I am forced to name the doctors and the hospital involved.
  There are, in my view, matters that need further inquiry, but I shall contain those matters and any concerns that may arise from them within the narrowest grounds. For that reason, and that reason alone, I am obliged to name the two consultants concerned and the hospital.
  My constituent Mr. Sinha is a consultant gynaecologist at Gateshead's Queen Elizabeth hospital. That hospital is a regional specialist centre for gynaecological cancer. Until the hospital trust was set up, it was run by the regional health authority.
  My constituent has approached me under the terms of circular EL/93/51, which my hon. Friend the Minister put at the heart of his statement on 25 September, and correctly so. I make it clear to the House that my constituent has, in my view, rigorously, scrupulously and at all times in his dealings with me observed the terms of circular EL/93/51.
  The length of time that it takes to pursue issues is a major limitation on the exercise of freedom of speech. Almost 10 years ago, my constituent, Mr. Sinha, first made known to the regional health authority—at that time, his employer—his concerns about the practices of a fellow consultant, Mr. John Monaghan. The response of the regional health authority at that time was to treat the issue as a matter of personal or perhaps professional
  368
  politics. I use the term "politics" not in the sense in which we use it in the Chamber, but to mean the conduct of affairs.
  After two years, the regional health authority carried out an inquiry into those matters. The results of that inquiry led to recommendations, one of which was that Mr. Monaghan should cease reporting his own pathology as a gynaecological expert. That was put into force in 1991. The other recommendation—that there should be central records and file keeping in that unit—was not put into force.
  From that point, a remarkable set of arrangements has existed in the unit, which was put into place by Professor Donaldson and the regional health authority. I say that the arrangements are remarkable; I hope that they are also unique and that they will not continue much longer. Part of my purpose in raising the matter today is to ensure that those extraordinary arrangements are brought to an end at the earliest opportunity.
  The arrangements involve the department being effectively split between my constituent Mr. Sinha and Mr. John Monaghan—there was at that stage no third consultant—with each consultant being responsible for his own case notes. One set of notes was held in the hospital's central records, and the other was not. It was an extraordinary arrangement. It was full of risks to good, sound patient care. Those risks exist because of the need to consult records, potentially on a daily basis.
  That arrangement was put into place by the then regional health authority and it still exists. It served only to institutionalise, not to resolve, the distrust and conflict that gave rise to it.
  Professor Donaldson has written in articles about the difficulties of resolving disputes between doctors and the necessity to act decisively and to see matters through to a conclusion. The arrangements that were set in place in Gateshead's Queen Elizabeth hospital could not conceivably be described in those terms and gave rise to constant difficulty which put patient care at risk.
  I should note also that my constituent Mr. Sinha had raised with the regional health authority—his employer—an incident of physical conflict in an operating theatre. Professor Donaldson asked my constituent in writing not to refer that incident to the inquiry that was then going on and assured him that it would be the subject of a separate inquiry. That has not occurred. I hope that when the Minister investigates these difficult matters—as I hope that he will—he will address the possibility of racism. That should give rise to considerable concern.
  My constituent persisted with the substance of his inquiries, but it was a further four years before they were investigated by an outside party, Mr. Michael Brudenell. Mr. Brudenell's report on the complaints made resulted in the following rather uncertain conclusion. He wrote:
  "My own feeling is that there is not a prime facie case against Mr. Monaghan although he clearly chose to ignore accepted practice in the management of Mrs. A and Mrs. B."
  He continued:
  "I cannot find any evidence in the notes that Mrs. B had a preliminary biopsy although your letter"—
  he wrote to the regional medical director, Dr. Hill—
  "implies that she had."

  369
  He went on:
  "Accepted practice is hard to define precisely and I suspect that if the complaint was argued out in the disciplinary hearing, experts would be found who would think that Mr. Monaghan was justified in acting as he did."
  He then referred to the possibility of adverse publicity.
  The fact that Mr. Monaghan chose twice to ignore accepted practice in the management of patients is serious. As a result of that disregard of accepted practice, two women underwent radical vulvectomies—in one case with dissection of the groin nodes and in the other with deep node dissection. Those are very serious and radical surgical procedures.
  In making his conclusions known, Mr. Brudenell gave consideration to adverse publicity. I am not convinced—I invite the Minister to consider the matter carefully—that adverse publicity is a proper consideration in such matters. However, I note that, at precisely the same time as this matter was under report, the trust and the unit were associated with adverse publicity regarding a problem with cervical cancer screening.
  This involved a local GP's method of taking cervical smears—I hope that it was an entirely novel technique which will never be repeated—which was supported by Mr. Monaghan. I discovered this while pursuing the concerns of some female constituents.
  The ultimate report turned up an extraordinary letter written by Mr. Monaghan and addressed to "To whom it may concern". In that letter, Mr. Monaghan endorsed the high quality of the practice, and said:
  "He"—
  the GP whom I do not propose to name—
  "does not routinely use a speculum"—
  to carry out cervical smears—
  "as he finds that many of his patients being lower socio economic group object."
  That was a "To whom it may concern" letter. There was no doubt about Mr. Monaghan's endorsement of the practice on the basis that some patients were from a lower socio-economic group. That would appear prime facie to be a breach of the guidance to doctors that their practice must at no time be guided by issues such as the socio-economic group of the patients they treat. It is a matter of record that the issue was put before the General Medical Council, and we are still waiting for a resolution. The Brudenell report also states:
  "if the complaint were argued out in the disciplinary hearing, experts would be found who would think that Mr. Monaghan was justified".
  I was astonished to read that conclusion. If a doctor "chose"—that is the word used in the Brudenell report's conclusions—to ignore accepted practice, how could other people be found to endorse his actions? It is here that we come up against one of the real difficulties faced by those who seek to exercise freedom of speech in the NHS: when they try to exercise that freedom, they discover that the ground rules that they thought they were following are very insecurely based, and they are therefore left vulnerable to attack.
  I find extraordinary the claim that others might be found to endorse this inadequate practice. I pursued the matter with the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. My correspondence began with
  370
  Mr. Geoffrey Chamberlain and, fortunately, moved on rapidly to Mr. K. R. Peel, the then senior vice-president of the college. In his letter to me, he wrote:
  "I have today checked on a number of standard texts which deal with the subject and the titles of which are listed below. All clearly state that vulval cancer should be confirmed by biopsy prior to surgical treatment. Whilst the College Council have not discussed this topic, on a personal basis I would not do a radical vulvectomy and groin node dissection operation without histological confirmation of the cancer."
  Subsequently, the council of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists was not willing to go quite that far. I have persisted with my inquiries with the college, as has my constituent Mr. Sinha, as one of its members, seeking to discover in what circumstances there could be exceptions to such guidance. No clear explanation has ever been given, but the college wants that option. The House can imagine my utter astonishment when I discovered that one of the sources who says that in all circumstances biopsy procedures should be carried out was none other than Mr. Monaghan himself. What are we to make of that? He writes articles in which he says that particular procedures are required and then in his own practice chooses to ignore them.
  These are very serious matters. As a result of my subsequent correspondence with the regional health authority, I have very good grounds for believing that Mr. Sinha's concerns were well founded. There has been a serious breach of good practice. That cannot be disputed. The possibility exists that both women were damaged and subsequently deceived. The regional health authority was never able to assure me that either of them had conditions that warranted their undergoing the very serious procedures that were carried out by Mr. Monaghan.
  By September 1994, these two cases, with others, had reached the General Medical Council. Once the procedures were exhausted with the regional health authority, my constituent moved immediately and correctly to place this matter before the GMC, but it was not until April 1997—nearly 10 years after these matters had first been raised with the regional health authority—that the GMC reached any conclusion. Then it chose to investigate just one of the two cases. It chose not to investigate a variety of other cases that were placed before it by Mr. Sinha where alteration of case notes was involved.
  This is an important issue. How much, before and after their procedures, did these two women know about what had happened to them? The GMC has maintained throughout that informed consent, which is the benchmark protection for patients and doctors, is not a matter for it, and that it is a matter for legal procedure; but there is no law on informed consent. The legal procedures involve, perhaps, the police, perhaps charges of criminal assault. These are very serious and extreme measures. They are not measures which a doctor carrying out his work will readily or properly wish to explore, although he may have them as an ultimate option.
  The GMC maintains that informed consent, which lay at the heart of this, was not something which it could investigate. If the women do not know what has happened to them, their ability to make their own inquiries and engage in whatever course of action seems correct to them and their relatives under the circumstances does not exist. The GMC chose to consider just one case—in which the

  371
  patient has died—but what of the woman who is still alive? The GMC said that it could not come between the woman and her consultant, Mr. Monaghan. That was a further serious indication to me that the patient had not been informed and that she may well have been entirely ignorant of the damage that could have been done to her.
  For me, there is now an additional complication in all this; an extraordinary twist in the affair that wholly breaches all the guidance and procedures and is an extraordinary act of negligence on behalf of Dr. Hill of the regional health authority. In the course of our correspondence, meetings and exchanges, he made available to me in writing—I did not request it, and I would far rather be here tonight not knowing—the name of the patient who is still alive. That should never have been disclosed. That—if only that—should become a matter of serious inquiry. In revealing the name to me, Dr. Hill has made my position tonight almost impossible and untenable, as it has been for many months.
  The situation is, then, that two women have not been operated on according to good practice. There is the likelihood of severe after effects from the procedures that were carried out. It appears, from the conclusions of the GMC, that no one other than Mr. Monaghan himself had the right or duty to tell the women. These are extraordinary affairs. The GMC decided, on the basis of the one case that it examined, to offer guidance to Mr. Monaghan on his future practice and to seek clarification from him about what the nature of his practice would be. Clearly that was sensible. My constituent Mr. Sinha has been vindicated. The GMC had, in effect, held up a yellow card, as it offered advice on future conduct.
  However, the number of inquiries and the extraordinary length of time involved have seriously compromised my constituent's position. As far as I know, the situation that existed at the hospital still exists at this moment—he has no access to Mr. Monaghan's files; nor Mr. Monaghan to his. It is extraordinary that a doctor can be required to offer cover for another doctor without there being a central filing system to which all those who are properly entitled have access.
  My constituent has been subjected to disciplinary procedures. We now come to the last difficulty about freedom of speech in the NHS—the nature of the NHS's internal procedures under the guidance issued by the previous Government, HC90(9). Under those procedures, there is an entirely inadequate distinction between professional and personal conduct. The lack of clarity about what is personal and what is professional seriously undermines the ability of people, such as my constituent Mr. Sinha, to speak out. The present situation is that using the disciplinary procedure on the basis of personal misconduct means that there can be summary dismissal. In that event, there is no recourse to the Secretary of State.
  Personal misconduct, as defined by Professor Donaldson—the professor's explanations, which we constantly come across, cover this point, too—can relate only to a limited number of acts such as sexual harassment, fraud and false expenses claims. There can be no doubt that the charges against my constituent Mr. Sinha, brought against him by the trust—relating to
  372
  an extraordinary working environment that was laid in place by the regional health authority—do not fall into that category.
  There is a need to review the procedures so that we are clearer about what is properly personal and what is properly professional. We need to find a method of adjudicating clearly at an early stage in all proceedings the nature of the particular matter that is under investigation.
  The matters that I have described are complex and, in a sense, individual, but they raise some general and fundamental questions that are important for the House. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to seek to get the General Medical Council to clarify the issues involved in informed consent. The GMC is moving on from the position that it struck when dealing with my constituent precisely to begin considering the issue of informed consent. I invite my hon. Friend to go further and to encourage it to go further and lay down some guidelines so that, in future, people faced with problems such as those confronting Mr. Sinha do not face similar uncertainty about the procedures involved.
  I ask my hon. Friend the Minister also to review the dismissal procedures that the previous Government put in force, so as to safeguard rights being exercised in the specific context that I have described—against instructions such as the one with which Mr. Sinha is faced, which lead to a command of total silence on a range of subjects that he has been pursuing for many years. Rights in those circumstances should be safeguarded.
  I ask my hon. Friend also to provide some guidance on a patient's right to know in matters where consent to treatment is given or could be given without his or her being made fully aware of what is involved in the absence of the necessary confirming procedures, prior to the patient being invited to undergo radical courses of surgical treatment.
  I invite the Minister to set up an inquiry into the management and practice of the gynaecology department of the Queen Elizabeth hospital at Gateshead to review its present organisation and practices and to review past cases to ensure that the highest standards that are associated with the department's historic links to Sir Stanley Way, a major pioneer in the treatment of women, are continued and maintained. As a matter of urgency, a central record system should be established that does not put patient care at risk in the way that the present articulated system of record keeping does.
  I apologise to the House for taking so much time over this matter, but it is one which I have wrestled with for some time. The Government's existence is a proud matter for all of us who sit on the Government Benches; freedom of speech in these circumstances, even when one is being difficult or might be represented as being difficult, is seriously put to the test. The accountability, transparency and honesty which freedom of speech involves are matters to which my hon. Friend the Minister referred in his statement of 25 September, which is a benchmark of progress and good practice in these matters. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that the Government are committed to examining the possibility of malpractice and of seeking the highest possible standards that patients—in this instance, women—are entitled to expect. If only two women are involved, that is two women too many.
  My constituent Mr. Sinha, in raising these issues—awkward, difficult, complex and fundamental though they are—has always adopted formal procedures in dealing

  373
  with professional bodies. He has persistently raised them with regulatory bodies. He has never dealt with the media. He has never engaged in leaking or spinning. The issues that he has pursued for so many years, however awkward and inconvenient he may sometimes have appeared to be, were raised in the course of his duty as a doctor, in a direction and to a direction that we would expect those with the care of ourselves to observe.
  7.27 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) on securing the debate. He has raised some extremely important issues about freedom of speech within the national health service in the context of particular and serious concerns in the area that he represents. I shall address these issues immediately and state unequivocally the Government's support for freedom of speech within the NHS. I hope that the House will understand that I cannot discuss confidential clinical decisions relating to individual patients or detailed individual decisions affecting the employment of NHS staff. It would not be right or proper for me to do so.
  The specific issues that my hon. Friend has raised in relation to Gateshead have a long history and are highly complex. The fact that they have not been satisfactorily resolved is clearly a matter of concern. It would not be right for me, however, to deal with the rights and wrongs of individual cases here and now. Such matters warrant proper investigation. If my hon. Friend writes to me setting out the details of his concerns, I shall look into them and ensure that he receives the fullest possible reply. I hope that this approach will provide my hon. Friend with the reassurance that he needs.
  The Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin), in whose constituency the hospital lies, is unable to be in the Chamber this evening because of ministerial business. However, she takes a keen interest in the Queen Elizabeth hospital, which enjoys the active support of her constituency. I am able to give my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central the assurance that we are actively considering what further guidance on disciplinary procedures is needed to supplement HC(90)9. As he is aware, the current arrangements were introduced by the previous Government, even before the advent of NHS trusts. At its simplest, some of the advice refers to grades that no longer exist.
  My hon. Friend also pointed to difficulties in the law on consent. A particular difficulty may be that, although the expression is in common use, the often-quoted concept of "informed consent" does not exist in the law of England. The courts remain the ultimate arbiters of what constitutes consent.
  It is important that patients give valid consent or refusal. To be valid, consent must be based on sufficient information to enable the patient to make a decision, and must be freely given. In general, all adult patients have the right under common law to give or withhold consent prior to medical examination or treatment. They are entitled to receive sufficient information, in a form that they can understand, to help them to make a decision.
  The NHS Executive issued guidance in 1990: "A guide to consent for examination or treatment". That guidance makes it clear what the patient's rights are, what the duties
  374
  of the doctor or other health professionals are, and how consent should be obtained. A doctor treating a patient without obtaining valid consent may be liable to a charge of assault.
  I want to make it absolutely clear that there can be no justification for an employer penalising staff who speak out about genuine concerns. That is why we have outlawed in NHS contracts gagging clauses that are intended to conceal from legitimate public scrutiny information that the public have every right to know. I have done that in advance of the wider statutory protection in the Public Interest Disclosure Bill, because I believe that unless NHS staff have the right to speak their mind, patients will never get the health services that they need. These measures clearly outlaw any attempt by any NHS employer to impose contractual codes of silence on their staff to protect wrongdoing.
  The NHS chief executive has also assured the Public Accounts Committee that such clauses have no place in the NHS. Perhaps nowhere in our public service is the freedom for staff to speak out more important than it is in the health service, which, with its almost 1 million staff, is the largest employer in Europe, and in which almost all of us place our trust at some point in our lives. In an organisation of that size, complexity and importance, genuine staff concerns arise. Because so many of us place so much faith and trust in the service, it is critical that such concerns are properly and thoroughly addressed.
  Monday's statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health on breast screening services at the Royal Devon and Exeter trust, and cervical screening services at the Kent and Canterbury hospital trust, was a salutary reminder of what can happen when poor practice is not adequately challenged and exposed. Behind a wall of silence bad practice thrives. Minor problems fester and grow. Those who suffer when bad practice remains concealed are the patients who use services, the public who pay for them, the staff who have to tolerate the intolerable at work, and, let us not forget, the employer who will, at the very least, suffer waste and inefficiency.
  For that reason, staff must be readily able to raise issues with their line managers and, where necessary, with the most senior levels of their organisations directly and, on occasions, publicly. Staff have sometimes raised issues in public and, in so doing, have provided an important safeguard for the public. It is essential that they act professionally and responsibly. Local management arrangements should be in place so that staff can raise concerns privately before that is ever an issue.
  As my hon. Friend rightly said, I reinforced the five messages that are contained in the current guidance to the NHS on relations with the public and media when I wrote to chairs of NHS trusts and health authorities on 25 September. First, the NHS exists to meet the needs of patients, which must be paramount. Individual members of staff have a right and a duty to raise with their employer any concerns that they may have about the delivery of care or health services to a patient or client in their authority, trust or unit. If patients or clients are detained under the Mental Health Act 1983, staff may also raise concerns with the Mental Health Act Commission.
  Secondly, every manager in the NHS has a duty to ensure that staff are easily able to express their concerns through all levels of management to the employing

  375
  authority or trust. Managers must ensure that any staff concerns are dealt with thoroughly and fairly. Thirdly, NHS employers should ensure that local policies and procedures are introduced to allow those rights and duties to be fully and properly met.
  Fourthly, staff in the NHS have an obligation to safeguard all confidential information, particularly about individual patients or clients. Such information is, under all circumstances, strictly confidential, even if staff believe that disclosure is in the patient's interest.
  Fifthly, under no circumstances will employees who express their views in accordance with this existing guidance be penalised for doing so. That does not justify disclosure that is not in the public interest. For example, malicious or frivolous disclosure is never justified. The guidance is clear that if, having exhausted local procedures, including reference to the chair of the employing body, employees are contemplating public disclosure, they are advised to seek professional advice to ensure that there is a soundly based case that disclosure is in the public interest.
  The new guidance that I have issued to NHS employers enshrines freedom of speech for health service staff. They should be able to raise issues of concern in a responsible manner, without compromising patient confidentiality and without fear of victimisation.
  Similarly, I have told NHS employers that racism has no part to play in a modern national health service. My hon. Friend alluded to allegations of racism surrounding this sorry case. I told health care human resource managers in September that I want them to identify racism wherever it is and act to stamp it out. Staff must know that they will be vigorously supported if they are discriminated against, and those who practise racism in the national health service must learn to expect zero tolerance.
  More generally, as my hon Friend may know, the Government support the Public Interest Disclosure Bill presented by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills
  376
  (Mr. Shepherd), which would protect those who express genuine concerns about victimisation. The Government are also committed to a freedom of information Act, which was a key manifesto pledge and is central to our programme to modernise and reform government. It will bring about a sea change, so that, instead of public bodies having the final say on what information is provided, people will have a statutory right to information. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that that is an important shift in the relationship between government and governed. It is long overdue in a mature democracy.
  My hon. Friend has raised a welter of serious concerns. I promise that I shall investigate them thoroughly. I have taken note of what he said, but I will examine the record closely. I repeat to my hon. Friend the invitation to write to me with further concerns, if he has them, and I give him an assurance that there will be a full and detailed investigation and a full and detailed reply to the anxieties that he has expressed.
  More generally, as my hon. Friend knows, Government bodies are answerable to the House for the proper use of their resources and the way in which they conduct themselves. It is intolerable that bad practice should continue. The Government are committed to ensuring that NHS staff have the mechanisms to identify and question bad practice and that, where necessary, they also have the right to raise issues such as this publicly, without victimisation. That right should be incorporated in law. We are also committed to exposing issues of concern by ensuring that both health authority and hospital trust board meetings take place in public and by ensuring that the current codes of practice on openness are replaced by a statutory right to information.
  It would be wrong to pretend that bad practice can ever be completely eliminated in any large organisation, but I believe that maximum exposure of the workings of the NHS to public scrutiny is the key to identifying and overcoming the problems that sometimes arise.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Eight o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Cash and Running Costs Limits
  Mr. Beard
  To ask the Attorney-General what proposals there are to change the 1997–98 cash limit or running cost limit for the work of Her Majesty's Procurator-General and Treasury Solicitor. [14043]

  The Attorney-General
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class VIII, vote 6 will be increased by £433,000 from £7,003,000 to £7,436,000. The running costs limit is also increased by £712,000 from £25,742,000 to £26,454,000. The increases reflect the increased demand for services, machinery of Government changes and a transfer of an end year flexibility amount from the Crown Prosecution Service to take account of the costs of the CPS review falling on the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers. The increase in the cash limit will be charged to the Reserve and will therefore not be an addition to the planned total of public expenditure.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  British Railways Board
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he has set the British Railways Board an external finance limit for 1997–98. [14922]

  Dr. Strang
  I have set the British Railways Board an external finance limit of £69.7 million for 1997–98.

  Transport Council
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the Transport Council held in Luxembourg on 9 October. [14923]

  Dr. Strang
  The Transport Council met in Luxembourg on 9 October. I represented the United Kingdom.

  The Council opened with a session of structured dialogue with Transport Ministers of the applicant central European countries—CECs. A report by the Commission on the recent Pan-European conference in Helsinki was followed by discussion of issues relating to market access. Three areas for future work were identified: the need to strengthen co-operation between the Community and the CECs; developing the mobility of citizens; and the need to take account of all modes of transport in negotiations in market access.
  194
  The Council discussed air transport negotiations with the US. The Commission's view was that, although Community discussions with the US on regulatory issues had been useful, further progress would not be made unless market access was brought within the scope of the negotiations. The UK noted that success in its current bilateral negotiations with the US would bring benefits for passengers from the UK and the rest of the EU. The UK and other member states expressed doubts about the Commission's approach. The presidency concluded that there should be further work by the Commission, and a report back to the December Council.

  The Council took note of the Commission's progress report on air transport negotiations with the CECs.

  The Council debated a draft directive on airport charges. The debate focused on two aspects of the directive: the use of charges for cross-subsidy of smaller regional airports; and the variability of charges to reflect environmental considerations. The Council invited the Committee of Permanent Representatives to continue its examination of the proposal.

  The Council reached unanimous political agreement on a directive on access to the occupation of road transport operator. This directive will raise the standards required of lorry, bus and coach operators in the Community.

  The Council agreed conclusions urging greater emphasis on the public-private partnerships approach to Trans-European Network projects.

  The Commission presented its White Paper on extension of the provisions of working time legislation to excluded sectors, including transport. It was noted that consultation with interested parties was still in progress. The UK, with some other member states, urged a case-by-case approach to the extension to transport, taking account of the needs of each form of transport.

  The Commission presented the case for a Community-wide blood alcohol limit of 50 mg per 100 ml. The UK expressed its determination to further reduce alcohol-related roads deaths, and noted that it was important to consider other ways of reducing drink-drive accidents as well.

  There was a discussion of weekend lorry bans in member states; the Commission undertook to produce draft legislation on this issue by the end of the year. The Commission also presented its draft regulation extending the Community's competition rules to air services to third countries.

  Tax Advice
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the expenditure by(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies, on (i) tax consultants and (ii) other external tax advice in (1) 1995–96, (2) 1996–97 and (3) 1997–98; and if he will make a statement. [13257]

  Angela Eagle
  For the Department and for non-departmental public bodies the information is not held centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. For agencies the figures are: 1995–96 Nil, 1996–97 £16,562 and 1997–98 (spend to date) £3,525.
  195
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the policy of his Department on the purchase of tax avoidance advice; and if he will make a statement. [13258]

  Angela Eagle
  One agency of the Department has used tax advisers to enable it to fulfil its statutory tax obligations rather than for tax avoidance purposes.

  Roads (Downland Design, Build, Finance and Operate Scheme)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what compensation payments are required to be made, and to whom, as a result of the decision not to proceed in July with the construction of the A27 Polegate bypass and associated works within the Weald and Downland DBFO scheme. [13776]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 3 November 1997]: We are currently considering whether the four consortia that submitted tenders for the Weald and Downland DBFO project should be compensated for their costs.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the total cost to the Government of compensation in respect of the postponement of the Downland DBFO Scheme. [14204]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We are currently considering whether the four consortia who submitted tenders for the Weald and Downland DBFO project should be compensated for their costs.

  Ordnance Survey
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to change the 1997–98 cash limit and net running cost limit for the Ordnance Survey. [14400]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary winter supplementary estimate for Ordnance Survey, the cash limit will be increased by a token of £1,000 from £6,759,000 to £6,760,000 and the net running cost limit increased from £3,025,000 to £3,026,000.

  This supplementary estimate reflects an increase in running cost expenditure of £2,001,000 from £73,970,000 offset by an increase in appropriations in aid of £2,000,000 from £78,180,000 to £80,180,000.

  Cash and Running Costs Limits
  Ms Ryan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to change his Department's cash limits and running cost limits for 1997–98. [14401]

  Mr. Prescott
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, my Department's cash limits will change as follows:(i) the cash limit for class V, vote 1—Highways Agency—will be increased by £10,229,000 from £1,562,329,000 to £1,572,558,000. The increase in the cash limit reflects the take-up of £11,979,000 capital end year flexibility amount
  196
  as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 17 July 1997, Official Report, columns 245–50, offset by an inter-vote transfer from this vote to class V, vote 2 of £1,750,000 for the ongoing motorway tolling project.
  (ii) the cash limit for class V, vote 2—Department of Transport: administration and transport services—will be increased by £3,625,000 from £158,075,000 to £161,700,000. The increase results from the take-up of £2,000,000 capital end year flexibility amount as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 17 July 1997, Official Report columns 245–50 and inter-vote transfers from class V, vote 1 of £1,750,000 and from class V, vote 5 of £85,000 for mobility unit expenditure to be re-classified as running costs, offset by inter-vote transfers from this vote to class V, vote 5 of £60,000 for priority routes in London and to class XIII, vote 2 of £150,000 for the Edinburgh City Car Club research project. Running cost provision for this vote increases by £85,000 from £86,436,000 to £86,521,000.
  (iii) the cash limit for class V, vote 5—Roads and local transport—will be increased by £1,675,000 from £313,863,000 to £315,538,000. The increase reflects the take up of £2,100,000 structural funds end year flexibility amount as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 17 July 1997, Official Report columns 245–50 and an inter-vote transfer from class V, vote 2 of £60,000, offset by an inter-vote transfer from this vote to class V, vote 2 of £85,000 and a reduction in the provision for licence fee refunds to goods vehicle and public service vehicle operators and drivers of £400,000.
  (iv) the cash limit for class V, vote 7—Passenger rail services—will be reduced by £51,000,000 from £1,516,385,000 to £1,465,385,000. The reduction reflects a £50,000,000 inter-vote transfer from this vote to class V, vote 3 for Metropolitan Railway Passenger Services Grant, and a £1,000,000 reduction in respect of reduced expenditure on consultants.
  (v) the DoT/LACAP (Local Authority Capital) non-voted cash limit will be increased by £7,150,000 from £349,193,000 to £356,343,000, to fund works associated with the rebuilding of Manchester city centre comprising of improvements to the Inner Relief Road, the development of a bus strategy and traffic management scheme and improved routes for pedestrians. The increase of £7,150,000 will be met by a call on the Reserve.
  As a consequence of the changes in (ii) above the gross running costs limit operating on class V, votes 1, 2, 4 and 6 will be increased by £85,000 from £373,274,000 to £373,359,000.
  (vi) the cash limit for class VI, vote 1—housing and construction, England—covering sections A, D to G, I, J and L of that vote, will be decreased by £3,325.000 from £599,708,000 to £596,383,000. An increase in the cash limit of £220,000 is offset by a decrease of £3,545,000. The increase is to meet residual additional administration costs the Housing Corporation is expected to incur in respect of the loan portfolio sale, funded from sale receipts. The decrease results principally from a reduction of £2,935,000 in homelessness grants current expenditure provision to fund an increase in rough sleepers initiative capital allocations through the Housing Corporation, which falls outside the cash limit. Of the remaining reductions, Estates Renewal Challenge Fund provision will be reduced by £500,000 to support registered social landlords' housing costs arising from the need to house people displaced from Montserrat as a result of volcanic activity on the island, and a reduction of £110,000 results from a reclassification of extra receipts recovered from homelessness grants, so that voted provision takes account of those receipts and is adjusted accordingly. The DETR/HC (Housing Corporation) cash limit will consequently be increased by £3,435.000 from £673,050,000 to £676,485,000.

  197
  (vii) a new DETR/CRI (Capital Receipts Initiative) cash limit will be introduced, subject to the passage of legislation, to cover the Government's initiative to release additional resources to support local authority spending on housing and housing associated regeneration. The limit on expenditure is set initially at £174,270,000.
  (viii) the cash limit for class VI, vote 2—regeneration and countryside and wildlife, England—will be increased by £36,116,000 from £1,480,168,000 to £1,516,284,000. An increase is required of £14,000,000 for the Urban Regeneration Agency (English Partnerships) to continue with works at Greenwich for the Millennium Exhibition and £7,230,000 for support for the regeneration of Manchester city centre; £8,000,000 for payments to be made for ERDF projects in advance of grant; £2,491,000 for the Teesside Development Corporation to meet a deficit as a result of judicial review; and £4,395,000 on three capital projects which had slipped from previous years. The increase will be met by a call on the Reserve of £17,991,000, the use of £10,125,000 end year flexibility amount as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 17 July 1997, Official Report columns 245–50, offset in part by the surrender of £4,000,000 of receipts to the Exchequer and a transfer of £8,000,000 from the DOE/ERDF non-voted cash limit.
  (ix) the DETR/ERDF (European Regional Development Fund) non-voted cash limit will be reduced by £8,000,000 from £146,332,000 to £138,332,000. This reflects gross payments to be made for ERDF projects in advance of European Community receipts. As a consequence of (viii) above, there will be increases to external financing limits for the Urban Development Corporations of £1,427,000 from £199,784,000 to £201,211,00; for the Urban Regeneration Agency (English Partnerships) of £46,000,000 from £204,779,000 to £250,779,000 and for the Housing Action Trusts of £512,000 from £88,688,000 to £89,200.00.
  (x) the cash limit for class VI, vote 4—local government and planning, England—covering sections A to F of that vote, will be reduced by £321,000 from £30,987,957,000 to £30,987,636,000. This reflects savings on payments to meet the expenses of valuation tribunals in Section A (Valuation services), on grant in aid to the Local Government Residuary Body in Section B (Reorganisation of local government) and on the European Union Spatial Planning Initiative in Section D (Planning and minerals research). The saving will be used within vote 4, to cover residual payments of council tax transitional reduction grant in Section H (Council tax transitional reduction grant) and of special grant to authorities affected by the terrorist bombings of Docklands and Manchester and emergency financial assistance under the Bellwin scheme in section 1 (Other grants), which are outside the cash limit on the vote.

  The overall increases will be offset by transfers or charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much money has been given to Derbyshire county council and Derby city council in revenue support grant from central Government for 1997–98 [13753]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Derbyshire county council received £166.734 million and Derby city council received £84.507 million revenue support grant for 1997–98.

  Rent Officer Service
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what decision has been made in relation to the future of the rent officer service; and how many responses were received during the consultation period. [13479]

  Ms Armstrong
  I announced on 7 August that I had concluded that there was a strong case for the creation of a Next Steps Agency for the Rent Officer Service in England. I said then that before taking a final decision I would be consulting interested parties, including the Local Government Association, the trades unions representing rent officers and their support staff, and other interested parties. That consultation is now complete, and I am grateful for the 63 responses I received from individuals and organisations. I am placing a summary of these in the Library.

  There is general agreement that the current arrangements are unsatisfactory, but views differ on the solution. Many respondents favoured the Agency proposal, but support was also expressed for various alternative proposals. I have given very careful consideration to all the views which have been submitted, but have concluded that none of the alternative suggestions would tackle satisfactorily the inherent problems of the Service, which are caused by the unclear pattern of accountability and local inconsistencies of approach. I have therefore decided to proceed with the establishment of a Next Steps Agency for the Rent Officer Service in England.

  My Department will now go ahead, in consultation with interested parties, to make preparations for establishing the Agency. It will be necessary to ensure that the implementation costs can be contained within the available public expenditure provision. For this reason, and because of the amount of detailed planning yet to be done, I cannot yet say when the Agency will become operational, but it will be as soon as practicable.

  Waste Dumping at Sea
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the time scale for ending the dumping of wastes at sea. [13025]

  Mr. Rooker
  I have been asked to reply.

  The United Kingdom is a contracting party to the Oslo convention for the prevention of marine pollution by dumping from ships and aircraft and its successor, the convention for the protection of the marine environment of the north-east Atlantic (the OSPAR convention) which is expected to come into force shortly. Under the OSPAR convention only the following may be considered for dumping.
  dredged material
  inert materials of natural origin, that is solid, chemically unprocessed geological material the chemical constituents of which are unlikely to be released into the marine environment;
  sewage sludge until 31 December 1998;
  fish waste from industrial fish processing operations; and
  vessels and aircraft until, at the latest, 31 December 2004.
  disused offshore installations and offshore pipelines.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  British Passports
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many passports were issued by the British embassy in Dublin in each of the last five years and how many were refused in each of those years specifying the most frequent reason for refusal. [13020]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The information is as follows:

  Passports issued

  Ineligible applications/refusals

  1993

  4,835

  12

  1994

  6,122

  24

  1995

  5,236

  17

  1996

  5,406

  20

  1997

  5,068

  11

  Total to date

  26,667

  84

  These figures do not include extensions, child additions or amendments. Entitlement to British passports is a matter of law. Passports are refused when the applicant is unable to prove identity or his or her claim to British nationality.

  Belarus
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made through diplomatic channels to the State of Belarus about the suspension of parliamentary democracy within that country. [13101]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We regularly make clear to the Belarus authorities our concerns over the constitutional and human rights situation in Belarus. Our ambassador in Minsk reiterated these concerns to Foreign Minister Antanovich at a meeting in September and officials from this Department made similar points to Deputy Foreign Minister Martynov in London in September.

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent contacts there have been between Her Majesty's Government and the state of Belarus. [13100]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Following the disputed constitutional referendum of November 1996, the EU General Affairs Council adopted Conclusions in February 1997, in accordance with which we have had no Ministerial contacts with Belarus. Officials from this Department made clear to Deputy Foreign Minister Martynov in London in September our concerns about the constitutional and human rights situation.

  Commonwealth Summit (Bananas and Sugar)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he had with representatives of Commonwealth Governments at Edinburgh concerning(a) the World Trade Organisation judgment on trade in bananas and (b) the consequential effects of such judgment on the Lomé agreement, with particular reference to its protocol concerning sugar. [13390]
  200
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met representatives of Caribbean Commonwealth Governments and discussed, among other things, their concerns about the implications of the World Trade Organisation ruling. He made clear that the UK would work for a new EC banana regime which was consistent with WTO rules and which took account of our obligations under the Lomé convention. He did not discuss the potential effects of the ruling on other preferential effects of the ruling on other preferential trading arrangements provided for under the Lomé convention. The Edinburgh economic declaration notes our support for the legitimate interests of the African Caribbean and Pacific banana producers and our resolve to work for a successor arrangement to the Lomé convention which gives the ACP adequate transitional arrangements.

  European Treaties
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs with which person or body articles of ratification of the treaty of Amsterdam will be deposited; if there is any time limit on such action; and what obligations will be placed on any member state, other than those entered into in the current treaties, if they are unable to deposit such articles or other necessary documents. [13050]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 30 October 1997]: Instruments of ratification of the Treaty of Amsterdam will be deposited with the Italian Government. No time limit has been set for ratifying the treaty. The treaty will only enter into force after all member states have ratified it and it will therefore impose no obligations on a state which does not ratify it.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish prior to consideration of the Bill enabling Her Majesty's Government to ratify the treaty of Amsterdam a consolidated version of the principal treaties of the European Community and Union combining the content of the treaties of Maastricht and Amsterdam. [13054]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 30 October 1997]: The intergovernmental conference agreed to attach to the Final Act, for illustrative purposes, the texts of the treaty on European Union and the treaty establishing the European Community as they result from the amendments made by the Treaty of Amsterdam. These texts are set out in Cm 3780. They do not form part of the treaty of Amsterdam and do not themselves require ratification.

  Immigration Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many letters from hon. members have been received since May relating to immigration matters; how many were received in the same period last year; what percentage of replies to hon. Members are signed by a Minister; and what are the factors which determine that such replies are signed in this way. [13199]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 30 October 1997]: Between 1 May and 31 October 5,812 letters were received from Members; 4,321 were received in the same period last year; around 11 per cent. are signed by a

  201
  Minister. There are no set factors determining which letters are signed by a Minister; each case is considered individually.

  Cash and Running Costs Limits
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes he proposes to make in his Department's cash limits and running cost limits for 1997–98. [14286]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates the following changes will be made:

  The cash limit for class II, vote 1 (Overseas Representation) will be increased by £9,050,000 from £619,826,000 to £628,876,000. The increase is required to cover the costs of major conferences, specifically the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, the EU Presidency and the Asia Europe Meeting, which total £9,000,000. There is also a transfer in of £50,000 from the Home Office for a contribution towards the fight against international drug trafficking.

  The gross running costs limit on class II, vote 1 will be increased by £9,050,000 from £525,763,000 to £534,813,000.

  The cash limit for class II, vote 2 (Other External Relations) will be increased by £12,600,000 from £217,215,000 to £229,815,000. The increase is required to cover UK contributions to certain OSCE, United Nations and WEU Missions of £12,000,000 and also for a transfer of £600,000 from the Home Office towards certain Overseas Drugs Assistance Programmes.

  In addition, the cash limit for class H, vote 3 (BBC World Service) will be reduced by £2,558,000 from £169,906,000 to £167,348,000. This reduction takes account of transfers to the Ministry of Defence of £3,444,000 and to the Cabinet Office of £327,000 to reflect the movement of the BBC World Service Monitoring Service to subscription-based funding. This is partially offset by the take-up of a capital end-year flexibility amount of £1,213,000 as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 17 July, Official Report, columns 245–50.

  The increases will be offset by transfers or charged to the Reserve, and will not, therefore, add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations concerning abuses of human rights Her Majesty's Government have made to the Czech and Slovak Republics. [13491]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 3 November 1997]: We are aware of reports of incidents of discrimination against members of the Roma community in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. We have been in contact with the Governments of the two countries, and do not consider these to be institutionalised abuses of human rights.

  Burma
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards democracy in Burma since 1 May. [14072]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) continue to repress pro-democracy and ethnic groups, and remain unwilling to enter into substantive dialogue with Aung San Suu Kyi and other political leaders. Ministers have made several statements since 1 May condemning the SLORC' s policies, and have supported the introduction of tougher measures against the SLORC at both the national and EU level.

  Australia
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his Australian counterpart concerning the arrangements being made for testing parliamentary and public opinion in Australia on whether that country should become a republic; and if he will make a statement. [14395]

  Mr. Fatchett
  None.

  Antarctic
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have been held with the Government of Japan concerning ratification of the Antarctic treaty. [14218]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Officials have discussed the ratification of the Environmental Protocol to the Antarctic Treaty with their Japanese counterparts several times in the past few months and have used these occasions to encourage Japan to ratify it at the earliest opportunity.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have taken place with the signatory nations to the Antarctic Environmental protocol; and when he expects to be able to make an announcement on the siting of the secretariat. [14219]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  There have been no further discussions since the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) in New Zealand in May this year when the Consultative Parties were unable to reach consensus on the location of the Secretariat. The next ATCM will be in May 1998.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Girocheques (Reissues)
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the percentage increase in 1996 of reissues of girocheques(a) in total and (b) by social security office that involved losses to her Department; and if she will make a statement. [13021]

  Mr. Worthington
  Responsibility for the subject has been delegated to the Social Security Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Chris Thompson. I have asked him to arrange for a response to be given.
  203
  Letter from Chris Thompson to Mr. Robert McCartney, dated 31 October 1997:
  I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question on the percentage increase, in 1996, of re-issues of girocheques.
  The percentage increase in 1996–97 of re-issued girocheques to benefit customers in Northern Ireland which led to losses to the Department of Health and Social Services was 16.9 per cent. This percentage excludes 234 re-issues in 1995–96 and 982 re-issues in 1996–97 which are still under investigation. The percentage change for each Social Security Office is given in the attached table.
  The main reason for the increase between 1995–96 and 1996–97 is that from November 1995, procedures in the Social Security Agency were brought in line with those of the Benefits Agency in Great Britain to reflect the legal position.
  Case law in Great Britain on the treatment of claims and payments places the burden of proof on the Department to show that the customer has received benefit from an instrument of payment which has been lost or stolen. This means that the Social Security Agency cannot delay in making a replacement payment, for example, to await the trace encashment of the original girocheque. Within this procedure, all reasonable practical precautions are of course taken before a payment is reissued.
  The Agency attaches much importance to the prevention of fraud and the use of taxpayers' money and, taking account of the concern expressed, is reviewing its existing procedures.
  I hope this explains the position for you but I would be happy to provide any further information you require.

  Number of girocheques re-issued with losses

  Issuing office

  1 April 1995 to 31 March 1996 Loss

  1 April 1996 to 31 March 1997 Loss

  Increase/decrease

  Percentage

  Antrim SSO

  25

  32

  +7

  +28

  Armagh SSO

  24

  23

  -1

  -4

  Ballymena SSO

  34

  60

  +26

  +76·4

  Ballymoney SSO

  8

  15

  +7

  +87·5

  Ballynahinch SSO

  4

  5

  +1

  +25

  Banbridge SSO

  4

  12

  +8

  +200

  Bangor SSO

  36

  64

  +28

  +77·8

  Carrickfergus SSO

  19

  67

  +48

  +252·6

  Coleraine SSO

  40

  60

  +20

  +50

  Cookstown SSO

  7

  18

  +11

  +157·1

  Downpatrick SSO

  41

  24

  -17

  -41·5

  Dungannon SSO

  30

  34

  +4

  +13·3

  Enniskillen SSO

  19

  36

  +17

  +89·5

  Foyle SSO

  178

  213

  +35

  +19·7

  Headquarters

  58

  57

  -1

  -1·7

  Kilkeel SSO

  1

  4

  +3

  +300

  Larne SSO

  12

  16

  +4

  +33·3

  Limavady SSO

  36

  35

  -1

  -2·8

  Lisburn SSO

  35

  30

  -5

  -14·3

  Lisnagelvin SSO

  28

  47

  +19

  +67·9

  Lurgan SSO

  22

  23

  +1

  +4·5

  Magherafelt SSO

  3

  10

  +7

  +233·3

  Newcastle SSO

  14

  6

  -8

  -57·1

  Newry SSO

  82

  73

  -9

  -11

  Newtownards SSO

  43

  38

  -5

  -11·6

  Omagh SSO

  24

  40

  +16

  +66·7

  Portadown SSO

  31

  33

  +2

  +6·5

  Strabane SSO

  35

  54

  +19

  +54·3

  Andersonstown SSO

  138

  195

  +57

  +41·3

  Casualties as a result of paramilitary style attacks

  Casualties as a result of paramilitary style assaults

  Casualties as a result of paramilitary style shootings

  Total casualties as a result of paramilitary style attacks

  Attribution

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Total

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Total

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Total

  Dates

  20 January 1997 to 19 July 1997

  42

  47

  89

  26

  14

  40

  68

  61

  129

  20 July 1997 to 28 October 1997

  18

  14

  32

  9

  3

  12

  27

  17

  44

  204

  Number of girocheques re-issued with losses

  Issuing office

  1 April 1995 to 31 March 1996 Loss

  1 April 1996 to 31 March 1997 Loss

  Increase/decrease

  Percentage

  Corporation Street SSO

  241

  242

  +1

  +0·4

  Falls Road SSO

  157

  144

  -13

  -8·3

  Holywood Road SSO

  79

  58

  -21

  -26·6

  Knockbreda SSO

  32

  32

  0

  0

  Newtownabbey SSO

  30

  49

  +19

  +63·3

  Shaftesbury Square SSO

  95

  69

  -26

  -27·4

  Shankill Road SSO

  89

  132

  +43

  +48·3

  Total

  1,754

  2,050

  +296

  +16·9

  Southern Health and Social Services Council
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which members of the Southern health and social services council belong to(a) the SDLP, and (b) the Ulster Unionist party; how many of these appointments were recommended by representatives of the Irish Government; and if she will make a statement. [13012]

  Mr. Worthington
  Monitoring information on the political activity of appointees to the Health and Social Services Councils has only been collected since July 1996. Of the 10 places, out of a full membership of 24, reserved on the Southern Health and Social Services Council for District Council nominees, five are held by SDLP members and five are held by members of the Ulster Unionist Party. The monitoring information held by the Department indicates that no political activity has been undertaken by the other members in the last five years.

  None of the members of the Southern Council were recommended for consideration for appointment by representatives of the Irish Government.

  Paramilitary Beatings
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list all recorded instances of paramilitary beatings in the period since the Provisional IRA ceasefire of July 1997, indicating in each instance whether the event was carried out by loyalist or republican groups and giving the equivalent figures of the preceding six months. [13856]

  Mr. Ingram
  The table illustrates the number of paramilitary style assaults and paramilitary shootings attributed to Loyalist and Republican groups since the Provisional IRA ceasefire on 20 July 1997 and equivalent figures for the previous six months.

  Forest Service
  Mr. Geraint Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has for the future organisation of the Forest Service of the Department of Agriculture. [14838]

  Majorie Mowlam
  As my colleague the Minister with responsibility for this matter, Lord Dubs, announced in another place on 16 October in reply to a question from baroness Nicol,Official Report, House of Lords, column 200, following consideration of a Prior Options Study, which was announced to Parliament on 7 March 1995, the Government have decided that the Forest Service should become a Next Steps Agency and that preparations should proceed with a view to agentisation with effect from 1 April 1998.

  Retained deficits of HPSS boards Northern Ireland

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Board

  Deficit (£ million)

  Percentage of budget

  Deficit (£ million)

  Percentage of budget

  Deficit (£ million)

  Percentage of budget

  EHSSB

  1·986

  0·37

  —

  —

  5·15

  0·95

  SHSSB

  —

  —

  1·582

  0·62

  5·2

  0·2

  WHSSB

  1·139

  0·53

  2·653

  1·16

  1·02

  0·44

  NHSSB recorded a surplus in each of the three years.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the(a) actual deficits and (b) projected deficits of each health trust as a percentage of their budgets for the last three years. [14271]

  Retained deficits of HSS trusts (Northern Ireland)

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Trust

  Deficit (£ million)

  Percentage of income

  Deficit (£ million)

  Percentage of turnover

  Deficit (£million)

  Percentage of turnover

  BCH

  0·997

  1·22

  0·586

  0·69

  2·406

  2·66

  CAH

  0·191

  0·45

  0·344

  0·76

  1·288

  2·82

  Northern Ireland Ambulance Service

  0·086

  1·22

  —

  —

  0·01

  0·05

  UNDAH

  1·014

  1·94

  0·32

  0·56

  1·857

  3·21

  RGH

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1·225

  0·9

  Green Park

  —

  —

  1·118

  2·34

  0·519

  1·04

  Mater

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·007

  0·38

  Craigavon/Banbridge

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·088

  0·27

  Newry/Mourne

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·25

  0·58

  North and West Belfast

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·839

  0·99

  Causeway

  —

  —

  0·378

  0·8

  —

  —

  Altnagelvin

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·109

  0·23

  Armagh/Dungannon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·092

  0·16

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Dispute Resolution
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how he intends to promote greater use of alternative dispute resolution in place of civil litigation. [13312]
  206
  The Forest Service is responsible for the implementation of Government forestry policy within Northern Ireland and performs broadly the same functions as the Forestry Commission in Great Britain. Agency status will give the service more flexibility in its commercial operations and in the delivery of Government forestry objectives.

  Health Authority Budgets
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the(a) actual deficit and (b) projected deficit of each health authority as a percentage of its budget for the last three years. [14464]

  Mr. Worthington
  The following schedule gives(a) the actual deficit for each of the HSS Health Boards in Northern Ireland for the years 1994–95, 1995–96, 1996–97 as per the audited accounts and (b) the deficit expressed as a percentage of each board's budget figure.

  Mr. Worthington
  [holding answer 4 November 1997]: The schedule gives (a) the actual deficit for each of the HSS trusts in Northern Ireland for the years 1994–95, 1995–96, 1996–97 as per the audited accounts and (b) the deficit figure expressed as a percentage of each trust's total income.

  Mr. Hoon
  The Lord Chancellor has recently approved pilot schemes for alternative dispute resolution at Bristol county court and in the Court of Appeal. A mediation pilot scheme has been running at Central London county court since May 1996. Before deciding the next steps, the Lord Chancellor will consider the outcome of research on the Central London scheme. The initial report is expected early next year.

  EU Regulations
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken to ensure the up-to-date publication of all amendments to the current United Kingdom law occasioned by European Union regulations. [13387]

  Mr. Hoon
  Queen's Printer's copies of all newly enacted Acts of Parliament and of Statutory Instruments implementing amendments to current United Kingdom law occasioned by European Union regulations are published promptly by The Stationery Office Limited. The text is also made available on the Internet. The explanatory note at the end of each Statutory Instrument which implements a European Union obligation will identify and cite the relevant European Union instrument.

  The Lord Chancellor's Department is setting up a statute law database to ensure publication of up to date amended text of United Kingdom Public General Acts of Parliament. Amendments made to those Acts by United Kingdom legislation in implementation of European Union obligations will be duly incorporated. It is not at present intended that the statute law database should include amended text of Statutory Instruments.

  Living Wills
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to amend the law relating to living wills; and if he will make a statement. [13146]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Law Commission report on mental incapacity published in 1995 includes recommendations relating to advance statements (sometimes referred to as living wills). As I indicated in my written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Hope) on 28 October,Official Report, column 787, the Government do not consider that it would be appropriate to legislate on the basis of these recommendations without fresh public consultation. It is hoped that a consultation paper will be issued by the end of the year.

  Magistrates Courts Committees (West Yorkshire)
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received from magistrates in West Yorkshire over the work of the joint magistrates committees; and if he will make a statement. [13398]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have received a letter from one magistrate from West Riding Metropolitan Magistrates Courts Committee which questioned the necessity for a magistrates courts committee for the area. I have also received a letter from the chairman of the Wakefield bench of that MCC concerning the committee's proposals to reallocate duties from the deputy clerks to an increased number of justices clerks and to remove the post of deputy clerk.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Tourism
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list his Department's priorities in relation to tourism during the United Kingdom presidency of the European Union. [12972]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  We believe that the main aim for the Tourism Unit in the Commission should be to ensure that, across the range of Commission responsibilities. account should be taken of the impact on tourism of decisions and actions, and that the employment and other opportunities represented by tourism should be recognised.

  We shall be announcing specific events for the British presidency relating to the Department's various responsibilities in due course.

  Cash and Running Costs Limits
  Mr. Miller
  to ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what changes he proposes to make to his Department's cash limit and running cost limit for 1997–98.[14011]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the cash limit for class X, vote 1 will be increased by £6,100,000 from £867,853,000 to £873,953,000 and the running costs limit reduced by £746,000 from £30,091,000 to £29,345,000. This is to provide for an increase in provision for the British Library St. Pancras project; to provide for additional maintenance expenditure for the British Library; an increase in provision for the refurbishment of Somerset House for the housing of the Gilbert Collection; transfers from the Department of Trade and Industry (class IV, vote 1) for Sector Challenge funding of tourist and media projects and for sponsorship of the music industry; and a transfer to the Home Office (class VII, vote 1) for voluntary services.

  The increases will be offset by transfers, savings and charges to the Reserve, and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

PRIME MINISTER

  Cash and Running Costs Limits
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he has to change the Cabinet Office: Security and Intelligence Services cash limits for 1997–98. [14278]

  The Prime Minister
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class XVIII, vote 2 will be increased by £5,606,000 from £713,307,000 to £718,913,000. The running costs cash limit will be increased by £5,606,000 from £362,082,000 to £367,688,000. The increase in running costs is needed to take on board transfers from OPS to the FCO and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Prime Minister what proposals there are to change the 1997–98 cash limit or running costs limit for the Cabinet Office: other services vote. [14308]
  209
  The Prime Minister
  The cash limit for Cabinet Office: other services (class XVIII, vote 1) will be increased by £1,291,000 from £36,153,000 to £37,444,000 and the running costs limit will be increased by £1,291,000 from £42,803,000 to £44,094,000.

  This is to reflect a transfer of £168,000 from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (class II, vote 3) for the BBC World Service Monitoring Service, which is moving to subscription based funding. The vote is also eligible for a running costs cash limit increase of £1,123,000 in respect of end year flexibility arrangements, as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 17 July 1997, Official Report, columns 245–250.

  The increase will be offset by transfers or charged to the Reserve, and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers living in the London borough of Barnet have had(a) a final determination of their asylum application made adverse to them and (b) how many of (a) above have been moved into deportation areas and have not yet left the country; and what is the cost to the London borough of Barnet and to central Government of supporting such persons, in total and on average. [13119]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I regret that the information requested is not available centrally. Information on where asylum seekers are living is not available centrally: we cannot therefore give any information on asylum seekers in the London borough of Barnet.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many unsuccessful asylum seekers are currently awaiting deportation from England and Wales; [13769]

  (2) how many unsuccessful asylum seekers are currently awaiting deportation from Scotland.[13770]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I regret that the information is not available separately for England and Wales, or for Scotland.

  The available information relates to asylum seekers whose initial decision was a refusal, who have subsequently had a deportation order signed and who have not yet left the United Kingdom. As at 30 September 1997, there were 1,510 such persons. That figure is provisional and excludes persons treated as illegal entrants or subject to port refusal procedures.

  Cash and Running Costs Limits
  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for changes to the 1997–98 cash and running costs limits within his responsibilities.[14066]

  Mr. Straw
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary token supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class VII, vote 1 (Home Office administration, police,210
  probation, immigration and other services, England and Wales) will be reduced by £510,000 from £4,729,171,000 to £4,728,661,000 and the running costs limit will be increased by £5,251,000 from £1,887,680,000 to £1,892,931,000.

  The changes in the cash limit are the net effect of the following:
  A transfer of £490,000 from the non voted cash limit HO/LACAP to fund expenditure on the National Crime Squad Headquarters. The transfer will reduce the HO/LACAP cash limit from £89,546,000 to £89,056,000.
  Transfers to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of £50,000 for the International Drugs Co-ordinator post and £600,000 in respect of inter-departmental drugs prevention projects in Pakistan and Colombia. A transfer to the Department of Health of £350,000 in respect of the Drugs Challenge Fund.
  The increase in the running costs limit is the net effect of payments relating to the transfer of responsibility for voluntary services from the Department of Culture, Media and Sport of £771,000; £30,000 for a payment from Cabinet Office in respect of the Government Information Service Head of Profession; £4,500,000 due to increased demand for passports and a transfer to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of £50,000 for the International Drugs Co-ordinator post.

  The increases will be offset by transfers and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Derbyshire Police Authority
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money has been given to Derbyshire county council through the revenue support grant for the county's police authority in each of the last three years. [13755]

  Mr. Michael
  The Derbyshire Police Authority is independent from the county council, an arrangement which was consequent on the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994. It is the Police Authority which is responsible for setting the budget. The budget is made up of police grant, revenue support grant, non-domestic rates (the business rate) and the police authority precept raised through the council tax. Providing the revenue support grant figure on its own would be uninformative and I have therefore provided a table which shows how the total spending power was made up in the three years referred to in the question.

  Derbyshire Police Authority

  £ million

  Year

  Home office grant

  Revenue support grant

  Non-domestic rates

  Police precept (Council tax)

  Total spending power

  1995–96

  43.76

  13.71

  17.8

  13.02

  88.3

  1996–97

  46.36

  13.14

  19.7

  13.3

  92.5

  1997–98

  48.09

  14.09

  18.89

  15.28

  96.3

  Mr. Jonathan Aitken
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis is to complete his investigations into the alleged perjury of Mr. Jonathan Aitken during his High Court action against The Guardian; and if he will make a statement. [13768]

  Mr. Michael
  This investigation is an operational matter for the Commissioner. The Commissioner informs me that the investigation is continuing and is being pursued as expeditiously as possible. At this time the Metropolitan Police do not have a date for the conclusion of the investigation. When the investigation is complete a report will be sent to the Crown Prosecution Service.

  Delegated Legislation
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all(a) secondary, (b) other delegated legislation and (c) all deregulation orders his Department made during the summer adjournment. [14374]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster today.

  Police Forces (Staff)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total number of(a) police officers and (b) civilian support staff, in each police force on (i) the last day for which figures are available and (ii) 1 May for each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [13724]

  Mr. Michael
  [holding answer 3 November 1997]: The latest date for which figures are available are those for 31 March 1997. Since 1995, police numbers are collected only twice a year. The strength figures for 1995 and 1996 are therefore those at 31 March. Prior to April 1995, they were collected every month. Police strength figures for 1992, 1993, and 1994 are therefore those for 30 April. Between 30 April 1992 and 30 March 1997, the number of police officers fell by 536. During the same period, the number of civilian support staff increased by 5,568. The information is set out in tables which have been placed in the Library.

  Police Act 1997
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when part V of the Police Act 1997 will be brought into force. [14174]

  Mr. Michael
  We are currently reviewing the provisions of part V of the Police Act 1997 in the light of our top priority in this area which is the protection of children and vulnerable adults.

  Immigration
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the criteria which govern the granting of exceptional leave to remain. [14207]
  212
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The criteria governing the granting of exceptional leave to remain depend on the particular exercise of discretion outside the Immigration Rules from which a person seeks to benefit. In addition, the Home Secretary may permit any foreign national to remain in the United Kingdom.

  Sex Offenders
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new measures he proposes to take to protect the community from sex offenders who pose a risk to the public. [14703]

  Mr. Straw
  I have published today a consultation paper on community protection orders. Copies are available in the Library.

  I propose that the chief officer of police will have the power to apply for an order in the civil courts if the behaviour of a person who has been convicted or cautioned for a sex offence, whether in this country or abroad, poses a risk of serious harm to the public.

  The order will require the defendant to register under the provisions of the Sex Offenders Act 1997, if he is not already required to do so. The court may also impose other prohibitory conditions as are necessary to protect the public.

  Fire Safety
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received the final report of the Community Fire Safety Task Force. [14547]

  Mr. Straw
  I have received the report of the Community Fire Safety Task Force and made arrangements for it to be published on 3 November. Copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  The task force was asked last November to propose a five year strategy to reduce the number of fires and fire casualties in dwellings. It has highly commended the enthusiasm with which fire safety and prevention work is already undertaken by some brigades. It wants to build on their success by putting community fire safety at the centre of both policy and action. It recommends a more integrated and business like approach to community fire safety, with the establishment of a national centre to co-ordinate activity and an increased role for Her Majesty's Fire Service inspectorate to support brigades in the delivery of imaginative, well targeted messages. It also recommends that community fire safety should be made a statutory duty of the fire service.

  I am grateful to task force members, who came from both the public and private sectors, for delivering an imaginative report in less than a year. I share their high regard for the enthusiasm and expertise of the fire service. It is a high performing service with an excellent record to which I pay tribute.

  We must, however, all be concerned by the rising trend in domestic fires, deaths and casualties and the task force therefore makes a strong case for an increased and co-ordinated emphasis on community fire safety. Community safety is not solely about reducing crime. It is about our wider responsibilities to make our

  213
  communities safe and confident. This report is an important contribution to that overall aim and I note that it strongly endorses the multi-agency approach.

  Before I take any decisions on the details of the strategy, I want to hear the views of chief officers, fire authorities and unions who have a crucial role to play in translating the strategy into action. We will therefore be consulting interested parties over the next few months before deciding how to respond to the report.

  Tax Advice
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the expenditure by(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies, on (i) tax consultants and (ii) other external tax advice in (1) 1995–96, (2) 1996–97 and (3) 1997–98; and if he will make a statement. [13261]

  Mr. Straw
  Expenditure by the Department, its agencies and non departmental bodies (NDPBs), on tax consultants and other tax advice for the three years in question is:

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  £

  £

  £

  (a) Departmental

  (i) Tax Consultants

  —

  —

  —

  (ii) Other

  49,688

  30,550

  16,450

  (b) Agencies

  (i) Tax Consultants

  —

  —

  —

  (ii) Other

  —

  25,000

  —

  (c) NDPBs

  (i) Tax Consultants

  11,268

  45,543

  4,000

  (ii) Other

  42,475

  36,672

  38,070

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the policy of his Department on the purchase of tax avoidance advice; and if he will make a statement.[13262]

  Mr. Straw
  The Department's policy is not to use tax advisers for tax avoidance purposes. Such advisers may be used to assist the Department in meeting its statutory tax obligations.

  Remand (Juveniles)
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for implementing court-ordered secure remand for juveniles. [14548]

  Mr. Michael
  At present, when juveniles—aged 10 to 16 years—are charged and not released on bail after a court appearance, they are remanded to local authority accommodation. The local authority may, if it can satisfy certain strict conditions, return to the court and seek a secure accommodation order to place the juvenile in local authority secure accommodation. Separate arrangements exist for 15 and 16-year-old boys who may be remanded direct to prison, again if strict conditions are met. The courts have no power to require any juvenile in this age group to be remanded directly to local authority secure accommodation.
  214
  There are, however, existing provisions on the statute book but not yet brought into force which would allow this to happen. Section 60 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 contains provision for the abolition of prison remands for 15 and 16-years-old boys, and gives courts a power to remand these boys. as well as 15 and 16-year-old girls, directly to local authority secure accommodation. Section 20 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 provides for the extension of court-ordered secure remands to 12 to 14-year-olds but only once the provision in section 60 of the 1991 Act has been implemented for 15 and 16-year-olds.

  Before the Government can implement section 60 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 and the provisions in the 1994 Act, there must be available a sufficient number of places to meet the expected demand. This is not the case at the moment. Whilst a building programme was put in place to provide 170 new secure places in local authority accommodation for this purpose, the number of juveniles remanded in custody has increased significantly since the building programme began and prison remands now typically stand within the 250 to 300 range. The demand from this group alone would significantly outstrip the capacity of the local authority secure estate even once the building programme has been completed.

  The Government are keen to begin implementation of those provisions and have decided to do so in stages. The Government will, therefore, implement the provision in relation to 12 to 14-year-olds as soon as practicable.

  The Government, therefore, propose:

  (a) that court-ordered secure remands for 12 to 14-year-olds and 15 and 16-year-old girls will be implemented as soon as practicable; and

  (b) that the courts should be able to remand the most vulnerable 15 and 16-year-old boys direct to local authority secure accommodation rather than to prison, subject to certain criteria and if a place has been identified in advance.

  Under the existing legislation court-ordered secure remands for 12 to 14-year-olds cannot be implemented without first doing the same for 15 and 16-year-olds. The Government intend to use this Session's Crime and Disorder Bill to make the necessary legislative changes; Royal Assent is unlikely before summer 1998. The Government remain committed to implementing the provisions in full and will keep the position under review, but we believe that our current approach is the most practical and effective way forward.

  As part of the Government's comprehensive spending review, we are also conducting a study of the whole range of secure accommodation for young people, including the local authority secure units. The Government wish to ensure that the assets and other resources employed in the accommodation and care of accused, convicted and other juveniles who need secure accommodation are used to best effect, including in meeting their educational needs and, where relevant, in tackling their offending behaviour. We will want to see how the proposed court-ordered remands and the associated accommodation fit into our plans for coming to grips with the present range of facilities which make up the juvenile secure estate. Our aim is to press on with this work as quickly as possible.
  215
  On 15 October, Directors of Social Services in England and Wales and the representative bodies of the local government associations and the directors of social services were informed of the Government's decision to implement these existing provisions. It was also suggested that there should be a meeting to discuss these proposals and the study of the juvenile secure estate. It is hoped that this meeting will take place shortly.

  Raves
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he intends to take to prevent the use of motorway service stations for rave parties; and if he will make a statement. [14315]

  Mr. Michael
  There are already powers available to the police to deal with the problem of illegal rave parties. Sections 63–67 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 empower the police to direct persons assembling on land to leave where it is believed that a large-scale gathering—of 100 or more—will take place and would cause serious distress to the inhabitants of the locality by the playing of amplified music during the night. Furthermore, in order to assist the police in preventing such events from taking place, the Act provides them with pre-emptive powers to direct people to leave the land where they reasonably believe that those people are preparing or gathering for such an event. The police also have powers to stop persons proceeding to a rave, or an intended rave, within a radius of five miles of its site.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many police man-hours were spent on the policing of rave parties in the last financial year in(a) England and Wales and (b) Cheshire; [14314]

  (2) what was the total cost of policing rave parties in the last financial year in (a) England and Wales and (b) Cheshire. [14316]

  Mr. Michael
  The information requested is not held centrally. The costs of specific activities carried out by the police is a matter for chief officers but police forces do not routinely hold information about the time spent on or the costs of individual operations. However, I understand from the Chief Constable of Cheshire that there were two rave parties in the last financial year at the M62 motorway service station at Burtonwood. A total of 220 officer hours was used in the policing of these events at a cost of approximately £3,600.

  David Shayler
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the injunction against The Mail on Sunday remains in force following the publication of further disclosures from David Shayler on 2 November. [14900]

  Mr. Straw
  Yes. The purpose of the injunction which the High Court granted against The Mail on Sunday was to prevent it from publishing any further material which could damage national security. The terms of the injunction restrained the newspaper from publishing any information provided by Mr. Shayler, but expressly did not apply to the publication of any material in respect of which the Crown serves written notice that it does not seek to restrain publication. The Editor of The Mail on Sunday provided me with a draft of the article which he
  216
  proposed to publish well in advance of the publication date. This enabled me to obtain an assessment from the Director General of the Security Service, who advised me that the article would not cause damage to national security if it were published. Notice was therefore given that we would not seek to restrain publication. The fact that the article was substantially wrong is another matter. The issue here is not necessarily whether a story is true or false as it is quite possible to conceive circumstances in which false accusations might nevertheless cause damage to national security.

  This is entirely consistent with the position which the Government have adopted all along. Our concern is to ensure that nothing is published which is likely to damage national security. Former members of the Security and Intelligence Services are in a position to make disclosures which intentionally or unintentionally can cause real damage to national security. The Government cannot stand by and let that happen. We have, however, never sought to suppress criticism of the Security Service—even where that criticism is misguided or inaccurate—provided that national security is not damaged.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Cash and Running Costs Limits
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proposals he has to change the 1997–98 cash limit or running cost limit for the Office of Public Service. [14158]

  Dr. David Clark
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the cash limit for the Office of Public Service (Class XVII, Vote 1) will be increased by £17,760,000 from £141,061,000 to £158,821,000 and the gross running cost limit will be decreased by £52,000 from £80,475,000 to £80,423,000.

  The changes reflect the take up of end-year flexibility of £9,000,000 under the end-year flexibility scheme announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 17 July 1997, Official Report, columns 245–250; an increase of £10,000,000 for gross provisions for opportunity cost rents; and transfers to the Department of Trade and Industry (Class IV, Vote 1) £300,000 and the Employment Service (Class IX, Vote 3) £940,000.

  The increase will be offset by transfers or charge to the Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Delegated Legislation
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list all(a) secondary, (b) other delegated legislation and (c) all deregulation orders his Department made during the summer adjournment. [14379]

  Dr. David Clark
  A full list of statutory instruments laid before the House, whether under the affirmative or the negative procedure during the summer adjournment, is contained in the House of Commons Votes and Proceedings dated Monday 27 October 1997, which has been publicly available since Tuesday 28 October 1997.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Beef Refreshment Department
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee what were the countries of origin of beef served in the Palace of Westminster in each of the last three months; and if he will make a statement as to the percentage of beef supplied from each country. [13962]

  Mr. Turner
  All beef served by the House of Commons Refreshment Department during the last three months was of British origin.

  Parliamentary Groups
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what steps he is taking to ensure the compliance of all parliamentary groups and committees to be recognised and listed with the rules and undertakings required of them, with particular reference to those referring to membership. [12540]

  Mrs. Roe
  [holding answer 27 October 1997]: At its meeting on 4 November, the Administration Committee considered whether any amendments to the existing regulations concerning All Party and Parliamentary Groups might be appropriate. The Committee determined that the current regulations, approved by the House on 20 March 1997, were adequate, and did not consider that further revision was necessary. However, I would expect any hon. Member to draw to my attention any incidences of where they consider the regulations might have been breached.

HEALTH

  Pharmaceutical Industry
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what formal discussions he has held with pharmaceutical industry leaders. [13921]

  Ms Jowell
  My noble Friend, the Minister for Health holds the main ministerial responsibility for the pharmaceutical industry. She met representatives of their trade association, the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, on 17 June. A further meeting is planned for 26 November. Both she and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health have also had a number of informal meetings with representatives of individual companies.

  Officials also keep us in touch with matters of concern to the industry through the joint industry/government Industry Strategy Group, a forum which meets regularly to discuss issues of mutual interest.

  Child Labour
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to implement the remainder of European Council directive 94/22/EC on the Protection of Young People at Work on child employment, following its consultation with local authorities and others. [13912]
  218
  Mr. Boateng
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will announce in due course proposals further to safeguard the interests of young people at work.

  NHS Charges Certificates (Stockton)
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS charges certificates (AG3) were awarded in the area of Stockton borough council or the related local DSS offices; and what plans he has to improve the quality of information available to the public in respect of the use of the certificates. [13744]

  Mr. Milburn
  National Health Service low income Scheme charges certificates AG3 were replaced by HC3 from 1 June 1997. The new version was introduced following consumer testing and provides clear information to the user. During the period 1 December 1996, when computer records were introduced, to 31 May 1997, when the AG3 was replaced, 2,855 AG3s were sent to people providing a Stockton postcode ("TS") with their low income scheme claim.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes will be made to the cash limits of his Department in 1997–98. [13695]

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes will be made to the cash limits of his Department in 1997–98. [14054]

  Mr. Dobson
  Subject to parliamentary approval, the cash limit for class XI, vote 1 (hospital, community health, family health and related services, England) will be increased by £3,982,000 (from £29,349,456,000 to £29,353,438,000). This allows for a transfer of £2,457,000 from class XI, vote 2 (Department of Health administration, miscellaneous health and personal social services, England) for the Medical Device Evaluation Service and an increase of £2,000,000 for the Drugs Challenge Fund made up of a claim on the Reserve (£1,000,000) and by transfers from class VII, vote 1 (Home Office administration, police, probation, immigration and other services, England and Wales) (£350,000), class IX, vote 1 (Department for Education and Employment: programmes and central services) (£300,000) and class XI, vote 2 (£350,000). The overall increase is partially offset by transfers of £367,000 to class XIV, vote 4 (Hospital, community health, family health services and other health services (part), Wales) for Cuyler Declaration, on rebasing of funds between central budgets and health authorities; £8,000 to Department of Health and Social Services, Northern Ireland for the National Poisons Information Service and £100,000 to class XI, vote 2 for the Xenotransplantation Interim Authority.

  The cash limit for class XI, vote 2 (Department of Health, administration, miscellaneous health services and personal social services, England) will be reduced by £2,987,000 (from £998,724,000 to £995,737,000). This reduction allows for transfers of £2,737,000 for the Medical Device Evaluation Service made up of transfers to class XI, vote 1 (Hospital, community health, family health and related services, England) (£2,457,000), class XIV, vote 4 (Hospital, community health, family health

  219
  services and other health services (part), Wales) (£187,000) and to the Department of Health and Social Services, Northern Ireland (£93,000); and a transfer of £350,000 to class XI, vote 1 for the Drugs Challenge Fund. The overall reduction is partially offset by a transfer of £100,000 from class XI, vote 1 as mentioned above.

  The non-voted cash limit for supplementary credit approvals or personal social services (DoH/LACAP) in England is to be increased by £429,000 from (£14,700,000 to £15,129,000) in respect of the take up of the end year flexibility entitlement as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 17 July 1997, Official Report, columns 245–250.

  The Department's gross running cost limit will be reduced by £800,000 from £260,929,000 to £260,129,000. This reflects a reallocation for the NHS Health Advisory Service.

  All increases will either be offset by savings, increased receipts or transfers to or from other votes or charged to the Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Tax Advice
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the expenditure by(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies on (i) tax consultants and (ii) other external tax advice in (1) 1995–96, (2) 1996–97 and (3) 1997–98; and if he will make a statement. [13267]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) have spent the following on

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  £

  £

  Estimated £

  (i) Tax consultants:

  (a) Department of Health

  nil

  nil

  15,000

  (b) DH Agencies

  nil

  nil

  nil

  (c) NCPBs

  26,000

  19,000

  13,000

  (ii) Other external tax advice: One NDPB uses a telephone Pay As You Earn advisory service at a cost of £180 per annum.

  This expenditure has been to provide advice on the proper interpretation of tax law.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the policy of his Department on the purchase of tax avoidance advice; and if he will make a statement. [13268]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Department has used tax advisers to enable it to fulfil its statutory tax obligations rather than for tax avoidance purposes.

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his assessment on the effect of the delivery of NHS services over the next two years of the need to 220
  divert moneys from within his budget to deal with the millennium computer compliance problem in the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [13250]

  Mr. Milburn
  The likely cost to the National Health Service of ensuring that systems are millennium compliant is difficult to forecast accurately. Guidance has recently been issued to chief executives outlining the action they are expected to take to deal with the millennium problem. Much of the work required is likely to be funded from budgets already allocated to supporting NHS information management and technology needs.

  Cold-related Illnesses
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths where hypothermia was mentioned on the death certificate as the main or contributory cause of death, took place in England and Wales in(a) 1994, (b) 1995, (c) 1996 for (i) all age groups, (ii) people aged 65 years and over and (iii) people aged 80 years and over. [14258]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Nigel Evans, dated 5 November 1997:
  I have been asked to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on the numbers of deaths in England and Wales where hypothermia was mentioned on the death certificate as the main or contributory cause of death in 1994, 1995 and 1996.
  The information requested is shown in the table below:

  Deaths with a mention of hypothermia, England and Wales 1994–96

  All ages

  Age 65 and over

  Age 80 and over

  1994

  345

  286

  186

  1995

  338

  283

  192

  1996

  414

  356

  244

  Deaths
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths were registered in England and Wales between(a) 1 April 1996 and 30 September 1996 and (b) 1 October 1996 and 31 March 1997, for people aged (i) 60 to 69 years, (ii) 70 to 79 years, (iii) over 80 years and (iv) in total. [14256]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Nigel Evans, dated 5 November 1997:
  I have been asked to reply as Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on how many deaths were

  221
  registered in England and Wales between (a) 1st April 1996 and 30th September 1996 and (b) 1st October 1996 and 31st March 1997, for people aged (i) 60 to 69 years, (ii) 70 to 79 years, (iii) over 80 years and (iv) in total.
  The information requested is shown in the table below:

  Deaths registered in England and Wales

  Age

  1 April 1996 to 30 September 1996

  1 October 1996 to 31 March 19971

  60-69 Years

  36,823

  39.891

  70-9 Years

  74,241

  85,340

  80 and over

  115,932

  146,033

  All ages

  258,596

  304,804

  1Data for 1997 are Provisional.

TREASURY

  European Single Currency
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what communication on the subject of the European single currency has taken place between his special adviser Ms Sue Nye and Mr. Gavyn Davies of Goldman Sachs. [13411]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  None.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what applications the Government have made for EU funding to inform or persuade the public about the single European currency.[13187]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 30 October 1997]: I refer to the answer that I gave to the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on 27 October, Official Report, column 656.

  Application for funding is to inform businesses about the implications of the single currency, whether or not we join. It is a condition of the rules governing the EC funds that information measures must not be regarded as propaganda.

  Government Debt
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total value of debt issued by the Government each day between 25 September and 18 October. [13380]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government issued £1.5 billion of 8 per cent. 2,021 stock on Thursday 25 September, and £150 million of index-linked stock on Thursday 2 October.

  Government Bonds
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what changes took place in the price of Government bonds between noon and the closing of the financial markets on Thursday 25 September; [13402]

  (2) what changes took place in the price of Government bonds between the opening and closing of the financial markets on Thursday 25 September. [13404]
  222
  Mrs. Liddell
  The movement in the price of gilts (UK government bonds) on Friday 17 October are shown in the following table:

  Price of benchmark gilts

  7 per cent.2002

  7.25 per cent. 2007

  8 per cent.2021

  Opening price

  101-06

  104-21

  117-13

  Closing price

  101-06

  104-22

  117-10

  Change from previous day's close

  +0-01

  +0-02

  -0-01

  Day's high

  101-11

  104-02

  117-25

  Day's low

  101-00

  104-10

  116-23

  Prices quoted in 32nds.

  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes took place in the price of Government bonds between the opening and closing of the financial markets on Friday 17 October. [13403]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The movement in the price of gilts (UK Government bonds) on Friday 17 October are shown in the following table:

  Price of benchmark gilts

  7 per cent. 2002

  7.25 per cent. 2007

  8 per cent. 2021

  Opening price

  101-15

  105-09

  117-17

  Closing price

  101-19

  105-18

  118-07

  Change from previous day's close

  -0-01

  0-00

  +0-05

  Day's high

  101-21

  105-22

  118-14

  Day's low

  101-08

  104-29

  117-05

  Price quoted in 32nds.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what disciplinary action has been taken against his special adviser Mr. Charlie Whelan for discussing market sensitive information in a public place; [13406]

  (2) which Minister in his Department authorised his special advisers to brief The Times and other newspapers on the subject of the Government's policy towards European monetary union on Friday 17 October; [13407]

  (3) at what locations his special adviser, Mr. Charles Whelan, conducted press briefings containing market sensitive information by mobile phone on 17 October. [13984]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  The terms under which special advisers work are set out in their contracts, a model copy of which is available in the Library. These build upon the rules in force under previous Administrations.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has(a) received and (b) requested advice on the subject of EMU from Mr. Gavyn Davies, chief economist of Goldman Sachs. [13410]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  Since 1 May, and following the publication of the Lord Currie reports on EMU, Treasury Ministers and officials have received representations and information from a wide range of people, including Mr. Gavyn Davies.
  223
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what legal actions his Department is pursuing against newspapers regarding reports relating to trading in the period before the publication of Government briefing on EMU. [13408]

  Mrs. Liddell
  None.

  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Government have notified their European partners that the United Kingdom will not move to the third stage of economic and monetary union on 1 January 1999. [14898]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  Following my statement to the House on 27 October,Official Report, columns 583–88, and in accordance with paragraph 1 of Protocol (No. 11) of the Maastricht Treaty, the Government formally notified the Council of the European Union on 30 October 1997 that the United Kingdom does not intend to move to the third stage of economic and monetary union on 1 January 1999. The Treaty enables the United Kingdom to reverse this notification after the beginning of the third stage.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is the Government's intention to rejoin the European exchange rate mechanism two years prior to entering the third stage of EMU. [13775]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 3 November 1997]: The Government have no intention of joining the ERM.

  Gilts Futures
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will investigate the trading in gilts futures in the period before the Financial Times story of 26 September.[13409]

  Mrs. Liddell
  This is a matter for the regulatory authorities and their supervisors.

  Registry of Friendly Societies
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes are proposed to the cash limit of the Registry of Friendly Societies in 1997–98. [14753]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Subject to approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the cash limit for the Registry of Friendly Societies Class XVI, Vote 9 will be increased by £775,000 from £3,767,000 to £4,542,000. The additional provision is required for capital expenditure arising out of the late completion of the Department's relocation project. The increase is partially funded by the take up of £189,000 carried forward under the end year flexibility scheme for capital, as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 17 July,Official Report, cols 245–50. The increase will be charged to the Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Cash Limits and Running Costs
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes are proposed to the cash and running costs limit of Her Majesty's Treasury in 1997–98. [14754]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the running costs limit for Class XVI, Vote 1 will be increased by £1,051,000 224
  from £55,509,000 to £56,560,000 and the cash limit will be increased by £1,901,000 from £61,286,000 to £63,187,000. The increases are necessary to provide for the partial take up of running costs end year flexibility as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 17 July, Official Report, columns 245–50, to meet various new commitments (net of offsetting savings and changes in receipts); to provide for a grant in aid to the Private Finance Taskforce which succeeds the Private Finance Panel; and to give effect to the Chancellor's commitment to pay over to the Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund a sum equivalent to VAT paid on "Candle in the Wind".

  The increase will be charged to the Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Reserve
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the size of the current reserve for(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99. [13188]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 30 October 1997]: I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 30 July 1997, Official Report, column 347.

  Departmental Expenditure Ceilings
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes he has made to departmental expenditure ceilings within the controlled total for(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99 since the budget. [13186]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 30 October 1997]: The 1997–98 Summer Supplementary Estimates reallocated £65 million within the public expenditure control total. Of this £13 million was met from within existing departmental programmes and £52 million charged to the Reserve. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced on 14 October that £300 million would be reallocated to the NHS for patient services in 1997–98; £30 million of this would be offset by administrative savings in the health budget, £102 million from reductions in the external financing limit for BNFL and £168 million from a reduction in the MOD cash limit.

  For 1998–99 the departmental expenditure ceilings within the control total remain as at the July Budget.

  Government Expenditure
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of general Government expenditure for(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98 and (c) 1998–99 taking account of recent changes to the gross domestic product deflator and other factors. [13185]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 30 October 1997]: The Government's estimates for general Government expenditure were set out in the FSBR in July. They were £309.0 billion for 1996–97, £319.4 billion for 1997–98 and £331.3 billion for 1998–99. These reflect the Government's plans for the cash control totals and the latest forecasts for other spending.

  Legal Action (Public Funding)
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what public funding has been provided for to fund legal action currently being undertaken by his special adviser, Mrs. Sue Nye. [13983]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  [holding answer 3 November 1997]: None.

  Two-pound Coin
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the delay in introduction of the £2 coin. [13365]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 3 November 1997]: The Government have decided to change the launch date of the £2 circulation coin from 3 November 1997 to March 1998 because of a potential problem with the "electronic signature" of the coin in vending and other machines. A further statement will be made when investigative work is completed.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Higher Education
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action he intends to take to implement the Dearing Committee's recommendations on governing bodies in higher education; and if he will make a statement. [14061]

  Dr. Howells
  We are considering the responses to the consultation exercise undertaken following publication of the report of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education, including the views received on the recommendations on governing bodies in higher education, and will announce our response later in the year.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of 16 to 19-year-olds in Warrington, North constituency, broken down by ward, entered higher education in(a) 1996–97 and (b) in each of the last five years. [14060]

  Dr. Howells
  The information requested is not compiled centrally because, although the HESA data include the post code of each student, this is not routinely aggregated to below local authority level. The available HESA data show the number of students aged under 20 whose home LEA was Cheshire and who entered a higher education course in a UK higher education establishment (Warrington comprises around 19 per cent. of Cheshire in general population terms). The figures were 3,400 in 1994–95, 3,900 in 1995–96 and 4,300 in 1996–97. Comparable data for the years prior to 1994–95 are not readily available.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he intends to take to encourage higher education funding bodies to finance pilot projects which allocate additional funds to institutions which enrol students from particularly disadvantaged localities; and if he will make a statement. [14059]
  226
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will follow the recommendations of the Dearing report in respect of allocating funds for higher education to those institutions committed to widening participation; and what support he plans to offer to those universities to help plan and monitor admissions and participation levels. [14359]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government are committed to increasing and widening access to higher education. My hon. Friend recently announced an extra £165 million for higher education in 1998–99, which includes a £36 million access package, which will benefit part-time students and those facing particular hardship, as well as an extra £4 million to enable more students to participate in higher education.

  We welcome the recommendations of the Dearing report for widening access, in particular that additional funding for university places should be targeted at those institutions which put forward plans for widening access. We shall be following up these recommendations in the light of the responses to the consultation on the Dearing report.

  In the meantime, we welcome the decision by the Higher Education Funding Council for England to reconvene its Advisory Group on Access and Participation. The group will be considering the possibilities for further action, including the specific actions proposed by the Dearing Committee, and will advise the Council on its access and participation strategies, including joint activity with the Further Education Funding Council and other partners.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many pupils living in(a) the Devon county council area and (b) the Torbay travel-to-work area have been funded by the assisted places scheme in each of the last three years. [13894]

  Mr. Byers
  Information about the county council or travel-to-work areas from which assisted pupils originate is not collected centrally. The numbers of assisted pupils in participating schools in Devon in academic years 1994–95, 1995–96 and 1996–97 were 793,817 and 942 respectively.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people have been refused all jobseeker's allowance payments after interview; and what proportion this is of those interviewed. [14216]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, dated 5 November 1997:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about how many people have been refused all Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) after interview, and what proportion this is of those interviewed. This is something that falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.

  227
  The Employment Service conducts many different types of interview with jobseekers. These start at the new claims stage and develop as unemployment lengthens. The new jobseeker's interview is important in establishing whether jobseekers meet the labour market conditions for receiving JSA. It is normally at this stage that a Jobseeker's Agreement is drawn up and jobseekers are made aware of their responsibilities in order to receive JSA. Thereafter, entitlement to JSA is reviewed at interviews every fortnight. We also use these opportunities to offer jobseekers further advice and help in their search for work. Jobseekers are also asked to attend a Restart Interview at regular six monthly intervals at which they are offered further advice and information about employment and training opportunities. Beyond this interviews may take place for a variety of other reasons.
  Questions about a jobseeker's entitlement to JSA could arise at any of the interviews referred to above. In these instances, there may be a reference to an independent Adjudication Officer for a decision on benefit entitlement.
  Statistics on the numbers and types of decisions given by ES Adjudication Officers on labour market questions are recorded in a quarterly summary, the 'Analysis of Adjudication Officers' Decisions', a copy of which is held in the Library. As questions about a person's entitlement can arise during different types of interviews, it would be misleading to compare the total figures of disallowances with the total numbers of ES interviews in any given period. JSA claims can be disallowed on labour market grounds or because of failure to meet the conditions of benefit receipt. However, some broad indication of volumes can be given by comparing the total number of JSA new claims with the number of awards of "nil benefits". This means simply the number of JSA new claims that, following assessment by Benefits Agency who are responsible for JSA payment, result in no payment award. This could be for a wide variety of reasons for inadequate contributions, payments from previous employment, etc, to failure to meet the labour market conditions for receipt of JSA.
  In the period from 1 April 1997 to 30 September 1997, 1,571,325 claims to JSA were processed and there were 239,567 awards of nil benefits. These figures are based primarily on information held by the JSA Payments System. They include a small number of claims held on the earlier ISCS system because they linked back to an earlier Income Support claim.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Tax Advice
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the policy of his Department on the purchase of tax avoidance advice; and if he will make a statement. [13256]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department's policy on tax advice is that tax avoidance advice may be necessary where there are complex tax issues. However, the Department would not incur expenditure on advice to reduce tax liability where the reduction does not relate to the pursuit of real gains in efficiency.

  In practice, where particularly difficult tax issues arise, the Department consults the Inland Revenue or HM Customs directly. The Department has not purchased outside tax avoidance advice, and has no plans so to do.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the expenditure by(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) non departmental public bodies on (i) tax consultants and (ii) other external tax advice in (1) 1995–96, (2) 1996–97 and (3) 1997–98; and if he will make a statement. [13255]
  228
  Dr. Howells
  Neither the Department nor any of its agencies has incurred any such expenditure. Where difficult tax issues arise, the Department consults the Inland Revenue or HM Customs directly.

  Information relating to expenditure on tax advice by NDPBs can only be supplied at disproportionate cost.

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will set out the differences in the level of proposed payments of higher education tuition fees between residents of the United Kingdom according to(a) the location of the institution at which they are studying and (b) their own place of normal residence; and what are the reasons for these differences. [14058]

  Dr. Howells
  Full-time undergraduate students will be required to contribute up to a maximum of £1,000 a year in tuition fees, depending on their parents', spouses' or own income. The requirement will apply to students resident in all parts of the United Kingdom and studying in publicly funded institutions throughout the UK, except for medical and dental students in the fifth and subsequent years of study.

  Students resident in Scotland and studying in Scottish institutions on honours degree courses that are a year longer than equivalent courses elsewhere in the UK will, however, have their fees paid in the final year of the course by the Scottish Student Awards Agency. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has decided to give special consideration to such students in the light of recommendations from the Dearing and Garrick reports and in recognition that many Scottish students have had only one year's education after statutory schooling before entering university, compared with the two years that students resident elsewhere in the UK have had.

  Cash and Running Costs Limits
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what changes are planned in cash limits and running cost limits on votes within his responsibility for 1997–98. [14450]

  Dr. Howells
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit or class IX, vote 1, Department for Education and Employment: programmes and central services, and class IX, vote 3, Employment Department will be amended as follows:

  Existing cash limit

  Chance

  New cash limit

  Class

  Vote

  £

  £

  £

  IX

  1

  9,419,464,000

  85,613,000

  9,505,077,000

  IX

  3

  1,155,101,000

  80,376,000

  1,235,477,000

  229
  The cash limit for class IX, vote 1 (Department for Education and Employment) will be increased by £85,613,000 (of which £84,930,000 is in respect of the welfare-to-work programme and is outside the Control Total) from £9,419,464,000 to £9,505,077,000.

  This is the result of an increase in £83,500,000 in capital expenditure on schools and £1,330,000 in running costs in connection with the welfare-to-work programme, and £100,000 in current expenditure on millennium volunteers, all to be financed from the windfall tax as announced in the Budget on 2 July and outside the Control Total.

  The Department has also taken up part of end year flexibility amounts announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 17 July, Official Report columns 245–50 of £1,602,000 under the capital scheme and £172,020,000 under the structural funds scheme. An increase of £1,019,000 in expenditure on specialist schools in Section T has been offset by a corresponding decrease in the DfEE/LACAP cash limit from £73,126,000 to £72,107,000; and £40,000 has been switched from Section 0 (a cash limited section) to Section P (a non-cash limited section) to support additional expenditure on school council pensions.

  A transfer of £300,000 has been made to class XI, vote 1 (Department of Health) for the Drugs Challenge Fund and £162,000 to class XIV, vote 2 (Welsh Office) in respect of National Vocational Qualifications. In addition, a transfer of £3,015,000 in running costs and £1,579,000 in appropriations in aid has been made to class IX, vote 3 (Employment Service) in respect of the lease for the 236 Grays Inn Road building in London. The opportunity has also been taken to transfer £600,000 from running costs to current expenditure in Section 0 to reclassify some expenditure on publicity.

  The cash limit for class IX, vote 3 (Employment Service) will be increased by £80,376,000 from £1,155,101,000 to £1,235,477,000. The increase results from the following: £78,000,000 in respect of the welfare-to-work programme of which £48,000,000 is running costs, £25,000,000 is capital provision, and £5,000,000 is current expenditure, all financed from the windfall tax; a transfer of £3,015,000 in running costs and £1,579,000 in appropriations in aid from class IX, vote 1 (DfEE) in respect of the lease for the 236 Grays Inn Road building in London; and a transfer of £640,000 in running costs and £300,000 in capital expenditure from class XVII, vote 1 (Cabinet Office) for the lease of Ebury House, Aberdeen.

  I also wish to take this opportunity to announce that the Office for National Statistics has advised that with immediate effect, Remploy Limited, should be classified as a public corporation in order to comply with the requirements of the 1995 european System of Accounts. This is a technical change only and will not affect Remploy's status as a non-Departmental Public Body, not its relationship with the Department.

  As a result of these changes, the running costs provision within the Control Total for class IX, vote 1 (DfEE) will be decreased by £3,577,000 from £255,564,000 to £251,987,000 whereas the running costs provision within the Control Total for class IX, vote 3 (Employment Service) will be increased by £3,655,000 from
  230
  £801,576,000 to £805,231,000. The overall running costs limit for the DfEE is therefore increased by £78,000 from £1,057,140, to £1,057,218,000.

  As a result of provision relating to the welfare-to-work programme, running costs provision outside the Control Total for class IX, vote 1 (DfEE) is £1,330,00 and for class IX, vote 3 is £48,000,000, giving a non-Control Total running costs limit of £49,330,000.

  The control total element of the increases will be offset by transfers or charged to the Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

SCOTLAND

  Cash and Running Costs Limits
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what changes he intends to make to the cash limits and running costs provision for 1997–98 within his responsibility.[14840]

  Mr. Dewar
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, I intend to make changes to nine voted cash limits, four non-voted cash blocks and seven running cost limits:The cash limit for class XIII, vote 1, Agriculture, fisheries and environmental services, Scotland, will be increased by £3,117,000 from £309,772,000 to £312,889,000. Within this total, the running costs provision has been increased by £617,000 to £29,826,000. This takes account of £305,000 take up of end year flexibility as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 17 July (Official Report: columns 245–50) for Agency running costs, and a transfer of £2,812,000 from vote 6 to provide additional grant in aid for the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and additional running costs for the Fisheries Research Services Agency and Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency.
  The cash limit for class XIII, vote 2, Local Government, Housing, Transport, Other Environmental Services and European Funds, Scotland will be increased by a net total of £10,301,000 from £5,473,575,000 to £5,483,876,000. The net increase reflects a transfer of £3,000,000 from SO/ERDF to cover expenditure on the empty homes and rough sleepers initiative; an increase of £1,350,000 from SO/ERDF to cover additional costs to local authorities as a result of implementation of the Pennington recommendations; a transfer of £150,000 from class V, vote 2 for the Edinburgh City car club project; an increase of £600,000 for the Council Tax District Equalisation Scheme and £1,586,000 for the Council Tax Collection scheme transferred from SO/ERDF and SO/LAI respectively; an increase to provision for Historic Scotland of £1,845,248 covering an increase in running cost provision of £1,390,248, and an increase of £455,000 in capital provision reflecting take up of end year flexibility entitlement in respect of capital; an increase in provision of £25,000 for the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland, offset by a matching reduction in class XIII, vote 6; a net increase of £1,245,000 for Roads and Transport (covering a gross increase in Roads capital of £8,620,000, an increase in the Northern Isles Ferry Services of £2,549,000 and an increase in Piers and Harbours Grant of £468,000 and offset by decreased Roads current expenditure of £5,000,000 and increased appropriations-in-aid of £5,392,000) reflecting the take up of end year flexibility; and the take up of end year flexibility for Caledonian MacBrayne (£300,000) and Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd. (£200,000).
  The cash limit for class XIII, vote 3, Education, industry, arts and libraries, Scotland, will be increased by £4,303,000 from £1,667,405,000 to £1,671,708,000. The increased cash limit

  231
  takes account of £7,435,000 in respect of end year flexibility arrangements for capital expenditure relating to the National Museums of Scotland, the Scottish Office Pensions Agency and inward investment. The increase also includes £360,000 in respect of end-year flexibility arrangements for running costs expenditure relating to the Student Awards Agency for Scotland and the Scottish Office Pensions Agency. The changes include transfers from class XIII, vote 6 totalling £300,000 in respect of both Agencies. The increase also includes a transfer of £275,000 from class IV, vote 1 in respect of support schemes and a transfer of £2,000,000 from SO/ERDF for Early Intervention. The Supplementary takes account of a transfer of £317,000 to class XIII, vote 6 in respect of software development and a reduction of £5,750,000 as a contribution towards increases in provision elsewhere in class XIII. Certain other transfers have taken place within the vote as a result of changes in Ministerial responsibilities.
  The cash limit for class XIII, vote 4, Hospital, community health. family health, other health services and welfare food, Scotland, will be increased by a net total of £78,745,000 from £3,628,304,000 to £3,707,049,000. The increase includes £58,798,000 reflecting the take up of end-year flexibility; a transfer of £37,000 to class XIII, vote 6 for additional expenditure by the Mental Welfare Commission on information technology and some adjustments to reflect changes to anticipated appropriations-in-aid. The NHS Trusts' External Financing Limit has also been decreased by £16,447,000 from £–11,590,000 to £–28,037,000.
  The cash limit for class XIII, vote 5 will be increased by £2,446,000 from £660,189,000 to £662,635,000. The increase includes the take up of end-year flexibility of £1,047,000 under the capital scheme and £699,000 under the HPSS scheme. £700,000 will be transferred from SO/ERDF to cover the advance vote 5 received from the Contingencies Fund for the referendum publicity costs. There will also be a number of minor transfers within the vote.
  The cash limit for class XIII, vote 6, Scottish Office Administration, is being decreased by £81,000 to £150,074,000. Within this total the running cost provision for Scottish Office Administration is being increased by £2,257,000 to £136,142,000 as a result of the take-up of end-year flexibility, primarily to finance the taking forward of various new policy initiatives and inter-vote transfers. Provision for capital expenditure is being reduced by £2,608,000 to £13,305,000 as a result of various transfers, primarily one of £2,500,000 to class XIII, vote 1 for the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. Provision for other current expenditure is being increased by £270,000 to £8,968,000 as a result of the take-up of end-year flexibility for health expenditure to cover computer system costs at the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland.
  The cash limit for class XIII, vote 7, General Register Office for Scotland, is being increased by £750,000 to £5,817,000. Within this total, the running costs provision for GRO(S) is being increased by £150.000 to £7,550,000 as a result of the take-up of end-year flexibility to finance preparatory work for the 2001 Census. The increase in capital provision results from the take-up of end-year flexibility to cover costs of continuing refurbishment work at New Register House. The reduction in appropriations in aid is in respect of an expected fall in receipts from running the NHS Central Register, caused by a reduction in the cost of GRO(S) of operating the Register being reflected in lower charges.
  The cash limit for class XIII, vote 8, Scottish Record Office, is being increased by £750,000 to £5,172,000. Within this total the SRO running costs provision is being increased by £300,000 to £4,745,000 as a result of the take-up of end-year flexibility to fund implementation of an internal reorganisation of the Department, which is aimed at delivering future efficiency savings. The increase in capital provision results from the take-up of end-year flexibility to cover costs of continuing refurbishment work at General Register House.
  232
  The cash limit element for class XIII, vote 9, Administration of justice, Scotland will be increased by a net figure of £1,700,000. This reflects an increase in capital provision of £3,000,000 to £15,700,000 offset by an increase in appropriations-in-aid of £1,300,000 to £17,341,000. Of the net figure, £1,055,000 will be met by the take up of capital end year flexibility and the remainder will be found by a reduction in running cost end-year flexibility entitlement of £645,000. The additional expenditure is required to meet the revised and higher costs of major building projects which are nearing their end-stage.
  The External Financing Limit for the East of Scotland Water Authority will be increased by £5,750,000 from £51,690,000 to £57,440,000. The increase will be offset by a matching reduction in the cash limit of class XIII, vote 3.
  The non-voted cash limit SO/LA1, which covers non-housing capital expenditure by local authorities, is to be increased by a net total of £22,012,830 from £389,428,000 to $411,440,830. The increase reflects the transfer of £1,586,000 to class XIII, vote 2 reflecting provision for the Council Tax Collection Scheme, and the transfer of £1,448,830 from class XIII, vote 5 in respect of CCTV scheme, and the take up of end year flexibility of £22,150,000.
  The non-voted cash limit SO/LA2 which covers housing capital expenditure by local authorities will be increased by a total of £4,298,000 from £179,928,000 to £184,226,000 in respect of the take up of end year flexibility.
  The non-voted cash limit SO/ERDF which covers European regional development fund expenditure in Scotland will be increased by £30,300,000 from £95,900,000 to £126,200,000. The increase takes account of the end year flexibility carried over from the financial year 1996–97.
  All increases will be offset by transfers or charged to the Reserve and will not, therefore, add to the planned total of public expenditure.
  A new non-voted cash limit will be introduced for the Capital Receipts Initiative (SO/CRI), subject to the passage of legislation, to cover the Government's initiative to release additional resources to support local authority spending on new Housing Partnerships and Welfare to Work. The limit on expenditure is set initially at £12,470,000. This expenditure is classified as outside the Control Total.

  Health Authority Budgets
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the(a) actual deficit and (b) projected deficit of each health authority as a percentage of its budget for the last three years. [14465]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The only cash deficits in health boards in the years 1994–95 to 1996–97 are as follows:

  Percentage

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Orkney

  0.01

  0.05

  0.05

  Lanarkshire

  —

  0.01

  —

  Tax Advice
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the expenditure by(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) non departmental public bodies on (i) tax consultants and (ii) other external tax advice in (1) 1995–96, (2) 1996–97 and (3) 1997–98; and if he will make a statement. [13251]

  Mr. Dewar
  My Department and its agencies have recorded no expenditure on external tax advice in 1995–96.
  233
  My Department spent £17,625 on external tax advice in 1996–97 and expects to spend £16,500 in 1997–98.

  The agencies of my Department spent £252,000 on external tax advice in 1996–97. The agencies have not reported any plans to pay for external tax advice in 1997–98.

  The information for non departmental public bodies is not held centrally.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the policy of his Department on the purchase of tax avoidance advice; and if he will make a statement. [13252]

  Mr. Dewar
  It is the policy of my Department to obtain such advice as is necessary to ensure that the correct amount of tax is paid on its activities.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the effect on hill farmers of reductions in the hill livestock compensatory allowances. [14181]

  Mr. Rooker
  The autumn review of the economic conditions in the hills and uplands is in progress. Rates of hill livestock compensatory allowances will be determined in the light of that review and announced to the House shortly. On the day of that announcement, the economic data which form the basis of the review will be placed in the Library of the House.

  BSE
  Jacqui Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to institute a full inquiry into(a) the links between bovine spongiform encephalopathy and new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease and (b) the handling of this issue by Government. [14093]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) on 3 November,Official Report, column 5.

  Beef Export Ban
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he has made towards lifting the export ban on British beef with UK European partners; and if he will make a statement. [13895]

  Mr. Rooker
  In accordance with the procedure laid down in the Florence agreement, the Commission is working on a proposal for an export certified herds scheme for consideration by the Standing Veterinary Committee. This reflects the most recent opinion for the Scientific Veterinary Committee on the UK papers. The Commission has said it expects its proposal to be presented within weeks.
  234
  We have submitted a second proposal to the Commission for a date-based export scheme which would permit export of meat from animals born after 1 August 1996. We are presenting this to be considered by the relevant scientific committees as soon as possible.

  My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food maintain regular contact with President Santer, Commissioners Bonino and Fischler and members of the European Parliament to emphasise the importance we attach to rapid progress on lifting the export ban.

  Organic Conversion Grants
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the levels of organic conversion grants in each European Union Member state. [13795]

  Mr. Morley
  Full details of organic conversion grants in the member states are contained in the paper "The impact of EC Regulation 2078/92 on the development of organic fanning in the European Union" by Dr. Nicholas Lampkin of the Welsh Institute of Rural Studies, University of Wales, Aberystwyth. A copy of this paper has been placed in the Library of the House.

WALES

  Welsh Assembly
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received on the Government's White Paper on proposals for a Welsh Assembly. [12385]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I have received representations in the form of letters both to me personally and to the Welsh Office, telephone calls to the Assembly information line, and e-mails to the Assembly website.

  The great majority of the communications were requests for factual information, for example about absent voting arrangements in the referendum. Of the rest, there was generally a balance between those in favour of the Government's proposals, those neutral and those against.

  Among the specific issues raised have been:

  the powers of the Assembly

  the use of Welsh language in the Assembly's work costs

  the qualities required of Assembly members

  the location of the Assembly.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales who will speak on behalf of Wales in the House if a Welsh Assembly is set up; and if that person will be authorised to speak on behalf of that body. [12392]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The Secretary of State for Wales will continue to represent Welsh interests in this House. The holder of that office will need to take account of the Welsh Assembly's views on various issues.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the outcome of the referendum on a Welsh Assembly. [12394]
  235
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the result of the referendum on the Welsh Assembly. [12400]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I refer my hon. Friend's to the reply I gave today to the hon. Member for Banbury, (Mr. Baldry).

  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the administrative cost of setting up the Assembly and of running it for the next five years.[12398]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I have placed full details of the estimated set-up and running costs of the Welsh Assembly in the Library of the House, as part of the answer I gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West on 23 July this year,Official Report, column 638.

  Referendum Campaign
  Mr. Walter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the expenditure by his Department on the referendum campaign. [12386]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  Total expenditure on Referendum information and publicity was some £575,000. Of this, about £300,000 was accounted for by the costs of the White Paper and associated information material.

  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales in what ways Welsh Office Ministers were involved in the referendum campaign in Wales. [12387]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  Alongside our official duties, I and my Ministerial colleagues campaigned vigorously and wholeheartedly for a YES vote.

  Agriculture
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next expects to meet his European counterparts to discuss Welsh agricultural matters. [12388]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  My right hon. Friend is visiting Brussels next week and he will be having discussions on Welsh agricultural matters with the Commission.

  Agri-environmental Scheme
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what response he has received from farming organisations and environmental interest to his announcement of an all-Wales, whole-farm, agri-environmental scheme. [12389]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  A number of farming and environmental organisations have welcomed my right hon. Friend's announcement and have written to him and to the Department about implementation of the scheme.

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from students regarding tuition fees. [12390]

  Mr. Hain
  The Department has received some 14 representations from students about tuition fees. Some have come from the National Union of Students and others have come from individual students.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he will be taking to reduce NHS waiting lists in Wales before the end of 1997. [12391]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  I am determined to reduce the waiting lists inherited from the previous Administration.

  I have just announced a further £9.5 million of new money this year to tackle the pressures of winter emergency admissions. This is in addition to the £1.747 million also being provided this year to improve cancer services in Wales.

  Roads Programme (Review)
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress is being made on the review of the roads in Wales programme; and when he expects to make an announcement on the outcome. [12393]

  Mr. Hain
  The consultation period on the review of the trunk road programme ended on 31 October. Two hundred trunk road representations have been received and these are being assessed. It is too early to say when I will be in a position to make an announcement on the outcome of the review.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the funding of nursery education for children who attend nurseries outside their local authority area. [12396]

  Mr. Hain
  The authority securing provision, whether within or outside its area, is responsible for funding it.

  Economic Development (North Wales)
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next plans to visit north Wales to discuss economic development with local authorities, business and trade unions.[12397]

  Mr. Hain
  My right hon. Friend and I have no such plans at present. Pressure of business in the House will restrict the extent to which it is possible for us to undertake such visits. However, during the recess, I and my right hon. Friend and I have taken the opportunity to visit North Wales on many occasions and discussed economic development issues with numerous organisations, including the North Wales Economic Forum.

  NHS (Cynon and Merthyr Valleys)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the Government's plans for the NHS in the Cynon and Merthyr valleys. [12395]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  It is the responsibility of Bro Taf Health Authority to assess the health needs of people in these areas, and to plan and prioritise health care services within the resources they have available. They should do this in consultation with service providers, local authorities, the Community Health Councils and other interested parties. However, I am continuing to take a close interest in health care provision in these valleys.

  Cardiff Bay Barrage
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the environmental impact of the Cardiff bay barrage project. [12399]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  A full assessment of the environmental impact was undertaken before work on the Barrage began. A copy of an Environmental Statement which supported the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill is available in the Library of the House.

  Details of the environmental implications of the regeneration strategy are operational matters for the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation, which is responsible for producing environmental statements for specific projects and complying with environmental legislation.

  Inward Investment (Newport)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to visit Newport to discuss inward investment. [12401]

  Mr. Hain
  While I do not have any immediate specific plans to visit Newport, I am keen to see the area build on its enviable inward investment success and to see the benefits of this spread throughout Wales, not just through the encouragement of inward investment but through the growth of indigenous business too.

  Windfall Tax (Hydwr)
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made regarding the effect on ability to reinvest in infrastructure of Hydwr, formerly Welsh Water and Electricity, of the imposition of the windfall tax in the Budget. [12402]

  Mr. Hain
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made it clear that the Government does not expect the windfall tax to have any adverse impact on investment.

  The company has also stated publicly that it remains committed to its current programme of discretionary capital expenditure.

  Parliamentary Constituencies
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received on the future number of parliamentary constituencies in Wales. [12403]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  None.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met representatives of local government in Wales to discuss local authority funding for 1998–99. [12404]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I chaired a meeting of the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance on 27 October 1997.

  Arms Trade
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidelines his Department has given to the Welsh 238
  Development Agency with regard to sponsoring or otherwise supporting conferences in Wales aimed at encouraging trade in arms. [13325]

  Mr. Hain
  The Department issued guidelines covering each of the Agency's programmes in March 1995. Copies of the guidelines were placed in the Library of the House. Sponsorship and support for conferences, seminars and exhibitions is covered by the Agency's marketing guidelines. They do not specifically cover the Agency's involvement in activities related to defence industries. However, the Agency is aware of the Government's policy announced by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary which requires defence exporters to take account of ethical considerations.

  Countryside Council for Wales
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he took to assess the experience and suitability of Mr. Bryan Riddleston of Celtic Energy before appointing him to serve on the board of the Countryside Council for Wales; and what other candidates he considered for the position. [13752]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I followed the procedures set out in the code of practice of the Commissioner for Public Appointments whereby applicants are considered by a panel with independent membership. This panel recommended the appointment of Mr. Riddleston. Mr. Riddleston was one of 14 candidates interviewed. A total of 167 applications were received for membership of the Countryside Council for Wales.

  University Students
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the amount of university funding per student in Wales in(a) 1994–95, (b) 1995–96, (c) 1996–97 and (d) 1997–98; and if he will make a statement. [13226]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 30 October 1997]: Information on higher education funding per student in Wales for the financial years requested is as follows:

  1994–95: £4,915

  1995–96: £4,760

  1996–97: £4,789

  1997–98: £4,634

  Countryside Council
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the status of the Countryside Council for Wales will be under his proposals for the Welsh Assembly. [14190]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The Government's intentions are explained in its White Paper "A Voice for Wales". The Assembly will be able to review a number of non-departmental public bodies, and have the power to reduce their number further or merge them. However, the Countryside Council for Wales will not be subjected to this power in order to maintain its independence and its ability to meet the UK's European and other international obligations in nature conservation. The Assembly will, however, assume all the Secretary of State's responsibilities, including those of funding and appointment, in respect of the Council.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what changes he is proposing to make to the voted and non-voted cash limits for his Department and the Office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales in the current financial year. [14221]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, I intend to make the following changes. The cash limit on class XIV, vote 1 will be reduced by £750,000 from £53,462,000 to £52,712,000 as a result of lower than expected claims for local authority coast protection schemes.

  The cash limit on class XIV, vote 2 will increase by £13,594,000 from £785,732,000 to £799,326,000. This increase results mainly from the take-up of end-year flexibility entitlements for the Welsh Development Agency (3,400,000); the Grant Maintained and Voluntary Aided Schools captial programmes (£2,720,000), an increase to the provision for Regional Selective Assistance of £1,710,00 and a transfer of £577,000 from class IV in respect of the Competitiveness Fund. The increase also includes the £5,025,000 extra resources announced in the July Budget for schools capital. (This expenditure forms part of the Welfare to Work programme and is outside the Control Total).

  The cash limit on class XIV, vote 3 will be increased by £4,074,000 from £437,196,000 to £441,270,000, (including an increase in the Department's running costs limit of £1,862,000 from £72,035,000 to £73,897,000). This increase is mainly a result of the take-up of end-year flexibility amounts for the Central Government Roads Programme (£1,545,000), IT costs (£603,000) and central administration (£2,161,000).

  The cash limit on class XIV, vote 4 will be increased by £28,102,000 from £1,979,708,000 to £2,007,810,000. This increase results mainly from the take-up of end-year flexibility amounts of £8,000,000 for NHS Trusts and £10,000,000 mainly for GP Fundholders and the £9,548,000 additional resources recently announced for the NHS. The external finance limit for NHS Trusts has been increased by £8,000,000 from £44,914,000 to £52,914,00.

  The cash limit on class XIV, vote 5 will be increased by £200,000 from £2,340,554,000 to £2,340,754,000 to enable the Valuation Office Agency to deal with the higher than expected demand for council tax and business rate appeals.

  The cash limit on class XIV, vote 6 will be reduced by £400,000 from £10,105,000 to £9,705,000 as a result of lower than expected expenditure on Nursery place inspections.

  There is also an increase to the non-voted local authority capital cash limit, WO/LACAP. This cash limit has been increased by £10,682,000 from £422,680,000 to £433,362,000 as a result of the take-up of end-year flexibility amounts, mainly to cover slippage on the Strategic Development Scheme and Capital Challenge projects.

  All increases will be offset by transfers or charged to the Reserve and will not, therefore, add to the planned total of public expenditure.
  240
  A new non-voted cash limit will be introduced for the Capital Receipts Initiative (WO/CRI), subject to the passage of legislation, to cover the Government's initiative to release additional resources to support local authority spending on housing and housing associated regeneration. The limit on expenditure is set initially at £9,540.000. This expenditure is classified as being outside the Control Total.

  Tax Advice
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the policy of his Department on the purchase of tax avoidance advice; and if he will make a statement. [13366]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  My Department does not purchase tax advice.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the expenditure by(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies on (i) tax consultants and (ii) other external tax advice in (1) 1995–96, (2) 1996–97 and (3) 1997–98; and if he will make a
  statement. [13373]

  Mr. Hain
  Neither my Department nor its agency, Cadw, purchases external tax advice. Details of any such expenditure by those non-departmental public bodies sponsored by my Department are not held centrally; it is wholly a matter for them to determine as part of the day-to-day management of their affairs.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Cash and Running Cost Limits
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what changes will be made to the cash and running cost limits for her Department, the Office of Telecommunications, the Office of Gas Supply and the Office of Electricity Regulation for 1997–98 and to the external financing limit of BNFL for 1997–98. [14899]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class IV, vote 1–Department of Trade and Industry: programmes and administration-will be increased by £4,656,000 from £1,344,410,000 to £1,349,066,000. This net increase results from:(i) the take up of running costs and capital end-year flexibility (0,783,000) as announced by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 17 July 1997 (Official Report, cols 245–250);
  (ii) the transfer of £300,000 from the Cabinet Office: Office of Public Service (Class XVII Vote 1) to the Department's accommodation budget;

  offset by:
  (iii) a net reduction of £852,000 in the Local Competitiveness budget as a result of transfers to the Scottish and Welsh Offices;
  (iv) an increase of £575,000 in fee income from the supervision of insurance companies.

  Within this total, the gross running costs limit for the Department of Trade and Industry will be increased by £5,244,000 from £366,693,000 to £371,937,000. This change comprises the take-up of running costs end-year

  241
  flexibility and includes payment of £25,000 to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in respect of the transfer of responsibility for music sponsorship.

  The take up of the Department's running costs and capital end-year flexibility (£5,783,000) will be charged to the Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for Class IV Vote 8—Office of Telecommunications—will be increased by £353,000 from £10,408,000 to £10,761,000 and the running costs limit will be increased by £353,000 from £9,993,000 to £10,346,000. These changes reflect extra resources required for work on numbering administration and give effect to the end-year flexibility carry-forward of £280,000 announced by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 17 July 1997, Official Report, columns 245–50. The increase will be charged to the Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Also, subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for Class IV Vote 9—Office of Gas Supply—will be increased by £1,053,000 from £10,075,000 to £11,128,000 and the running costs limit will be increased by £950,000 from £11,412,000 to £12,362,000. These changes reflect the extra resources required for the extension of competition in the domestic gas market, and give effect to the end-year flexibility carry-forward of £103,000 on capital announced by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 17 July 1997, Official Report, columns 245–50. The increase will be charged to the Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Additionally, subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for Class IV Vote 10—Office of Electricity Regulation—will be increased by £2,000,000 from £13,950,000 to £15,950,000 and the running costs limit will be increased by £2,000,000 from £14,635,000 to £16,635,000. An increase in receipts to the consolidated fund of £2,000,000 is expected as a consequence of the increase in running costs. These changes reflect the extra resources required by the Director General of Electricity Supply to fulfil his obligations under the Electricity Act 1989, and to meet the deadlines set for deregulation of the franchised electricity supply market. The increase will be charged to the Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  In addition to these changes, the External Financing Limit of BNFL has been adjusted from — £67,000,000 to — £169,000,000 to reflect an improved trading performance since the External Financing Limit was set in the 1996 budget.

  Airfares
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action her Department is taking to ensure that full and inclusive pricing is introduced for airfares. [12984]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  The practices of some operators in quoting prices for airfares may be misleading, in breach of Part III of the Consumer Protection Act 1987.
  242
  The Advertising Standards Authority Council are due to meet on 7 November to deliberate on whether certain airfare advertisements are in breach of the British Code of Advertising and Sales Promotion.

  I have made clear to the airline and travel industry my concern that consumers must have clear and transparent pricing information.

  Arms Sales
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of the value of Export Credits Guarantee Department coverage has been provided for arms sales in each of the last three years; and what was the total coverage provided for arms sales in each of those years. [12724]

  Mrs. Beckett
  From Information readily available on ECGD's files the details requested are as follows:

  Financial year

  Value of ECGD cover provided for defence business £ million

  Value for cover for defence business as a percentege of total cover

  1994–95

  725

  21.4

  1995–96

  1,013

  22.9

  1996–97

  384

  16.3

  These figures include all ECGD covered business with defence buyers, including sales of non-lethal equipment.

  Bananas
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will place in the Library those parts of the world trade agreement relevant to its recent finding in respect of bananas together with a copy of the full finding or judgment, stating where, when and in what manner it was made and to whom it was addressed in the first instance. [13391]

  Mrs. Roche
  A copy of "The Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations", which includes the agreements relevant to the recent World Trade Organisation (WTO) ruling on the European Community banana regime, is currently in the Library of the House. The WTO Dispute Settlement Body ruling was sent to H.E. Mr. Roderick Abbott, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of the European Communities to the WTO on 9 September 1997 and was adopted at the WTO Dispute Settlement Body meeting of 25 September 1997. Copies of both Panel and the Appellate Body rulings have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what persons, and from which national or community body, represented United Kingdom interests in the course of proceedings at the World Trade Organisation concerning the arrangements of trade in bananas; what was the nature of the negotiating mandate given to that person and by whom; and to what body, other than Her Majesty's Government were (i) the nature of such a mandate and (ii) its existence communicated. [13389]

  Mrs. Roche
  A World Trade Organisation (WTO) Dispute Settlement Panel was established in May 1996 to consider a complaint against the European Community's banana regime, following unsuccessful consultations with the complainant countries (the United States, Guatemala,
  243
  Mexico, Ecuador and Honduras). Since the European Community (EC) has competence in external trade matters, United Kingdom interests in the subsequent proceedings at the WTO were represented by officials from the Commission Legal Services. The EC defended its policy and the United Kingdom supported the Commission's defence of this policy. A negotiating mandate was not required in this case. The framework for the conduct of the EC's common commercial policy is set out in Article 113 of the EC Treaty.

  Retail Newsagents
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what factors underlay her decision not to refer the concerns of the retail newsagents to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.[13192]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  The decision on whether or not to make a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is a matter for the Director General of Fair Trading.

  The Director General is considering a number of detailed submissions from interested parties in the industry arguing for and against another reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, and will announce his decision in due course.

  Consumer Protection
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she expects the EC draft directive on consumer protection in the indication of the prices of products offered to consumers to be adopted; and if she will make a statement. [14102]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  This will depend on the rate of progress in the conciliation procedure between the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. The first meeting of the Conciliation Committee is scheduled for 6 November.

  Fibreboard
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will estimate the total volume in each of the last five years of the sales of wood products whose construction involved medium-density fibreboard. [13893]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 3 november 1997]: No. This information is not available from official statistics.

  Photocopier Industry
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to request a further inquiry into the photocopier industry by the Director General of Fair Trading. [13041]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 29 October 1997]: As I informed the right hon. Member in my letter of 6 October
  "My Department has received complaints about current business practices in the industry. These are being passed to the Director General of Fair Trading who will take any decision on whether these complaints relate to general practices in the industry which might require him to reopen his investigation into the photocopying industry, or are against particular consumer credit licence holders and can be addressed under his licensing powers."

  Ministerial Interests
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs has advised Copywatch UK not to use his name in promotional literature. [13049]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 29 October 1997]: Copywatch have never claimed to be an advisor to me in my ministerial role. They previously advised me of malpractices in the photocopying industry as opposition spokesman for consumer affairs.

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on what funding provision has been made to accommodate the expenditure needed to resolve the computer millennium problem; and if she expects to have sufficient funding to pay for the work necessary to achieve complete millennium compliance by 1 January 2000. [13584]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 4 November 1997]: The DTI plans to allocate £2.7 million to the resolution of this problem within the core Department. Agencies are pursuing their own programmes of work and have planned their own allocations.

  The Department expects to have sufficient funding available to achieve compliance within existing PES provision.

  Mr. Malcom Bruce
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will publish the action plan, due by 1 October 1997, for resolving the computer millennium problem in her Department, its agencies and other public bodies for which she is responsible; if such was fully completed on time; and if she will make a statement. [13582]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 4 November 1997]: The DTI did provide a costed plan for dealing with this problem within the Department to the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency by 1 October as requested. Agencies are pursuing their own programmes of work which include the preparation of such plans. Related public bodies have been advised to prepare plans for their own computer systems and officials are seeking confirmation that this work is in hand. Once the costed plans have been analysed by the Central IT Unit and the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will then inform Parliament. The plans will then be available to the public.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when her Department, its agencies and other public bodies for which she is responsible completed the millennium computer compliance audits of systems; and if she will make a statement. [13585]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 4 November 1997]: The millennium compliance audit within core DTI was completed in October 1996. Chief Executives of next steps agencies and other public bodies are responsible for programmes within their own organisations which include such audits.

  European Information Technologies Research Project
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps she will take to ensure that the ESPRIT programme of the European Union maintains political impartiality in schools; and if she will make a statement on the experimental schools environment project.[13851]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding reply from 30 October 1997]: The ESPRIT Programme, the European Information Technologies research programme, is impartial in its content and management. All European Union Member States contribute to the development of the Programme's technical scope through a range of technical, industrial and academic experts. The funds are allocated to proposals from collaborative European consortia through a competitive selection process, using published criteria. This process has been designed to avoid any bias whether political, national or commercial. My Department will continue to represent UK interests in the management of the ESPRIT programme, assuring impartiality for all participants. The Experimental Schools Environment is an initiative within ESPRIT, calling for proposals to research new kinds of Information Technology based tools or environments designed to enable new approaches to learning for young children in the age range of 4 to 8 years. Further information is in the ESPRIT Information Pack in the Library of the House.

  Coal Mining Industry
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many coal pits have closed since 1 May. [13554]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 30 October 1997]: The closure of two deep mines have been announced since 1 May; Asfordby Colliery in Leicestershire, owned by RJB Mining and Baddesley Drift in Warwickshire, owned by New Baddesley Coal Ltd.

  Defence Sales
  Sir George Young
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of export credits has been used to support defence sales since 1994. [13790]

  Mrs. Beckett
  From data readily available, the information requested is as follows:

  Financial year

  Value of ECGD cover provided for defence business as a percentage of total cover

  1994–95

  21.4

  1995–96

  22.9

  1996–97

  16.3

  These figures include all ECGD covered business with defence buyers, including sales of non-lethal equipment.

  Sir George Young
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the monetary value of export credit sales used to support defence sales since 1994. [13791]
  246
  Mrs. Beckett
  From data readily available, the information requested is as follows:

  Financial year

  Value of ECGD cover provided for defence business £ million

  1994–95

  725

  1995–96

  1,013

  1996–97

  384

  These figures include all ECGD covered business with defence buyers, including sales of non-lethal equipment.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Supported Housing
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has for consultation on the long-term funding arrangements for supported housing; and if she will make a statement. [14901]

  Ms Harman
  Securing stable, sustainable long-term funding arrangements for supported housing will take time. The Government are keen to take the views of those working in the field before making any decision. I am therefore setting out our objectives for the long term. These are:A Government-wide approach
  Clarifying responsibilities for controlling, targeting, and prioritising public expenditure on services supporting people in their homes—avoiding gaps and overlaps between budgets
  Ensuring the funding system can respond to individuals' needs and enable support to be provided in different types of accommodation and tenures
  Avoiding the possibility that accommodation choices may be distorted by the availability and interaction of different funding (this may result from the inter action of demand-led and cash-limited funding streams)
  Encouraging coherent and transparent planning, funding and accountability arrangements—at the appropriate level—for support services in the context of wider community care and related programmes
  Compatibility with the Government's wider social policy objectives
  Encouraging the most cost effective approach across all sectors which takes account of all public expenditure costs; group and wider funding responsibilities, and links with other changes that authorities face
  Practicality—identifying solutions that are workable at central and local levels which could be implemented reasonably simply, considering what transitional arrangements might be necessary.

  Departmental officials will be contacting over two hundred individuals and organisations who responded to last year's Social Security Advisory Committee consultation. The Committee's report was published last week. We shall now ask respondents for their views on how best to translate these objectives into a modern, practical and sustainable funding system for this valuable social provision. Others who may wish to contribute to the debate are welcome to do so. Representations will be taken up to 5 December 1997.

  Tax Advice
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the policy of her Department on the purchase of tax avoidance advice; and if she will make a statement.[13270]

  Mr. Field
  The Department of Social Security follows the guidance and advice issued to Government departments by HM Treasury. It does not purchase any advice on tax avoidance.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate she has made of the expenditure by(a) her Department, (b) its agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies on (i) tax consultants and (ii) other external tax advice in (1) 1995–96, (2) 1996–97 and (3) 1997–98; and if she will make a statement. [13269]

  Mr. Field
  Approximately £10,000 has been spent in 1997–98 by the War Pensions Agency. Consultants were employed to review the procedures used by the Agency to account for VAT. This enabled under-deducted VAT to be identified and resulted in revised procedures being introduced. This will ensure that the Agency correctly reclaims those amounts that are due in future accounting periods within the statutory entitlements.

  Inflation (Public Funding)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is her estimate of the additional expenditure by her Department, its agencies and other non-departmental public bodies in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99 as a consequence of higher uprating for inflation than was assumed at the time of the November 1996 Budget; if increases will be financed from the contingency reserve; and if she will make a statement. [13246]

  Mr. Field
  Higher inflation than expected in the 1996 Budget has no effect on 1997–98 benefit spending. 1998–99 benefit rates will be announced shortly. Increases in line with prices would mean an increase in benefit spending of about £600 million above that assumed in the 1996 Budget. The Government are committed to staying within their overall spending plans.

  Index-linked Pensions
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security to which of the retail prices indexes pensions are linked; and on what basis the calculation is made. [13110]

  Mr. Denham
  We intend to honour our commitment to increase pensions at least in line with prices.

  The all items Retail Prices Index for September will be used as a basis to increase Retirement Pension from 6 April 1998. The new rate of benefit will be calculated by uprating the current rate by the increase in the index and rounding the resulting sum to the nearest 5p. The value of the basic pension is being considered as part of our pensions review.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average time taken by her Department to give full answers to letters received from hon. Members.[13954]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 4 November 1997]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister, gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on 3 November, Official Report, column 5.

  Information for 1997 is not yet available.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the review panel looking into war pensions for noise-induced hearing loss will report. [13116]

  Mr. Denham
  The review of the science of the assessment of noise induced sensorineural hearing loss for the purposes of claims to war pensions is already under way. Sir Kenneth Calman the Government's Chief Medical Officer and the chairman of the review, requested written comments from the team members by 27 October 1997.

  A meeting of the team is due to take place on 19 November 1997. The review team will report as soon as possible after that date once they have fully considered the scientific issues under review.

  The outcome of the review will be made public.

  Goods and Services (Payments)
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list each of the functions relating to payment for goods or services supplied for which her Department is responsible indicating the management systems purchased, all sub-contractors involved in the work, co-operative arrangements with other Departments; and the costs of the systems and processes in the last year for which figures are available. [12570]

  Mr. Field
  The majority of this Department's payments for goods and services are generated via integrated computerised accounting systems, either by bank transfers (CHAPS and BACS) or as system generated payable orders. All invoices are the subject of specific checks and authorisations in accordance with standard Government accounting practice, with responsibilities for verification and certification separated from the actual process of payment.

  The Department's primary accounting system is FAMIS (Financial Accounting Management Information System) and amounts due for payment are picked up overnight via the Central Payments Package and issued accordingly. The FAMIS system is based on Millennium software, substantially modified to meet Departmental needs.

  The Department does not use sub-contractors for payment work although a number of private companies providing facilities management for Departmental accommodation receive invoices and undertake their initial processing prior to authorisation and payment through Departmental systems. The Department does not

  249
  provide payment services to other Government Departments except where it is the major occupier of accommodation, when, under established service agreements, it may meet the initial costs and recover any balance due. The Department does not use payment systems provided by other Government Departments except where it is a minor occupier under the arrangements described above.

  A variety of circumstances can apply to individual payments each of which impact on the administrative cost, but high level information collected by the Department indicates that the total administrative cost of making each payment varies between £2.30 and £5.95. The accounts payable and cashier applications which support departmental payments form elements of much wider accounting packages and specific capital and development costs are therefore not readily available.

  Means-tested Benefits (Pensioners)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners are(a) receiving at least one means-tested benefit and not paying income tax, (b) not receiving a means-tested benefit and not paying tax, (c) not receiving a means-tested benefit and paying tax and (d) receiving a means-tested benefit and paying tax; and if she will break down each category into five-year age bands identifying within each age group the number of (i) single male pensioners, (ii) single female pensioners and (iii) married pensioners. [12823]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is in the tables and is based on estimates for 1997–98 of numbers of pensioner benefit units in each of the groups.

  Pensioners receiving a means tested benefit and not paying income tax

  000s

  Single male

  Single female

  Pensioner couples

  Total

  60-64

  90

  140

  170

  400

  65-69

  80

  220

  170

  480

  70-74

  80

  360

  160

  600

  75-79

  70

  370

  150

  590

  80+

  120

  570

  130

  820

  Total

  440

  1,660

  780

  2,880

  Pensioners not receiving a means tested benefit and not paying income tax

  000s

  Single male

  Single female

  Pensioner couples

  Total

  60-64

  30

  30

  110

  170

  65-69

  40

  130

  270

  440

  70-74

  40

  210

  310

  560

  75-79

  40

  200

  200

  430

  80+

  50

  310

  150

  510

  Total

  200

  880

  1,040

  2,110

  250

  Pensioners not receiving a means tested benifit and paying income tax

  000s

  Single male

  Single female

  Pensioner couples

  Total

  60-64

  90

  170

  840

  1,100

  65-69

  110

  140

  520

  770

  70-74

  100

  160

  350

  610

  75-79

  60

  100

  190

  360

  80+

  80

  120

  140

  340

  Total

  440

  690

  2,040

  3,170

  Pensioners receiving a means tested benefit and paying income tax

  000s

  Single male

  single female

  Pensioner couples

  Total

  60-64

  10

  30

  20

  70

  65-69

  10

  20

  10

  40

  70-74

  20

  20

  10

  40

  75-79

  10

  20

  1—

  30

  80+

  10

  20

  1—

  30

  Total

  60

  110

  40

  210

  Notes:

  1Less than 5,000.

  1. Pensioner benefit units are defined as being any benefit unit containing at least one person aged over 59.

  2. Pensioner couples are allocated to age bands according to the age of the oldest partner.

  3. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10,000.

  Source:

  1995–96 Family Resources Survey.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will review the system for disability living allowance claimants to ensure claimants are properly informed at each stage of the review process as to the steps they need to take and what they are expected to prove. [12850]

  Mr. Denham
  We are reviewing all aspects of the Social Security system. One of our key aims is to improve the service provided to claimants and other customers.

  The administration of disability living allowance is a matter for Peter Mathison, chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Paul Burstow, dated 4 November 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about servicing the review system for Disability Living Allowance (DLA) to ensure claimants are properly informed at each stage of the review process as to the steps they need to take and what they are expected to prove.
  The Disability Benefits Directorate (DBD) have no specific proposals to review this system at present. We are, however, always willing to listen and respond to feedback from our customers and representatives as appropriate.
  When the DBD receive a request for a review, an acknowledgement is issued to the customer explaining that the department will contact them within 6 weeks. The review request and case papers are passed to an Adjudication Officer (AO) who considers all the evidence available and whether further information is required in order to make a decision. Further information could include clarification of the level of needs arising from the customer's condition and is often obtained by issuing a DLA 434 (Review pack) or asking for information from the GP or Carer.

  251
  On receipt of the information the AO will reconsider all of the evidence available and if a decision can be made a notification, informing the customer of the outcome will be issued.
  In cases where a decision cannot be made within 6 weeks a review progress letter is issued. The letter advises the customer that the review request will be dealt with as quickly as possible and that the Agency will be in contact again as soon as further information is available.
  The Agency is conscious of the need to provide an efficient service to all customers. They are not asked to prove their case but to provide a full and clear picture of their needs in order that the AO can decide the appropriate entitlement.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

DEFENCE

  Low Flying
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many hours of operational low flying took place in each of the Borders and Northern Scotland areas in(a) the period 1 January to 31 December 1996 and (b) the period 1 January to 31 July 1997.[14009]

  Mr. Spellar
  The numbers of hours of operational low flying (OLF) flown in the Tactical Training Areas (TTAs) are as follows:

  Borders

  Northern Scotland

  Central Wales

  1 January to 31 December 1996

  311

  257

  61

  1 January to 31 July 1997

  116

  116

  19

  The figures reflect the measures announced in August 1996 to redistribute the activity more equitably across the three TTAs, in proportion to their areas.

  Military Equipment
  Sir George Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received on the legality of joint weapons purchases through the West European Armaments Organisation and the Organisme Conjoint de Cooperation en Matière d'Armaments; and if he will make a statement. [13787]

  Mr. Spellar
  I am aware that questions regarding the legality of these organisations were raised in recent media reports. I have no reason, however, to doubt that the arrangements envisaged are based on a sound legal footing.

  Sir George Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the value of delivered military equipment between 1993 and 1996. [13788]

  Dr. Reid
  Statistics relating to payments for delivered equipment, as distinct from payments for work in progress on equipment contracts, are not available centrally. "Defence Statistics 1997", a copy of which is in the Library of the House, shows that total expenditure on equipment, including research and development, over the period was as follows:

  1993–94: £9,200 million

  1994–95: £8,819 million

  1995–96: £8,537 million

  1996–97: £8,460 million1

  1Estimate—full details of final outturn are not yet available.

  252
  Sir George Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the value of offset agreements concluded to support military export sales between 1990 and 1996. [13792]

  Mr. Spellar
  Most offset agreements are concluded by British companies and the Ministry of Defence does not hold comprehensive records of their value.

  Sir George Young
  To ask the Secretary for Defence what is the value of current military equipment export orders. [13789]

  Mr. Spellar
  In 1996—the last year for which information is available—British companies won defence export orders worth £5·1 billion.

  Sir George Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the value of offset agreements concluded as a result of United Kingdom purchases of foreign military equipment between 1990 and 1996. [13793]

  Mr. Spellar
  The value of UK offset, normally referred to as Industrial Participation, agreements concluded as a result of UK purchases of foreign military equipment between 1990 and 1996 is £4·4 billion.

  WEU (Weapons Procurement)
  Sir George Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if further extension of the Western European Union's authority to procure weapons will require renegotiation of the 1948 Brussels treaty. [13786]

  Mr. Spellar
  No.

  Tax Advice
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the policy of his Department on the purchase of tax avoidance advice; and if he will make a statement. [13266]

  Dr. Reid
  The Ministry of Defence does not employ tax advisers for the purpose of tax avoidance. Occasional use is made of tax consultants to advise on compliance with and the implications of tax regulations.

  Cash and Running Costs Limits
  Mr. Alan Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement of changes to the class 1 cash limits and the Defence operating costs limit for 1997–98.[14187]

  Dr. Reid
  Following the recent announcement by the Government that the Defence budget for 1997–98 is to be reduced by £168 million on account of overspending its 1996–97 cash limit, the class 1 cash limits will change as follows:

  £000s

  Class 1 vote

  Current cash limit

  Change

  Revised cash limit

  1

  10,145,386

  -49,256

  10,096,130

  2

  4,806,637

  -52,300

  4,754,337

  3

  6,175,530

  -63,000

  6,112,530

  Defence

  21,127,553

  -164,556

  20,962,997

  253
  The reduction of £168 million has been offset by £3.444 million to reflect the transfer of PES provision from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the Ministry of Defence to meet the costs of the Department's annual subscription to the BBC World Service Monitoring Service on the organisation's move to subscription based funding in 1997–98. The costs fall to vote 1.

  The impact of the reduction in the class 1 cash limits on the Defence operating costs limit will be as follows:

  £000s

  Class 1 vote

  Current operating costs limit

  Change

  Revised operating cost limit

  1

  10,139,854

  -49,256

  10,090,598

  2

  4,806,637

  -52,300

  4,754,337

  3

  735,976

  —

  735,976

  Total

  15,682,467

  -101,556

  15,580,911

  COPEX
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he plans to accept bookings for future COPEX events to take place on his Department's land. [14215]

  Mr. Spellar
  My Department would consider any such request on a case-by-case basis. I understand, however, that the 1998 exhibition has already been planned in a non-Defence establishment at Wembley.

  Western European Armaments Organisation
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the legal status of the Western European Armaments Organisation. [13901]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Western European Armaments Organisation (WEAO) was established on 19 November 1996 when the Western European Union (WEU) Council of Ministers, meeting in Ostend, adopted the WEAO Charter, thereby granting the Organisation the status of WEU subsidiary body, in accordance with Article VIII(2) of the Modified Brussels Treaty. The WEAO constitutes an integral part of the WEU and, as such, shares in the legal personality of the WEU.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the benefits to the United Kingdom of membership of the Western European Armaments Organisation, indicating the partnership projects and the countries with which these are undertaken. [13903]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Western European Armaments Organisation (WEAO) was established on 19 November 1996. Participants are the 13 nations, including the UK, of the Western European Armaments Group. Since 1 April 1997, the organisation has provided essential support to a pre-existing co-operative defence research programme known as EUCLID (European Co-operation for the Long Term in Defence). The UK is an active member of this programme, currently participating in over 40 co-operative research and technology projects. As yet, no partnerships have been established within the WEAO.

  Officer Training Corps
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the membership of the Officer Training Corps in each institution in which it operates. [13757]

  Dr. Reid
  The number of Officer Cadets, for which each Officer Training Corps (OTC) is established, is shown in the table. The actual number of Officer Cadets fluctuates through the year according to the academic calendar. The OTCs recruit above their established strength at the start of the academic year, to take account of the normal wastage rate, so that actual membership numbers level down to the established figure later in the year.

  Number

  Aberdeen

  168

  Belfast

  168

  Birmingham

  168

  Bristol

  168

  Cambridge

  224

  East Midlands

  168

  Edinburgh

  168

  Exeter

  168

  Glasgow

  168

  Leeds

  168

  Liverpool

  168

  London

  364

  Manchester

  168

  Northumbria

  168

  Oxford

  224

  Sheffield

  168

  Southampton

  168

  Tayforth

  168

  Wales

  168

  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of the Officer Training Corps in the most recent year for which figures are available. [13758]

  Dr. Reid
  The total indentifiable cost of the Officer Training Corps (OTC) for Financial Year 1996–97 was £16.7 million, which includes staff and running costs as well as property management of the OTC estate.

  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of members of the Officer Training Corps subsequently join the regular forces. [13756]

  Dr. Reid
  In the academic year 1995–96, the most recent year for which complete figures are available, a total of 260 members of the Officer Training Corps were commissioned into the regular forces. Broken down by Service, one commission was into the Royal Navy, seven into the Royal Marines, 250 into the Army and two into the Royal Air Force. The overall figure of 260 represents approximately 7.5 per cent. of the total Officer Training Corps establishment.

  Eurofighter
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the common air defence requirements specified in the European staff requirement for development agreed in 1987 indicating any subsequent amendments. [13861]
  255
  Mr. Spellar
  The original European Staff Requirement for Development of Eurofighter (ESR-D) was shaped by the context of the cold war, when the requirement was for an aircraft to counter massed raids of bombers under fighter escort. Following a major review, the ESR-D was reissued in January 1994 having been rewritten to reflect the radically changed political and military situation in Europe since 1987. The review took into account the dangers of regional instability, noting that a potential enemy may still have highly capable fighter aircraft; and that Eurofighter still needs to be capable of performing multiple roles on deployed operations. The aircraft offers a significant contribution to our defence capabilities.

  Future Large Aircraft
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the numbers of C130Js or future large aircraft required by the Royal Air Force. [13137]

  Mr. Spellar
  In addition to the 25 C130J already ordered, the FLA Request for Proposal (RFP) is seeking information on orders of 40–50 aircraft to meet our Hercules Rolling Replacement requirement. The Strategic Defence Review is considering our future aircraft requirement, and the final decision on the number of aircraft the UK will buy will depend on the conclusions reached by the review and the responses to the RFP.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his current estimate of the earliest in-service date for a future large aircraft with any European air force. [13138]

  Mr. Spellar
  The future large aircraft is expected to be available early next century.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the costs to the RAF of maintaining both C130J and FLA transport aircraft in-service simultaneously.[13140]

  Mr. Spellar
  A preliminary assessment of the costs of meeting our future air transport requirements was made before the Secretary of State for Defence announced on 31 July 1997,Official Report, column 466, that we would join partners in issuing a Request for Proposals for the future large aircraft and would be encouraging our partners to join us in seeking competing bids from other aircraft manufacturers. This assessment indicated that there was merit in exploring the purchase of the future large aircraft to operate alongside C130Js which were ordered in 1994.

  We will make a further detailed assessment, which will include an analysis of the costs of in-service support, after we have received the responses to the Request for Proposals and any competing bids. This analysis, and the conclusions of the Strategic Defence Review, will inform the final procurement decision.

  RAF Transport Fleet
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will invite tenders for the replacement of the next tranche of the RAF's transport fleet. [13134]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Request for Proposals was issued on 4 September 1997 to Airbus Industrie, Turkish Aerospace Industries and Alenia on a provisional basis pending the formation of Airbus Military Company (AMC). We are 256
  still discussing with partner nations how a competition between AMC and other aircraft manufacturers might be organised.

  Hercules C130J Aircraft
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if Lockheed Martin has been required to pay compensation for the late delivery of Hercules C130J aircraft. [13142]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Department will be seeking to claim liquidated damages from the company, which will be used to offset the additional costs incurred by the Department, as they become due.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current anticipated in-service date of the Hercules C130J. [13141]

  Mr. Spellar
  On current plans the Department will receive delivery of the first C130J for test and evaluation in the spring of 1998, and the first aircraft is expected to enter service by the end of 1998.

  Royal Clarence Yard, Gosport
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the cost of relocating the activities currently undertaken at the 9.5 acres of land at Royal Clarence yard, Gosport, which are currently scheduled for retention by the Ministry of Defence; [13099]

  (2) if his Department will release for sale the 9.5 acres at Royal Clarence yard, Gosport, which is currently occupied as a furniture store. [13098]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Naval Bases and Supply Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from D. J. Stevens to Mr. Peter Viggers, dated 5 November 1997:
  I am replying to your two Questions to the Secretary of State for Defence about the release for sale of land at Royal Clarence Yard. Gosport and the cost of relocating the activities, as this falls within my area of responsibility.
  The 9.5 acre enclave retained by the MOD within Royal Clarence Yard primarily provides security for the oil pipe and working space to operate and service the facilities on the Oil Fuel Jetty. The waterfront provides essential berthing space for minor vessels while the major jetties within the Naval Base are being refurbished. It is not feasible to relocate these tasks in the area and therefore no figures on costs of relocation are available. In addition, the enclave provides car parking for entitled RN personnel quartered in Gosport but working on the other side of the harbour. The cost effectiveness of this was accepted by Minister (AF) (in the previous administration) as part of the submission to release the major part of the Royal Clarence Yard for sale.
  Only 1·4 acres of the enclave are occupied by the furniture store. If this area of the site were released for sale, it is estimated that it would add no more than £300,000 to the sale value of Royal Clarence Yard. The cost of relocating the furniture store on Crown owned land on the Gosport peninsula has been investigated and found to be in excess of £500,000. The alternative of leasing a commercial storage facility in the area is estimated at in excess of £50,000 a year. In the current financial climate neither option would be cost effective for MOD or the taxpayer.
  The retained enclave will be the minimum required to meet MOD's needs and if future opportunities were to allow the MOD to relocate any or all of the above facilities in a cost effective manner. further areas would be released for sale.

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Philip Alexander Hunt, Esquire, OBE, having been created Baron Hunt of Kings Heath, of Birmingham in the County of West Midlands, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness Fisher of Rednal and the Baroness Jay of Paddington, and made the solemn Affirmation.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws
Ms. Helena Ann Kennedy, QC, having been created Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws, of Cathcart in the City of Glasgow, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness Blackstone and the Lord Falconer of Thoroton.

Lord Puttnam
Sir David Terence Puttnam, Knight, CBE, having been created Baron Puttnam, of Queensgate in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness Jay of Paddington and the Baroness Smith of Gilmorehill.
Baroness Dacre—Took the Oath.

Afghanistan: Peace Efforts
2.48 p.m.
Viscount Waverleyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether past Taliban advances in northern Afghanistan give cause for concern for central Asian security; and, if so, what action they are considering in response.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the latest news is of Taliban setbacks in northern Afghanistan. We are very concerned about the situation. We are following it closely and we are doing what we can to support the UN peace process. We use our contacts with the factions to promote a negotiated settlement. We are urging all interested parties, including the central Asian states and Pakistan, to support the UN's efforts in the peace process.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, the Afghan dispute has been mercifully comparatively localised to date and I do recognise the Taliban's varying military fortunes. But can the Minister imagine that the civil war in
1370
Tajikistan, exacerbated by a steady flow of ethnic refugees combining religious fervour from Afghanistan, the huge quantities of hard drugs awash in the region and the large oil and gas deposits in central Asia waiting to be exploited all add to a further destabilisation of the wider region? What are the Government doing to protect Britain's ever-increasing political and economic interests? What are the latest United Nations peace initiatives? And, not least, are drug distribution channels being nipped at source?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Viscount poses a number of very difficult and problematical questions. There is a nightmare scenario, which I recognise, in his assessment of the various problems at work in the region. They make it particularly difficult for all neighbouring states, let alone the international community, to intervene. Clearly, in Tajikistan, the signing of a general peace agreement demonstrates that there is the possibility, if everyone pulls together, of making some improvements, although even that is yet to be delivered.
We have stepped up our dialogue with all the countries in the region. When the Foreign Secretary was in Pakistan he raised this situation with the Pakistan Government, and we continue to urge all neighbouring states to put their full weight behind the UN's effort. We expect the report of the special envoy, Mr. Lakhdar Brahimi, some time in December. He visited the region in August and is now holding consultations in New York with representatives of the neighbouring states.
The drug traffic is one of the most evil aspects of the situation. We have tried to underline to the Taliban, who control most of the poppy growing areas, that the drugs trade should be hostile to their Islamic principles. We are also supporting the UN in efforts to substitute poppy growing with other crops in Afghanistan and the rest of the region. Probably 95 per cent. of all the heroin reaching western Europe comes from this area and most of it is from Afghanistan. It is indeed a very difficult situation.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that in the military exchanges to which he referred, very little territory was taken over by the opposition forces? Can he say how much of the territory is now controlled by the Taliban and which of the state institutions they do not control? Can the Minister say at what point there has to be a decision in favour of recognising the Taliban as the legitimate administration of the country?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the latest military developments have returned the situation to stalemate. The Taliban were pushed back from their major advances in northern Afghanistan a couple of months ago. The estimation that we make of the situation is that there is no really authoritative government in Afghanistan and although the Taliban control the capital and most of the means of communication they are not in possession of the full attributes of the state. Therefore, I would not wish to be drawn on the question of the recognition of an alternative government.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, as the Government have placed human rights at the heart of their foreign policy, how will they ensure that blatant abuses of such rights in Afghanistan, especially towards women, are fully addressed?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, again it is very difficult to exercise influence. But we take every opportunity in contacts with the Taliban to urge relaxation of restrictions as regards human rights abuses in general and limitations on women's education and work. Theoretically, the Taliban have acknowledged that women should be educated, but in reality they have been unable to give any guarantees that this will occur. There are isolated examples of women being able to work in Taliban areas, but in general that is not happening. We recognise an appalling situation for the women of Afghanistan. We are using all means of influence that we can to try and alter it.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, are we offering any technical assistance to regional states' ministries of the interior and, if so, to what degree?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, by "regional states" I assume that the noble Viscount means the neighbouring states. We are in contact with a number of them, but there are no specific programmes of the kind that the noble Viscount has in mind. We are continuing to supply substantial humanitarian aid to the NGOs and the UN effort within Afghanistan itself.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, since the major humanitarian assistance has gone to the refugee programme and given that the military situation may have reached stalemate can the noble Lord confirm that there is a net inflow of returned refugees whom we are helping?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I cannot confirm the precise figures. I shall write to the noble Earl if I can obtain them.

European Parliament Committee on Budgets
2.55 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Doningtonasked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they propose to take to ensure that the meetings of the European Parliament Committee on Budgets take place in public.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the European Parliament's policy of openness is not a matter for the UK Government. As I understand it, the European Parliament Committee on Budgets generally meets in public except when deciding its negotiating strategy. To me, that seems entirely reasonable.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. As he is aware, since I notified him in advance, I hold in my possession a calender of meetings for the European Parliament, reference 25/B of 1997 and 21/B of 1997. In those documents there are set out, under the authority of the Secretary General, who is a distinguished Briton—incidentally, he was a member of the permanent staff of the budget committee and knows exactly what happens—three categories relating to attendance. They are public, public hearing and blank—
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: What?
Lord Bruce of Donington: Blank! That implies that the hearings are not public or for public hearing. Therefore, as regards the Budget Committee of the European Parliament—and I have in my possession the agenda of the budget committee, which does not comprise confidential matters—its meetings were not held in public for the whole of October. There was an additional meeting in the case of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the European Parliament which came into the "blank" category. Is it not clear that it is high time that somebody, preferably the United Kingdom if necessary, is able to discover what actually happens at these meetings and relays it to the British Parliament?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving me some notice of that question. It is very difficult for us to get hold of the kinds of lists which he has access to. We have always recognised that he is better informed than other noble Lords, and also most officials. My understanding is that the meetings of the budget committee between 7th and 9th October were held in public, although it may have entered a closed session to discuss particular points relating to the handling of other institutions. As regards my noble friend's second question about pressure from the British Government, we do give openness in the European Union high priority. We welcome the decision of the Intergovernmental Conference—that we pressed for—to improve access to documents and to publish Council votes.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, should not all these meetings be held in public?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not believe that is possible. There are meetings at which the European Parliament discusses its negotiating strategy in relation to the Commission and the Council of Ministers. Under those circumstances a degree of mutual confidentiality is probably desirable.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, while acknowledging the deep commitment of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, to the European Parliament, can the Government say what they intend to do to

1373
encourage consultations with the British Parliament on the Commission's proposals for the future of the European budget in its Agenda 2000 paper?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, no doubt these are matters that can be raised during the presidency of the United Kingdom in the first half of next year.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the committee which I had the honour to chair, and of which my distinguished noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington was previously a member, held all its deliberative sessions in private?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that information.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that his statement that my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington knows more about this subject than officials tells us two things: first, that my noble friend Lord Bruce is a remarkable person particularly on this subject and, secondly, that the officials must be peculiarly unremarkable bearing in mind the huge resources that they have at their disposal which are not available to my noble friend? Will the Minister do something about that to make sure that officials become better informed than my noble friend because perhaps then they would understand exactly what damage the European Union does to this country?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I agree with the first part of my noble friend's question, but not with the second or third parts. As I said earlier, the question of openness in the European Parliament is not a matter for the UK Government or for this House; and I cannot accept that officials here are derelict in their duty.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am slightly surprised that he defends the privacy of the budget committee of the European Parliament? I notice that he grasped the Barnett formula on this issue to his chest very quickly. If the Government are really keen on openness and think that the European Parliament and, indeed, this House should be open, may I ask whether such openness will extend to Labour Members of the European Parliament?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, our commitment to openness extends very widely indeed. As I indicated earlier, it was the United Kingdom which put forward proposals on openness in the common foreign and security policy and in relation to justice and home affairs. We shall follow up those initiatives during the UK presidency. I welcome the fact that the Amsterdam Treaty will include the first provision for treaty-based access to documents. That has never been provided before. As to Labour Members of the European Parliament, I do not think that that is any more a matter for this House than is the subject of committees of the European Parliament.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that an examination of the documents that emanate as reports from the budget committee of the European Parliament shows that they are distinctly uninformative and do not add generally to the store of knowledge available to the general public? In this case, and allowing for the Minister's defence of the position that the European Parliament and what it does is no particular concern of ours, and in view of the stance taken by the European Parliament on matters of vital interest to the United Kingdom, will the Minister take steps in future (through his civil servants or by other means) to make sure that the British Parliament is acquainted with what happens?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I welcome the development in my noble friend's thinking. It was clear from the question asked by my noble friend Lord Barnett that my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington has changed his views since he was involved in these matters and agreed to meetings in private. The whole thrust of our policy has been for greater openness. One of the most effective ways of achieving that has been the extension of qualified majority voting to issues of openness so that a minority of member states who are opposed to further openness initiatives are brought out into the open, so to speak.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, may I ask why this should not be a matter of legitimate concern for your Lordships' House?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the European Parliament, like another place, is a democratically elected body and makes its own rules. I do not think that we would be very pleased if the European Parliament started to demand that committees of your Lordships' House, for example, must hold their deliberations in public rather than in private.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, but should it not be of interest to this House if Members of the European Parliament act against the national interest?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there is no evidence that Members of the European Parliament have been acting against the national interest or against the interests of Europe as a whole.

Organophosphates
3.4 p.m.
The Countess of Marasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will convene a high level, interdepartmental committee with the remit to consider all the current evidence on the testing, licensing, use and disposal of organophosphorus chemicals and their effects on humans and the environment, and to make recommendations.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Donoughue): My Lords, the existing advisory committees already provide a considerable level of scrutiny and advice to Ministers. There is close liaison and overlapping membership between the Advisory Committee on Pesticides, the Veterinary Products Committee, the Committee on Safety of Medicines, and other associated committees. The Government attach the highest importance to ensuring that the current interchange of information and scientific expertise continues and is made available to all those who have an interest. In addition, a group of officials from relevant departments will formally monitor and co-ordinate the information relating to organophosphorus chemicals and will report regularly to Ministers.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that this is not the first time that I have asked such a Question and I am extremely grateful to him for that encouraging Answer. Does the Minister appreciate that not only are the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Health involved, but that the Department of the Environment, the Department of Social Security, and the Ministry of Defence are also involved—and the Treasury is probably somewhere in all of this? Will the Minister use all his very obvious powers of persuasion to persuade officials that it is not too late for them to discard their defensive stance and that they should address the very real concerns of the sufferers that they should receive treatment and that any future damage should he prevented?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the noble Countess. I assure her that we take this matter extremely seriously, and that the work of the relevant departments, which she mentioned, is being co-ordinated—I do not know whether the Treasury is aware of that. From my observations, there has been a notable move towards a more positive attitude on the part of officials in the department.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, does the Minister remember that when we last discussed this subject he was sympathetic to the proposal that there should be an independent co-ordinator from outside all the departments concerned who should be of such stature as to be trusted by the veterans? Trust is still very lacking and I strongly support the noble Countess in urging the Government to do all that they can to regain that trust. May I suggest that the idea of having an interdepartmental co-ordinator of stature—an idea to which the Minister was sympathetic when it was discussed—should be pursued?
Lord Donoughue: Yes, my Lords, I recall that being raised in debate and I was, and am, sympathetic to the idea. We are continuing to consider that proposal but I believe that what the co-ordinating committee establishes will produce the evidence that Ministers require in order to take the necessary decisions. We are intent on re-establishing trust in our management of this very important matter.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is a serious problem of head lice among schoolchildren throughout the country, that the shampoo most suitable for dealing with the problem seems to be that containing organophosphates, and that many parents and teachers are therefore worried? I agree with the noble Countess about the importance of establishing a co-ordinating committee and congratulate the Minister on his work to establish an interdepartmental committee.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her kind remarks. Dealing with head lice is more a matter for the Committee on Safety of Medicines and the Department of Health. However, I advise the noble Baroness that on the information that I have it is not scientifically established that there is a serious threat to children's health. Since 1976 when the organophosphate shampoo was introduced, I think that there have been 29 cases of adverse effects and the majority of those were thought to be due to allergic reactions. We are, however, aware of the problem and shall continue to keep an eye on it.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, has the Minister had an opportunity to read in full the judgment given in Hong Kong in July in the Phillips case? If so, what is his assessment of its impact on the Government's view of any link between the use of OPs and chronic ill health?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I have not read the report in full but I am aware of it and its implications. That is a matter for the court. Our work is conducted on the scientific assessment of the bodies that provide us with advice. A great deal of work has been put in place. A number of research projects are under way. We are tightening up the codes of conduct on the use of organophosphates and extending the use of certificates of competence, which have been extremely valuable in training those who use these substances. The root of the problem is those who use organophosphates. It is very important that we help them to use these substances in the correct way.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, in view of the fact that the Question of the noble Countess includes the word "environment", attention should be drawn to the symbol scheme of the Soil Association, which has outlawed the use of organophosphates by all organic farmers? Since its inception they have suffered no loss of productivity from that injunction. Perhaps that information will be of use to the committee.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I am aware of that. Many farmers may well take note of the information that the noble Earl has provided.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, the noble Lord has well illustrated the problems that have arisen in the past. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, he said that he believed her concern was the responsibility of

1377
COT. We have always come up against the business of passing the buck from one to the other. I should like to press the Minister on the question of the effects on children. No scientific experiments have been carried out on children, because they are forbidden. There is very little knowledge about the psycho-neurological effects of these pesticides on children; yet we hear more and more about children's behavioural problems. Will the Minister address that subject in particular?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, indeed I will.

Powerboats and Safety of Coastal Waters
3.11 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderleyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will issue guidelines to local authorities on what steps they should take to ensure that other users of the sea are not put at risk by motor boats and jetskiers.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the proposal that the Government should issue guidance to local authorities about these and other non-regulated pleasure vessels is under consideration following wide-ranging consultation. The newly merged Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is in an excellent position to bring together those dealing with marine safety, harbours and coastal local authorities to review means of improving safety. The responses are being analysed.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. Does she agree that the problem could be alleviated if local authorities were required to enforce a similar code of conduct? That would, I hope, include educating the users of powered watercraft who, unlike sailors, have no knowledge of wind directions or how strong it is before they go to sea. Most of them do not belong to sailing clubs which nearly always discipline and teach their members.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, one of the possibilities being considered in the review is the creation of guidelines to provide for a uniform by-law that can be adopted by all local authorities. The Government are not aware of any evidence that local authorities would be reluctant to adopt and co-operate with such a policy. But I agree with the noble Lord that the first step is education rather than legislation. That is being pursued by a number of groups. On behalf of one of those groups I take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, for the work that he does for the Royal National Lifeboat Institution.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, will the Government consider in this connection the position of estuaries where many of these activities take place? My understanding is that the estuary is a black hole in our law. It is not covered by any of the normal laws that
1378
empower local authorities to take action, since an estuary is regarded as a branch of the sea and therefore open to all-comers.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am aware of the sensitivity of the relationship between beaches and estuaries with regard to bathing water under the previous government and the former Secretary of State for the Environment. I am aware that the issue of estuaries and safety has been brought to the attention of those who are taking part in the review. Over 150 responses have been received including those relating to estuaries.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that many parents instead of teaching their children to row boats put them in charge of dinghies with outboard motors whether they be in estuaries or coastal waters? Would it not be a good idea to have legislation on a minimum age for a child to be put in charge of a boat that is motor-powered?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the issue of regulation, including whether a minimum age should be introduced, is one that has been expressed as part of the review. Another point that has been put is the difficulty of policing and monitoring such regulation.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the problems that we have discussed exist also in inland waters, particularly on lakes? Is my noble friend able to assure the House that if guidelines are produced they will apply also to inland waters? Further, can my noble friend inform the House whether the users of motor boats are required to register or to prove their competence before they take out such craft?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, under existing legislation local authorities' powers are limited to the impact on bathers. Therefore, that factor would have to be taken into account in regard to other areas of water. As to the requirement that people should have training or experience, while those responsible organisations in this area seek to ensure that there is proper training there is at the moment no legislative requirement for vessels under 49 feet.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, some people enjoy the noise and excitement of jetskis and motor boats; other people loathe them. In this age of devolution does the Minister agree that local people know whether they have a problem? If the powers were widened or guidelines were given, should it not be a local government decision rather than a central government decision?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, as part of the consultation a view has been expressed about the possibility of producing stronger guidance. The question of noise nuisance is being considered. The noble Lord who tabled this Question rightly identified the concern that neither users nor the public would know

1379
where they were if there were different regulations in different places. All of these issues must be balanced as part of the review.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that if the seeming desire of some of the population to ban legitimate activities continues it will not be too long before we shall all be wondering what to do with ourselves on a Saturday afternoon? More seriously, is not the best way forward to make use of existing legislation with regard to speed limits, to couple that with education, and to set aside certain designated areas where these activities which annoy some people can take place?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I would be very surprised if the result of the consultation was a recommendation to the Government to ban this activity completely. Local authorities' powers relate to bathers and can be used only to protect bathers. I agree with the noble Lord that it would be tragic if the use of such personal watercraft were to be banned because of abuse by certain individuals. We must seek to control the menace.
3.18 p.m.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the White Paper on international development. It is expected that this Statement will be taken immediately before the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield.

Business of the House: Debate this Day
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Williams of Elvel set down for today shall be limited to five hours—(Lord Richard.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Environmental Protection and Enhancement
3.20 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel rose to call attention to the environment and, in particular, to the case for environmental protection and enhancement, both nationally and internationally; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, allowing a certain time for noble Lords who are not interested in the environment to leave the Chamber, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
As your Lordships will be aware, the Motion is widely drawn. That is deliberate. First, although it is a minor consideration, it offers an opportunity for noble Lords who have recently arrived among us to make their maiden speeches. I am glad to see that four noble Lords have availed themselves of that opportunity and I look forward to hearing their contributions.
Secondly, and—with due respect to our maiden speakers—more importantly, the Motion reflects the variety of considerations and issues which are subsumed under the word "environment". That is deliberately so. The expression "environment" embodies a wide concept. Indeed, it is possible to say that it embodies a series of wide concepts, each of which needs proper treatment. For instance, taking some topical issues, it would be a mistake to focus entirely on global warming and to neglect the sorry state of much of our domestic housing. Equally, it is no good worrying about forest fires in Indonesia and ignoring the problems of our own countryside. In my view, it would have been ridiculous to concentrate only on a healthy future for our children and grandchildren and to pass over the damage that is being inflicted even now on the health of the present generation. Those are only a few of the issues which properly fall under the heading "environment".
It would be absurd to imagine that all these issues, diverse as they are, can be covered in any detail in a time-limited debate such as this. If your Lordships will allow, I wish to set the scene on a number of issues and to raise what I regard to be a number of crucial questions in the hope that other noble Lords will develop the arguments at greater length than I am able to do, and raise related issues and questions in the expectation that my noble friend the Minister will feel able to respond helpfully to the points that I and they will bring forward.
We are told that the environment is, to use the appropriate expression, "at the heart of government policy". I fully support that objective, but it is no use pretending that its achievement does not make for some hard and possibly unpopular decisions. Perhaps I may take, first, the international aspect. Next month in Kyoto there will be a summit meeting on climate change. It is—I shall try to find the right word—disappointing to say the least that the United States Government have refused to commit themselves to reducing carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels before 2008 to 2012. It is equally disappointing that the Japanese Government have undertaken a target reduction of only 0 per cent. to 5 per cent. by 2010. Obviously, a great deal of work must be done before the Kyoto Summit can be considered to be any kind of success.
However, success it must be, because the reason for our disappointment is simple. A volume of scientific evidence shows that if we continue to emit greenhouse gases the world's climate will change. It is perhaps changing even now. The effects of such a change are by no means clear. There are those who argue that in future there will be vineyards in Scotland and palm trees in Snowdonia. On the other hand, there are those who argue that the course of the Gulf Stream may change and that, since the Gulf Stream provides warmth to the British Isles of approximately 27,000 times our total generating capacity of electricity, we are in for another

1381
local ice age. Neither I nor anyone else can answer that particular conundrum, but it is clear that we are in the middle of what will be an historic debate and that the decisions taken now will have an effect, whatever it may be, on the future of the planet in general and on these islands in particular.
It is to the credit of the Government and, to give credit where it is due, to the previous government, that these problems have been recognised and at least some action has been taken to combat their effects. Indeed, the United Kingdom is one of the few countries to meet the target undertaken at the Rio Summit to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels by the end of the decade. But the Kyoto Summit is meant to go a stage further and set targets for 2010. Our Government have set what can only be described as a stern target. They have topped the European Union target of a 15 per cent. reduction on 1990 levels by 2010; they have gone further and set a target of 20 per cent.
That is all very well and no doubt your Lordships will believe that it is desirable, but I turn to the domestic problem. It is simple: how is that target to be achieved? I am afraid that it is unrealistic to suppose that, overnight, people will leave their cars at home and walk. That process will mean years, even decades, of persuasion and the provision of a proper system of public transport to provide an adequate and sustainable alternative.
Nor is it clear that a switch from fossil fuels in electricity generation is anything other than a long-term option. Nuclear energy, however clean, and given the costs of eventual decommissioning, is still hopelessly uneconomic and fraught with planning difficulties. Renewables are promising in the long term but cannot possibly contribute anything other than a minuscule amount of electricity for an economy whose consumption of electricity will grow at least as fast as the economy grows, if past experience is anything to go by.
Furthermore—and, as vice-president of the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales, here I strike a somewhat parochial note—wind energy creates its own environmental problems. Anybody who has seen wind farms on the top of hills in mid-Wales will know, I believe, what I am talking about.
It may well be that the more efficient use of energy is the key to the problem. However, I am by no means clear how that is to be achieved in substantial measure other than—and we must face the fact quite squarely—by the use of the price mechanism. In other words, I recognise the contribution that renewables may make and I recognise the contribution that combined heat and power schemes may make. The current review of utilities will no doubt come up with useful suggestions. I accept, too, that there will be best practice schemes for home energy use and for industry. But I very much hope that the Minister will be able to set out in greater detail how our target at the end of the day—whatever day it is—will be achieved.
That brings me conveniently to the next issue which I believe needs to be raised. It is known, perhaps somewhat quaintly, as the "countryside". I have no
1382
objections to the expression itself, although I personally tend to take the view that you do not get to what could properly be recognised as "countryside" until you have crossed the Severn river going westwards.
Nevertheless, there is a continuing debate about the future of the countryside, and how we should protect and, indeed, enhance it. The debate, like all debates on the environment, has many aspects, but is at the moment linked to the future of rural economies and housing needs. As regards projections of future housing needs, I am afraid that I have no particular views of my own to offer on whether the household projections which we have heard about are right or wrong. However, it is clear that, over the past 20 years, the area covered by green belts has doubled, while the amount of land in urban use has increased by just 10 per cent. over the same period. So we have, in my view, to keep this whole matter in perspective: 90 per cent. of the population of England and Wales live in urban areas; and, furthermore, more than 90 per cent. of new households have local roots—sons and daughters getting married or getting divorced, or old people wanting their own home in the place in which they have lived their lives. That is the truth of the matter and, whatever difficulties that may cause, and however much enthusiasts for green belts—some of them, if I may say so, journalists with a comfortable London home—may object, that does seem to me to have the basis of good sense.
None of that should detract from the obligation of government, at all levels—national and local—to protect and enhance their own domestic environment. The legislation for national parks is already in place, and I should be interested to hear from my noble friend how that is bedding down. I should also be interested to hear from the Minister how Agenda 21 is progressing in local authorities. Contaminated land continues to be a difficult matter (apart, perhaps, from the millenium dome). The Environment Agency has, I understand, had staffing problems, and I should be interested to hear about those.
I do not wish to seem carping. There are many things which I would wish to welcome. I welcome the merging of the Departments of Transport and Environment. I welcome the approach to an integrated transport policy which will bring together environmental and transport policies. That is beneficial. I welcome the establishment of a special Cabinet committee to oversee the environmental impact of all government policies. And, perhaps (with my cynical mind) I think this to be the most important of all: I welcome the setting up of a Select Committee in another place to deal specifically with environmental audits, able to call evidence across all departments in public.
It will come as no surprise to the House that I finish precisely where I started. I have tried to set the scene for this important debate. These are early days, and the Government have promised much. I look forward to the remainder of this debate, particularly in the hope that my noble friend will be able to convince

1383
us all that the Government can, and will, deliver on their promises. There is much to do. I wish them well in their efforts. I beg to move for Papers.
3.35 p.m.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, for introducing such an important and wide-ranging debate this afternoon. He touched briefly on a subject about which I shall speak; that is, national parks. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, and I spent many hours together taking my national parks Private Member's Bill through your Lordships' House. Much of its contents formed the national park measures in the Environment Act 1995 which strengthened the statutory provisions for environmental protection and enhancement in England and Wales.
I should like to take a few moments to talk about national parks, a subject close to my heart, and I speak today as a vice-president of the Council for National Parks.
In 1999, we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. Those 50 years have brought many changes to the parks but they remain places where environmentally sustainable policies can be pioneered. Generally speaking, decision-making by national park authorities, public utilities, government departments and other bodies whose activities may affect national parks hinges upon park purposes. Those were set out in the 1949 Act and amended in the Environment Act 1995. They are to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the national parks; and to promote opportunities for the public understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the parks themselves.
Environmental protection and enhancement of the parks means that national park purposes must remain as a focus for decision-making at all levels, particularly that of government and their departments. In that respect, I welcome the introduction of "green" Ministers in each government department. It is very good news that the Government are committed to designating more areas of the countryside with national park status. I should like to mention the merits of national park status for two of our finest lowland landscapes—the South Downs and the New Forest.
In fact, on 22nd July of this year, the Government instigated a public consultation on the best way forward for managing the South Downs in the medium and long term. I look forward to contributions to that consultation process. However, I am rather concerned about some aspects of the process itself. First, the period of response, which is from 26th November to 12th January 1998, is very short when Christmas and the New Year are taken into account. I am concerned that that may inhibit interested parties from responding seriously. I hope that members of the public who wish to attend the conference at which the consultation will be launched will not be put off by the fee of £20 and the fact that it is scheduled during a working day. People throughout the nation value the South Downs and it is
1384
essential that the national viewpoint, in addition to that of local residents, receives a very good airing. Therefore, I hope sincerely that the Minister will ensure that the process will be more widely advertised than at present and that the period will be extended.
I turn now to the New Forest. The highly respected 1991 National Parks Review Panel recommended that the New Forest be recognised formally as a national park. In 1992 the Government said that it,
"believes that the [Panel's] recommendations provide a sound basis for achieving improved protection",
for the New Forest and that it envisaged a position for the New Forest that,
"would be essentially analogous to that of the Broads which enjoys the same degree of protection as a National Park".
In view of that government commitment and the independent panel's recommendation, can the Minister say what plans the Government have for making progress on statutory national park status for the New Forest?
Perhaps I may suggest to the Minister that a most appropriate and timely way to mark the 50th anniversary of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 would be by announcing national park status for the South Downs and the New Forest. How splendid it would be if we were to ensure that two of our most valued lowland landscapes are protected and enhanced for future generations to enjoy, just as we have enjoyed those designated 50 years ago.
Perhaps I may say a few words about the protection of the existing 11 national parks of England and Wales, and about the upholding of their statutory purposes which I mentioned earlier. In recent years, the parks have been under threat from major development pressures in terms of damage to the landscape, restrictions on access and erosion of the parks' special qualities. That pressure comes from many quarters, including that of military training, energy and transport related development and mineral extraction.
I welcome the Government's commitment to using the planning system to restrict the growth of new quarries in the countryside. I hope that this commitment on paper will be carried through when a decision is made on the application to extend the Spaunton quarry in the North York Moors National Park, and indeed on other decisions involving quarrying in the parks. The Spaunton decision in particular represents an important opportunity for the Government to uphold national park purposes.
The Government will soon have the opportunity to restate their commitment to the principle of "quiet enjoyment" in national parks when they look again at the decision of the previous Secretary of State not to confirm the 10 mph by-law for Windermere. I was pleased that the Deputy Prime Minister has decided not to defend that decision in the High Court. An important principle is at stake here (and one that we debated with much fervour and at great length during the passage of the Environment Act 1995 through this House). Despite no explicit reference to the principle of "quiet enjoyment" in the Environment Act 1995, I welcome the fact that successive governments have expressed

1385
continuing commitment to the principle of "quiet enjoyment" of national parks. It is time for that commitment to be tested and for the by-law to be confirmed.
In conclusion, national parks are a vital national resource and are visited and enjoyed by nearly 80 million people each year. The need for national park status for the South Downs and the New Forest is more pressing than ever, in view of the tremendous pressures that the special qualities of both these areas face. They would be a most welcome and popular addition to our family of national parks. In short, adequate protection for national parks, recognition at all levels of decision making of their special qualities, and designation of these two new national parks would all help the Government meet their sustainable development objectives.

"Eliminating World Poverty"
3.43 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development about international development. The Statement is as follows
"With permission, I wish to make a Statement about international development. I am today publishing a White Paper, Eliminating World Poverty: A Challenge for the 21st Century. It will beavailable in the Vote Office when I have finished speaking
"The White Paper sets out the Government's policies for the sustainable development of the planet. This requires greater progress in eliminating poverty. Nearly one in four of the people of the world live on the margins of human existence. This is morally repugnant and threatening to future security and stability. Our manifesto made clear that we would give much greater priority to international development than the previous administration. The creation of my department, and the fact that it is headed by a Cabinet Minister, reflects that, as does the publication of this White Paper. It is the first White Paper on development for over 20 years.
"Considerable progress in poverty elimination is now possible. The past 50 years have seen great advances. On average, people live longer and in better health. More people have clean water. More are literate. More people have escaped from poverty in the past 50 years than in the previous 500 years. But because of population growth, more people are living in abject poverty than ever before.
"The challenge of development is to apply the lessons of success to enable the poor to work their way out of poverty. We are committing ourselves to refocus our international development efforts on poverty elimination. That can only be achieved through economic growth which benefits the poor and
1386
through measures which provide education and healthcare and enable the poor to develop their talents. As Michel Camdessus, managing director of the IMF, said recently, 'We support high quality growth. This means growth that results in a permanent reduction in poverty and greater equality of economic opportunity.'
"We will measure our progress against clear, internationally accepted targets that have been agreed at UN conferences and by the OECD. The key target is to halve the proportion of people living in extreme poverty by 2015. The targets also cover environmental conservation and human development. We want everyone to have access to basic healthcare, education and clean water. The targets are challenging, but they are both affordable and achievable.
"We will pursue the targets in partnership with developing countries which are also committed to them. We will offer such countries a longer-term commitment of support, more resources and greater flexibility in using those resources. Our aim is to ensure that good governments succeed. The nature of our partnership will depend on the circumstances of each partner country and how we can best help.
"We will also work in partnership with other donors and international institutions in pursuit of the targets. Britain has unique international links which we intend to use actively.
"British business, voluntary agencies and our research community have a vital contribution to make to the eradication of poverty. We have held discussions with all these sectors who are keen to make a greater contribution. British business is increasingly clear that ethical business means good business in every sense and is keen to contribute to development. The aid and trade provision, which lacks poverty elimination as its central focus, will end, though we are keeping the option of providing mixed credits within agreed country programmes if they can contribute to the primary aim of reducing poverty. We will consult the private sector when preparing country and other development strategies.
"We will transform the Commonwealth Development Corporation into a public-private partnership which will increase the flow of private investment to the poorer countries. As the Prime Minister announced last month, we will seek to enlarge the resources at CDC's disposal by introducing private sector capital, with the Government retaining a substantial minority holding and a golden share. CDC will act as an ethical and socially responsible investor in poorer countries, with the proceeds from the sale being ploughed back into the development programme.
"This White Paper is not simply about aid. It covers the full range of government policies affecting poorer countries. We shall ensure much greater consistency across the range of government policies, including environment, trade, investment and agricultural policy. All will take account of our sustainable development objectives.

1387
"We will give particular attention to human rights, transparent and accountable government and core labour standards, building on the Government's ethical approach to international relations.
"We will use our influence to promote political stability, social cohesion and, wherever possible, to resolve conflict. I recently announced a doubling of my department's resources for demining. I will be signing for the United Kingdom the international convention on anti-personnel landmines in Ottawa next month.
"We must also do more to reduce the external debt of developing countries. The Chancellor of the Exchequer launched a new initiative at the Commonwealth Finance Ministers' meeting in September. I have also set in place arrangements to write off aid debt owed to the UK by lower income Commonwealth countries committed to pro-poor and transparent policies. We will do all we can to mobilise stronger international commitment to debt reduction.
"The Government attach great importance to increasing development awareness in Britain. Every child should be educated about development issues so that they can influence the shape of the world they will inherit. And every adult should have the chance to influence the Government's policies. We will establish a working group of educationalists and others to improve development education.
"We will also establish an annual development policy forum representing the many strands of society with an interest in international development. We will publish an annual report explaining how we will secure the objectives described in the White Paper and what progress has been made against the international development targets. We will also consult on the case for a new international development Act.
"The resources which the international community has made available to support the development process have declined over recent years. The previous administration almost halved Britain's development assistance as a proportion of GNP. This Government will reverse the decline in UK spending on development assistance. We also reaffirm our commitment to the 0.7 per cent. UN target.
"Every generation has a moral duty to reach out to the poor and needy. But the present generation carries an extra responsibility to ensure the international development targets are met. If we do not, there is a real danger that by the middle of the next century the world will simply not be sustainable. Population pressures, environmental degradation, conflict and disease could impose catastrophic pressure on the planet.
"This White Paper sets out how we can make progress. We should not overestimate what we can achieve alone. We should not underestimate what we can achieve with others. The new British Government commit themselves in this White Paper to working
1388
for a major advance in poverty elimination and the building of a more just and sustainable future for all the people of the world".
My Lords, that completes the Statement.
3.52 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating her right honourable friend's Statement made in another place. I think it is a Statement we can welcome but I am not certain. It is a very opaque and rather wishy-washy Statement which I find difficult to draw nuggets of truth and fact out of. I feel rather like someone fishing around in some very dirty bath water trying to find the soap. Sometimes I think I have my hands on it but it slips out of my grasp; at other times I find things which perhaps I wish were not in the bath at all. There seem at points in the Statement to be indications of some very old Labour policies coming into what is on the whole, I think, a reworking of our 1994 policy, and all the more welcome for that.
In particular, I note that the target of halving the proportion of people living in extreme poverty by 2015 was originated by my noble friend Lady Chalker of Wallasey, who is to be warmly congratulated. I hope that the noble Baroness opposite feels able to share in those congratulations. We have a chance to debate this Statement and the White Paper that underlies it in a great deal more detail next Monday, so I shall not speak for too long. However, there are some points on which I think the Government might take the chance today to give us a better idea of what is really going on in terms of policy and how the words of the Statement will translate into reality.
When the Government talk about refocusing our international development efforts on poverty elimination, what sort of projects currently being undertaken will now not be pursued? I can understand what kind of new projects the Government envisage, but what will they not do that we are now doing? Can the noble Baroness confirm that what we are not doing in particular is just deciding that our policies will be to make the poor more comfortable rather than—as our policies were—to make them rich like us? Surely it would be a backward step, an old Labour step, to talk in terms of keeping the poor poor and comfortable.
The Statement states:
"We will offer such countries a longer term commitment".
Is this something that the Treasury has agreed to? If it has agreed, is this something we can hope for in other areas too? The year by year progress of the Treasury has crippled many sections of our economy. Has the DfID suddenly had a derogation from that to enable it to offer five-year plans and commitments of money? I should be delighted to hear that that was the case. The Statement also states that there will be more resources. Can the noble Baroness confirm that those will be put into bilateral aid schemes rather than channelled through the European Union or other multilateral schemes?
The Statement makes, I think, one mention of voluntary agencies. I hope that such scant attention to the part they play does not mean that we are going to

1389
see a more centralised approach. I hope we are going to continue to make use of their many talents and indeed rely on them to a greater extent than we have in the past, if that is possible.
The Statement heralds the end of the aid and trade provision. I have two questions. First, the Government are retaining the option of providing mixed credits. Does the budget for that option exceed the aid and trade budget, or, if there is a reduction, how much is that reduction? When the Government talk about sparing projects which contribute to the primary aim of reducing poverty, which projects undertaken since 1993 would fall outside that provision? Which particular projects would the Government—had they been in power in 1993 and afterwards—not have undertaken under their new provisions that were undertaken under aid and trade?
We welcome the CDC privatisation; it is a very forward looking move. However, who will be prepared to invest in it, with Clare Short acting as gauleiter of the ethical and socially responsible investment policy, has yet to be seen, but if that can be achieved we shall be delighted. We shall also be delighted to see other government departments becoming more involved in our development policies, particularly, as mentioned in the Statement, environment, trade, investment and agricultural policy. If one is to raise countries to equality with us, we need drastically to alter some of our trading agreements with them. At the moment, there are, for instance, very low tariffs on raw materials and much higher tariffs on manufactured goods. That has to end. We have to encourage countries to develop beyond the stage of gentle poverty to being true competitors with us.
I am delighted to see that the Government will put some more effort into resolving international conflicts. One hopes they have learnt something from their experiences in India in that regard. I am delighted to see that the Government will continue our policy of writing off debt, particularly, as the Statement says, for Commonwealth countries. But I should be grateful if the noble Baroness could make accessible to the House a list of those countries who are to have debt forgiven and to confirm that the anti-corruption policies put in place by her predecessor, my noble friend Lady Chalker, will continue and that we shall not forgive debt of corrupt regimes just because they are poor.
The Government have a policy of increasing everyone's awareness of development policies, in particular through education. May I urge the Government to be open in what they do? What is said in the Statement by way of involving a sort of little clique of educationalists in developing this policy, which will then be quietly slipped into all our curricula, seems to me to be the wrong approach. This is something which should be done openly and we should all understand what is happening.
Lastly, when the Government talk about increasing their aid spending, I think we can be totally comfortable. I hope, however, that the noble Baroness can confirm that the Government will pay equal attention to increasing the private element of our support for
1390
developing countries. In recent times that has been over twice the level of government aid. In many ways such aid is likely to be better directed and more suitable for lifting a country as a whole out of poverty. We must pay particular attention to encouraging that.
The Statement says little about the education of women, the availability of contraception, or women's issues in general. I am surprised at that. I hope that the noble Baroness can explain the omission. I shall be grateful for some indication from the noble Baroness as regards support for the Zimbabwean land grab, if I may so call it. Is this a policy that the Government support and will fund? Or is it something that they regret?
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I believe that I can give a more qualified welcome to the Statement than the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, managed. The aims of the White Paper can be thoroughly supported by noble Lords on these Benches, although I wish to qualify that by flagging up some questions at this point. I shall raise points in more detail in the debate on Monday.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, has pressed for the White Paper over the past couple of years. It shows the commitment of the Government to international development that they have brought the White Paper forward as a priority and with such speed. The fact that the Overseas Development Administration has been created a department—the new DfID—indicates their commitment.
I believe that everyone would support the halving of the number of those in extreme poverty by 2015. The White Paper links environment, population and sustainable development as primary issues that have to be considered.
I wish to raise a couple of issues on which the White Paper does not go far enough in my opinion. There is reference to the ending of the aid and trade provision, which lacks poverty elimination as its central focus. Can the Minister indicate whether aid and trade provision moneys, focused on good government, will also be stopped under those criteria?
I have had only a brief period in which to scan the White Paper. However, there appears no mention of tied aid. It is disappointing that tied aid is not to be abandoned. I realise that the Government are not in a position at present to take a unilateral step. However, the Prime Minister spoke of taking a leading role in Europe. Perhaps he can demonstrate that by our becoming the first European country to abandon tied aid.
Another issue raised is that of the CDC. I believe that it meets with universal approval that the CDC is to be given greater power. Indeed, one of the main complaints about the legislation enacted on the CDC was that there was a lack of funds. I hope that the Government will retain their position within the CDC as regards the golden share. Some might say that there will be little investment in an institution which has government participation. The Commonwealth Development Corporation is successful because, through its backing by the Government, it is able to invest in solid development projects in some of the weakest parts of the world. It is a great source of strength to the CDC that the Government have an influence in it.

1391
Over the summer period, I was delighted to hear the Minister say that there would be a doubling of the department's resources for demining. The White Paper states that more money will be made available. Can the Minister give an indication of where the money will come from, and whether it will be available in the immediate future? As I understand it, little new money is coming into the DfID. With an increase of £5 million to £10 million spent on demining, that money will have to come from some other area.
Perhaps I may flag up the issue of UNESCO. I believe that next year our £11 million contribution to UNESCO will have to come out of the DfID's budget rather than from other sources. New money from the Government would help to alleviate those extra burdens.
One of the areas that we thoroughly support is the Government's commitment to reducing the debt burden of the Commonwealth countries. However, I believe that the language used about the international debt problems faced by the HIPC countries could have been stronger. I hope that the Minister can expand further, perhaps in the debate on Monday, on what strong, leading measures the Government will take.
I welcome the White Paper, and the Government's continued commitment to the target of 0.7 per cent. of GNP. I hope that the Minister can give us a timetable for that target at some point.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their welcome of the Statement, albeit the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was not entirely sure what he welcomed. He said that the Statement was opaque. I believe that the Statement and the White Paper very clearly set out government policy on these issues. The White Paper focuses the aid programme and the whole development effort on meeting an internationally agreed target of halving world poverty by the year 2015. I have no hesitation, nor any difficulty, in paying tribute to the work done by the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker. Indeed, I have done so on a number of occasions in this House. But I think it is worth pointing out that when the Labour administration left office in 1979, the commitment to aid was 0.51 per cent. of GNP; and when we took over on 1st May this year it was 0.27 per cent. of GNP. We are about reversing that trend; and I have been very clear on that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said that it was clear what projects would be undertaken, but not those which would not be undertaken. The projects that will not be undertaken are those which are not aimed at the elimination of world poverty. I believe it is a clear statement, if I may say so, that it is the elimination of poverty which must lie at the heart of how the Government commit resources in this way in the future.
The noble Lord asked, too, about the Treasury commitment. The Treasury commitment is clearly set out. It was referred to by my right honourable friend when she spoke this morning on the radio. The commitment is that the cash limits will stay as they are for the next two years; and that in the financial year 1999 to 2000 they will start to rise, aiming at the target ultimately of 0.7 per cent of gross national product.
1392
The noble Lord asked about the balancing of bilateral aid and aid through international organisations such as the European Union. Both sorts of aids will continue.
The NGOs have been consulted extensively over this paper, and will continue to be consulted. Indeed, there are specific commitments about the NGOs in relation to advice about a possible international development Act.
The noble Lord asked about the eradication of debt, and the Commonwealth countries which would benefit from those provisions. The debt provisions are consonant with the Government's wish that lower income Commonwealth countries should be committed to internationally agreed development targets, that they should be pursuing good government and encouraging transparency and, importantly, that they should be bearing down on corruption and applying economic policies which benefit the poor and encourage sustainable economic development. Formal offers have so far been extended to seven countries with aid debts totalling £18 million and discussions have started with others. The seven countries are Barbados, Dominica, Grenada, Mauritius, St. Lucia, Tonga and the Turks and Caicos Islands.
The noble Lord also asked about business involvement. Business has been widely consulted in drawing up the White Paper and will continue to be consulted. The importance of business and private sector involvement in taking forward the Government's policies is well understood by the Government. The noble Lord asked too about elements of the education of women and the way in which the White Paper will affect them. I hope that this Government have not been found wanting in their commitment to the education of women internationally. Indeed, we have discussed the question in your Lordships' House on a number of occasions. The importance of educating women, particularly in under-developed countries, about cleanliness, hygiene, clean water and, very importantly, about contraception, is well understood. That is an important part of any development programme.
The noble Lords, Lord Lucas, and Lord Redesdale, asked about the ATP programme. The White Paper sets out a raft of new initiatives for a new partnership between British business and the relevant government departments to help eliminate poverty. Ending the ATP scheme under which such notorious projects as the Pergau dam were financed does not preclude the use of mixed credits if that fits squarely within our strategy for helping a country to eliminate poverty. We shall press for an international agreement on reducing and ultimately eliminating tied aid in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, suggested. UK exporters are highly competitive. Multilateral untying can create far greater opportunities for British exporters and bring value for money for aid recipients. The proportion of British aid classified as tied fell to 15 per cent. in 1995, excluding technical co-operation from the statistics.
Questions have been asked about the financing of the demining. I wish to deal with the detailed financing questions which I am sure a number of noble Lords will wish to raise about the White Paper in the more extended debate which we are to have in your

1393
Lordships' House on Monday. If there are further questions which I have not been able to answer from either the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, or the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, I shall endeavour to do so in the debate on Monday.
4.12 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, is the Minister aware—I am sure she is—that by far the most powerful engine of development in the world today is direct foreign investment, followed closely by access to the richer markets of the products of the developing countries? Is she further aware that, for example, last year direct foreign investment, including some of the poorer African countries like Uganda, amounted to well over 100 billion dollars? That dwarfs all official aid and assistance and indicates that that is where the real drive is coming from. Is it not therefore vital that aid and technical assistance, which continue to play a crucial role, should be accurately directed at encouraging conditions—political, social, economic and infrastructural—for the attraction of more private investment? That is the key. There did not seem to be much in the Statement about the central role of this giant engine of development which now dominates the scene. Perhaps we may have the assurance that there is a good deal more in the White Paper about what is now the key to the entire development process.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, one of the essential points in the White Paper is that there should be more help to developing countries to create the conditions which will attract foreign direct investment. The noble Lord is quite right and I have no difficulty in agreeing with the point he made. I also reiterate to him that my right honourable friend said in the other place that we shall make an annual report on progress on all those issues. So the noble Lord and all your Lordships will be able to monitor progress on the important point which he raised.
Lord Acton: My Lords, can my noble friend say how much money the Government estimate will be realised from the sale of shares in the Commonwealth Development Corporation? Approximately when do they expect that those funds will be available for the development programme?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am afraid it is too early to be precise in any answer to my noble friend. The amounts involved could be significant for the Department for International Development—possibly in the region of a few hundred million pounds. The DfID is keen to mobilise new investment in CDC as soon as possible in order to carry out the Government's objectives, but there are many steps to be gone through, not least the need for legislation in an already busy parliamentary agenda. My right honourable friend expects to appoint advisers soon and to bring forward early legislation. It is intended to enable CDCs to access private capital during the life of the current Parliament.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I wish to ask one or two questions. First, between now and Monday's
1394
debate, can the Minister clarify in greater detail the aid and trade provisions which are so important to bidding for overseas contracts on the part of major British contractors? It would be useful if the lines were clearly defined because it is an important matter for industry.
Secondly, the 0.7 per cent. aid programme is ambitious and I congratulate the Government on grasping the nettle. On that point, can the Minister give us some idea of the timescale for achieving the 0.7 per cent. which, at the moment, is twice the existing aid programme? As I am sure the Minister is aware, the total amount of money paid by countries in Africa on debt servicing is, I think, three times what they receive in aid. Is she aware that servicing debt in Africa is four times what is spent on health services in Africa?
In developing her aid programme, will the Minister concentrate on the fact that immense public opinion is growing in this country, under the auspices of Jubilee 2000, to take a new look at third world debt, with a view to relieving the burden which is making economic development extremely difficult?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I have no difficulty in undertaking to give a fuller answer on the ATP question when we debate the matter on Monday. However, I reiterate to your Lordships that the Government will work with British business to strengthen support for investment in trade which promotes sustainable development. We shall make available to British business information about trade and investment opportunities in developing countries. We shall consult when preparing country and other development strategies, to take full account of the contribution that British business can make.
This Government believe that the ATP scheme lacks poverty elimination as its central focus. That is why we wish to do away with it. No more applications will be accepted and the scheme will be closed. We shall explore where mixed credits can be managed within agreed country programmes, with the primary aim of reducing poverty, not subsidising exports. This will avoid any repetition of the abuses to which I referred a little while ago.
The noble Lord asked how long it would take to achieve the target of 0.7 per cent. of GNP devoted to those programmes. I am not able to answer that as I am not in a position to know, for example, how the CDC investment is likely to go. What I can tell your Lordships is that we hope that the investment will start to grow in the financial year 1999–2000, as agreed by my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for International Development and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The noble Lord also raised a point about the debt burden in Africa. It is well taken and is understood by both my right honourable friends, the Secretary of State for International Development and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is why he launched the Mauritius Mandate in September this year. The United Kingdom is providing a bilateral lead by contributing, for example, £6.5 million towards reducing Uganda's debt

1395
to the African Development Bank, so I believe that the United Kingdom Government are taking a very important initiative and I hope are setting a trend which will be followed by other governments in the developed world.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, I offer my warm and sincere congratulations to my noble friend the Minister and, through her, to the Government, on the publication of this, the first White Paper on the subject for over 20 years. We have heard statements on this subject since the days of the Lester Pearson Commission, now over 30 years ago, and to most of us very little seems to have happened to improve the lot of those underdeveloped and poverty-stricken countries.
Is my noble friend aware and will she accept that, contrary to what the noble Lord said about inward investment, not all inward investment is good inward investment? Some of it leads to the most appalling exploitation of children in terms of child labour in these countries, and some of it is really undesirable. So we ought not to give the impression that all inward investment is good. We should examine inward investment with a fine toothcomb.
Will my noble friend accept that the bottom line is these appalling pictures that we still see on our television sets of children suffering from malnutrition and dying, crippled and in bad health? Will my noble friend further accept that if we feed and clothe these children, and give them good health and good conditions in which to grow up in their own country and develop that country, then we shall have made a great contribution to alleviating poverty in the underdeveloped world.
Finally, I ask my noble friend to join with me, at a time when there has been so much "bitching" about the Italian footballers and football, in a tribute to Franco Baresi. Franco Baresi, as many of your Lordships will know, is an Italian international football player who has had an outstanding career with his club Inter Milan and the Italian national football team. He retired at the end of last season and only last week there was an international football match in his honour, staged in the Olympic stadium in Rome. Unlike all those highly paid football stars in this country who are only too desperate to pocket the millions that are made tax free from these testimonial matches, Franco Baresi insisted that the total proceeds from that match be given to the United Nations Save the Children Fund. Is that not a cause for congratulations?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords, I believe it is and there are sadly all too few examples of such selflessness that we see in the world. One of the important things to remember about this White Paper is that what the Government are suggesting is achievable. It is not something where there is no chance of the Government being able to sustain it. As the noble lord says, there are children in the world who are starving, who are without homes and the bare necessities of life, who need not be in that position.
1396
Of course it is not just a question of aid; we know it is a question of investment, of trade and of environment. It is also a question of education, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said—of the education of mothers as well as of the children. The inward investment that we are looking at must be the kind of investment that not only achieves the short-term issues of dealing with the grinding poverty that so many people in the world so needlessly endure, but also of the long-term sustainability of future generations not having to endure such needless poverty.
Lord Judd: My Lords, will my noble friend accept that many of us are extremely grateful to her for having repeated the Statement in the House this afternoon, and for giving us such a useful introduction to the more detailed debate on Monday, when we can pursue the full implications of the White Paper? Will my noble friend also convey to her right honourable friend the Secretary of State the congratulations which I am sure many of us in all parts of the House want to offer that, so early in her term of office, she has come to Parliament with a strategy for this far-reaching and highly complex aspect of Government responsibility? As she has just indicated in answer to the last question, if the full purpose of the White Paper is to be fulfilled, with poverty eradication back as the central target—and that really is exciting—that is going to require the co-ordinated and determined collaboration of a number of departments of state in this country. There will be the Treasury, environment, defence, and of course health. In this context, can my noble friend assure us, if not today then when she speaks on Monday, that she will be able to say something to the House about the specific arrangements being put in place to enable the co-ordinated drive by Government to be achieved? Without those the White Paper will never fulfil its real purpose.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I shall have great pleasure in conveying congratulations from your Lordships' House to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development. One of the strengths of the White Paper is the emphasis it places on the new and stronger partnership it is advocating for poverty alleviation. Those partnerships should be with developing countries, other development agencies, the private sector and voluntary agencies. As I said, it is not just a question of aid but, as the noble Lord has stated, of greater coherence across a number of different areas of government activity.
The White Paper reflects the collective use of governments and its preparation involved detailed discussion among many departments. The departments will continue to work together, giving greater priority than in the past to the developing country dimension. I would remind your Lordships that we will be establishing a working group of educationalists and others to improve the education issues—not just those from the DfEE but others with expertise in this area—and that there will also be an annual development policy forum representing many different strands in this country, many different strands of thought and many

1397
different organisations who have an interest in international development. There will be an annual report explaining how the White Paper is achieving its objectives each year.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her repetition of the Statement in this House. Can I just go back again to the importance of the aid and trade provision? Perhaps she may have had an opportunity of looking at an application form for the provision, where she will see that the information required by any applicant for this facility is very detailed and in very great depth. It is also a two-way operation. Not only does it apply to the country where the equipment, or whatever it may be, is going to be shipped, but it also applies to the United Kingdom. Certain questions on the aid and trade provision form demand detailed information on unemployment rates, the industries involved, the subsuppliers and a great deal of very important information. Therefore, I suggest that the noble Baroness might look at this application form, because it contains a wealth of information.
My second question is: where is the law deficient, so as to make it necessary to have a new international development Act? Perhaps she can tell the House.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I regret I have not looked at an ATP form—I do not suppose that that comes as a surprise to the noble Lord. However, I can assure him that my right honourable friend and her officials will have looked closely at the forms.
Many projects previously supported by ATP would not now be eligible following the introduction of new OECD rules—the Helsinki disciplines. In those cases British businesses can compete equally with foreign firms without subsidies from the taxpayer. The White Paper makes clear that mixed credits may be available if a project fits squarely within a country's poverty elimination strategy.
The noble Lord asks where the current legislation is deficient. Current legislation does not put the Government's objective of poverty elimination at the heart of the aid programme. There is a new emphasis. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, suggested to the House that somehow these were the same old policies recycled. That is clearly not the case. The Government may wish, having taken further advice—I stress the importance of consultation in this matter—to bring forward legislation to ensure that it is clear that poverty eradication lies at the heart of the Government's policy.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, perhaps I can join in the general chorus of congratulations and commend in particular the Minister's emphasis on development education. That is an important passage in both the Statement and the White Paper. Now that the Government are doing the right thing in the White Paper, do they believe that support for development overseas will win elections? The reason for the lamentable decline in our gross national product percentage is because the Conservatives never thought that there were votes in overseas development. Can we
1398
hear something from the Minister in regard to the Government's commitment to the electorate over the next five years? We shall do well with schools through development education, but the wider public needs to understand what the Government are doing.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I have enough respect for the British public to believe that it supports poverty elimination; that it feels strongly about needless poverty where we find it in the world. We had no clearer demonstration of that than the recent sad events in relation to the tragic death of the Princess of Wales and the fact that she devoted so much of her time to children in poverty and related issues. Many people felt that something extraordinarily worthwhile was being undertaken.
However, we are not doing this for votes. The Government believe that needless poverty ought to be tackled and that what we are doing is right. The current position is repugnant and a government dedicated to ethical foreign policy should take a lead. We are doing what we said we would do in our manifesto and doing it with considerable energy.

Environmental Protection and Enhancement
Debate resumed.
4.33 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield: My Lords, in the Ugandan villages where I lived for some years, and where I feel it appropriate to mention on a personal note that we lost a child, the issue of the elimination of poverty would not be thought to be an interruption to a debate on the environment. In those communities poverty was the main threat to the environment. The lack of proper fuels meant that forests were continually being destroyed. Women need firewood as well as education and therefore the issue of the elimination of poverty and the environment are totally interconnected.
So too with water supplies. Water supplies were continually being polluted in the areas where we lived because, as part of the environment, they had to support—hopelessly inadequately—a crying need for the proper distribution of water. I hope therefore that we view the Minister's Statement as no interruption of the debate on the environment. The environment has, as one of its principal enemies, the ongoing existence of poverty.
It is a privilege to be able to speak in this debate from these Benches early on—I am conscious of the privilege—since concern for the environment has a key place in many religious views of the world, including the Christian view. It must be admitted that such religious views have often been ambiguous in their effects. In particular, Christianity has been used to support the exploitation of the natural world. The well-known command in Genesis to subdue the earth has been seen in the past as giving people licence to despoil the environment unthinkingly.

1399
But that is not the whole picture. More pervasive than the idea of dominion has been the concept of responsible stewardship as a deeply religious impulse, the model of that quiet care for creation as found in the Celtic and Franciscan traditions. At its heart the Judaeo-Christian tradition expresses a profound and joyful reverence for the whole of the environment in its place in God's created world.
More recently, care and attention to the environment has been clearly linked with another imperative—a very simple one; that is, the commandment to love our neighbours as ourselves. The natural order we now see is a web of inter-relatedness. We are not loving our neighbours if we pollute their environment, threaten their health or quality of life, or demand or encourage the production of cheap food and goods which tempt them to despoil or pollute their environment. Nor—this is a new widening of the understanding of "neighbour"—dare we forget our neighbours who will come after us. We have not only inherited the earth from our fathers; but we are also borrowing it from our children and grandchildren.
What is the nature of the responsibilities which we owe to other species, both plants and animals, to the fabric of the earth, to its soil, its rocks, its mineral resources and of course the earth's atmosphere? I am glad to join with the noble Lord, Lord Williams, in congratulating the last government and the present Government on their commitment to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases in an attempt to slow down atmospheric change.
Perhaps I may draw attention to the fact that a constituency which I represent—the Churches—are taking action on these matters. Next month the World Council of Churches will be presenting a petition at the climate change negotiations in Kyoto. That petition has already been signed by thousands of people in the industrialised countries across the world. By signing they have committed themselves to changing their own lifestyles in order to use less of the world's resources and to lobbying their governments into taking stronger action to reduce climate change. The petitioners are also aware of other related questions. How may we use energy itself more efficiently?
It is regrettable that the schemes for home insulation and other insulation sponsored by the public utilities and the Government were cut in two previous Budgets. A 1992 White Paper showed that there is scope for power generation from renewable sources. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, described those sources of power from renewables as minuscule. Does the Minister believe that they are insignificant? There have been debates in this House in relation to wind power, the burning of waste and coppicing schemes. What is the present Government's policy in those respects?
There are also national issues to be addressed. What, for example, is the future of our water supply within our own nation? There are disturbing predictions about future demand for water exceeding supply in some parts of the country. Recently, Church leaders in the north west made a submission to the inquiry set up by the
1400
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions about the way we pay for our water. They recognised the need for price mechanisms to regulate use. But this group of Church leaders also expressed concern about the effects of metering. Although this appears to be fair, metering does not always take into account the different circumstances of people's lives and the amount of water they may need in order to maintain good standards of hygiene. This is particularly true of households with elderly people or households which contain disabled or sick members, where extra demands on water may be above average in a particular household.
The Church is not alone in this view about the water supply. Barnardos, Save the Children and the BMA have all expressed similar concerns. Action to conserve resources is essential, but will the costs of such action fall disproportionately on disadvantaged sections of society? Environmental concern and social justice must, if at all possible, go together.
Finally, I want to encourage the noble Lord, Lord Williams, in reporting that there is much support in local communities and in local churches for this attention to the environment to which he is calling us. There is participation in the local Agenda 21 process since Rio. There are imaginative schemes to heat our churches more efficiently. There is increasing use of recycling and of environmentally friendly products. There is the development of conservation schemes on land where it is still owned by churches.
It is over a decade since the Church and Conservation Project was set up at the Arthur Rank Centre at Stoneleigh. It continues its work. One element of that work has been to encourage churches to manage their churchyards in such a way as to provide habitats for wildlife and to protect rare species of plants and lichens. In my own diocese there are increasing numbers of people taking part in a Best Kept Churchyard competition. That is in an area stretching from the Peak District down to Stourbridge and from Burton-on-Trent right across to the Welsh Border. There is a take-up for this kind of concern.
I am glad also to report that this concern for churchyards is not restricted to sentimental images of country churchyards. It exists in urban parishes also. There is not much wildlife in Tipton or West Bromwich, but care carries a message about partnership in urban regeneration.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for calling this debate. I trust that it will be heard in international agencies, such as the World Trade Organisation, among our multinational corporations, in our national planning and in our own choices. Unless we can achieve a widely accepted environmental ethic, there is little hope of significant change. A religious vision may be able to undergird that ethic which we seek.
4.44 p.m.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, let me first say how delighted I am to be able to make my maiden speech in this extremely important debate on the

1401
environment; and, indeed, how proud I am to be a Member of this House. It is a great privilege to be here. I also at the outset express my thanks that an attempt not far short of 400 years ago today, in 1605, radically to change the environment of this place, completely failed.
The environment, for me, must be addressed in all its aspects—whether it is in the home, the workplace, the community, in Britain or, most importantly of all, throughout the world. But to ensure that the protection of all areas of our environment is tackled for the benefit of all human beings, it seems to me that everyone should be encouraged to become more sensitive about our environment.
Apart from governments, local authorities, employers and other organisations, citizens everywhere must be persuaded to develop a keen awareness of the need to sustain the environment and avoid the dangers that could one day take us beyond the point of no return to catastrophe. There is no doubt that with continuing global industrialisation and the many complex changes taking place, we will not, during this debate, be able to say all that needs to be said. Nevertheless, I hope that I shall be able to assist the House in the short contribution I make.
Our environment is plagued enough by natural disasters throughout the world without us adding to the difficulties by neglecting our responsibilities and allowing man-made disasters to get out of control to the detriment of us all. In this country, we may justly feel that we are among the most fortunate of people. Few natural disasters afflict us, though we have had our problems over the years. Lynmouth comes immediately to mind; winter snows in various parts of the country, particularly in Scotland; the uprooting of millions of trees in freak storms 10 years ago—all impacting on the environment, if only for a short time. As a child I well remember the snows and subsequent flooding during the winter of 1946–47 that created major problems for the post-war Labour Government.
The impact of industrialisation made a lasting impression on me from an early age. Two centuries of environment damaging activity through the development of coal mines, iron works and steel works, mills and factories, all had a detrimental effect on the health of people. When I left school at 15 and went to work in the steel works at Port Talbot, 14 miles from my home in the Vale of Glamorgan, I saw the blast furnaces, the coke ovens and the melting shops discharge their waste into the atmosphere 24 hours a day, waste which fell on the communities not only of Port Talbot itself, but also on the communities of Aberavon, Taibach and Margam, leaving layers of dust even on the insides of people's homes.
But I suppose the most poignant impact of man's neglect and indifference to the environment came home to me 31 years ago last week, when I attended the funeral of well over 100 small children who had their lives taken from them in the small south Wales village of Aberfan. By continuing to pile pit waste on tips for generation after generation without adequate safeguards, combined with heavy rain, this man-made mountain was
1402
turned into an avalanche that buried the school to which the children had gone that morning, a school in which the children felt safe and secure. The least we can do to make amends for avoidable disasters of this kind is to take all the precautions we can to prevent greater tragedies in the future.
When we look beyond our shores and witness the natural environmental disasters that occur elsewhere, we here in Britain can appreciate how fortunate we are. The catalogue of catastrophes is a long one—earthquakes in Japan, Peru and Mexico; volcanic eruptions in the Philippines, North America and currently in Montserrat with such devastating results; and mass flooding, particularly in central Europe, in the USA and India where states of emergency have been declared. I am sure your Lordships could add to these tenfold.
For the world to have to contend with the effects of natural disasters is more than enough. But to add to our difficulties by neglecting our responsibilities to safeguard our environment from monumental destruction of our own making seems to me to be nothing short of criminal.
Arising from my international trade union responsibilities with both USDAW and the TUC, I was, on more than a few occasions, appalled at the suffering inflicted on working people in developing countries. I am thinking of the Bhopal disaster; the terrible deaths of young women locked in factory fires in China and Thailand; the cruel suffering of hundreds of thousands of young children in the Indian sub-continent who even in the 1990s have been sold into slavery and spend short and miserable lives breathing in choking brick dust, or noxious fumes, or lethal asbestos fibres, which will disable them and leave them in agony before it kills them.
Of course, there are controls, rules and regulations; but what we see happening tells us that still a great deal more needs to be done. Indeed, we do not need to go to Asia or Latin America, for example, to see the pollution created by the motor car. We must take particular care in the production of nuclear energy and in the transportation and storage of nuclear waste. As we become more dependent on nuclear energy, the British nuclear industry must be reinforced in the view that the cost of preventing a nuclear disaster can never be too high.
Internationally, the environmental disasters taking place before our very eyes are frightening. We have the forest fires of Indonesia out of control and having an environmental impact on the whole South East Asian region, damaging the health of the people living there. And we know of the rain forest destruction, the long-term effects of which cannot be fully calculated, but which will undoubtedly be extremely damaging.
We must appreciate that the responsibility for environmental protection is everybody's in both the developed and developing world. But there is not a level playing field. In striving for a better living in the rich countries, we must never lose sight of the need to enable all people to grow and live truly human lives. We ourselves need to learn to be and to develop, rather than solely to possess and consume the resources of the

1403
planet recklessly. This is an area that certainly cannot be left to the market. As a Christian, I believe that governments, singly and in co-operation, have a profound duty to provide protection for the good things that are common to all. This certainly applies to the natural and human environments which cannot be protected by the unrestricted operation of economic forces.
At this point I want to record my welcome of the response of Her Majesty's Government to the devoted, selfless commitment of Diana, Princess of Wales, to clearing the appalling proliferation of landmines around the globe.
We know that for the well-being of all of us there are three factors necessary. They are: wealth creation; social justice; and environmental protection. If we want the developing countries to assist in environmental protection we must ensure that they are helped to create wealth and share the fruits of that wealth without destroying the environment. They will need aid and not lecturing.
At this point I take the opportunity of congratulating my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development for the publication today of her White Paper Eliminating World Poverty.
We in the developed countries must lead by example. We know that emissions into the atmosphere are damaging the ozone layer and creating global warming. Whatever the circumstances and whatever the pressures, we must regret the retreat of the United States from the 1992 Rio agreement. Our hope now must be that disillusionment will not lead to a break up of international co-operation to tackle this problem before it becomes a catastrophe which we will no longer be able to do anything about. Anything we fail to do now may never have an adverse effect on us, but as sure as night follows day, it will upon the generations to come.
So I leave noble Lords with these words, which are not original, and have been referred to by the right reverend Prelate. I believe they should be a spur to all of us to do everything in our power to protect and improve the whole of our environment. These words are: we did not inherit this world from our ancestors, we have only borrowed it from our children.
4.54 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, all noble Lords will agree that it is a very pleasant duty and privilege to congratulate the noble Lord on an excellent maiden speech. He has had a long life of activity in the trade union movement. I am sure that noble Lords will also agree with me that he has demonstrated today his deep commitment to an international view of our problems and his great concern for equity. I am sure all noble Lords will agree that it was a moving maiden speech and I hope that he can make many more in our House in the future.
We are all very grateful to my noble friend Lord Williams for introducing this wide-ranging debate. I want to follow up three important points. First, I stress, as other speakers have done, that the issue of the
1404
environment and sustainable development is also one of international equity. Indeed, it is also a matter of domestic equity, as the right reverend Prelate said. Poverty causes many environmental problems, both here and abroad. So we have to think of equity when we think of the environment.
Secondly, however, when we tackle environmental problems we have to remember not to ask for the impossible or to imagine that we shall all behave in an altruistic fashion. We have to devise policies which give us all incentives to behave better so that it is in our interests to behave in a way that will improve matters for our children.
Thirdly, I also want to say something about global warming in particular. As an example of the equity problem, without doubt the developed countries have a major responsibility for having generated much of the greenhouse gas emissions we now suffer from. It is the duty of these countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as best they can. We also have to remember that, even if we reduce them to practically nothing, the problem of global warming will not necessarily go away because although there is now a very low level of emissions from the developing countries that will grow. So at some stage we have to strike a balance between reducing the emissions from the rich countries and encouraging the development process in poor countries so that while they fulfil their legitimate aspirations for prosperity they do so in a way that does not exacerbate the environmental problem.
Obviously, many of these issues will come up at Kyoto. The poor countries will argue that it is the task of the rich countries first to reduce greenhouse gas emissions rather than insist that the poorer countries do anything immediately in that respect. In a sense that is quite right, but at Kyoto we shall have to take a much longer perspective than just the year 2010.
The problem with global warming is twofold. There are the day-to-day emissions and there is also the problem of the concentrate level in the atmosphere. In a sense it is what economists call a "stock and flow" problem. As the flow adds to the stock we have to worry. Eventually it is the concentration of effluent in the atmosphere which matters.
That requires very careful consideration of the policies that we may adopt. I have been involved in the United States in an advisory capacity with the Battelle Memorial Institute in which we have been modelling international environmental problems. It transpires that many of the policies that we shall have to concentrate on require a perspective of 30 to 40 years.
To begin with, we must make quite sure that, even if we are not about to change our consumption habits, we measure energy more efficiently. We must also encourage every invention which contains new processes for producing commodities that we consume now. The new processes will be more efficient in terms of the environment. We must also be encouraged to change our consumption patterns.
Perhaps I may give an example. If we insist on having motor cars, first we must make them more energy-efficient. However, we must also find some

1405
means of transportation which is less polluting than the motor car. Finally, I hope that we can eventually give up our motor cars and travel on more energy-efficient public transport. Those three steps are all different and necessary, but they all require carefully thought-out price incentives and other inducements to behave ourselves. This will not be easy. It is not simply that we must be self-sacrificing or take drastic steps right now; we must carefully think about how we can dovetail the reduction in emissions from the rich countries and the increasing emissions from the poorer countries in such a way as not to threaten the environment.
One problem is how to create an equitable system across the world. My noble friend Lord Williams referred to pricing mechanisms. One suggestion which has been in the air for quite some time and which was endorsed by the UN Conference on Trade and Development is the introduction of tradable permits in environmental pollution. The introduction of tradable permits in phosphorus emissions has already been successfully tried in the United States. Such permits are being traded and have led to a reduction in phosphorus emissions there. I wonder whether it is possible to devise a similar scheme of tradable permits so that the poorer and more populous countries have surplus environmental pollution permits while the rich countries have to buy or lease such permits from the poorer countries.
There would be two consequences of that. It would not only regulate the amount of pollution in the atmosphere because there would be a price to pay for it, but, if successful, it would effect an international transfer of resources whereby the rich countries would pay the poor countries for permission to pollute the atmosphere more than they really should. For the time being, the poor countries would use those resources to refashion their production technology and processes in such a way so that, when they reach our level of prosperity, they will not pollute the atmosphere as much as we do right now.
Although that is a complex way of thinking about global warming, it is operationally feasible. All that is lacking is the international will, and the mechanisms, to implement such policies. It is important that we not only talk about targets, limits and 2010, but that we ensure that we begin to construct the institution of governance which will make possible such international tradable permits in pollution. That would be a very good step forward.
Turning briefly to domestic issues, the same logic applies. Perhaps I may give one example to contest what the right reverend Prelate said about the metering of water supplies. It is true that needs are very different across different families, but the way to tackle the problem is not to prevent water pricing or water metering. I believe that water should be priced properly for everybody. If people need extra water they should be subject to income transfers, which are a much better way of tackling the problem than price cuts. It is a great fallacy to believe that if we could only sell water or energy to the poor at lower prices, life would be better.
1406
Unfortunately, when we do that, it is the rich who benefit, not the poor, because the rich consume more water than the poor.
I give another example, which will not go down very well with my noble friend on the Front Bench. I refer to the cutting of VAT on domestic fuel. The rich consume much more domestic fuel than the poor and, when we cut VAT on domestic fuel, all that we do is subsidise the rich. It is difficult to say this because, politically, it is obvious that there are votes in cutting VAT on domestic fuel. However, it is not good environmental practice. As I do not think that I shall ever convince anybody of those arguments, perhaps I should move on.
I am pleased that my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister is now thinking about road pricing. I believe that that will be possible soon. Given all the fuss that is made about passive smoking, I wonder why nobody considers what the motor car is doing to the environment. I believe that a time-varying road-pricing policy should be introduced. At certain times of the day, we could ease the flow of traffic and make people in their own private decisions take into account the social costs that they are imposing when they use their motor cars.
Now that we on these Benches are talking about price mechanisms as a means of solving problems both domestically and internationally, and when we agree that there is all-party concern about the environment, I believe that we have arrived at a point from which we can only make progress.
5.5 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, environmental protection is a very broad subject, as a glance at the current annual report on the United Kingdom's strategy, This Common Inheritance, reveals all too clearly, and one must of necessity be highly selective in one's comments in a short and, I hope, non-controversial maiden speech. Most of my remarks will therefore be related to the rural areas and transport policy.
When I was elevated to this august peerage, I chose as my territorial title the very lovely mountain of Talyfan which overlooks my home in the Conway Valley on the edge of the Snowdonia National Park. As I have been looking up to the mountain for nearly 30 years and enjoying its infinite variety of moods and appearance, I thought it only right that I should acknowledge the long-established affinity between us. There has been no objection from the mountain as yet.
To the casual visitor, the mountain has not changed over the years, but those of us who live at its foot are well aware of the visual threat posed by over-grazing on the Crown land half of the mountain, which contrasts unfavourably with the other half, where the grazing is more controlled. The problem of over-grazing is endemic in many parts of Wales and in uplands elsewhere. It will have to be addressed sooner or later in the long-term interests of the traditional protectors of the hill areas, the farming community who depend on them for their livelihood.
The importance of international protection of the environment was brought home to us by the Chernobyl disaster which necessitated a lengthy period of isolation

1407
and the testing of sheep for radiation to prevent harmful elements entering the food chain. I well remember an earlier scare when unacceptable levels of strontium 90 were found in the Cambrian range and I, for one, need no reminder that we must keep the hills as places where sheep may safely graze.
I have mentioned just two aspects of environmental protection on my doorstep at home because I am sure that each and every one of your Lordships, wherever you may live, could produce a similar list of particular concerns. You may also agree with me that our efforts to deal with them are not invariably pleasing to all—or, indeed, wholly satisfactory.
Wind power, for example, which appeared to offer a limited, alternative source of energy, has its visual disadvantages, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams implied. More and more eyebrows are raised as large wind farms threaten to dominate some very sensitive landscapes. Of course, this is a controversial area and all that I shall venture to say at this moment is that the controversy is more likely to increase than diminish as the Government seek to reach their alternative energy targets. This reflects a conflict of priorities within the environmental protection field, and the right balance must be found.
When one reads in The Times that there is increasing pressure on the Prime Minister to phase out fossil fuels in favour of solar, wind and wave energy, it is clear that the Government will be faced with some very hard choices. The future of the coal-mining industry appears to be in jeopardy. Other interests and forms of employment are threatened if the pressure that is being mounted is effective in influencing policy and the decisions that flow from it. We are all aware that environmental protection is not achievable without cost. The steady annual increase of 5 per cent. in real terms in petrol and diesel duties to help meet air quality objectives is a clear example of how cutting the level of air pollutants directly affects the vehicle user's pocket.
While the urban driver, who may well have an alternative form of transport, is reconciled to the increasing cost, the rural driver, who is generally highly dependent upon private transport, feels increasingly aggrieved at having to contribute to maintain the freshness of the largely unpolluted air around him. Every effort must be made to ensure that the financial costs of environmental protection are, and are seen to be, fairly shared as far as that is possible. That point was made by the right reverend Prelate in nobler terms than I have made it. We must be aware of the potentially disparate costs of living in the countryside; otherwise, we may find ourselves threatened by rural depopulation on an unacceptable scale.
The annual report indicates that the previous government—and, I assume, the present Government—aimed to get more people on bicycles. The Government have adopted an indicative target of doubling current levels of cycling by 2002 and doubling it again by 2012. Even then, we shall probably have a long way to go before we achieve the levels of cycling to be seen in Vietnam where a family of five on one bicycle, or a cyclist with two trussed pigs on the pillion, is a
1408
common, everyday sight. If we are all to be recycled in this way I hope that adequate safety measures will be taken not just for cyclists but for pedestrians as well. I found crossing a street in Hanoi to be one of the major hazards of life.
During my 15 years as a Minister at the Welsh Office one of my responsibilities was for roads in Wales. I am glad to say that the road network was considerably improved during that time. In particular, we completed the upgrading and dualling of the A.55 Chester to Bangor expressway, among other things.
I wholeheartedly agree with paragraph 50 of the annual report that:
"road transport is a key economic and social requirement"
and that:
"The challenge is to find the right balance of transport policies and activities to support people's freedom of choice, the needs of the economy and the needs of the environment".
But it seems to me that there has been an excessively adverse reaction in recent years against new roads. That is a reaction that we may well come to regret in the not too distant future if the economy continues to prosper. There is an undeniable and unavoidable correlation between economic growth and growth in road traffic. My experience is that the latter is a direct consequence of the former.
With one or two notable exceptions, we do not build new roads in this country until they are absolutely necessary. New roads are usually built in the nick of time, just before the existing roads reach full capacity and traffic congestion becomes unbearable. For example, that was the situation when the second Severn Bridge was opened. Good roads are the arteries of business and commerce. They are safer and cause less pollution than the congested highways that they replace. To be an advocate of new roads nowadays is so unfashionable that I can say this without causing too much stir in your Lordships' House.
I return to the countryside and express regret at the way that it is treated by many visitors, both local and from afar. In spite of the bins provided by local authorities in laybys in my area, litter thrown from passing cars onto the roadside is visible everywhere. Empty cans and cartons abound, and it is clear that the perpetrators have never respected the injunction to keep Britain tidy. The proper disposal of personal or family rubbish is, surely, the most fundamental form of environmental protection. I am sure that your Lordships agree that there is a growing need for sharper public education and action in this field.
I end by saying that I believe a great deal was achieved by the previous government in the protection of the environment. I am glad that the present Government are to build on those sound foundations.
5.16 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, on behalf of the whole House I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, on his maiden speech. This is not his first maiden speech. His maiden speech in another place must have been made 20-odd years ago. I believe that that was the forerunner to a very

1409
successful career in that place. His speech today indicates that his experience has given him the opportunity to contribute much to our debates in this House. We look forward to hearing him on many occasions in the future.
My noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel opened this debate by drawing a wide canvas. He indicated that within that canvas there were many smaller vignettes that should be spoken to. I want to talk about the problem of polluted water from disused mines. This problem affects all areas of the United Kingdom where coal-mining has existed in the past. My comments draw on the experience of West and South Yorkshire which currently experience many of these problems. This subject is not new to your Lordships' House. Some noble Lords will recall the debates during the passage of the Coal Industry Bill 1994. At that time the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, then chairman of the National Rivers Authority, and others expressed concern and warned the government of the day of future problems that would arise because of water pollution. This problem was also a matter of concern in the other place. Members representing mining constituencies graphically warned the then Minister of growing problems. My noble friend Lord Hardy, whose interest in flora and fauna is well known, spoke about the pollution of rivers which affected trout and other fishing. That is a matter of concern to many noble Lords. He spoke also of the danger to important nature reserves in south Yorkshire. He and other Members referred to the lack of specific powers in the Bill which was then going through Parliament.
When mines close and pumping stops, the water table rises. Water which is heavily polluted with iron, sulphur and other heavy metals seeks outlets wherever it can. The Coalfield Communities Campaign rightly claims that water can cause problems in three major ways. First, polluted water which escapes to the surface can destroy the amenity and recreational value of rivers and streams. Noble Lords who have walked in areas which have contained mines will recall the streams of yellow ochre, which are not pleasant. Economic activity is restricted when clean water is needed for industrial extraction, irrigation, livestock watering and farming. Secondly, rising minewaters, still underground, can affect surface development such as building foundations and other infrastructure works and land drainage. Thirdly, where methane has gathered underground, rising minewater can force it to the surface. If it escapes in built-up areas it endangers life. That has happened in the East Midlands area. The water problem arises not only from recently closed mines but from mines which have been closed for many years. No one knows exactly when and where the problem will occur.
Apart from my interest in environmental matters generally, my specific interest arises from my chairmanship of the National Coal Mining Museum for England—and here I must declare an interest. The museum is affected by the problem. In February this year, water was found to be coming into the museum and endangering it. We had to discover what was causing that and therefore commissioned a survey from IMC Limited, the leading firm of consultants working
1410
on water in mines. It appears that when the pumping complex at Woolley was set up, British Coal estimated that it would be treating some 2,300 gallons of water per minute. However, it has consistently treated only 1,700 gallons per minute.
It is now believed that the missing water has been blocked from getting to Woolley and that it has built up above the underground section of the museum. As a consequence, in August this year the Mines Inspectorate rightly insisted that the underground section should be closed. If the closure of the underground section were to be permanent, the viability of the museum would be undermined. That would be an enormous loss to our industrial heritage.
The Royal Commission on Industrial Heritage, in surveying all the coalfield sites in England, identified only four areas in which there was an entire colliery complex. It recommended that the four areas should be scheduled and listed. One of those was Caphouse colliery, the site of the National Coal Mining Museum for England. That site was identified as being unique because of a number of features.
I hope that the particular problems of the museum will be resolved at a meeting later this week, but its problems expose a much wider problem. The study by IMC Limited suggested that something must be done because, if nothing were done, it was likely that at some time an outflow in excess of 1,000 gallons per minute would result at three points in the area of west Yorkshire and possibly in other unknown places too. That was confirmed by the principal inspector of mines, who said that even if the museum closed it was not necessarily the end of the water problem. The workings would fill with water and eventually find a way to the surface via adits.
The problem is much wider than that which concerns me as chairman of the museum. It is a problem about which Yorkshire Water is also greatly concerned. During the past few years, the company has invested some £82 million on improving its waste water treatment works in order to improve the quality of water in the rivers Calder and Dearne and has brought about a considerable improvement in the quality of the water. For the five years from 1995 to 2000 it proposes to invest a further £96 million on waste water treatment works. It is concerned that the treatment of water in the Calder, which it hopes will eventually be used for drinking purposes, will be brought to naught by a new pollution problem in the area.
This growing area of pollution was referred to in both Houses during the passage of the Coal Industry Bill. However, we were assured that the matter was covered by the Bill and that responsibility would pass from British Coal to the Coal Authority. We were assured that the Coal Authority would inherit the responsibilities of British Coal. Yet there is doubt on the part of the Coal Authority that it has powers in this area and there is also doubt in the minds of those representing the Environment Agency. Only today the agency issued a statement indicating that surcharge discharges are a legacy of past mining operations, with no one legally responsible.

1411
The case is not entirely bleak because partnerships are being formed. I understand from the Environment Agency's statement that a particular project with various partners will result in the purification of the water and will conclude with extractions from the water being used for industrial purposes; in other words, for brick manufacturing. It is a difficult problem, and one of resources, and I know that the Minister may have difficulty in responding to it. However, I suggest that unless something is done in the immediate term the Government will be faced with an even larger problem in the future.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords, before I start my maiden speech perhaps I may say how courteous, friendly and helpful both Peers and staff have been to me since I entered the House.
At the centre of modern British political thinking is the question of change and how government policy should respond to this change. Enormous and somewhat frightening changes are taking place in three key areas. These are the world environment, the global economy and the security of our nation.
The question that arises is how our nation should respond to these enormous changes. I believe the essence of our response in this modern world must be based on the co-operation of nation states. The United Nations, the European Union, NATO, G7 and GATT are just some of the institutions in which nations work together. This co-operation makes the governance of our nation much more complex than it ever was in the earlier part of the century. Governments now have to consult with other countries before making decisions. To a growing extent, decisions are made jointly in the new institutions of the modern world. The Council of Ministers is one very good example of this.
I shall first address the question of the world environment. I have no doubt that in the world fora on the environment Britain's voice can best be heard through the European Union. The United States is doing great damage to the environment and, unquestionably, there has to be a change of policy in that country. The collective voice of the European Union has far more chance of encouraging change in the United States than has any individual nation state.
A big and exciting opportunity is now before us in the European Union for improving the environment in those countries falling into the category of Central and Eastern European countries which wish to accede to the European Union.
The next wave of the European Union enlargement could comprise five Central and Eastern European countries—namely, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Poland and Slovenia. The entry negotiations for these countries are likely to start next year. However, one of the conditions in these early negotiations will deal with the cleaning up of the environment and the restructuring of outdated and dirty industries.
1412
In parallel with all this has been the PHARE Project of the European Union, which aims to support the 11 Central and Eastern European countries during their transition to the European Union. All of this provides a great opportunity to reduce the appalling pollution in the notorious Black Triangle region.
The second area of change that I referred to earlier is the globalisation of world markets. I hope that during the British presidency of the European Union, which starts on 1st January 1998, emphasis will be given to the opportunities for Britain and the European Union which arise from globalisation. These global markets are continuing with their rapid development and are involved each day with enormous numbers of financial transfers, using the latest high speed communications technology. The speed of operation and the level of interaction last week among currency markets—for example, in Hong Kong, New York and London—illustrated the way in which these global markets operate. Speculation was intense, with no international authority existing to regulate the operation of the markets.
I believe that the only way to counter such speculative abuse of the currency markets is for countries to work together in co-operation and for the rules controlling the markets to be strengthened. In my opinion, one of the most effective ways of dealing with abuses of the currency markets in Europe is for there to be a single currency. However, I have always believed that such a currency should be a hard currency, and nothing else will do.
In addition to the changes associated with the environment and the global economy to which I have referred, the third important area of change is that of security. With the break-up of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, the threats to our security have changed from superpower conflict involving massive nuclear weapons and stockpiles to more localised conflicts using high technology smart weapons which hardly ever seem to miss their targets. We saw this new kind of war on our television screens during the Gulf conflict.
In addition to the new style of war, however, we have a new co-operation taking place between European nations, leading eventually to growing NATO membership, and this I welcome very much.
The foreign affairs and security pillar in the Maastricht Treaty is now providing a mechanism for the European Union to contribute in a co-ordinated fashion to NATO in a fairer way rather than leaving too much of the burden on our American friends.
How do we respond to the enormous changes that have taken place in recent years? Security of our country must always be top priority, but how best do we achieve this? I believe that enlargement of the European Union will reduce the potential threat of war in Europe.
The Bosnian war was a great tragedy. In price terms alone, the intervention of troops cost $11 billion and there were 400,000 refugees. This is an enormous price tag for an operation which caused so much disillusionment among many supporting countries. This sort of war in Europe should never be allowed to happen again.

1413
In the last two world wars approximately 60 million lives were lost. The rationale behind European co-operation was to prevent this tremendous waste of life recurring. Many of our servicemen who lost their lives were really only children, teenagers.
Perhaps I may end by saying that last week my wife and I visited Brookwood Cemetery, just one of hundreds of military cemeteries in Europe. With the indulgence of the House I would like to read out a few names, just some of those who gave their young lives for our country: Private E.E. Holiday, the Buffs, died 6th February 1941, age 18; Lance Corporal J. Gibson, Duke of Wellington's Regiment, died 18th February 1919, age 19; Driver R.H. Auty, Canadian Field Artillery, died 19th July 1917, age 18; Lance Sergeant P.W. Staunton, Rifle Brigade, died 6th July 1918, age 20; Private A.W. Harding, Middlesex Regiment, died 15th November 1918, age 19; Private E.C.S. Colbran-Baker, Labour Corps, died 4th November 1918, age 18.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Ashburton: My Lords, first, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, for introducing this debate. The importance of the subject needs no emphasising. My next remark is to thank on behalf of all your Lordships the noble Lord, Lord Randall of St. Budeaux. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that he made a most realistic, thoughtful and fluent maiden speech. I have little doubt that he will contribute enormously to your Lordships' debates and affairs generally over the next few years.
I wish to make only two points. The first is, broadly speaking, to give my support to the view of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that, in a global sense, we must take action in advance to some extent of our knowledge of exactly what is going on in the environment. Given the state of human knowledge of such matters as climate change, there is a surprising amount of talk which assumes that there is more or less unanimity of scientific view. As I read it, that is simply not true. There are huge lacunae in the explanations that are necessary to understand climatic processes. Anyone who is sufficiently interested in the subject to try to learn more about it in any depth may well be surprised.
However, there is a growing consensus that, whether or not we understand precisely what is taking place, there are a large number of factors which could and almost certainly will cause fundamental change, particularly in the earth's atmosphere. Given that, and even though we are not able to understand exactly what is taking place, the possibility that eventual changes may already be, as it were, in the pipeline, whatever action is or is not taken, we cannot afford to wait for proof. We must do everything we can to modify the extent to which we alter the environment, be it earth, sea or air, through the addition of the by-products of our very sophisticated lifestyles.
I believe that, for practical purposes, the earth's atmosphere is more or less 65 miles thick; that is, the vast majority of gases which are essential for life on this planet are contained in that space. Anyone who climbs
1414
mountains will know that the reduction in density in the air, even at the number of miles that can be counted on the fingers of one hand, is enormous.
As a vivid reminder of what that means, one has only to realise—I hope that my arithmetic will not let me down—that if one takes a terrestrial globe of the sort which many households and all schools have—a globe with a diameter of 12 inches—the atmosphere would extend for about one-tenth of an inch from its surface. That is not many coats of paint on a 12 inch sphere. We are not playing with a huge margin to spare.
At the same time, I believe that we should be careful to moderate the language in which the whole subject is discussed. To my mind, nothing debases the seriousness with which people take important subjects more than unnecessary hyperbole. But we should certainly advance as soon as possible. I welcomed very much the very realistic remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, particularly with regard to what he said about tradable pollution permits and the importance of realistic pricing of water and energy if sensible ways to economise are really to be achieved.
My second point is that there is one aspect which appears to be more or less overlooked, at least in public discussion of environmental degeneration; that is, the size of the world's population. Population is certainly not an undiscussed subject. But as far as I can see, it is conducted nearly always in terms of possible shortages of food, minerals or other natural resources. It is conducted rarely in terms of the extent to which people living cheek by jowl may become prey to unsociable habits of a variety of kinds; rarely on the problems that come from urbanised populations' increasing lack of contact with and understanding of natural rhythms, seasons, crops and so on; and virtually never in terms of the demands for the same standard of living of their parents which all children acquire by birth.
As the population of the world expands, so at present its prosperity is expanding. Obviously, there are huge areas where that is not true, but looking, for example, at what has happened and is happening as Asia emerges, it would be a brave man who was certain that the raising of material standards of living would grind to a complete halt there or elsewhere.
In my view, it is highly unrealistic to suppose that the new inhabitants of this world will be persuaded not to press for motor cars, fridges, televisions, economic infrastructure and all the material advantages which we now enjoy. I should certainly not want to be the one to stand on such a platform. In my view, that is where a lot of rhetoric about environmental control sounds fairly hollow. I know that we shall be able to continue, at great capital cost, to make inroads into the environmental effects of, for example, CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions. But we shall not wipe them out. We can diminish also, at great capital cost, the extent to which individuals use cars, electricity and gas, but we cannot eliminate them. The new billions of population may well be even more difficult to influence than we are.
I believe very strongly that any morally acceptable influence, teaching or physical resources that can be brought to bear to make it possible for the world's

1415
existing population to choose to bear fewer children is as important an environmental action as anything else that can be envisaged. I know that in many places that is a matter on which religious beliefs can have great influence. But a reduction in the rate of growth of world population is, I believe, so important from the environmental point of view that I am always surprised that public references to it seem so few and far between.
I end by apologising for the fact that an unfortunately unbreakable date later on will prevent me from being present for the whole of the debate.
5.48 p.m.
Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld: My Lords, I am most grateful to your Lordships for the opportunity to make my maiden speech. I am even more grateful for the conventions which surround the making of maiden speeches and which your Lordships have made to assist new Members of the House. Like my noble friend Lord Randall, I have encountered nothing but kindness, generosity and courtesy since joining the House three weeks ago.
The subject of today's debate has become one the great issues of our time and certainly featured strongly in the General Election. The Government won the election on a manifesto which stated:
"Our generation, and generations yet to come, are dependent on the integrity of the environment. No one can escape unhealthy water, polluted air or adverse climate change. And, just as these problems affect us all, so we must act together to tackle them. No responsible government can afford to take risks with the future: the cost is too high. So it is our duty to act now".
I understand that Her Majesty's Government take the view that the protection of the environment cannot be the sole responsibility of any one department of state. All must promote policies that are environmentally sound. It is the latter commitment that I wish to discuss.
In the course of this present Session of Parliament, we shall debate and consider the proposals for devolution. We will effect the most profound changes in the constitution of the United Kingdom for decades. It seems to me of paramount importance that the arrangements for the government of Scotland, Wales and the UK as a whole meet the need to facilitate policies that combine environmental sustainability with economic and social progress.
The setting up of a Scottish parliament is the flagship of government policy in this Session. It has for a long time been an end in itself. Elections will take place in 1999 and it will be in place for the millennium. The question that the public will ask is, what next? What will this new Parliament do? Of course, all the parties will set out proposals for Scotland in their election manifestos and the environment will be a central issue. If the principles of the 1997 Labour Party manifesto are to be met, an audit will have to be made of all the environmental functions of central government, government agencies and local government in Scotland.
In changing the constitution, we have to ensure that all the constitution's components gel together and work to achieve the often conflicting interests of environmental sustainability with economic growth and
1416
social development. I am convinced of the huge importance local government has in achieving that aim. Regrettably, local government in Scotland is not the most popular of our institutions and that was not helped by the last reorganisation. It was a reorganisation which had no great principles underpinning its purpose, if I may so as uncontroversially as I can. The result is that local government in Scotland has lost much of the public respect which it should enjoy. I must admit that respect for local government is not assisted either by the conduct of a small minority of councillors and authorities. Conduct of the kind currently the subject of investigation in Scotland must be put right urgently. I know that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and his ministerial colleagues are anxious to restore the integrity of those authorities, and, at the same time, address their current financial difficulties. However, it is the structure of local government which the new parliament should seek to put right.
There was a time when local government organisation had a traditional basis. It grew out of local, historical, economically-based recognisable communities. Then we contrived at local government to suit other ends. That was a mistake. If the ends of environmental policy like all other important policies are to be achieved, local government in Scotland must be reformed. All parts of the constitution must fit together. It seems to me that the call for an elected mayor in London and a separately elected assembly will sound a favourable echo in Scotland. I believe that the idea of a council chief being elected—the office of mayor does not exist in Scotland—with much smaller council memberships and all full-time professionals, could only be better than the present arrangements.
The day of the large local authority, with large numbers of elected councillors and multitudinous committees all immersed in the minutiae of administration, must come to an end. So, too, must the bad practice of all-important decisions being taken in political groups away from the public gaze, the over-zealous use of the party whip and council meetings that just rubber-stamp decisions taken elsewhere. Above all others, local environmental issues must be subject to openness and transparency.
What is envisaged for London offers in its practice a real prospect for environmental sustainability with a strong emphasis on the integration of public transport services. The public will welcome that in the capital and the Scots will see its merit for the larger conurbations and local authorities in Scotland.
I have appealed for a new concern that we get our arrangements for government right. That has to be right if government and all their agencies are to deal with the gathering environmental crisis. It will be clear from today's debate that many of the problems are global, but their solution is often national and local. It is our duty to get it right for future generations.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, it is my privilege and pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Hogg of

1417
Cumbernauld after his excellent maiden speech. My noble friend comes to this House with the very best credentials. He has experience of working as a local government officer and as a full-time trade union official. He also has a record of distinguished service in the other place over 18 years; but, unfortunately, only in opposition. However, I am sure that my noble friend will remedy that position now that we are in government. My noble friend's eloquent speech demonstrated to the House his capacity to contribute effectively—indeed, one might say, "unto the manner born". I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say that we look forward to hearing many more contributions from him in the future.
I, too, must thank my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel for opening today's important debate on a very significant issue. I believe that I echo the sentiments expressed by other speakers when I say that that was most effectively done. As other speakers said, my noble friend had a very broad canvas on which to paint. In the limited time available to me, I can only speak on just one element of the environment. In particular, I should like to concentrate on energy consumption. I shall raise three different aspects of the matter. However, before I do so, it is worth while dwelling for a moment on the reasons why energy consumption is significant in an environment debate. Yes, the pollution effects of excessive energy consumption are significant. Smog has a major effect on our health, whether it be the old London variety caused by coal burning or the new Los Angeles variety caused by vehicle exhausts. Indeed, it directly affects the health of human beings. Then there is the effect of global warming caused by CO2 emissions.
However, there is another aspect to energy consumption which affects our environment, our social environment; namely, the social disruption caused by the scramble for energy resources. That can take the form of war—for example, the invasion of Russia by Germany in the last World War to secure the oilfields of the Caucasus or the Iran/Kuwait conflict of recent times. It can also take the form of literally worldwide economic dislocation, demonstrated by the oil price shocks of the 1970s.
If we look at the global scene, we can see developed countries with high energy consumption patterns and high living standards, and very large developing parts of the world with low energy consumption and low standards of living. That disparity cannot continue. As developing countries increase their standard of living there are two risks: first, the risk to the natural environment of pollution; and, secondly, the dislocation of the social environment due to the fight for scarce energy resources. We must find ways to prevent both catastrophes. We must break the apparent link between high living standards and high energy consumption. I say "apparent" because we must be aware of the realities of life and publicise them.
If we look at the energy consumption of different countries with broadly similar standards of living, we can see large differences in per capita energy consumption figures. We must build on that knowledge. Sweden has a fraction of the per capita energy consumption of the United States and many would argue
1418
that it has a better standard of living. Later this evening we shall be discussing the situation in Monserrat. I visited the island a few years ago before the volcano erupted. Perhaps I may tell the House that the islanders' living standards were terrific but the cost of that as regards energy consumption was minimal. Therefore it is possible to have a high standard of living without high energy consumption.
I turn to the three aspects that I mentioned at the beginning of my speech. First, I shall discuss home insulation. We know that double glazing cuts energy consumption in the home. However, double glazing costs money. Double glazing salesmen will spend hours convincing you to invest large amounts of money to have double glazed windows installed. For new dwellings that makes sense. My first question to the Minister is, will this Government make it mandatory for all new dwellings and shops, offices and factories, to be fitted with double glazed windows?
For old houses, the situation is different. Secondary double glazing can be relatively cheap. All you need is a pane of glass or perspex, some plastic moulding to go round the edge, some plastic cleats and screws to fix the cleats and, hence, the glass or perspex to the wooden frame. Apart from the cost of the glass or perspex, the plastic moulding, cleats and screws cost pence. In real terms they are very cheap. The problem is that no double glazing salesman will recommend the system as there is no profit in it for him. Few hardware shops stock the plastic moulding and the cleats because there is virtually no profit in it for them. No one publicises the system because, again, there are no large profits to be made. Therefore, in effect, market forces prevent cheap and simple solutions to some people's everyday problems. My next question to the Minister is, how can we overcome that kind of problem?
The second matter I wish to address concerns engines for motor cars. I am sure I do not need to remind the House that cars with larger engines consume more fuel and therefore cause more pollution in the atmosphere. In fact even the previous government recognised that they had to influence market forces to reduce petrol consumption by increasing the duty on petrol. The new Government are carrying on that policy. However, trends in new car sales show that engine size is increasing. This year there are virtually no new cars on the market with engines smaller than 1000 cc. Between 1979 and 1996 the average size of new car engines went up from approximately 1400 cc to approximately 1600 cc. I know that the efficiency of engines has improved in the past 20 years and their emissions have decreased, largely due to electronic engine management systems. However, I argue that, if the average engine size of our national car fleet could be reduced, we could reduce fuel usage.
One of the problems we have is that for motor manufacturers the cost of producing a small engine may be as much if not more than that of producing a larger engine. Given the public's inundation with performance statistics, it is small wonder that they tend to buy cars with larger engines. Again, market forces are acting against informed consumer choice. I suggest two ways in which these forces might be counteracted. First, the

1419
Government could introduce a graduated car purchase tax based on engine size with a low break point of 750 cc rising in bands above that. That could be instituted to be revenue neutral. Secondly, there could be a requirement for retailers of new cars to give some standardised indication of lifetime ownership costs, which would include an element for the costs of average fuel usage, probably most usefully on an annualised basis. I shall welcome the Minister's comments on these proposals.
The third aspect I wish to address is nuclear power. I raise this matter because I have seen—as I am sure your Lordships have seen—a number of articles in the press recently about how green and non-polluting nuclear power is. I suspect that with the advent of our new Government the nuclear power lobby is spending quite a bit of money trying to win hearts and minds. I argue that we need to learn from history about the development of new technologies. In the previous century as steam power was being developed there were numerous boiler explosions which killed people and caused damage in a surrounding area of probably, at most, a few hundred yards. However, the effects did not linger long. Engineers learnt from the explosions and steam is much safer as a result. However, safety can never be guaranteed 100 per cent. and the tragedies of Flixborough and Bhopal should be lessons to us all. When considering nuclear power we need to remember that it has the capacity to cause damage over large parts of the country, and even the globe, and that the residue or after effects can last for years, even decades, and, some would argue, for hundreds of years.
Some would argue that the Cold War was won by the Americans, whose superior economic effort defeated the Russians by outbuilding the latter's nuclear weapons arsenals. I have a different interpretation of history. I believe that the accident at Chernobyl opened the eyes of General Secretary Gorbachev to the risks of all thing nuclear. That was illustrated by the fact that he brought Sakharov in from the cold. He was the father of the Russian nuclear industry and he had come to realise that there was no safe level of nuclear radiation. My final question to the Minister is, do the Government remember the lessons of our nuclear history from Windscale, through Three Mile Island to Chernobyl?
6.6 p.m.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, one of the intermittent side effects of taking inhaled steroids can be loss of voice. As I can speak no louder at the moment, I ask your Lordships and the Hansard reporters to bear with me.
Our sources of power are finite. Within the past two centuries we have seen the development of electricity, transport on land, sea and air powered by oil products, coal, nuclear power and gas, all of which are being expended at an alarming rate. We have become a society which worships the motor vehicle and where some journalists and television presenters appear to think that the faster a vehicle can go, the larger it is, the more powerful it is and the better acceleration it has, the more desirable it is. However, in these days where our speed
1420
is governed by speed limits and traffic jams, what is the relevance of having a car which can accelerate from 0 to 100 miles an hour in 3.27 seconds and has a top speed of 275 miles an hour?
To be seen to have a superior car, one must usually own a car whose fuel consumption is excessive. The technology exists for motor vehicles to be more economical but some manufacturers have said that there is no demand for their vehicles to be more fuel efficient, to which I say, "Rubbish!". Nonetheless, it has to be said that some manufacturers are addressing the aspect of reducing size and improving fuel consumption whereas, at the other end of the scale, Mercedes is launching a car which is 19 feet long with heavy fuel consumption. Why, I wonder, and who will buy it? And what is its relevance, apart from having a vehicle to impress the neighbours and colleagues at work? Perhaps it is for those who are insecure and have sufficient money to spare, who will buy this car as a status symbol.
I developed late onset asthma three years ago and am aware, at first hand, of the effect of traffic fumes on people who have breathing problems. After only a couple of hours in London my breathing ability falls by at least 15 per cent., which is not unusual, whereas in the country it hardly changes at all. This reduction is blamed, mainly, on traffic fumes and particulates. Particulates go deep into the lungs and are emitted by both diesel and petrol engines, but it is thought that their emission will be effectively controlled within the next few years. But what are the effects on the environment of the other emissions? Of the five, main, environmentally sensitive emissions, diesel engines produce fewer hydrocarbons, less carbon monoxide and less carbon dioxide than the petrol equivalent. But, as diesel engines tend to last longer than petrol engines, the diesel pollution of today is created by yesterday's engines. The modern diesel is more economical and it is said that every diesel car sold in this country saves about 350 litres of fuel each year. In 1996 this was a staggering 27.7 million gallons. So why are we not all driving diesels? They tend to last longer and they produce fewer global warming gases. They are more economical and they run on a fuel which is easier and cheaper to produce than petrol. But we have this hang-up about them being slow—they are not. We are told that they are noisy—they are not. We are told that they are smelly and messy—they are not. Diesels are good for the environment and good for the economy. And if their use were to be encouraged, the number of asthmatics needing treatment might decrease: fewer triggering compounds—fewer acute admissions.
But we all depend on the diesel engine, whether or not we like to admit it. Let us consider what a day without diesel would mean. No buses would run, there would be no ambulances and no fire engines would be available. No food would be distributed to the shops, no ships would work, nor would tanks be able to exercise. No taxis would ply for hire; no aircraft would be able to start their engines; nor diesel-powered trains. There would be no arable farm work, no airport baggage handling, no Thames barrier to protect London and no power back-up for hospitals, factories, offices, cinemas, theatres, shopping centres, Buckingham Palace or the

1421
Palace of Westminster—they all use diesel-powered generators. And in no time at all, cars would come to a halt—the delivery tankers run on diesel.
Diesel may not be perfect but, as already mentioned, it produces fewer hydrocarbons and less carbon monoxide than petrol engines and, being more fuel efficient, less carbon dioxide and is therefore more friendly to the environment. Other fuels will be developed but, in the meantime, diesel should be considered to be the optimum fuel until commercially viable alternatives become available.
I shall go a little further as regards the problem of asthma and the environment. The general perception is that an asthma attack is triggered by dust, mites, animal fur and tobacco smoke. These can mostly be dealt with or avoided. But there are those who have problems with the increasingly common usage of the ever pervading chemical smells of things which people dab, spray, sprinkle and plaster on themselves which cannot be avoided and which, for us, pollutes and poisons the immediate atmosphere. The same applies to tobacco smoke. It is surprising how many of our friends from America and Australia have commented on this country's and Europe's liberal attitude towards smoking and to the pollution of the environment that it causes. The chief executive of the National Asthma Campaign has written,
"Our Victorian ancestors had it right: smoking was recognised to be an essentially anti-social activity, and for that reason it was generally confined to private smoking rooms".
This country is justifiably proud of the attention it gives to minority interests. Making the environment more friendly for those with lung problems would be welcomed.
Finally, it has been predicted that the global temperature will rise by 2 degrees centigrade towards the end of the next century due to the emissions produced by man's ingenuity. However, not everybody agrees. There are those who say that the rise in global warming is being reduced by volcanic activity. Who is right? We should remember that when our ancestors first voiced the fact that the earth was round, they were called heretics. But they were correct. A group of scientists in America has recently begun studying the effect of sunbursts and sun storms on our planet. So perhaps even the sun has an effect on global warming. There are no records to prove or disprove this possibility. However, sunbursts have been proved to be instrumental in knocking out electricity supplies in parts of North America and to have been the cause of making some satellites realign themselves. It is thought that the sun's effect will peak in the year 2000 when, as we are becoming more and more reliant on satellites, confusion could be caused by them being forced out of position. If that were to happen, who is to know what other effects it might have on our environment and our earthly envelope? We should not ignore anything which might adversely affect the future of the world.
6.15 p.m.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, for initiating this debate and commend him for holding in high regard the
1422
countryside of Wales. However, I must advise the noble Lord that there is much breathtaking scenery within our national parks and elsewhere on this side of the border. Perhaps I may also thank the noble Lord for his broad-brush stroke introduction to a subject which has such strong implications for our planet.
This evening I speak on the subject of national park funding, without adequate provision of which environmental protection and enhancement across 10 per cent. of the land area of England and Wales cannot be achieved. I speak today as vice president of the Council for National Parks. This matter is urgent and pressing in the light of the review of the funding of designated protected areas by the Countryside Commission and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The review will examine how the national park authorities and those managing areas of outstanding natural beauty might maximise the potential income available from sources other than central and local government grants. The study will also examine the resource needs of national parks against the relative allocation of central government grant currently available.
As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, the ranks of the national parks of England and Wales may justifiably swell in the next few years. While that would be welcome news indeed, it would not diminish the number of visits to the 11 existing national parks, nor reduce the need for their protection. The parks are hugely popular. The recent report of the Countryside Commission and the Countryside Council for Wales, Visitors to National Parks, found that in 1994 the parks had at least 76 million visitor days. Such numbers require careful management, especially in busy and sensitive areas of the parks. The report also concluded that the national parks are a major national resource for conservation, recreation and tourism and that they are enjoyed by people from all over the country and from abroad.
The report also found that the majority of visitors to the parks are seeking and finding the qualities for which they were designated—fine landscapes, opportunities for recreation and peace and quiet.
As noble Lords will appreciate, as recently as 1995 Parliament reaffirmed its commitment to the protection of national parks, culminating in the national park provisions of the Environment Act 1995.
National park authorities provide a diverse and wide-ranging number of services, including being the planning authority, pioneering the delivery of agri-environment schemes and facilitating the enjoyment and understanding of visitors. The authorities carry out all their functions as far as currently available resources permit with considerable economy and efficiency, and provide cost-effective delivery of the Government's sustainable development objectives across a substantial land area.
In 1991 the National Parks Review Panel recommended that a one-third increase in national park spending was needed to secure its recommendations. It said that this sum could be contained within an overall increase of 10 per cent. in real terms spread over four

1423
or five years. I would welcome the Minister's reassurance that the Government will now implement this recommendation of the panel, having implemented many of its key recommendations in the Environment Act 1995. This is particularly pressing, especially when viewed against the Lake District National Park Authority's level of funding which is £100,000 less than it was four years ago, and the insuperable pressures faced by the Peak Park Authority's minerals planning team in coping with its current workload.
It is interesting to note that in the year 1995–96, grant aid to the 11 national parks of England and Wales amounted to £21.5 million. The total acreage of the 11 parks is 3.5 million acres or 1.4 million hectares. The funding is therefore 16 pence per acre or 39 pence per hectare. What kind of an investment in our countryside is this when one considers that the arable area payment or set-aside payment to farmers for 1996–97 is in the order of £137 per acre or £338 per hectare?
As a farmer I have respected the need to maintain a living from the land. But we are talking about maintaining a living countryside for future generations. Protected areas in general deserve adequate funding, but this should not be at the expense of the funding of national parks.
At the very least, national parks should not be subject to any reduction in the amount of grant aid at present made by government. Even a standstill budget can cause tremendous problems. For example, the standstill budget for 1997–98 for the three Welsh national parks inevitably means that they will not be able to work effectively towards meeting the target of ensuring that by the year 2000 the rights of way network within the parks is legally defined, properly maintained and signposted, and well publicised. It has also affected traffic management work in the parks and the development of relationships with local communities, and will restrict the contribution that national parks can make to the achievement of sustainability and biodiversity objectives. This is a most worrying situation.
In conclusion, by maintaining adequate funding to national parks, we would be ensuring that the nation's investment in these important and much loved areas would be protected. I ask the Minister this: would a few more pence per hectare not be a tine investment in the sustainability of our national parks?
6.22 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, a number of speakers this evening have talked about global warming. Clearly, next month's Kyoto conference has concentrated people's minds on this topic.
It is my intention to concentrate on two particular aspects of the problem facing the world. Most speakers during the debate have been talking about the practical difficulties of achieving the targets and reducing greenhouse gases. But I wish to discuss, first, the problems created by vested interests, in particular in the energy industry and the cartel of oil-producing
1424
nations in the Middle East and the United States; and, secondly, the difficulties created by the democratic process and the short time horizons of politicians when dealing with long-term problems which require unpopular strategic decisions.
For many years, the world has been fed a diet of misrepresentation by an organisation called the Global Climate Coalition, which sounds like yet another NGO concerned with environmental matters, but which is in fact a consortium of 50 American trade associations representing every major player in the petrochemical and motor industries, both in Europe and the United States. Their strategy has been to deny that greenhouse gases could affect the earth's climate and to decry any scientific predictions on the grounds that no change could yet be measured. Of course, now that there are really measurable changes, it may be too late to halt the slide to disaster. The current consensus, I believe, is coming 10 or 20 years too late.
Greenhouse warming sounds a rather cosy concept, but the disturbed weather patterns of this past year may be only a foretaste of what is to come. Vietnam, for example, this week has been battered by the worst coastal storm this century, with 20,000 people made homeless.
It is not only low-lying islands and countries such as Bangladesh and India that are at risk when sea levels rise due to the melting of the polar and sub-polar ice caps. Parts of London and East Anglia may also be flooded within the next century. In some parts of North America, in contrast, rainfall may drop by 40 per cent. and California may suffer prolonged droughts. Conversely, Europe may be struck by full-scale hurricanes and we could become colder and wetter if the Gulf Stream reverses its course: our harbours may become habitually icebound in winter.
The fact that these outcomes are unpredictable does not mean that changes are not happening. The greenhouse effect is real and has to be tackled if we are to prevent major world catastrophes. For instance, it is predicted that grain yields may fall by 15 per cent. Tropical diseases may spread into southern Europe and the United States of America.
The major difficulty in the way of taking positive action is the democratic process, I believe, and the need for politicians to be popular. Of two candidates in yesterday's local elections in the United States, one standing for the governorship of Virginia managed to secure a 12 per cent. lead in popularity in the polls by promising to eliminate taxes on cars and car insurance. That was a Republican, but there was a Democrat in New Jersey who also benefited from similar promises. That shows how naïve and populist both American politicians and the American public seem to be. It is not surprising, therefore, that President Clinton has been unable to deliver a realistic target and timetable for the Kyoto conference. We are all, of course, devoted to our motor cars but we must accept ways of restricting their use, as some previous speakers have said.
The United States is, at 22 per cent., the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, despite the fact that its population forms less than one-twentieth

1425
of the world's population. It is also the world's most powerful economy. On both those counts it should be setting an example for the rest of the world to follow. At the Earth Summit in 1992, it promised to stabilise its emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000, with 5 per cent. reductions thereafter. Even this modest timetable has now slipped by 13 years, with no indication that even that will be achieved.
This failure by the United States makes it much easier for Australia and Japan at the Kyoto conference to opt out of setting any targets, however minimal. It makes it even harder for underdeveloped economies that have a long way to go to catch up with our own to make any attempt to restrict their output of energy. To convert from coal to cleaner fuels for many underdeveloped economies is far harder than it is for those which are developed.
In South Africa, for example, where I have just been, petrol, all of which it imports, is half the price of petrol here and whole hillsides are being set alight where people are burning off scrub for pasture or afforestation. That is still an annual event there, as it is in Borneo and the South American rainforests.
Far more should be invested in renewable sources of energy, as previous speakers have said. I have seen many solar panels on the roofs of houses in Jordan, for example, but none on the roofs of all those air-conditioned homes in Phoenix, Arizona, which has sun almost all the year round. We in the UK live in a island which may not have such levels of sunshine but we are extremely rich in those other sources of solar energy, wind and wave power. Far more should be being committed to research in those fields. We should be investing more in exploration of other sources of energy. We should also be using our cars less and investing more in public transport. We have been very fortunate that, due to the Black Wednesday recession and the "Dash for Gas", we are able to set ambitious targets which perhaps other parts of the world have not been able to set.
I welcome the fact that the deputy Prime Minister is to visit the United States for discussions with President Clinton, prior to the Kyoto conference. But I am extremely gloomy about the outcomes of those discussions. I think it is unlikely that any progress will be made at the Kyoto conference. Short-term interests of powerful industrial lobbies will need to be overcome, either by a regulatory framework or by some tax-levying system which will support non-polluting sources of energy. We also need to counter the propaganda of the car and energy industries so that the public in the United States begin to understand that the long-term consequences to the world will be disastrous if action is not taken now. I am not hopeful that this change of mood is likely; nor that politicians will be allowed to act in time to avert disaster.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, perhaps I may commence by expressing my appreciation to my noble colleague Lord Williams for introducing this debate on such a wide-ranging and important subject. I was glad
1426
that he touched very briefly, at the beginning of his remarks, on a subject that has always been very dear to my heart: the question of housing.
Your Lordships may recall that for a number of years until my illness I was a Front Bench spokesman on the other side of the Chamber, speaking on housing. At various times I managed to raise debates in your Lordships' House on the question of housing provision and house building. In fact it would be true to say that the last two occasions on which that subject was debated in your Lordships' House were in 1994 and 1995. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Williams was involved on both occasions.
I happen to believe that housing, if not the most important, is one of the most important parts of the environment. Very often children who are born in very poor housing are scarred for life, and if they live in bad housing they very often have to suffer bad schools. In all debates that I raised I had a feeling of déjà vu because I kept asking—and nobody from the Government listened—how the Government were going to achieve the figure of 100,000 houses per year to let. That figure was called for not by the Labour Party but by the Archbishop of Canterbury's commission on Faith in the City and also the Duke of Edinburgh's committee. They all asked for the same thing. I was perpetually challenging why the Government could take a meaningful decision which would almost literally stop local authorities in their tracks and prevent them from building houses.
The Government said that the tool they were going to use was the extension of the Housing Corporation and the voluntary housing sector—the housing associations. I believed them. In fact, on the last occasion I think I was told that the target they were aiming for would be 60,000 new properties to let per year. I have to say that, at best, only half that total was reached—30,000. It would be well to quote the actual figures, because during the past few weeks a number of new Peers have been introduced from the three main parties and among those taking their places on Her Majesty's Opposition Benches were a number of former Cabinet Ministers in the last Parliament from 1992, and also a number of senior Ministers who must have been responsible for what took place. So I think it is fair to draw attention to what they actually did.
In 1978, the last full year of the last Labour Government—and Conservative Governments when in power always referred back to 1979 when it suited them—public sector completions, which is what we are talking about, were over 110,000. That figure comprised the following: local authorities, 79,517, housing associations, 20,859, new towns, 9,551, and government departments 941. The figures for the last full year before the Conservative Government lost the election last May were as follows: public sector from all sources, 528 houses. If that is not a dereliction of duty by a government towards a housing programme, I do not know what is.
The housing associations' figures, which peaked in 1994 at 30,705 and in 1995 at 31,062, dropped in 1996 to 26,214. So whereas the Government inherited a

1427
programme of over 110,000 houses, they gradually reduced it to the figure of 26,214. Why, if they were so interested in housing, did they break every promise they made? I was quite clearly given promises, and so were the Members of your Lordships' House at that Dispatch Box, as to what they were going to do through the Housing Corporation. They set out on that task and the financial support for the Housing Corporation went up in 1986–97 to £587 million, which is of course a substantial sum of money. That gradually increased in its peak year of 1992–93 to £2.3 billion. Then of course we had Black Wednesday—and which was the biggest target that was hit? The Conservative Government immediately reduced that sum of money until last year it had been reduced to £1 billion. That had in fact been docked by £1.3 billion by a government who had given commitments as to their programme.
I am quoting these figures because I do not think that they ought to be able to get away with it. The full facts should be illustrated, and that is why I have given them. Incidentally, with a change of government trends do not alter quickly; very often it takes time for the trends which have been in place previously to be turned round and for new trends to work through. I was somewhat horrified, as no doubt were other Members of your Lordships' House, to see that the figure for repossessions because of lapsed mortgage payments reached 500 a month. My latest information is that the figure has gone up to 600, and the situation is getting worse. These are all individual tragedies, because those people will never get back into that housing, and where is the housing going to come from for them to rent? There is none available. Everybody has simply been let down by the last government.
I am not asking the present Government to perform a miracle overnight and produce another 70,000 or 80,000 houses a year very quickly, because they have been left with an enormous liability. I wanted to illustrate that today. The Government will have to give serious consideration to where the finance is to come from, because they are literally starting from scratch. I believe they will get on with the job, but there is no magic recipe for it and it will take a long time.
I want now to turn to pollution in the inner cities. The city whose council I was privileged to lead for a period and on whose outskirts I live now—Manchester—has pollution from cars at peak periods of a London dimension. In fact Manchester, of all the big cities, has the highest death rate in any category. There are more still-born children in Manchester in percentage terms than anywhere in the rest of the United Kingdom. More children die before the age of one and more people die of lung cancer and related diseases, including heart attacks. Manchester is top of the list. One reason is that the area used to be full of chemical works. A lot of them have now gone, but there is now the new peril of the motor car.
Manchester is not a huge city. It is the smallest of the big cities. Leeds is seven times bigger in area than Manchester. However, masses of people pour into Manchester each day in their cars to do their business, and each night they drive back out into Cheshire and the
1428
hills of the Pennines where they live. That is all very nice, but the people who live in Manchester suffer the consequences.
I do not know what the answer is. It is easy to say to people that they will have to stop driving into the city. They accept that, until we say that we mean their car as well as everybody else's. When we say, "You are a three-car family and all three of you will have to take the bus", they do not like it. The answer lies in the technical development of an engine that produces an almost nil factor of pollution. I believe that it can be done. Unfortunately, the signals from the Americans as to what they propose to do are appalling. But we are a small island and that is one of the points to which the Government must give priority, even if it costs money. An engine must be produced which does not cause the medical damage that is taking place at present.
In closing I want to say that it has been a good debate which has been well worth while. It has covered a wide spectrum. I hope that it will be a widely read debate because it produced a lot of statistics and arguments as to what we may do to improve the situation.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, my noble friend says that the debate covers a wide spectrum. It does and I must apologise because many of my remarks could equally appropriately have been made in Monday's debate on international development. However, the order paper specifically mentions a debate on national and international aspects of the environment.
Having just looked at the White Paper which was published today I see that paragraph 2.36 says:
"Trade and investment are key to sustainable development".
That is the theme of my remarks. One of the main tasks of the DfID together with the Department of Trade and Industry will be to help low income countries to improve their position through trade and through attracting investment from the private sector. That is something which the tiger economies have done successfully, even though they are undergoing a rather painful blip at the moment. However, the countries of sub-Saharan Africa have been singularly unsuccessful in that area.
The effect of private investment (sometimes large projects are financed by the World Bank) has too often had a drastic and harmful effect on the environment—a point already made by the noble Lord, Lord Ashburton, and my noble friend Lord Monkswell. Sometimes that is due to pollution by toxic chemicals and sometimes indirectly by displacing indigenous farmers who then have to clear forests from marginal land which is then over-used or over-grazed and becomes subject to erosion. On the fertile land which is used to grow cash crops for export, pesticides and herbicides may be used which the more stringent rules of the industrial world would not permit.
Too often investment by private foreign capital does not result in a reduction in poverty. Any profits that are not repatriated go to the local élite who usually own the land and, incidentally, often run the governments as well. Those who work on banana, pineapple or tea

1429
plantations, in chemical factories or assembly plants, are paid at a low rate—of course, that is what attracted the inward investment in the first place. In that connection it is perhaps a rather sad commentary that south Wales has now attracted investment from a tiger economyKorea—apparently because its wage rates for part-time women workers are lower than they are in Korea.
The great increase in world trade is not matched by an equivalent growth in output. Much of the trade between countries is passing from one part of a transnational company to another. A bicycle, car or camera has parts made in several countries and is put together in yet another country before reaching its final destination—usually an industrial country in the north. Very little of the final price reaches the workers in the countries providing the raw materials or assembly plants.
Transnational companies involved in manufacturing move from one country to another seeking the lowest possible costs and the most flexible regulatory framework, too often paying little regard to the social and environmental impact of their enterprise. Of course, there are exceptions and some transnational companies have far better working conditions than some indigenous sweat-shops, particularly with regard to the employment of child labour.
The World Trade Organisation—the successor to GATT—by insisting on low tariff barriers is making world-wide activity by transnational companies easier. However, tariffs on manufactured goods exported from the south to the north are coming down slowly; for instance, the multi-fibre agreement will only significantly reduce tariffs on fabrics towards the end of its timespan.
The environmental impact of the activities of transnational companies in the south is made worse by their ability to exert pressure on poor countries to relax regulations by threatening to take their investment elsewhere. The regulatory framework controlling the environmental impact of industrial activities, which may be fairly loose in any case, is not usually well enforced in less developed countries.
A further factor leading to environmental degradation in the developing world—a point made already by several noble Lords—is the effect of the debt burden on poorer countries, mostly in sub-Saharan Africa. In an effort to repay or just to service debt, many sub-Saharan African countries have no option but to export more and more cash crops whose price has plunged largely because other developing countries are doing the same. Soils may be exhausted to grow cash crops. For instance, a few years ago Senegal borrowed heavily,
"to install refining capacity for a million tonnes of groundnuts. But its soils are so depleted by groundnut production that today it can produce nowhere near that amount. Still, the cost of the industrial plant must be reimbursed—through exports of groundnuts".
Some noble Lords will recognise that that quote comes from the well-known economist on international development, Susan George. Debt problems therefore are compounding inequality and environmental degradation.
It is clear that in certain parts of the world population pressure on land is acute and contributes to environmental degradation. But the solution is not
1430
simply to mount a family planning blitz, though contraceptive supplies and assistance with reproductive health must be made available. The long-term sustainable approach to populations which are expanding faster than their resources allow is to accelerate development programmes which have as their basis investment in social capital. That is spelt out in the White Paper, though I have not yet had time to read it through.
If ever there was a case for "education, education, education", it is in Bangladesh or Rwanda/Burundi. That is the way permanently to reduce fertility rates. Such communities must be encouraged to develop more effective productive agriculture and indigenous industries to provide occupations for a population which will be better educated if they have the social investment that they need. They should export not only to the industrial north but also laterally, with each other, to other developing countries.
The dominance of world markets by technically advanced transnational companies working within the World Trade Organisation framework does not encourage that. In fact, it makes such developments a virtual non-starter. Some would say that this is deliberate, to retain market dominance and squeeze out competition. A new development is now being actively discussed by countries of the OECD. It is the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, the MAI. It is complementary to the World Trade Organisation. Potentially, the agreement could have very beneficial effects by tightening and strengthening regulations which protect the environment from the ill effects of pollution and degradation. It is due to be signed in May 1998. Unhappily, it looks as though this agreement will not help to protect the environment as it could and should but will instead be used to override local protective regulations in the interests of foreign investors, who are, again, likely to be large transnational companies. Countries which object to this but need the investment will be pressurised into joining the MAI, or lose the investment.
There is no time to describe its provisions in detail. However, as an illustration, one clause commits each party not to apply any restrictions on incoming investors in respect of technology transfer, joint ownership, local employment, local purchasing, export levels, production into local markets and employment of key overseas personnel. Another requirement is not to restrict profit repatriation even when a country is experiencing balance of payments problems.
I should like to ask my noble friend what input Her Majesty's Government are making to current discussions on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment. Which department is involved? Is it the Department of Trade and Industry, or has the Department for International Development had any input? I understand that it may not be easy for her to give me the answer today, but she may like to write to me later, if necessary.
The agreement has been drawn up by the OECD countries alone—the rich countries—without representation from developing countries or

1431
non-governmental organisations which might have been able to point out the potential adverse environmental impact of the new agreement. There are still six months to run. Can my noble friend say whether the Government will arrange for an open forum on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment to include such consumer view points before this potentially beneficial but currently rather ominous agreement comes into effect?
One submission from a consortium of non-governmental organisations—NGOs—in Paris last week was rejected flatly by the OECD committee that was meeting there on the MAI. There is no inherent reason, though, why the agreement must be signed in May next year. To include the interests of those countries which are to be on the receiving end of the investment seems logical and just. If that means that the signing of the agreement has to be postponed, it should be postponed until an equitable and environmentally friendly basis can be found. I hope the Government will insist on that.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Rogers of Riverside: My Lords, it comes as somewhat of a surprise to me, as an architect, to realise that it is cities that are driving the crisis in global pollution. One could say that the countryside and cities are but two sides of the same coin. One affects the other. But cities are from where the pollution comes. Some 50 per cent. of all the pollution comes from dwellings, and an ever growing figure—it is now more than 25 per cent.—comes from transportation. The rest comes from industry.
Cities have grown globally during the century by 500 per cent., and Britain—perhaps with Holland—is arguably the most urban nation in the west. Some 90 per cent. of us live in cities. Eighty per cent. of us live in cities of more than 100,000 people. We are a truly urban society. As such, we have a deep responsibility to husband the globe, for global pollution brings ill-health, dirty seas, dirty air and dirty forests, and all the other problems we have heard of today.
We have to consider the globe as a living organism which takes in and gives out. It is very much like a tree. It is not dead. We have a duty to husband that globe. The nature of cities is such that they are effectively destroying their inhabitants. Cities take in tremendous resources. We suffer dramatically today in terms of short-term market pressures. Cities do not respond to short-term market pressures. As an architect, I deal mainly with buildings, roads and trees, none of which respond to the five to 10-year cycle of a return on money.
It is not surprising that people want to live in cities if they are successful and beautiful cities. After all, cities are the nature of citizenship, culture and communication. Cities are for the meeting of people. Cities have historically been where all, or practically all, creative endeavour has come from. They are the condensers of minds. Yet polls in Britain show that, unlike many other countries, most of the people wish to leave cities because of pollution and a lack of security.
1432
There is much that we can do to enhance our cities and to make them homes for man. We have a need for more than 4 million dwellings. That is a tremendous number. This potentially gives us the possibility of stitching together our often disparate cities which have tremendous gaps and holes in them, of rebalancing our cities so that we do not have ghettos of housing or retail buildings and of making them once more dense and urban. Unfortunately, short-term interests tend to choose green sites to build on. Cities are expanding outward, eroding the countryside. The more they expand outwards, the more we need to use the car and the less we can use public transportation. So we have the cycle of more and more energy being used to chase the city into areas where it should really not be, especially if we consider that cities are where we exchange ideas.
We need to limit cities. They should be places where there are not big holes. If cities have 5, 10 or 15 per cent. waste land, that is where we should be building. That is where public transport can deal with the people.
There are many case studies of successful cities. It always fascinates me that we are very willing to accept international trade, international technology, marketing and so forth, but very seldom are we willing to look abroad. Yet there are some extremely interesting examples abroad as well as in our own nation. For example, as regards cycling, as we know in countries like Holland a vast amount of cycling takes place and a lot of walking. There are also cities such as York, Cambridge and Oxford which also have successful patterns.
But it may be worth for a moment to look at the most successful city in the United States which is Portland, Oregon. It has a tremendous demand both of business and people who wish to enter the city and which in many ways has the most sophisticated response. It has a very detailed planning system. It does not allow growth to expand helter-skelter into green land. As it says in its brochure, money bounces back into the city by the very nature of the fact that growth in terms of land use is limited. Instead they are trying to make the city more dense; to use public transport; large areas of pedestrianisation; wonderful spaces in the public domain, of squares, parks and waterfalls. This city is now thriving. Thirty years ago it was in crisis. It has removed its high-level roadways which used to go along its beautiful river. It has become very much a people's place. So it is now the most successful city with probably the highest land prices, but also with some of the best social housing.
The question of housing is of tremendous importance: the need for a broad spectrum of housing and not just luxury housing. Portland certainly fulfils that. It has connected itself extremely successfully with fast, light train systems with Seattle and Vancouver, creating a belt of successful cities.
Another city which is closer is Barcelona. Again, there is much to learn from it. In their own way they have learnt from us in the way that they have developed. They had tremendous problems with their waterside which was crowded with warehouses. One could not get

1433
to the water in this wonderful city. They used the Olympics as a way of modernising the whole water's edge. They created the most amazing public domain, with housing, shopping, retailing, yachting, and so on. Now it not only has a beautiful city behind the docks, but right to the water's edge. People from all over the world go to look at it. What is fascinating is that they used the Olympics as their excuse to renovate the city. It has a wonderful advertisement which says,
"The Olympics and 150 new squares".
That is an approach which recommends itself and it is one which, if we are to humanise our cities, we must follow.
We must take a number of actions to protect and enhance the environment. We need to integrate the environmental costs into our national accounts. These costs have to be real costs. Questions have to be asked why a litre of petrol is the same as a litre of water. Do they both do the same thing? We need to establish national indicators that measure the inputs and outputs of cities. We need to meet and improve on the standards that we were promised at the Earth Summit in Rio. We need to restrict development on greenfield sites—and I stress that point.
We need to encourage development on derelict or brownfield sites. We need to encourage live, working and walking communities, and compact communities, within cities. We need to rebalance those communities so that one can walk from one's house to work or to the corner shop. We need to invest in the public realm of cities with parks, squares and avenues as well as with public buildings, schools and museums.
We need to invest in integrated urban transport systems and to encourage the use of low to zero emission vehicles for public and private transport. We need to include environmental studies in the national curriculum because, after all, the protection of the environment is now at the top of the things that we have to do. Nowhere is the implementation of sustainability more potent and beneficial than in the city. In fact, the benefits to be derived from that approach are potentially so great that environmental sustainability should become the principle of modern urban design.
7.5 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I rise to deliver the speech that the House has been waiting for. It is the last speech before the "wind ups". I know that those who have sat throughout the debate, which has taken almost four hours, will have been as fascinated as I have been to listen to speeches that were not repeated by anyone else. They all came from different areas of experience and none more so than that we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Rogers, who brought his experience and perspective and I believe the word is "vision" to what we should do.
I wish to join others in expressing our appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, not only for introducing the debate and setting the parameters, but for widening them. Someone used the phrase, "a broad brush approach". It was more specific than that. The noble Lord. Lord Williams, reminded us of the vastness of the
1434
issues contained within the word "environment". When one looks at the word, it is both national and international and one appreciates that it is quite impossible to debate the subject meaningfully with time restraints. I am certainly grateful to the noble Lord. Lord Williams.
The other phrase that I picked up from his speech was,
"By their deeds shall ye know them".
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, related what he wanted to see to what this Government—our Government; my Government—had promised that they would tackle. I say to the Minister in that context that it is much better to get it right than to get it quick. I am sure that one of the things that she and her colleagues have learnt is the situation they inherited. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, pointed out, that is not a stricture on the behaviour or performance of the previous government. The problems are so huge. This subject is not a political issue. It may be that priorities become confused when one has to spend money and issue directions. It is a subject that should be above party politics. Sadly, as we know in this House it will not be completely so. I believe that there is a great deal of common accord in this House and in the country in believing that the major problems will be tackled only if they are seen not in a partisan way but as being in accord with the national interest.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, referred to the manifesto in two or three instances. It is early days. It is just six months into the lifetime of this Government, which I am sure will stretch to at least as long as the 18 years that we were absent from government. One has to take a long view. Especially in economic conditions, we are not going to achieve what we want straight away. The Minister and her colleagues can be satisfied that, for anyone marking up what could be achieved within six months, this Government have made a very good start. I do not put these matters forward in any order of priority. The commitment to a White Paper setting out an integrated transport strategy is warmly welcomed.
Most of us use cars. Last night I came around the M.25 from Heathrow to my home at a very busy time and I was not delayed at all. You can be lucky or unlucky, but one thing is certain: one of the problems that the Government will have to attempt to solve now and for as long as they are in office is to establish something termed an "integrated transport strategy".
One of the first things that the Government have done is to try to deal by taxation and incentives with the problem of traffic congestion. The Confederation of British Industry tells us that it costs British business £19 billion a year. That is an enormous sum and one needs to look at the ways in which the situation can be eased. Is the Minister able to tell the House whether the Government are making serious attempts to get retailers to reconsider how they might deliver their goods at, for example, more convenient times? We all know the problems that deliveries cause, especially early in the day. I can recall serious attempts being made previously to have goods delivered, if not in the middle of the

1435
night, then certainly outside the busiest periods. I should be grateful if the Minister could say something about that.
I am especially pleased that Gavin Strang, the Minister responsible for transport, has a place in the Cabinet, because that illustrates the seriousness with which the Government are approaching this matter. I am also especially pleased that, in placing the Deputy Prime Minister in charge of what is undoubtedly a major department, straddling what were previously regarded as a number of separate areas, the Government and the Prime Minister have demonstrated not only the seriousness with which they are tackling such problems, but the fact that they recognise the need to tackle them across departments. One is not talking of turf wars or asking who is responsible, but we need to appreciate that, if we are to find the answers to these problems, we shall have to do things differently in the future from the way in which we approached them in the past. Therefore, I welcome the Government's intention to have a strategic review of the roads programme on the criteria of accessibility, safety, economy and environmental impact.
I know that the Minister has an impossible job in attempting to deal with all the points that have been raised tonight, but I should like to hear her say something about the problems that London commuters face with regard to the Underground. I am not knocking the Underground, although I do recognise its problems. It is vital to very many people, including to those who, like myself, do not use it regularly, but even we find it frustrating. When I encounter problems when travelling in on the Underground from my home in Loughton, I remind myself that I do so only infrequently but that many people travel that way every day and it is their only means of getting into London. Can the Minister give us any news about improving the Underground?
I believe that it was my noble friend Lord Williams who referred to Agenda 21. It is terribly important. At one time I was heavily involved at a high level with my local council in Enfield and I should like the Minister to tell us how closely the Government are monitoring not just the intention of councils in this regard, but the way in which they are meeting their responsibilities for implementing Agenda 21 at a local level.
The Government have made a very good start. I was particularly pleased to note what they intend to do with regard to water and leakages. The horror stories that we read need to be tackled. I believe that people are willing to pay if they see something being done. Nothing is more infuriating to the general public than seeing waste or money literally being poured down the drain. It might help the House if the Minister could make one or two observations on that.
The Government are tackling an enormous range of issues with regard to the countryside. The noble Viscount, Lord Addison, rightly referred to our need to protect the national parks. The Government's efforts are laudable and their plans with regard to the national parks and access to the countryside are achievable.
1436
I was involved in the passing of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, into which was spatchcocked the concept of sites of special scientific interest. I supported the concept then and do so now. I remember that Michael Heseltine, Tom King and Tam Dalyell were fascinated by The Rape of Countryside by Marion Self. She opened my eyes to the impossibility of what we are doing with regard to hedgerows. The concept of prairie farming was born. It may make for good agricultural economics, but it does not make for good conservation of the countryside.
My points have been much more insular than international, but, unless we put our house in order, we cannot really lecture others in other parts of the world. There is an enormous amount to do and I acknowledge that the Minister carries a heavy workload in relation to a wide and widening brief. She does so unassumingly, diligently and with great charm. In fact, she comes here today to demonstrate that she is literally the "Green Lady" of the Government. We know that she will treat all our concerns seriously and sympathetically—and I do not think that we can ask for more than that.
7.17 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel—I notice that he left the Chamber rather rapidly in order not to have to listen to my speech—must be very pleased and proud of the debate that he initiated and started so well. This has been a very good debate with a number of outstanding speeches. The maiden speeches were of a uniformly high standard and we look forward to hearing once again from all those noble Lords when they can be as controversial as they like.
It would be wrong of me to pick out any particular speech although I had intended to mention one or two. shall comment only on how good and bracing I found the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, because she really put the matter on the line. As some of your Lordships may know, I have just published a book which takes a rather more optimistic view of how the population of the world may react to the challenges facing them; but I have an awful feeling that perhaps the noble Baroness comes nearer to the truth.
This Government have to be challenged on what they are going to do. They have produced a number of fine words about the environment, but many of us have great doubts about their performance. We remember that the Government have a considerable standard to meet when compared with Mr. Gummer, who was a most outstanding Minister in this area in an otherwise not very outstanding government, if I may say so.
I turn now to the international level. It is clear that global warming is a major problem. We are disappointed at the lead that is being given by a number of other countries, including America.
We are happy that the Government appear to be sticking to their targets, although there are some doubts as to how they will get there. It does not appear that their sums add up, unless the Government are able to tax fuel in such a way that the poor are spared the impact by the subsidisation of home energy insulation. That will

1437
mean new money which the Government have said that they will not provide. I do not see how the Government will reach those targets unless they do something along those lines.
Interestingly, the noble Lord, Lord Rea, spoke about the multilateral agreement on investment. I believe that this is a key international matter. Speaking from this Front Bench, my views on the whole business of free trade are somewhat heretical. But if there is to be free trade it and the dependent agreements on investment in the World Trade Organisation and so on, which tend to be dominated on the one hand by dogma and on the other hand by multinational corporations and their greed, must submit to a regime that allows social and environmental conditions to break the iron rules that they lay down that trade is the most important thing. The proposed clauses which the noble Lord, Lord Rea, read out were horrifying. I join with him in hoping that the Government will do their very best to deal with that matter.
There are plenty of other international problems. For example, a dam in Chile is being financed by the World Bank. That dam will submerge 3,400 hectares of forest and move 500 indigenous people. This is the kind of project that international aid and organisations are putting forward. It must be stopped.
At national level there is the problem of reducing emissions and improving air quality. There is also the problem created by the suggestion that clean coal-fired power stations may be subsidised from the non-fossil fuel levy. That would be a very bad move. Currently, the levy is used to support renewable energy sources. The truth is that there is no such thing as clean coal, although coal-fired power stations can be improved. There is a refusal by the Government to back targeted water metering for excessive users—for example, for swimming pools and sprinklers. Labour's so-called water summit fails to address the real issues in the water industry. Targeted water metering has been ruled out even before that summit begins. In the draft manifesto New Labour, New Life for Britain, Labour gave a commitment not to reform company car benefits that encouraged gas guzzlers and also encouraged increased mileage. Nor has it proposed to differentiate VED levels or allow local road pricing schemes. All of these matters are now being canvassed by Mr. Prescott, who is demonstrating admirable freedom of action.
But where does Labour really stand? These are matters on which it must take action. There is no commitment to environmental tax reform. Various opportunities to introduce it have already been lost. VAT reduction on energy-saving materials to 8 per cent., the same level as on fuel use, was supported last year by the Labour Front Bench but was narrowly defeated by one vote when, unfortunately, three Labour MPs did not vote. When the amendment went before the other House in March of this year during consideration of the Finance Bill the Labour Party refused to support it. There is not much sign of support for energy conservation there. There should be an environmental information appeals tribunal. This should be part of open government legislation. I should like to know where Labour has got to in that respect.
1438
All noble Lords who have spoken today and all parties are agreed that this matter should be taken extremely seriously and we shall do our best to do something about it. But between wanting to do one's best and doing something really genuine there is a considerable gap, as President Clinton has unfortunately found.
There are two general considerations to be borne in mind. The first is that I join the noble Lord, Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld, in his admirable maiden speech in suggesting that the main thing to do is to make action local. We in this House call on the Government to take action, but we particularly want them to take action that will empower local authorities at very local level to operate. There are already examples of local councils. I refer with pride to Sutton and Cheam, whose council was led by my noble friend Lord Tope, and Richmond council in which my noble friend is a leading light. These Liberal Democrat councils are very effective in this field. I believe that it is at that level that we must get people behind it. This is where education must take place. One can elect one's own councillor who comes up for re-election in three years. His or her record is there to see. That is where voters can be educated as to the problems. The electors will themselves educate their representatives when they return them to power. The main thing to do is to make the action local, especially concerning energy production. I believe the theory that renewable resources cannot produce the energy that we want can be turned on its head if we start, not with a national grid, but by saying that such and such an area should be responsible for providing its own energy and it should then start to think how it can do so. If we did that there would probably be a breakthrough.
The second point that has emerged from the speeches throughout the debate—although it is not necessarily thought of in these terms—is the necessity to move on from being "environmental" and thinking about protecting the environment to being "ecological" and making certain that the ecology works. That is the difference between saying that it is anti-environmental to have windmills all over the place but it is ecological to have windmills because in that way sustainable energy can be produced. Of course, windmills must be sited with care and environmental matters must be taken into consideration. But I believe that to a large extent this debate has moved on from the environment and environmental protection to address some of the problems of ecology. Both I and my colleagues on these Benches believe that to be a very good thing.
7.30 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I join all other speakers in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, for raising this important subject. He told us that he deliberately chose a wide title which encompassed issues of the environment both domestically and internationally. Furthermore, in 20 minutes he gave the House as good a scene setter as I have heard for a long time. His was not an easy challenge. The debate is well timed and is set in the light of the impending Kyoto

1439
Summit. However, given the urgency of some of the issues that we face, one might ask when a debate on the environment is not well timed.
We heard four memorable maiden speeches from four experienced speakers. I began to fear that something of a Welsh mafia was in operation because the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, having raised the debate, was followed by two speakers who had their hearts very much in Wales. I discovered from Dod that the third speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Randall, was educated at the University of Wales in Cardiff. Therefore, it was with special pleasure that I welcomed the fourth maiden speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld, former MP for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth, in being a Celtic counterpart to today's proceedings.
The topics have been wide-ranging and in respect of one aspect we had a truly excellent contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Rogers of Riverside. He spoke of the role of cities in sustainable development. I encourage noble Lords who were not in the Chamber to read his contribution in Hansard. It grasped the complex and awesome dimensions which cities must play in the wider environmental debate and the social and economic strands which must be rationalised.
The noble Lord, Lord Rogers, also focused on derelict land, brownfield sites and contaminated land. I hope that in summing up, the Minister will bring us up to date on the various contaminated land initiatives. The much debated Section 57 of the Environment Act will be well remembered in this House. When will that be implemented? Are other initiatives coming forward to encourage the greater development of brownfield sites'?
A number of scenarios were painted by a number of speakers. We could be facing catastrophe in terms of a radical change in lifestyle being imposed upon us. We could be facing something much worse, such as self-destruction. Could the polluter be about to pay the ultimate price with plunging sperm counts, rising respiratory problems and the dangers resulting from genetic or chemical contamination?
There is a more optimistic approach. Perhaps we shall see good, continued growth but on a more cautious and sustainable level. There are also the techno-optimists and those who have an ultimate faith in human ingenuity, believing that because it can deliver, one day we can all have a standard of living equivalent to the Japanese, with an equivalent spending power.
As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, we can but speculate about such scenarios. There is no way that today any of us will conclusively identify any one of them as being the destination. Undoubtedly we have made progress, but we must continue our endeavour to improve and increase the rate of progress.
I believe that we have made progress because many of the decisions of the past 20 years have been easy. The problem which governments and others now face is that the decisions are becoming harder, the judgments more finely balanced, the trade-offs more difficult and the dilemmas more challenging. We must assess and accommodate with more care scientific uncertainty and disagreement. We must judge with more care the role of
1440
the precautionary principle. We must weigh up with more care the costs and benefits and ensure that the costs and the solution do not outweigh the intended benefits. On both sides of the Atlantic there have been well documented cases in which over-zealous environmental regulation has imposed punitive costs when cheaper solutions might have been available. Therefore, we have wasted resources which could have gone to further environmental improvements. We must avoid inappropriate objectives, such as those relating to contaminated land set by the superfund legislation in the United States. A number of difficult issues must be tackled as we take environmental improvements further forward.
A number of speakers touched on one of the major philosophies which will help us to unravel some of these difficulties. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, and others touched on the constraints imposed upon us by our democratic systems; the constraints imposed on us by the current structures which we govern; and the constraints imposed upon us by traditional economics when perhaps we want to expand into some more avant-garde environmental economic mechanisms.
I welcome the fact that the Government, building on some of the ideas that we had in government, have taken steps to introduce new machinery which it is hoped will better co-ordinate policy across all departments so that there is greater environmental sensitivity. However, we need more economic instruments. We need to produce disincentives to pollution; disincentives which create incentives for more cost-effective improvements and solutions to environmental problems. We want more cost-effective pricing and greater resource efficiency. We want companies to see resource and pollution control as the defining discipline, just as labour productivity has been one of the defining disciplines to date. Furthermore, we want to remove wherever possible the structural obstacles to environmental incentives. I believe that the landfill tax affects few people in their domestic lives. They are immune to the price mechanism which the landfill tax is meant to place on the management of the waste stream. If the landfill tax were visible and were felt by the ordinary person as he created municipal waste at source, greater effort might be made in the household rather than at the next tier.
In addition to structural change, we must explore solutions which are creative and inspired. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, gave us some thoughts on some possible solutions. I welcome the fact that around the world one sees ideas being tried. The United States at a local level is exploring the concept of tradable permits for land use. They are known as TDRs, or transferable development rights, and they seek to bring a more rational approach to land use. There are areas which are obvious for development and areas which should be far from eligible for development.
Similarly, in the State of Victoria in Australia there is a new initiative called Greenfleet. It allows the motorist to invest 25 dollars in tree planting every time he registers his car or renews a tax disc. The initiative is backed by the government of Victoria, and is in marked

1441
contrast to the attitude of federal government to embark on serious environmental policies. It is also backed by environmental groups and the media. The idea is that seven fast-growing trees emit the same amount of carbon dioxide as a car emits in one year. Moreover, because the government have joined non-governmental organisations, the media and members of the private sector to deliver this initiative, it is going well. The take-up in the commercial sector itself has been very impressive.
One of the most difficult issues with the economic philosophies we have in place at the moment as regards the environmental aspirations that we hope to achieve involves the utilities and the fact that we have a paradox between economic regulation, competition regulation and environmental regulation. It is a tension which, given the way in which legislation has been written for the various consumer watchdogs, must be resolved by the Government.
Many noble Lords have focused on the international scene. The issues have been very well covered by a number of speakers from a number of different angles. We have to be conscious of the fact that there are ethics in international environmental politics which cannot be ignored. When the less sustainable part of the world points its finger at the developing world and says, in effect, "You will have to remain hungry because it is environmentally better that you do so", we must realise that that is not sustainable as a route to progress.
We also have to distinguish between those emissions which are survival emissions and those emissions which are luxury emissions. A number of issues have to be considered with sensitivity and care, but the sentimentality with which we might approach some of those challenges must not cause us to lose sight of the fact that the world population is expanding at a remarkable rate; and, as some noble Lords have mentioned, it may be that population control itself will be an integral part of the environmental solutions on a global basis.
I hope that the Minister will explore the Government's position on the lack of primacy that environmental conventions have when it comes to global trade conventions. It is disappointing that the WTO seems able to overrule regional and national environmental legislation. It seemed quite extraordinary that when the United States barred an import of highly sulphurous oil products from Venezuela recently on the grounds that the products broke its own environmental thresholds, the WTO ruled that the veto by Washington was out of order. Therefore the USA is, in effect, compelled to take the product despite the fact that it is in transgression of the United States' own environmental legislation.
Responsibility for the environment and for environmental protection, be it within this country or on a regional or global basis, is multiple. It devolves not only to governments, public sector agencies and local authorities, but also to the private sector, to the tremendous work done by many non-governmental agencies and, ultimately, to every single one of us as individuals.
1442
This Government have a number of years before they must next to go to the country. Moreover, they have a comfortable majority in another place. With a measure of goodwill and, indeed, with the foundations which Mr. Gummer and others built, I hope that they will he able to achieve considerable progress. The aspirations articulated by the Government have been admirable. How those aspirations will be delivered still begs questions, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, asked many of those questions.
I hope that the Minister will be able to answer some of the points raised tonight and indicate how we might solve some of the more difficult problems.
7.44 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, I too would like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel, both upon his authoritative and wide ranging opening speech and upon choosing a topic which has elicited such a fascinating and distinguished range of contributions in today's debate. The breadth of the motion was, as my noble friend made clear, intentional. It does, however, present quite a challenge in terms of a ministerial response, but I shall do my best to cover the main areas that have been raised.
The debate also saw the occasion for several extremely impressive maiden speeches. My noble friend Lord Davies of Coity spoke movingly of his personal experiences, both in Wales and internationally, and he reminded us, as did the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield, of our personal and community responsibilities for the land. I am tempted to use the biblical Hebraic "eretz" in this context for the land that we temporarily inhabit.
The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, equally gave us a Welsh perspective and a personal one. He rightly reminded us that, even within the broad heading of environmental issues, there are priorities and choices that have to be made between often competing demands flying under the flag of environmental protection. I say to him that, as the Minister responsible for both roads and road safety, I took his remarks very much to heart and I noted carefully what he had to say about the dangers of pigs as passengers on bicycles. I will look at it in the context of the Highway Code, perhaps.
My noble friend Lord Randall of St. Budeaux gave us a thoughtful and perceptive speech on the global nature of the problems that we face and on the possibilities that, with some optimism, are opened up by positive international and specifically European co-operation. He also spoke with a proper passion about the roots of his views about Europe. In this House, where everyone's views on Europe are strongly felt, it was a very good reminder of the passions that are aroused and the reasons for the deep commitment that some have to European co-operation.
My noble friend Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld made your Lordships laugh while making a very serious point. That is a quality that is always valued in this House. He also managed to relate issues on Scottish local

1443
government absolutely seamlessly and skilfully to the very relevant issue of the appropriate government level for action on environmental issues.
I am sure that after such eloquent beginnings the whole House will look forward to hearing much more from all our maiden speakers in the future.
Perhaps the key message of today's debate was the need for sustainable development. That need is reflected in the approach of the Government to individual areas of policy, but perhaps most significantly to the decision-making process itself. In the past we have too often thought of economic, social and environmental objectives in their own self-contained boxes as if they were entirely separate. We need to integrate our policy making so that the environmental and social impacts of policies are considered at the same time as the economic ones, rather than as "add-ons" after a decision has been taken. It is only through what I recently heard described as some joined-up thinking that we will achieve the objective of sustainable development.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, in his opening speech and my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton in his very kind remarks acknowledged the importance of the new machinery that is being set up. We believe that the creation of the combined Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions—bringing together the social policies of transport, the economic dimension in the regions and environmental aspects—under the leadership of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Cabinet Committee on the Environment, the proposed Environmental Audit Committee and our new team of "green" Ministers—all of which have been welcomed in the debate today—have a vital role in fulfilling our manifesto commitment to put the environment at the heart of decision-making and in promoting policies which support sustainable development throughout government. The Environmental Audit Committee will be a committee of another place, but I hope that it will also be possible for it to work with relevant committees of this House and we expect to see it established shortly.
I know that noble Lords are impatient for us to make progress. We are all impatient. But I took very much to heart the line of my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton that it is more important to get it right than to get it quick. By putting down the foundations in terms of the structure, we have a much better chance of getting the policies right and coherent for the future.
We need to promote wider public understanding of the sustainable development concept and to generate greater opportunities for individual action and action at local level. We shall be revising the 1994 UK sustainable development strategy to provide a more practical framework for sustainable development. The new strategy will incorporate indicators and targets to allow measurement of progress, and work on a new, improved set of indicators for sustainable development is currently under way and will be linked closely with the review of the overall strategy. We aim to publish a revised strategy in autumn 1998 but will be launching a consultation process shortly to promote a wide-ranging debate on sustainable development.
1444
My noble friend Lord Monkswell was absolutely right to identify the importance of developing and encouraging consumers to buy products which are less resource-intensive and which produce environmental benefits. I assure my noble friend that that concept—the jargon is sustainable production and consumption—will be an important part of our sustainable development consultation.
The international dimensions of sustainable development have been highlighted by many speakers today, including the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend Lord Desai. My noble friend Lord Rea referred in particular to concerns about sustainable development issues in trade, and the environment and population aspects.
On the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, which was raised also by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, we want to be sure of the implications of the MAI for the environment before we sign it. Therefore, we are pleased that the OECD is contributing to the assessment of the MAI' s relationship with the international environmental conventions. I take the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, about the importance of achieving the right status for those conventions. We shall continue to take an active role and we hope that the US government will be able to do likewise.
My noble friend Lord Rea dealt also with the question of population growth, as did the noble Lord, Lord Ashburton. The White Paper being published today by the Department for International Development will set out how we intend to contribute to improving the opportunities of all people to make choices about their reproductive health.
My noble friends Lord Williams of Elvel and Lord Graham of Edmonton asked about local Agenda 21. My noble friend Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld stressed the need to take action on environmental issues at a local level. It is right that, as well as promoting sustainable development nationally and internationally, it is equally important that we extend that action throughout local government. At the UN Special Session in June 1997, the Prime Minister called on all UK authorities to adopt local Agenda 21 strategies by the year 2000. Officials in my department are now working with the Local Government Association and Local Government Management Board on a joint document entitled Sustainable Communities for the 21st century, which will be published shortly. That will give clear, practical guidance to councils on how to put an effective local strategy in place for sustainable development. I hope that that will be welcome news for the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, who I know has been concerned about this.
Perhaps I may deal with the issue of climate change and the Government's targets in that regard. Noble Lords have returned again and again to that issue in this debate and, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, pointed out, they have done so with different degrees of optimism or pessimism. My noble friend Lady Hilton of Eggardon described very clearly the gloomier scenario and the dangers which are undoubtedly present.

1445
The Government are convinced of the need to tackle man-made climate change which could have devastating effects on society, the global economy, human health and the natural environment. That is a global problem which needs a global solution. The Kyoto conference in December is an opportunity for us to show that other developed countries and we ourselves are serious about tackling that threat.
My noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel expressed some anxiety about the stance being taken by some of the developed nations in the run-up to Kyoto. I assure my noble friend that this Government are in the forefront of efforts to secure a successful outcome from that conference. The deputy Prime Minister has today left to visit both Washington and Tokyo on the first leg of a programme of meetings undertaken on behalf of the Prime Minister. He will visit the key players in the negotiations over the next few weeks to assess their positions and to press the developed countries to take on ambitious targets. We support the EU's proposal that developed countries should reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 15 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2010 and have a domestic goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. by 2010. Those are challenging targets, as we have discussed in this House before. However, we believe that they represent what is necessary and achievable in the fight against climate change.
The issue about the developing countries is very interesting. We have focused on the developed world but, as the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, and my noble friend Lord Desai said, we must look also in the long term at the role of the developing world in that regard.
My noble friend Lord Williams challenged us for details on how the Government intend to deliver on their climate change targets. I believe that a degree of scepticism also crept into the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. We have said that we shall develop and consult on a balanced programme after Kyoto, as the outcome of the conference will need to inform our programme. However, I can say now—it will hardly be news to anyone—that there is no single magic bullet here and we shall need all sectors of government, individuals and business to play their part. In particular, we are likely to be looking for improvements in domestic energy efficiency, an issue raised by my noble friend Lord Monkswell, as well as industrial and commercial sectors. We shall be looking at measures to tackle the growth of emissions from transport and a large increase in the amount of electricity generated from renewable sources and combined heat and power schemes.
The current review of renewable energy policy is looking at the scope for delivering 10 per cent. of electricity demand from renewable sources by 2010. Perhaps the right reverend Prelate will accept that that is a significant figure. All methods of electricity generation, including energy from renewable sources such as wind power, have, as my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy, pointed out, environmental impacts. Apart from being careful to minimise those impacts, that is a further argument for reducing total and overall energy demand.
1446
There are also problems in regard to nuclear power and a greater reliance on that, not least of course the issue of the disposal of nuclear waste, a subject debated last week in your Lordships' House. My noble friend Lord Monkswell expressed his anxiety about recent articles in the press which presented nuclear power as a green option. Perhaps I may reassure him on that point. Whatever the final shape of the climate change programme, major changes in the way that we generate and use energy will be needed. Increased efficiency in nuclear generation has helped the UK to stay on course for meeting its existing climate change target. Provided that high standards of safety—a point made by my noble friend Lord Davies of Coity—can be maintained and environmental protection safeguarded, we believe that it should continue to do so. However, we do not see a case for government intervention in favour of the construction of new nuclear power stations.
There are many other measures that we can and will use to deliver significant reductions in the UK's greenhouse gas emissions. Many of those will bring other benefits; namely, a more sustainable and efficient transport system, a more diverse energy supply and commercial benefits for firms which use energy more efficiently or profit from business opportunities with more energy efficient technology.
The issue of transport and the policies which could contribute to our targets on emissions has been raised many times in today's debate, notably by my noble friends Lord Simon, Lord Monkswell and Lord Desai. The transport problems which we face today—increasing congestion on our roads, damage to the local and global environment and effects on our climate—mean that we quite simply cannot carry on as we have been doing in the past. Current forecasts suggest that the situation will be even worse in 20 years' time if there is no change in current policies. That is why we are currently undertaking a fundamental review of transport policy. We are in the course of the consultation process and I can say that early indications from the responses that we have received show that people are thinking radically about the issues involved. The level of response convinces me that the Government now have a great opportunity to forge a new consensus on what we need to do to shift transport policy.
I can assure my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton that we are looking very broadly at the issues and considering proposals including, for example, the use of roads at different times of the day and the impact that that would have on another environmental issue; namely, delivery times and the effect of that on the people who live near the places where deliveries are being made. There is also the prospect of minimising the number of lorry journeys that are carried out part loaded or empty. There are also great incentives for business to take action in that field. We must also be aware that the connection of transport to other policies, particularly land use planning, are vital in this respect. Unless we integrate the policies, they will not be effective.
Several noble Lords pointed to the benefits to be secured by providing economic and financial incentives for cleaner cars and higher patronage of public transport.

1447
I can assure noble Lords that we are considering such matters as part of a transport review, and submissions are being received on fiscal measures and on road pricing. However, as I believe the debate has illustrated, we must consider the environmental, economic and social consequences and weigh them up very carefully before decisions are made which may have a significant impact on, for example, the mobility and economic viability of rural areas where there are limited alternatives to the car.
We must learn to strike a better balance between the various modes of transport and give people real choice when they are making decisions about how to move around. That will involve measures that make the travelling environment safer for cyclists and walkers. The review will consider the measures that we can produce in terms of improved public transport—another theme which has emerged from tonight's debate. That is absolutely essential as the carrot which is the counterpart to the fiscal stick if we are to reduce dependency on the car.
However, as my noble friend Lord Monkswell said, more importantly, we also need to consider policies which "green" the car. We need to develop vehicles which are fuel efficient, cleaner and quieter. My noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick stressed the need to find technological solutions to the problems of transport as regards emissions and their effect on the health of populations like those of Manchester.
Yesterday my honourable friend the Minister for Science, Energy and Technology launched the Foresight Vehicle LINK Programme. The programme will bring together the resources and expertise of government and industry to work towards the development of vehicles that are environmentally friendly; make the best use of limited fuel resources; are lightweight and use less energy; can communicate with other vehicles and the transport infrastructure; are safer and able to avoid collisions; and can be manufactured competitively. That is an area where there are great opportunities. I also believe that there are great talents in this country to exploit such opportunities.
The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, suggested that there was potential for more extensive use of diesel vehicles to reach our objectives for "greening" the car. I agree with the noble Viscount that diesel offers advantages over petrol in terms of lower fuel consumption and hence CO2 emissions, together with lower levels of local pollutants such as carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons. However, diesels also have disadvantages in terms of emissions of oxides of nitrogen and fine particles. These are the pollutants which are now of very high concern, especially in urban areas.
The Government share the noble Viscount's concerns about health and the quality of the air that we breathe, and are currently funding a £3 million research programme to investigate the links between air pollution and respiratory diseases. In the meantime, the air quality objectives in the "National Air Quality Strategy" represent a very high level of protection for public health, and we are determined to implement them as soon as possible.
1448
I move on now to issues relating to the countryside. The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel and the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, all referred to our national parks. Indeed, my noble friend inquired how the new national parks authorities in England were faring. I should like to assure my noble friend that we believe they are making steady progress in furtherance of their responsibilities for conserving and enhancing natural beauty, wildlife and the cultural heritage of the parks and for promoting opportunities for their understanding and enjoyment. The parks are able to act as models for the management of the wider countryside in various ways. We are particularly pleased that they have become so closely involved in developing rural transport strategies through the work of the new Countryside Traffic Measures Group.
The noble Lord, Lord Norrie asked specifically about the South Downs and the New Forest. The Countryside Commission proposes to bring together the results of all its work on landscape designated areas next spring, and its report to Ministers will include initial advice on whether national parks status might be a more effective and appropriate solution for any of the AONBs and other areas, including the South Downs and the New Forest, which may be considered as being in need of particular protection. I should also tell the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, that the relative needs and sources of additional funding available to both national parks and AONBs will also be considered. That study is being funded by the commission but the department is closely involved in it. Ministers will obviously have sight of it when it is finished.
My noble friend Lord Rogers of Riverside reminded us in his contribution that the counterpart of the countryside is our cities. He also highlighted the issue which faces us as regards the projected growth in the number of households. We are still considering the responses to the previous government's Green Paper. I noted my noble friend's comments about the potential for building within cities. We certainly are committed to as much building as possible on the so-called "brownfield" sites. The current target is to build 50 per cent. of new housing on previously developed land.
However, whatever target is eventually chosen, we must accept that many new homes may be needed on what are now greenfield sites. That reality cannot be ignored, unless we are willing to see other adverse consequences—for example, increased sharing, overcrowding and an increase in land and house prices. The key challenge will be accommodating these in the most sustainable locations and improving the quality of life for everyone, whether they live in our towns and cities or in the countryside. I should like to reassure my noble friend. We have much to learn from other countries. Indeed, I was fascinated by his description about what they have managed to achieve in Portland. I believe that there is a willingness both to innovate and to learn. By the same token, I was most interested in the example from Victoria given by the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay. We must be prepared to think very broadly and imaginatively in such matters.

1449
If we are to improve the environmental quality of our cities, it is essential to protect their open spaces and playing fields. Only by regenerating them will we attract people back to the cities and towns and thereby protect the countryside. A review of the effectiveness of the planning policy guidance for sport and recreation is complete, and we are now considering whether to revise it.
My noble friend will also be aware of the "World Squares Initiative". It is a sign of the Government's commitment to improving the environmental quality of our cities, and particularly public access to landmarks such as Trafalgar Square, that the public consultation on this initiative has been launched by the Deputy Prime Minister today.
My noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick also referred to the quality of life of people living in towns and cities, especially in relation to the lamentable housing record of the previous government. We are determined to tackle the housing problems that we inherited and to channel resources to areas where they are most needed. Under the capital receipts initiative, the Government will be making nearly £800 million of additional resources available for housing in England. That will help councils to refurbish existing homes, which of course will have energy efficiency benefits, and to support the building of new homes by housing associations. We are also carrying out a fundamental review of our housing policies, and that will include examining future requirements for new social housing and the implications for housing expenditure.
My noble friend Lady Lockwood asked about water pollution from abandoned mines. We are taking action to tackle water pollution in those cases. The Environment Agency and the Coal Authority have together identified a priority list of 35 serious mine discharges from abandoned coalmines in England and Wales—there are also five sites in Scotland—which need water pollution treatment. The Coal Authority intends to tackle four of the worst sites by the end of March and the Government are considering the need for further action to clean up polluting mine waters.
This has been an extraordinarily wide-ranging debate. I am aware that matters have been raised—the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, referred to waste—which very much bring us down to earth. We have a personal responsibility for those matters as well as responsibility at a local, national or international government level. The theme of responsibility and good stewardship has run through the debate. Fundamentally we know that our over-arching goal of a better quality of life now and for future generations depends on a healthy environment. That is why six months ago we started to implement the manifesto commitment to put environment at the heart of government. Since then we have begun to put the machinery and the structures in place to enable us to achieve that goal. We are now starting to develop our policies within that framework. I believe that the thoughtful support that we have received in the House today for what is indeed a challenging task and one that will involve hard choices and the balancing of priorities will be important in the work that we have for the future.
8.11 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, in my opening speech I indicated to the House that the Motion that I was moving set a wide agenda. I am most grateful to noble Lords who have spoken to this wide agenda, contributing their particular expertise in a particular manner. I am particularly grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, for his generous comments about what I had to say. I assure him that there is no Welsh mafia here; it is simply that the Welsh are cleverer than everyone else and therefore we seize these opportunities when we can.
I am also grateful to noble Lords who made their maiden speeches, all of which, if I may say so, were speeches of extreme distinction. I am grateful, too, to my noble friend the Minister for her extremely effective and good response to the debate. I have only two regrets: one is that one or two noble Lords who spoke in the debate did not stay to hear the Minister's reply. I think all your Lordships would regard that as regrettable. My other regret is that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, said at the start of his speech that I had slipped out of the Chamber to avoid listening to his speech. As he could not remember the name of his colleague on the Front Bench, perhaps I should have stayed out longer! In that frivolous spirit I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Montserrat
8.13 p.m.
Baroness Young Baroness Young rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is the situation in Montserrat.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in introducing this short debate this evening I start by saying that I am grateful that the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, is able to be present tonight. I am glad that we have been able to find a mutually convenient time for the debate to take place. I wish to thank all those who are taking part in the debate at this late hour. I much regret that my noble friend Lady Hooper and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, have both expressed their regrets that the change of date has made it impossible for them to be present. One or two others have expressed similar regrets.
I make no apology for raising the subject of Montserrat so soon after my debate on the Caribbean which took place on 14th July. I note that at that time, although I wished to talk about the wider issues of the Caribbean, I concluded by saying—it is not often that I feel able to quote myself—
"In the course of 20 or so years in public life, I have noted two occasions when small islands have caused disproportionate but very serious difficulties. The first was the Falklands war. The second was Grenada. I fear we are now witnessing a third in the island of Montserrat with whose people I have every sympathy. Small islands are vulnerable, and the small islands of the Caribbean need and deserve our support on a guaranteed long-term and carefully considered basis".—[Official Report, 14/7/97; col. 885.]
That quotation forms the start of my speech this evening.
When I first proposed a debate on the question of Montserrat and the manner in which the problems that followed from the eruption of the volcano had been dealt with, my concern was to highlight the plight of those Montserratians remaining on the island and the need for government to respond more quickly. However, the issues that have arisen during the parliamentary Recess and the quite extraordinarily ill-judged remarks of the Secretary of State for International Development, Ms Short—which are the most amazing that I have ever heard from a Cabinet Minister addressed to people in one of our own dependent territories—and the apparent failure of Ministers to take seriously their responsibilities in this matter, which is now the subject of an inquiry by the Select Committee on International Development in another place, give rise, I believe to new concerns about the fate of the people of Montserrat and the nature of the relationship Britain has with its dependent territories in the Caribbean.
The facts surrounding the volcanic activity and its effects on the people of Montserrat are well known. However, I understand that we still do not know exactly how many people there are on the island of Montserrat. We know that the capital, Plymouth, is derelict. We know that the hospital is a disgrace. The operating theatre is about a mile away from the main part of the hospital and there are only outside lavatories. The able bodied have either moved abroad or to other parts of the island. However, I understand that there are at least 500 old, sick and handicapped people who were left behind and who move from shelter to shelter, and that 85 per cent. of the population have left the place where they used to live. That is a terrible situation.
Over the years successive governments have made it clear to the House that British dependent territories have the first call on the time and resources of the British Government. They are, after all, our legal and moral responsibility. It is right that that should be so. However, there is now every indication that in the event of a major catastrophe, such as that in Montserrat, the Government are not prepared to meet fully their duty towards the people of the dependent territories. Indeed, there is a lingering suspicion that the Government are more concerned about the cost of resolving the problems that followed the eruption of Montserrat's Soufrière volcano than with their responsibility for delivering adequate care and protection for the citizens of that country. That has been evidenced by the painfully slow progress that has been made in constructing accommodation in the north of the island; the absence of any serious provision of adequate facilities for education, healthcare or the administration of government, and a failure to provide secure facilities for banking and other such services. At its most serious there is strong evidence to suggest that Montserratians were not—this is still the case—made fully aware of the medium to long-term health problems that may arise from breathing in the ash and fumes emitted from the volcano.
I point out these facts because the situation is a tragedy. I am simply astonished to read on page 44 of the White Paper emanating from the Department for International Development, published only today, that,
"In responding to disasters, we aim to provide swift, appropriate and cost-effective financial, material and technical assistance, based on analysis of actual need. We shall endeavour to do this in ways that encourage"—
the original text used the word "encourages" which is not quite grammatical—
"the participation of all stakeholders"—
I suppose in this case the people of Montserrat—
"in decisions that affect their lives, builds local capacity and lays a solid foundation for rehabilitation and recovery. The UK's capacity to respond to disasters overseas will be strengthened",
and so on. It is incredible that that can be written today, when we see what has happened against the background of this disaster.
I have been in Government. I well understand the problems the Minister faces. I appreciate, if I may say so, the difficulties of dealing with the advice of officials, the representations of an elected government with responsibility but little power, and the pressures of the Treasury. However, in this case many of the problems that have arisen could have been avoided if we had had a simple, honest and transparent system for managing our relations with our overseas territories. The present system involves a Whitehall committee, a large proportion of the resources of the West Indian and Atlantic department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the dependent territories regional secretariat in Barbados, and the governor's office in Montserrat. This has been further complicated in Montserrat by the fact that the Department for International Development is now responsible for policy and the delivery of aid programmes and humanitarian relief. As I have said previously to the House, the system is cumbersome, not understood in conditions of normality, and, as we have now seen, is simply inoperable in a crisis.
The reality is that the problems of Montserrat and the fast-emerging problems surrounding the relief effort to date are symptomatic of much wider problems relating to our policy towards the British overseas territories: that is a failure to address the fact that the status granted to them no longer provides Britain with a rational basis on which to be able to manage a crisis of the type that has emerged in Montserrat.
Let us consider how we would feel if this event were happening, let us say, in the Channel Islands, or in another part of the United Kingdom. No matter how remote, the whole machinery of government would be mobilised in a co-ordinated relief effort of significant proportions. Indeed, having read part of the White Paper published today, I believe that if this were happening in Central Africa the aid specialists who concentrate on the poorest would have been mobilised in significant numbers and in a timely fashion. But despite the fact that Montserrat is a dependent territory for which Britain has a legal responsibility, the Government have been unable to deliver resources

1453
swiftly or in any significant way for the approximately 4,000 people who remain on Montserrat. I believe that this is a scandal. It is a denial of the duty of care that Ministers personally have for our dependent territories. Remarks about golden elephants are painful, very ill advised, and do not help in this situation.
I accept that the wholly elected Government of Montserrat also have a responsibility to deliver certain aspects of relief. But the lack of clarity over responsibility shows that there is something fundamentally wrong in the manner in which we relate to our overseas territories.
On a number of occasions over the past few years I have pointed out to this House the need to review fully the status of dependent territories. Small islands have the capacity to create some of the greatest problems that governments have to face. Events in Montserrat point once again to the fact that we cannot go on as we have done in our dealings with our Caribbean overseas territories.
Earlier this year the Foreign Secretary announced what appeared to be a policy review for dependent territories. It seems to have become subsequently, in the hands of spin doctors, a new look at our relationship. Perhaps the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, will tell us more about that policy review. What are its terms of reference? Who is serving on the body? When will it report? And who has been consulted? Those are just a few of the questions which come to mind.
If Britain is to avoid the problems that now surround Montserrat in future dealings with overseas territories, there needs to be creative new thinking about what our relationship should be with our micro states in the next millennium. There has to be an alternative to the simplistic choice between independence and more management from London. I believe that the time has come to look at a wholly new relationship. The range of options is vast. At one end there is the possibility of full incorporation into the United Kingdom. Another choice might be a modernised form of associate status, perhaps with the European Union, not just with the United Kingdom. Yet another might be the development of new forms of functional integration of social, legal and administrative services with those in the United Kingdom. There is no shortage of different models. France, the Netherlands, the United States and others have overseas territories, often managed in creative ways which ultimately reduce the tax burden on the metropolitan power and even provide incentives for development.
To a lesser extent, on earlier occasions I have suggested that it might be constructive and helpful in this situation to consider seconding senior civil servants from the dependencies to serve in London or Brussels for a period of six months or so, so that they gain a real working understanding of Britain, Europe and the wider world. I still believe that that suggestion is worth considering.
Our overseas territories lock us into the Caribbean. That is good and is welcomed by our independent Caribbean partners. If I may say so, it seemed to me unfortunate that in the final communiqué from CHOGM
1454
no mention is made of the Caribbean, except very indirectly, over the banana regime. That is a serious issue. I am sorry that it was not identified clearly in the CHOGM Statement. I must say quite frankly that if we think we have problems in Montserrat, and we have. I believe that the future problems we could have in St. Lucia and Dominica, possibly Jamaica and St. Vincent, and in other islands of the Caribbean if the banana regime breaks down completely will be infinitely greater. At present, if the bananas go it looks as though there will be no other substitute but drugs, with disastrous consequences for everyone.
Stemming from the CHOGM conferences, I understand that Ministers met the heads of Caribbean countries and made a number of proposals. Among others is the suggestion of a forum for the region. I hope that that will work and that it will be constructive. But we have to recognise that the real problems of these islands are economic. Those islands do not want great gatherings of people to discuss great issues. They need an alternative for, or the maintenance of, the banana regime. That is the issue facing those countries. They need money for the establishment of many microeconomic businesses. That is a subject for debate on another occasion, but it is one to which I shall return.
At the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting the Foreign Secretary announced a number of measures which appear to suggest that Britain feels it still has an important role to play in the Caribbean. Nothing could indicate that more clearly than a public expression on the part of Ministers that they have learned the lessons of Montserrat and now intend to modernise Britain's relationship with its overseas territories to mark a new beginning in the Caribbean region.
8.29 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, the whole House will be grateful that the noble Baroness is again raising the question of the interests of the people of Montserrat and of the whole Caribbean region. We are impressed that she is doing so robustly, as is proper for a responsible Member of Her Majesty's Opposition. The noble Baroness has picked the right evening—Bonfire Night—to emphasise her case.
I restrict my case to one aspect of the problem: the health and medical care arrangements needed by the remaining population of Montserrat. More than half the population has left, but those who remain are mainly prepared to dig in and face the consequences. Their desire to do so should be respected. There is a significant threat that the whole island may he involved in an escalation of volcanic activity, but those who are staying on are prepared to face that possibility.
In a report on the island's healthcare needs, which I shall describe, by surgeons Jeremy Booth and M. Grocutt, a local woman is quoted. She said: "The volcano will do its business, we will do ours and God is in charge".
The report was commissioned by the Department for International Development and is based on a visit in August this year. The authors are both accident and

1455
emergency consultants and their main recommendations concern arrangements should the danger increase or evacuation become necessary. They have a great deal of useful advice on the current health needs of the population. Their report builds on a previous more general report on the health services on Montserrat.
One recommendation which seems basic and which the two doctors make is that the present acute admissions ward in the makeshift hospital at St. John's should be cleared of most of its occupants and redeveloped into a proper treatment unit. Apparently 10 out of the 14 patients in the ward—a single ward—had no active medical problems and were simply blocking beds there, presumably because of difficulties in housing them and providing domiciliary care. As the noble Baroness pointed out, the problem of housing is clearly of overriding importance. That is just one illustration of it.
I wish to ask about the current housing situation in St. John's, Salem and the other habitable parts of the island. There are in existence plans for low cost housing projects which were designed specifically for Montserrat. When I last heard, they were waiting on the drawing board. Can my noble friend say whether and what building has started on new housing developments? How many units have been built? How many are planned? The buildings could quickly be built, surely—light structures, possibly prefabricated. They could later be upgraded for semi-permanent use, since even if the volcano subsides, it will still be some time before housing in the south of the island in the exclusion zone, now largely destroyed, can be brought back into use.
Another possibility which may have been explored—and if not it should be—is the requisitioning of empty houses or large under-used houses, if such exist, perhaps belonging to ex-patriates who used to use them as vacation homes. Noble Lords will remember well that that was frequently done in the United Kingdom in the 1939–45 war. In the series on Channel 4 that we have just seen, "A Dance to the Music of Time", a stately home was taken over by the Army. Such homes were given back to their owners when the emergency was over, sometimes in a somewhat dilapidated state, but that was paid for.
The Booth/Grocutt Report—which I believe is known to the Minister because I sent her a copy—makes a number of other recommendations which I shall not spell out in detail. To single out a few, they suggest greater integration with off-island treatment facilities on Antigua and Guadelope which has first-class major surgery facilities in case disaster strikes. The report also recommends preparation of a casualty clearing station and a helicopter landing site in an area of relative safety, away from the treatment unit and the established helicopter landing site. All those are to be sited after consultation with experts, including aviation personnel.
The authors have useful suggestions for revision of "Operation Exodus", a plan which they feel is unrealistic as it stands. They have other recommendations for the future medical and nursing staffing of the island's healthcare system which would
1456
improve its present low morale. I wish to ask the Minister: what is the present status of the report and what action is proposed on its recommendations? It would be useful if my noble friend were able to give a health report on the present state of morale, as well as on the physical and mental state of the remaining population of Montserrat.
8.35 p.m.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, it had not originally been my intention to intervene in this important debate because until last Monday I knew almost nothing about the island of Montserrat. However, last Monday I found myself at the Royal Geographical Society—of which I have the honour to be a member—listening to a talk on Montserrat by Dr. Peter Francis. I have since been in correspondence with him.
Dr. Francis is a volcanologist of national, and indeed international, renown. He made two visits to the island in 1996 and two more this year. He returned from his last visit only five weeks ago. I accordingly felt that it might be of some interest to your Lordships if I passed on a little of what I have learnt from so distinguished a source.
The centre-piece of the problem is a very large volcano on a very small island. The island only measures eight miles from north to south. The volcano is totally out of proportion to the size of the island on which it stands. There are only two towns of any note: St. John's to the north and Plymouth, now totally devastated, to the south. The island was formerly a paradise with lush vegetation, almost no crime, inhabited by friendly people and virtually untouched by tourism, as there are no sandy beaches. It is a very British island. The red telephone booth which stood in the main square of Plymouth would make the visitor from Britain feel quite at home. The last eruption of the volcano is thought to have taken place in or about the year 1450. During the past 100 years, signs of activity in the form of earth tremors occurred about every 30 years. In 1992, the pattern began to change, when an earthquake heralded a period of greater activity. In 1994, the volcano began to awaken from its long sleep and in the middle of 1995 there was the first visible manifestation of the trouble to come. Plymouth, the southern town, was evacuated for a time, but the seaport and the airport were always kept going.
The initial reaction of those living in Montserrat was to learn to live with the volcano, just as the Japanese have done in the vicinity of their volcanoes. But conditions worsened. In September this year, Plymouth was entirely destroyed. All services were put out of action, the houses fell victim to falling ash and intense heat and the airport was destroyed by an avalanche of burning ash.
I should like to turn for a moment to the nature of the eruptions which have been taking place and what it is like to live in the shadow of a volcano. When an explosion takes place the volcano spews out a jet of hot material at the astonishing rate of some 200 to 500 metres a second, with a temperature measured in hundreds of degrees centigrade. Boulders fall out, some

1457
as large as a double-decker bus, and cascade down the side of a mountain. A column of steam and ash continues to rise into the sky to a height of some 20,000 feet or more. Thunder and lightning play round the column. I am told it is quite an awesome sight.
An immense cloud of hot dust then drifts downwind. Rivers of burning ash may advance down the valleys of the mountain-side, consuming any houses and farmsteads which stand in their way. At the foot of these rivers an observer will see many large cylinders. These are gas cylinders which, owing to their light weight and strength, ride the molten rivers until they come to rest at the foot of the flow when it ceases. Each cylinder represents a house which has been totally consumed, and only the gas cylinder remains to mark its demise. The billowing clouds of ash deposit a gentle rain of fine dry pumice, which settles on everything until it is brushed away. The land becomes covered with a sort of dirty "snow", which kills off all the vegetation beneath it.
However, the effects of the eruptions are to a large extent localised. Farms may be kept going quite near the volcano, but it is dangerous to be there. If an avalanche of burning ash descends towards a house or farmstead there may be no escape, owing to the speed at which the avalanche travels. An avalanche of red hot ash may start its journey down the mountainside as fast as 50 to 100 kilometres per hour, reducing downslope to 20 or 30 kilometres per hour before it comes to a halt.
During the period that the airport near Plymouth remained untouched some intrepid people continued to live in the houses close by, but when in September an avalanche took out the airport they perished. About 25 people lost their lives. What is the effect on people when ash starts to fall? The ash contains an ingredient known as cristobalite. It is damaging to the lungs, somewhat like asbestos, but not quite so dangerous. It is a harmful form of silica which, when blown around in dust in very small particles, lodges in the lungs. To counter this, people have been issued with a type of gas mask which fits over the mouth and nose. It is effective, but to wear the mask for any length of time is intolerable in the climate of Montserrat so people tend to stay indoors when there is a fall of ash rather than wear a mask.
There is another danger: the ash is lethal to jet propelled aircraft, and this is a great worry. Air France flies to this part of the Caribbean every day and British Airways twice a week. There are inter-island planes as well. If a jet plane runs into the ash, the engine cuts out and the plane becomes a glider unless and until the engines can be restarted. Tragedy was narrowly averted in Indonesia and in Alaska in just those circumstances. The threat to aircraft arises because when there is an eruption clouds of ash climb so quickly, measured in Montserrat at a rate in the order of a kilometre a minute. There may be little time for an aircraft to get out of the way.
Perhaps I may tell your Lordships a little about what has been happening during the past few weeks. In the days leading up to 21st September this year there was a rapid extrusion of lava, and a building-up of the lava
1458
dome on the volcano. On 21st September there was a large collapse of the dome and an avalanche of debris demolished the airport buildings. The dome growth then ceased, but a series of powerful explosions took place roughly every 10 hours and there was a fall of ash which affected many parts of the island. This continued until two weeks ago. The explosions then ceased. They were replaced by a vigorous growth of the lava dome at an estimated rate of eight cubic centimetres per second. This is as fast as at any time over the past two years. As a result, further large red-hot avalanches down the mountainside are to be expected. To put it shortly, a lot of the island is extremely dangerous. There is a fear among some that the tragedy of St. Pierre in Martinique might be repeated. Your Lordships will know that in 1902 the eruption of Mont Pélé killed at least 28,000 people in a few minutes. The shadow of Martinique broods over Montserrat.
I turn to the most important question of all: what is the prognosis? The answer is simple: nobody knows. The eruptions could stop tomorrow or they could last for 50 years, like a volcano in Guatemala. Montserrat's volcano does not conform to the usual pattern. A volcano will usually wane after the initial eruptions. Montserrat's volcano does the reverse. It appears to be waxing. This makes planning very difficult.
I have a few comments, which I offer with diffidence on the basis of what Dr. Francis has told me. I much regret that I have not had the time to give the Minister adequate notice of these points, and naturally I do not expect any answers this evening. First, as it is not possible to forecast the course of the eruptions, would it be best for planners to assume that the eruptions could last for some years at the present level of activity? Secondly, I am told that the scientific consensus is that the north part of the island is unlikely to be subjected to catastrophic events. However, it has been and will probably remain subjected to ash falls. Such ash falls, while not immediately hazardous, cause a range of side-effects which I have mentioned. The most serious are long-term respiratory problems for residents. In addition, there are obviously long-term problems of mental stress imposed by living under such difficult conditions.
Thirdly, this is a crisis situation where robust, clear management is needed with clear identification of goals and of the resources required to achieve those goals. Fourthly, is it right to continue, in this catastrophic situation, the pre-volcano mode of administration? I am told that, while the island and the governor are under the jurisdiction of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the purse strings are controlled by an agency which I understand is usually referred to as "DfID".
Fifthly, would it be right to say, as has been suggested in some quarters, that the roles of the governor and chief minister tend to be confused? Lastly, ought we to look at the responsibility and funding of the Montserrat Volcano Observatory?
I know nothing whatever about the politics of the island or the wishes of the islanders. All I can do this evening is to seek to draw an accurate picture of the island as matters now stand for the benefit of any who

1459
are interested. From what I have heard Montserrat used to be one of the nicest, most friendly and unspoilt of all the Caribbean islands. I should like to end my contribution to this most welcome debate with the same words that Dr. Francis used to close his talk to the Royal Geographical Society two days ago:
"Spare a thought for Montserrat".
8.52 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for initiating this debate. It seems timely that we should be debating Montserrat after the Statement on the White Paper this afternoon. However, the volcano did not erupt a mere six months ago when the present Government took office; the volcano erupted in 1995 and there were a number of debates when the previous government were dealing with the situation in which many of the same questions were asked as have been asked today. It perhaps shows the failure of the administration that after this amount of time these problems still exist.
It is unfortunate perhaps that the debate is not taking place in two weeks' time. The Select Committee on International Development will publish the conclusions of its report at that time. I believe it will be a detailed report and I look forward to some of its findings.
One of the problems that Montserrat faces concerns the decision-making process, which seems to have been labyrinthine and confusing in its complexity. From the outside it is difficult to work out who is actually in control of the situation: whether it is the FCO, DfID or the Montserrat Government, all of whom have degrees of influence on how the situation should be dealt with.
Many assumptions have been made as to how the situation should be governed in the light of the uncertainty that the volcano brings about. Until recently the north of the island was seen to be a safe haven, but wind changes making the ash fall in the north of the island have made the viability of that area questionable. How do the Government assess the viability of the island in the long term?
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, gave a clear indication of the problems caused by ash falls. Indeed, I recently saw aerial photographs of the island taken from a helicopter which show areas that were once verdant, green, luscious valleys as grey wastelands. One of the long-term implications of the ash is that very little will grow in those areas over the next few years and it is possible that they will be uninhabitable for a long time to come.
The question is whether there will be a viable population on Montserrat in the next 10 to 15 years. Can the Minister say to what extent the ash will have long-term implications for those still living on the island? I saw pictures of children running around in the north of the island who were not wearing masks. Have the Government done any surveys or studies into how they will be affected? There must be an accumulation in their lungs of the type of ash dust described earlier.
1460
I apologise for asking so many questions, but it seems that Montserrat at the moment raises more questions than answers. Can the Government say how many people will be left on the island because they are infirm, old or suffer from mental illness which means that they can make no provision to leave the island? I hope the Minister has some figures in that regard and also on what provision is being made for them. If they have no family and are left on the island they must rely on the Government for their future support.
Also, what is being done to help those who have come to Britain already? Our information indicates that many people who come from Montserrat have to rely on their families or local authorities for support. In fact, a large number of people have decided to stay in Hackney and that is placing a considerable financial burden on that borough. Does the Minister have any plans to give assistance in that direction?
Looking to the future, can the Minister say who will be in charge of the immediate situation on the island? Is responsibility to be moved to the FCO or is DfID to have a further role? It seems that the FCO is spending the DfID contingency reserve on the island. If that is so, should not DfID have a role in spending its own money? Or, if the FCO is taking charge of the situation, should not the money for Montserrat come out of the FCO budget?
I have asked a great raft of questions and suspect that I shall not receive many answers. However, I hope that the Minister will say whether she believes that Montserrat has a sustainable future and will give us some indication as to what action is being taken to make that sustainable future bearable for those who wish to live on the island.
8.58 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I should like to join in praising and thanking my noble friend Lady Young on initiating today's debate. As always, it is a privilege to be able to participate in a debate with her, and today's debate, coming as it does at such a timely moment for the people of Montserrat, is no exception.
No one in your Lordships' House doubts the enormousness of the appalling tragedy that has befallen Montserrat. I do not think that it is too strong to say that the eruption of the Soufrière Hills volcano is one of the biggest natural disasters to wreak havoc in the Caribbean this century, leaving a trail of devastation and despair in its wake. I should like to join in paying tribute to the stoicism of the Montserratian people in the face of adversity. They have seen their homes destroyed and their livelihoods lost; yet there is the overwhelming desire to rebuild their lives despite the cloud of volcanic dust that hangs over their island.
I should like to congratulate the new governor, Anthony Abbott, on his appointment. I am sure that he will undertake his task in the days ahead with efficiency and compassion, as did his predecessor. On behalf of the Opposition, I should like to pay tribute also to the work of the former governor, Frank Savage, for his effective and competent representation of the Government on Montserrat during a most difficult period in the island's recent history.

1461
The dependent territories were debated admirably by your Lordships' House in June, and I believe this debate should be revisited in the New Year when the Foreign Secretary will announce the results of his comprehensive policy review. But I should like to ask the Minister whether the review was a knee-jerk reaction to the Government's handling of the Montserrat crisis in the summer. I ask this only because in that same debate in June the Minister informed your Lordships' House that there would be no change in the Government's policy towards dependent territories and, moreover, that there were,
"unlikely to be any fundamental changes in the relationship between the United Kingdom and the dependent territories for some time to come".—[Official Report, 11/6/97; col. 919.]
The Secretary of State for International Development was quoted as saying that,
"the budget [in Britain] exists to assist the poorest people in the world".
Is this also a change of policy by the Government? Previous government policy stated that the British dependent territories should have first call on British aid for all reasonable purposes. Or does it perhaps reflect the different agendas and conflicting priorities between the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development and even within the Department for International Development itself, as the Minister for International Development informed another place that,
"it was not right to compare dependent territories with other countries…we have a special responsibility for dependent territories".
The Minister herself has told us that the Government are continuing the previous Administration's policy, that the,
"dependent territories rank high in the UK's external priorities",
and that,
"their reasonable needs are a first charge on UK aid funds".
On the subject of conflicting agendas, can the Minister also confirm for the House that the pressure on the Secretary of State for International Development to use part of her department's aid budget to build a maximum security prison in Montserrat originates from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and not, as implied this afternoon, from the Government of Montserrat?
During the past two years of volcanic eruptions and pyroclastic flows the island has changed from a bustling "Emerald Isle" to a pale shadow of its former self, its capital Plymouth abandoned and reduced to an ash-covered ghost town; its airport destroyed. The island has seen day by day, month by month, eruption after eruption, evacuation of two-thirds of the island.
The safety of the Montserratian people relies on the expertise of scientists. I pay tribute to the work of the British Geological Survey and the Montserrat Volcano Observatory for the work they have done. But volcanology and seismology are not exact sciences. Predictions can be made; but, like politics, there are no guarantees. The situation in Montserrat poses extremely difficult decisions both for the British Government and our colleagues in Montserrat. The Governments must use their information, gathered from expert opinion, to
1462
make a judgment grounded in compassion and knowledge. In making this judgment, they are caught between the danger of a premature return to normal life or the disruption of what may, in hindsight, be an unnecessary evacuation which will rip out the island's economic and cultural heart and scatter its population to the four winds. This dilemma is clearly understood in your Lordships' House.
Previous government policy used a twin-track approach to reconcile this need to keep the island viable with the paramount importance placed on the safety and the well-being of the islanders. £25 million pounds was dedicated to a development aid package to improve the infrastructure in the north, in addition to a commitment to supplement the island's recurrent budget. The voluntary evacuation scheme was set up last year to enable islanders to come to this country. The Opposition have fully supported the Government in bringing relief to the stricken island and recognise the importance of the aid the present Government have continued to give. The Opposition fully support the speed with which the Government responded to the fatal eruption in June and the vital emergency work undertaken in sending four helicopters for search and rescue expeditions; in setting up communications equipment and maintaining fuel supplies; in establishing a ferry service from Little Bay Jetty, which, I am pleased to say, was constructed from ODA funds under the previous Administration, to replace air services to Antigua; and in providing the support and services of the West Indies guard ship, HMS "Liverpool", to the island.
On that note, I hope that the future of the West Indies guard ship, which does such invaluable work in the Caribbean, will be protected in the Government's strategic defence review. I would be glad if the Minister could give the House a firm commitment that this will be the case. Failure to give this assurance would cause concern to all those who value Britain's commitment to the region.
I know that I shall have the support of your Lordships' House when I say that the handling of the disaster in Montserrat and the island's future is an issue which should be above party politics. The eruption of the Soufriere Hills volcano is a natural disaster. No government are to blame for the volcano, although a government can be held to account for their reaction to a crisis. The Minister had the full support of the Opposition for her two visits to Montserrat this year. Indeed, I commend her for her early interest in and commitment to the problems of the people of Montserrat. However, the goodwill generated by the Minister's visit appeared to evaporate over the summer. I have to say categorically that our relationship with Montserrat—that of responsible power to dependent territory—was damaged by the Government's actions in August. The Minister's statement of 25th July that,
"The islanders know that British Ministers stand with them and will maintain the closest dialogue in the future",
now sounds like an empty and hollow promise.
The charges against the Government made by David Brandt, Montserrat's Chief Minister, in his evidence to the Select Committee on International Development,

1463
weigh heavy indeed and I would be neglecting my duty as responsible Opposition spokesman not to probe behind them.
The Chief Minister was unequivocal in his criticism of the Government, claiming that the Secretary of State for International Development had given "inaccurate and misleading" evidence to the Select Committee; that the Government's response to the crisis had been "disturbing and inappropriate"; that the Government's policy was,
"geared towards systematically depopulating Montserrat",
with,
"scandalous haste and energy".
To deny these charges would seem to question the integrity of the Chief Minister of Montserrat.
The evidence seems to point to a divided, rattled and rudderless government, scuppered by their own rhetoric, abandoning promises to the Montserratians, denying them the "real choices" pledged so faithfully by the Secretary of State for International Development, by encouraging a programme of supposedly limited and voluntary evacuation, while at the same time cutting off the islanders' real hopes of staying in their own homes by suspending aid. This was compounded by a series of thoughtless, insensitive blunders. At the best interpretation, the Government's record is a catalogue of incompetent bungling. At the worst, it is a record of cynical manipulation.
I should like the Minister's comments on why this has happened. Certainly, following the Minister's visit to Montserrat, the Government seemed to be continuing the previous Administration's policy of providing emergency aid immediately, while committing funds to a long-term programme to maintain the economic and social viability of the island in the future. The Minister herself stated:
"I wish to make it clear that the British Government has no intention of evacuating Montserrat in the present circumstances".
Can the Minister tell the House what changed between her visit to Montserrat and her press release of 25th July and the subsequent announcement of voluntary, off-island evacuation by the Secretary of State for International Development on 18th August? The limited, voluntary evacuation seemed to be a response to the fact that the people of Salem, the largest population centre remaining in Montserrat, were forced to leave their homes, which put further pressure on the cramped facilities in the north or was it simply a pragmatic decision taken to relieve overcrowding in the north or had the danger posed by the volcano become more serious?
Certainly, the Minister of State for International Development seemed to think this was the case. His interpretation of the scientific analysis contained in a report presented to the British and Montserrat Governments, led him to talk of the risk of a "cataclysmic-intensive eruption". If that were the case, should the Government not have discussed full-scale evacuation with its Montserratian colleagues? Surely, if we are agreed that the safety of the islanders is paramount, the risk of a "cataclysmic-intensive
1464
eruption" merited more than "limited voluntary evacuation"? Can the Minister say whether such discussions took place?
Yet it seems that the Minister of International Development made a mistake. His comments caused the chief scientist at the Montserrat Observatory, Professor Stephen Sparks, to say that, in misinterpreting the advice of the report, Mr. Foulkes had got it "hopelessly wrong". Professor Sparks explained this by the fact that
"the interaction over this document between the scientific community and politicians in London has been close to zero".
Can the Minister say whether there were indeed discussions with the scientists over this document? If so, why did the Minister of International Development make those remarks, which have had such disastrous and far-reaching consequences? If not, how could the Government justify suspending long-term aid for development of the north and offering an evacuation programme ostensibly based upon a scientific report which they had not even discussed with the authors?
Indeed, did this suspension of long-term aid on such shaky foundation not make a mockery of the Government's repeated promises to,
"place the highest priority on sustaining and improving the economic and social structure of Montserrat"
and their commitment to,
"ensuring the viability of the north of the island for all those who wish to remain or return to Montserrat",
prompting the comment from David Brandt that Britain's lack of commitment to invest in the island was forcing his people to choose between, "misery and the unknown"?
Does the Minister agree that events of 19th to 21st August; namely, the unprecedented street demonstrations, the riots in Salem, the protests outside the Governor's residence and the resultant forced resignation of the Chief Minister, Bertrand Osborne, reflect the prevarication and confusion of the Government in London? If London did not know what course of action to take, how were the islanders supposed to reach an "informed" choice?
On this note, can the Minister say what became of the Department for International Development's consultation process, which was under way to enable all Montserratians to make such an informed choice about their future? It is my understanding that this consultation process was abandoned in August, indicating that the Government had indeed abandoned the twin-track policy of assistance for those who wished to relocate, and long-term re-development of the north for those who wished to stay, and instead were pursuing a policy of evacuation. How can the Government parade the rhetoric of a Montserrat policy based on real choices when Montserratians themselves were never asked?
Does the Minister further agree that, given the confusion generated by the Minister for International Development, islanders were led to believe that there was no alternative to evacuation, hence the despair and panic witnessed in reaction to the prevarication and confusion over compensation and relocation allowances?

1465
Will the Minister comment on the suggestion that the Foreign Secretary's commitment that,
"arrangements are being made to explain fully the options available to Montserratians to enable informed choice".
was wholly unfulfilled and therefore that the Government must take responsibility for the forced resignation of the Chief Minister, Bertrand Osborne?
The Chief Minister resigned after it was announced that Montserratians would receive a total of the equivalent of six months' average wages when they had been expecting 18 months' wages. Truth is regrettably a precious commodity in this sorry saga, but can the Minister shed light on David Brandt's statement that in fact the local department for the International Development Agency, the Montserrat Aid Management Office, drew up a plan for compensation of 18 months' wages per adult to relocate within the Caribbean and therefore the proposal cannot have been the surprise that the Secretary of State for International Development has since indicated that it was?
Like the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, I am also concerned about the numbers. There still seems to be confusion and contradiction between Montserrat and the Government on the most basic questions. The answers to these questions are vital to determine what action should be taken. Vague estimations will not suffice. To my mind that indicates a worrying lack of knowledge, co-ordination and communication between the two parties. I am sorry to burden the Minister with these questions. Her personal commitment and dedication to this sorry saga is not being questioned by either myself or my noble friends on this side of the House tonight.
However, I must ask the Minister whether she can tell us how many people are still living on Montserrat. In the Select Committee, the Secretary of State said up to 3,000—or 2,500 to 3,000, to be precise. David Brandt has said 4,000. How many Montserratians currently live in crowded conditions in temporary shelters? Estimates vary from 1,100 to 2,000. The Government have reiterated their awareness of the housing crisis. How many houses have now been built of the 250 units originally planned?
How many Montserratians applied to leave and how many actually left under the Government's assisted voluntary evacuation programme announced on 18th August? Is it not the case that the Government's voluntary evacuation was a farce? Thanks to the confusion of the Government's policy, more Montserratians returned on the ferry from Antigua than left under the programme.
On the subject of voluntary evacuation, I should be grateful if the Minister could also tell the House what decision has been taken for those Montserratians who have come to the United Kingdom. What will happen when their two-year term of residence expires?
I should be grateful if the Minister could clear up the confusion on a specific issue which has caused much distress. I refer to the desperate state of the sewage tanks on Montserrat and the responsibility for emptying them. Did the Department for International Development indeed supply two unsuitable, ageing sludge wagons to Montserrat in the first instance and then compound the
1466
problem by delaying handing over the third, working, vehicle when it arrived; or is Montserrat's Chief Minister lying?
On 16th September, the Department for International Development announced a feasibility study of the options for re-establishing the air strip which had been agreed in principle by the Government. I would be glad to hear what progress has been made on that feasibility study and what decisions have been taken as a result of it.
The Government's handling of the crisis has left a bitter taste in many mouths. It fell to Mr. Patterson, the Jamaican Prime Minister and chairman of Caricom to put into words the world's opinion that:
"Britain's assistance to the island was an object lesson in how not to respond to a disaster".
We are united in our desire to work towards a happy and prosperous future for the people of Montserrat. The British Government's role is to act as a facilitator and co-ordinator, together with the locally elected officials, so that only the unpredictability of the volcano is an obstacle to the islanders' dreams for their future.
9.16 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I have listened to the debate with a great deal of interest, as one would expect, and should like to express my warm gratitude, as well as my congratulations, to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, on introducing this debate and to thank her for her personal courtesy in changing the date of the debate.
I should like to stress that gratitude particularly because, like the noble Baroness, I am concerned that the attention of this House should be drawn, and drawn again, to the plight of the people of Montserrat. As the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, indicated, I have been to the island twice this year. I have seen for myself what the island is like. I have seen the devastation. I have talked to the bereaved, to the homeless and to the frightened.
I should like to put on record once again this Government's commitment to the people of Montserrat. That commitment is absolute. I had hoped that this evening's debate would not be party political. We have dedicated £45.8 million to Montserrat, making it the third largest recipient of our international aid after India and Bangladesh. The noble Baroness referred to the White Paper. If she looks again at the White Paper, she will see that the dependent territories continue to have the "first call"—those are the words used—on aid for reasonable needs. The people of Montserrat are citizens of a British territory and this Government will under no circumstances abandon them in the way that the noble Baroness suggested that we might.
As the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, pointed out, these problems did not begin on 1st May—nor on 25th June with the further dreadful cataclysmic eruptions that took place then. These problems began in late 1995, when the Soufriere Hills originally erupted. I am bound to say that on my first visit, before the 25th June eruption, I met people then who had been in shelters for 17 months. Therefore, it is perhaps a little overdoing it

1467
to try to claim that all the problems can be laid at the door of this Administration. The problems were already well entrenched. People had been living in shelters for a very long time even before 1st May this year. If there is blame, then perhaps, in the spirit of unity and to take the issue forward, those on the other side of the House might have the humility to accept that some of the blame lies with them as well.
This has also been a very difficult situation to manage because the parameters have changed as the crisis has developed. The imperatives in this situation have changed and the requirements of the Government and the people of Montserrat have changed. I hope that noble Lords will recognise that this Government's response to that situation and to those requirements has also developed. Noble Lords would not expect me to claim—nor do I—that there are no areas where we need to do more, but I hope they will acknowledge that considerable efforts have been, and are being, made not only by my own department, which has overall political responsibility, but by several other departments of state which in some cases have a much larger executive role in dealing with the specific and practical problems that have arisen from this crisis.
I should like to begin my detailed response by answering directly the question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. The situation in Montserrat is dominated by the volcano and its activity. Because of the destruction wreaked by pyroclastic flows and the dangers of falling pumice stone, approximately the southern two-thirds of the island have been declared unsafe and remain evacuated under the advice of the scientists. For those noble Lords familiar with the geography of the island, this is in effect up to the Nantes River in the west. On the east of the island buildings as far north as the airport have also been destroyed.
As volcanic activity has increased, it has been necessary for Montserratians to move further north to safer areas. These moves have been largely successful. But Her Majesty's Government were deeply saddened by the death of 19 Montserratians who returned to the exclusion zone against advice and were killed on 25th June. Measures to prevent further reoccupation of the exclusion zone have been taken.
After a period of frequent explosions over the past month, the volcano is now relatively quiet, with no recorded explosions since 21st October. Scientific advice is that there is now a further build-up of the dome in the crater of the volcano. There is continuing seismic activity. In response to this, and conscious of the risk of a substantial explosion, the Governor has put in place as of today a further strict enforcement of the exclusion zone in the southern part of the island. We hope that that will be fully in force in the next 24 hours.
The Government of Montserrat and Her Majesty's Government are continually conscious of the risk of further serious explosive volcanic activity. They and we are ready to respond immediately in the light of different possible eventualities. There is, of course, an emergency evacuation plan. This has recently been updated in the light of current circumstances on the island. In essence, it involves moving the population to the north of the
1468
island, where emergency supplies are stored and from where, if circumstances made this necessary, they could be evacuated. We are constantly examining this planning in order to strengthen it. As part of this process, departments involved have also looked at what other assets, including military assets, could be brought to bear in support of the existing evacuation plan if that became necessary. A military reconnaissance team recently visited Montserrat for this purpose.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, made various observations about the scientific history of the island. Scientists at the Montserrat Volcano Observatory report daily to the Governor, the Government of Montserrat and the public. The observatory is staffed by an international team of scientists, including scientists from Britain, France and America and from the Seismic Research Unit of the University of the West Indies. It is operated by the British Geological Survey with funding from the Department for International Development.
Reference has been made to the comments of Professor Sparks. I do not believe that those comments are entirely correct in their implication that there has been no contact between scientists and Ministers. My honourable friend Mr. George Foulkes and I have seen scientists. Indeed, I am due to see Professor Sparks next Monday in London.
Her Majesty's Government have been, and will continue to be, guided by advice from those scientists, and they have always taken into account the wishes of the people of Montserrat. We have extended the exclusion zone in line with that advice, most recently in September, to the line I described. Scientists have identified an intermediate zone, between the Nantes and Lawyers rivers, which is currently the focus of our attention. Approximately 800 people live in this area, including many senior government personnel and businessmen. We are, of course, considering the contingency that a further extension of the exclusion zone might require this intermediate area to be evacuated, but this is not an immediate prospect.
A number of your Lordships asked about the most recent population count of the island. The most recent count, made last week, shows that there are 4,058 people remaining on Montserrat. Of these, some 790 are accommodated in emergency shelters. Furthermore, 1,824 people have departed the island under the voluntary evacuation scheme since its inception in August. While home departments have been working to put in place arrangements for those Montserratians who have chosen to come to this country, on-island FCO and DfID staff have been working intensively with the Government of Montserrat to improve the circumstances of those who remain.
As I have said, £45.8 million in aid has already gone into the island. Emergency aid comprises £22 million for emergency shelters and health facilities in the north, a ferry and a helicopter service and other essential facilities. Infrastructural development in the north includes the construction of additional school buildings, the upgrading of power and water supplies, greater watershed protection and some improvement of the temporary medical facilities at St. John's.

1469
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Rea, were critical of the Government's response to health issues. In late September, Sir Kenneth Calman, Chief Medical Officer, led a team of senior healthcare professionals to Montserrat in response to a request from the Government of Montserrat for a report on public health and healthcare services. Fundamental to the subsequent report were a number of recommendations made by the medical team. A key recommendation was the suggestion that a health programme manager should be appointed on Montserrat charged with the responsibility for healthcare services. I understand that having agreed his terms of reference with the Governor of Montserrat, the DfID has now identified and appointed a suitably qualified individual, Dr. Tim Carter.
All the other recommendations in the report of the chief medical adviser have been accepted and are being implemented. The aid management office in Montserrat has already implemented some, such as the temporary hospital located in St. John's, which has been upgraded to function as a permanent five bed facility. Further improvements are being completed. Dust monitoring devices are in place in the northern zone and better emergency facilities have been established on the island.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, raised the question of the prison. Prisoners on Montserrat are currently being held in an insecure private residence. Five prisoners are to be paroled and a further six will be transferred to a prison in the Turks and Caicos Islands. Costs for the transfer and accommodation of the prisoners are being paid for by the DfID. The two remaining prisoners must remain on the island for access to their lawyers and the judiciary. We are considering a proposal for a new remand centre capable of holding six prisoners.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, and others raised the question of housing. The Government of Montserrat have for some time created small-scale housing projects to encourage resettlement in the north. However, by June 1997 it was clear that the capital, Plymouth, would not be habitable for some years—probably not at all. The Department for International Development therefore decided that it was necessary to construct housing in the north on a larger scale and it announced a £6.5 million project to house 1,000 people in 250 houses. The first 50 prefabricated houses have been completed and are now ready for occupation. Another 50 concrete panel houses are scheduled for completion by mid-December. The DfID tells us that the foundations for the remaining 150 houses will be ready at that time. In order to assist the Government of Montserrat with the move of Montserratians into these houses and with future housing policy, Her Majesty's Government have sent a housing officer to the island. I must emphasise that such action is not always easy. The northern part of the island is extremely rocky, the infrastructure is very difficult and the sewerage, to which the noble Lord referred, has been a problem. I am happy to say that that sewerage problem has been overcome and that the sewerage arrangements in the northern part of the island are working properly, as I understand it.
1470
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, asked whether it was possible to forecast the course of the eruptions. He asked whether there would be eruptions for years to come. The answer to that question is that we are relying on the advice of the scientists. Yes, it is possible that there will be eruptions for years to come; it is equally possible that the Soufrière mountains will go to sleep, as they did for many hundreds of years, as the noble and learned Lord described.
The northern part of the island, we are told, is safe for the time being. It appears that the possibility of a cataclysmic event is as low as 1:10,000.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked about the air strip. The terms of reference for the feasibility study were recently accepted by the Government of Montserrat and we believe that the study should be completed in December. The noble Lord asked for reassurance in relation to the guard ship and the evacuation plans. I can assure the noble Lord that the guard ship will be there for as long as it is needed in terms of those evacuation plans.
I was further asked by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, about the evacuation of those with special needs. The Department for International Development is organising a charter flight for those evacuees with special needs who are unable to travel by scheduled flights. The first such flight is due to arrive in the United Kingdom on 7th November. Two British nurses have been sent to help with those people with special needs and to provide a proper assessment of the situation before they travel to the United Kingdom. So those people will be properly looked after.
I was asked about resettlement in the United Kingdom. The Home Office has announced within the last couple of days funding for a community support project to assist Montserratians arriving under the scheme to access statutory benefits and services and to support the work of the volunteers in the Montserratian communities. They will fund a project co-ordinator, two teams of advice and development workers in London and in the Midlands with administration and office costs, a peripatetic team of sessional workers to provide support as necessary in other parts of the country and training and expenses for the volunteers involved.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for her suggestions about the training of civil servants from the dependent territories. There certainly would be advantages in civil servants in the dependent territories attending courses at the Civil Service College, and we shall be considering the proposals that she put to us.
Several noble Lords have referred to the remarks made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in August this year. I am sure that noble Lords know that my right honourable friend has already apologised, and apologised publicly, for those remarks. She has expressed her regret that those remarks were taken out of context and for the fact that she expressed herself in those terms. I hope that her apologies will be accepted in the spirit in which they were offered.
The noble Lord also asked about informed consultation on the island of Montserrat. The noble Lord may not know that both the previous Chief Minister and

1471
the current Chief Minister were extremely hostile to the idea of the consultative exercise going forward. It is in the spirit of listening to what the elected government of the people of Montserrat were advising the Government of the United Kingdom that the decision was taken not to go ahead with the consultative exercise. After all, we are in the hands of an elected government; we are not about to overrule the advice that they give us when we come to assess the needs of the people on the island.
Perhaps I may also say that I hope the Government's commitment to the future of Montserrat has been seen in the setting up of the Montserrat Action Group. I believe it has become clear that, as a central organising committee with oversight of the aspects of the crisis which we have been discussing this evening, that group needs to exercise more direct executive authority. With the agreement of the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State at the FCO has decided that I should henceforward chair the group. I will do so from the next meeting, which will take place next Monday.
Questions were raised about the review of the dependent territories and about the Caribbean initiative. I am afraid that time is against me and I ask the
1472
indulgence of noble Lords who raised those questions to allow me to respond to those points in writing as quickly as I can.
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate this evening. We have covered many important issues. There has been an increasing take-up in recent weeks of our evacuation package for those wishing to come to the United Kingdom and the much larger number of Monserratians who have gone to Antigua and the nearby islands. We are very grateful to the governments of those islands for the help that they have given us. I believe that that underlines the unwillingness of many people on Montserrat to abandon their homes, however tragically those homes have been ravaged. Our first and overriding priority remains the safety of the people of Montserrat. The Government consider themselves duty bound to do everything possible to enable a viable community to continue in the north so long as that viable community is feasible. Therefore, we shall continue in our efforts to ensure that the people of Montserrat have real choices in their desperately difficult situation.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before ten o'clock.

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office: Cash Limits
  Foreign and Commonwealth Office: Cash Limits
  Sex Offenders:Community Protection Orders
  Sex Offenders:Community Protection Orders
  Juveniles: Secure Remand
  Juveniles: Secure Remand
  Animals: Use in Scientific Procedures
  Animals: Use in Scientific Procedures
  Mr. Reginald Buckland
  Mr. Reginald Buckland
  Vitamin B6: Dosage
  Vitamin B6: Dosage
  Economic and Monetary Union
  Economic and Monetary Union
  Economically Significant Work
  Economically Significant Work
  Building Societies: Treasury Supervision
  Building Societies: Treasury Supervision
  Transport Council, 9 October
  Transport Council, 9 October