Select Committee on European Union First Report

Annex 3

Memorandum by the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales (CPRW)


1.1  The Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales

  CPRW, which in 1998 celebrated its 70th anniversary, is Wales' foremost voluntary charitable organisation specialising in all issues relating to the conservation and enhancement of the countryside, its environment and rural communities. In a single phrase, CPRW's concern is for the living landscape.

1.2  CPRW's renewable energy policy

  CPRW's democratically produced policy on renewable energy accepts the need to reduce dependence on polluting and fossil fuel power generation, coupled with improved conservation measures and restraint in use, always provided that the benefits outweigh or do not unnecessarily involve other adverse environmental impacts.

1.3  CPRW's policy on wind energy installations

  Since 1991 CPRW has refined this position in the light of a concentrated wave of planning applications for wind power stations which it considers individually and cumulatively to have created unacceptable visual and other impacts on the Welsh landscape. CPRW believes that projects have been unduly forced on to the windiest and often most visible and beautiful sites in upland and coastal areas by the competitive bidding element of NFFO subsidy system which provides a guaranteed market for successful tenderers. In 1995 it produced a definitive policy on renewable energy installations (ref 1) with a specific sub-section relating to wind energy. This provides the basis for a presumption against large wind power stations in the open countryside and sets out a series of circumstances in which small installations might be acceptable.

1.4  CPRW's experience in relation to wind energy proposals

  In the process CPRW has gained considerable experience in analysing the impact of proposals for what it considers to be wind power stations (rather than the euphemistic "windfarms" preferred by developers). It has evaluated many applicants' Environmental Statements, and contributed to the statutory planning process and policy formation at all levels. It retains a permanent consultant on the subject; has played a leading role within the UK voluntary sector on the issue; has developed the concept of forming professionally represented coalitions to combine the evidence of like-minded objectors at Public Inquiries; and has established a positive working relationship on the subject with the Countryside Council for Wales, the government's statutory adviser.

1.5  Scope of this Evidence

  Because of its experience above, CPRW wishes to concentrate its evidence on wind power.


2.1  The policy background

  In response to the EU target, the UK has adopted its own target for 10 per cent of electricity consumption in 2010 to be met by all forms of renewable energy. A longer-term aim of 20 per cent by 2025 is also in existence. The Department of Trade and Industry has indicated that wind power will continue to be the major component of the 10 per cent target and that by 2010 it might contribute about 6 per cent of electricity consumption, with roughly half of that coming from land-based installations and half from offshore installations (despite the fact that no commercial offshore installations have yet been constructed). We understand that these individual components do not constitute formal targets, although recent indications are that the offshore proportion might be slightly higher and on a strongly rising curve by 2010. It is even possible that it could then eclipse, if not entirely replace, land-based deployment in the progress to the longer term 2025 objective.

2.2  The response of the wind energy industry

  In its 1996 Policy Statement (ref 2) the British Wind Energy Association had anticipated that wind power would supply 4 per cent of consumption by 2010, and declared that "a long term target of 10 per cent of the UK's electricity demand being met from the wind by 2025 is perfectly feasible". However, in more recent evidence to the House of Commons Trade and Industry Committee (ref 3), 1998, the BWEA has increased its 2010 forecast to 6 per cent, while repeating the former CEGB's view that an intermittent supply "from non-firm sources" could increase to 20 per cent "without changes being necessary to the grid operating system". In 1998 the pressure group Greenpeace and the power generator Border Wind published a manifesto (ref 4) claiming that offshore wind alone could produce 10 per cent of UK electricity by 2010 and 30 per cent or even 40 per cent by 2030, while arguing for a specific offshore incentive to enable it to become economically competitive. We understand this is now imminent, and will augment the replacement for the NFFO/SRO subsidy system, without which the development of wind power and other renewables would have been impossible.

2.3  The effect on the landscape to date

  Between 1991 and 1998 about 750 wind turbines were built in the UK (Table 1) of which approximately half were in Wales (Table 2), progressively increasing in installed capacity and size from 300kW (41.5m=136ft) to 600kW (60m=196ft). Most have been erected in coastal and upland areas, notably Anglesey and mid-Wales (where Montgomeryshire has the two largest wind power stations then built in Europe). In April 1997 CPRW compiled a populist colour brochure entitled Pla'r Twrbinau Gwynt: Ple ar ran y Tirlun (Wind Turbine Blight: A Plea for the Landscape) (ref 5) which concluded that the adverse visual and other impacts arising from wind power station policy were outweighing the benefits of stimulating a renewable source of energy. In May 1997 CPRW united with CPRE and APRS (its sister organisations in England and Scotland, the Ramblers' Association and the Council for National Parks to produce a joint statement Wind Energy and the Landscape (ref 6) calling on the newly elected government to "green" the NFFO subsidies; to widen the menu of renewable technologies; to strengthen protection for vulnerable landscapes; and to make energy conservation an increased priority.

2.4  The implications of the 2010 target

  2.4.1  Data from the DTI's Energy Technical Support Unit (ETSU) shows that, due to the intermittency of suitable medium-strength winds, the 318MW wind generating capacity functioning during the year ending June 1998 operated at 26.7 per cent of its nominal installed capacity (IC), producing 745,000,000 kWh (745,000 MWh or 0.745 TWh)* (Table 3). This is 0.25 per cent of the estimated 300TWh present annual consumption in the UK and represents an average output of 85MW. Allowing for minor additional output from the 8MW installed capacity of more recently constructed turbines, present wind power generation is thus still well below 0.3 per cent of consumption, and therefore an increase in land-based capacity greater than 10-fold would be needed to reach the indicated 3 per cent of 2010 levels.

*1 terrawatt (TW)=1,000 gigawatts (GW)=1,000,000 megawatts (MW)=1,000,000,000 kilowatts)

1 kWh (kilowatt hour)= 1 "unit" of electricity

  2.4.2  On present trends this huge increase would come from progressively higher capacity machines of 1.5MW (c95m=312ft) and more, but due to their increased size and extended threshold of visual intrusion (Appendix 1) their impact would not be correspondingly diminished, and would be considerably intensified at closer range. Moreover, the Countryside Commission (ref 7) has indicated that the recent average annual 2.4 per cent rise in consumption is likely to be maintained. If this was even 2 per cent per annum, annual electricity consumption in 2010 would be about 373TWh. The balance still required to reach the 3 per cent "target" of 11TWh/pa would therefore be 10.25TWh/pa. This would require an actual output capability of 1,170MW*. On the equally generous assumption that capacity factors for land-based turbines might reach an overall average of 30 per cent this would in turn require an installed capacity of 3,900MW**. This would involve 2,600 1.5MW turbines or their equivalents at other capacities.

*  10,250,000MW / 8,760=1,170MW (there being 8,760 hours in a year)

**  1,170MW / 30%=3,900MW.

  2.4.3  CPRW has found that such 95m=312ft turbines could be visually intrusive at a 12km radius and readily discernible at 22km (Appendix 1). Qualitative and cumulative impact would be significantly exacerbated due to both turbine size and numbers deployed and we recommend a radius of visual impact analysis of 30km, compared with 20km for the current typical 55m turbines. We are also concerned that the technical and conceptual basis for assessing visual impact through environmental impact assessment is inadequate, especially in respect of cumulative or incremental impact, as set out in our response to ETSU's on-going research study on the Cumulative Effects of Wind Turbines (ref 8).

  2.4.4  In addition, the whole of the putative 3 per cent contribution from offshore turbines would be required, and is likely to require some 1,800 or more 2MW turbines* (or equivalent combination). Advances in technology may allow deployment in non-sensitive areas and at non-intrusive distances from the coast (more than 10km and preferably 15km) but this is still uncertain, as is the nature of the consent and support regime, both of which could make or mar the acceptability of the technology.

*373TWh x 3%=11.19TWh=11,190,000MWh / 8,760 [hrs/pa]=1,277MW output which @ 35% capacity factor [assuming better offshore wind regime]=3,648MW IC=1,824 turbines @ 2MW IC

  2.4.5  The 2010 target is an interim point in a longer term strategy which requires a further doubling of renewable capacity. The role of wind power is uncertain but offshore deployment is by then likely to predominate. How environmentally acceptable and economically attractive this may be is uncertain, as is the weighting of adverse impacts in the policy decisions which yet have to be made.


3.1  The 3 per cent objective

  The 357 turbines already installed produce about 2.4 per cent of Wales' relatively small energy needs, thus effectively almost meeting the general land-based objective already, although it is likely that wind power may be expected to produce a disproportionately large share of the 2010 target in Wales. Whether, by how much, and with what balance between land-based and offshore is undetermined, and at a recent Countryside Council for Wales Seminar (ref 9) it was accepted by all sides that this was a practical and political question to be addressed by the National Assembly.

3.2  Beyond 3 per cent

  It has been CPRW's view since 1995 (supported by other NGOs in England and Scotland) that the majority of existing sites have unacceptable visual (and in some cases other) impacts. Further substantial land-based turbine development geared to meeting an appropriate larger share of the 2010 target would jeopardise the integrity of extensive areas of high quality landscapes and their enjoyment by the public—especially in or around nationally designated areas, or in the substantial portions of Wales ostensibly protected by local designations such as Special Landscape Areas, and Heritage Coasts. CPRW has argued to Planning Authorities, at the Cemaes B Public Inquiry (ref 10), and in various submissions notably that to the House of Commons Trade and Industry Committee (ref 11) that this represents a most unfortunate major induced conflict between policies for renewable energy and protection of the countryside (for reasons set out above) and requires urgent reconciliation at the highest level. In the meantime, the precautionary principle should be applied to ensure that there is a presumption in favour of landscape conservation rather than resource exploitation.

3.3  Policy issues

  We can understand why the wind power industry, which had relatively little opposition in the early years of turbine development, is now bemoaning its lack of progress and has identified the planning system as the greatest obstacle to achieving its desired proportion of the renewable energy target (ref 3). Local Planning Authorities have responded to the progressive disillusionment of electorates in or near "windfarm" areas—especially where cumulative impact and ever larger turbines have become issues—and have begun to withhold consent for a growing proportion of applications. Similarly, Appeals or Call-ins have been increasingly dismissed at Public Inquiries. We regard the recent dismissal at Public Inquiry of National Wind Power's appeal against refusal of consent for the Barningham High Moor wind power station in County Durham (refs 12 and 13)—as having major implications for the future deployment of wind power policy in Wales and the whole of the UK. The appellants, who manifestly share this view, have appealed to the High Court. The Inspector concluded that the installation—considerably larger than any built in England—would have "caused demonstrable harm to the appearance of the landscape" and that "its contribution of energy needs would be insignificant and unreliable, and the pollution savings would be correspondingly small, and uncertain". While we accept that some local benefits exist, we would also argue that the average intermittant 85MW produced erratically from disparate installations throughout the UK is also insignificant and potentially unreliable in terms of both the national demand and the distributional and regulatory needs of the National Grid. We conclude, therefore, that the operation of land-based wind power policy has produced successive tranches of proposals which individually and collectively run contrary to the Government's test that they should be both "economically attractive and environmentally acceptable".

3.4  Conclusion

  Implementation of the anticipated land-based wind energy proportion of the general renewables target could thus in our view only be achieved at an unacceptable cost to the landscapes of Wales and those facets of the rural economy, such as tourism and some aspects of the housing market, which derive their viability from the unimpaired high quality of the landscape. CPRW would argue that this would not only be a betrayal of the post-war planning and landscape conservation system but would be counter-productive to the wider national interest to pursue these targets in the present manner. We would urge that a decisive policy change is required to address the underlying issue and we would in that sense regard the targets as unrealistic and unsustainable. It is therefore unsurprising to us, that despite the damage done to the landscape in the early years of the NFFO system, further planning consents have been so bitterly fought and so rarely granted in the light of the incremental impact of wind power station development.


4.1  Response to the Committee's Questions

  The first question goes to the heart of the problem we have recognised:

    (a)  How realistic is the Commission's target of 12 per cent of primary energy from renewables in the EU by 2010?

    (b)  How realistic is a 5 per cent target of electricity from renewables in the EU by 2005?

    (c)  How likely are Member States, particularly the UK, to achieve these targets?

  We do not consider that the targets referred to are "realistic" as far as land-based wind power is concerned for the simple reason that we consider this aspect of the policy itself to be unsustainable. It cannot take practical effect without incurring unacceptable and progressive consequences. As the Countryside Commission observed (ref 7) "there is often an obvious contradiction between the requirement to secure electricity at the cheapest price and the need to respect valued landscapes" . . . concluding that "we do not feel it makes sense to tackle one environmental problem by creating another". "Tackle", not "solve", we note. The targets, whether specific or implied, for land-based wind can only be achieved at the expense of colossal and in our view unjustified damage to the landscapes of Wales, and other parts of the UK. We do not consider this to be an acceptable, sustainable or realistic way to develop renewable energy. The image of land-based wind power as a "clean green" renewable source is tarnished by its propensity for visual intrusion at considerable distances in high quality landscapes; localised noise intrusion; disruption of local amenity and public enjoyment of the countryside; and potential danger to horse riders on nearby bridleways and other legal routes. These problems represent a subtle form of pollution which in our view has been inadequately weighed in the balancing exercise necessary to evaluate the benefits and role of a potentially major renewable power source.

4.2  Current technologies available to meet these targets and likely future developments

  CPRW recognises that there are potential drawbacks to probably all forms of renewable energy, but believes that land-based wind power has been promoted as unduly benign and cost-effective, and this has been to the detriment of other, potentially rival, technologies. We note, for instance, the late but welcome inclusion of wave-power in the SRO-3 announcement of February 1999 and look forward to its development with interest.

4.3  Environmental effects of renewable energy sources, and other benefits

  We regard the effects of past and proposed wind power development on the Welsh landscape and environment as profoundly negative and destructive, and consider that there is rarely, if ever, any net benefit.

Table 1


  Data collated from published sources by Geoffrey Sinclair, Environment Information Services, Glebe House, Martletwy, Narbeth, Pembrokeshire SA67 8AS. Tel: 01834 891 331. Fax: 01834 891 475. E-mail: [email protected]
Number ofDate built Turbine Total number Total InstalledRange of
windfarms capacities (kW)of turbines Capacity (MW)overall height (m)
Cornwall691-95 300-4008731.7 41.5-49.0
N & E England1492-98 225-75014960.7 43.5-69.0
Wales1492-98 300-600357149.1 41.5-60.0
Scotland395-97 500-6009654.2 53.5-55.5
N Ireland694-97 5006030.0 57.5-60.0
UK4391-98 225-750749 325.741.5-69.0

Note: "Capacity" indicates the installed requirement in megawatts (MW) to generate the contract (1MW=1,000 kilowatts). Latest turbines range between 600kW and 1.5MW and generate up to 30 per cent of capacity on a yearly average. A 12MW contract could thus consist of 20 x 600kW turbines (typically 60m high) or 8 x 1.5MW (up to 95m high). Contracts require subsequent planning permission in which individual and cumulative visual impact is the major factor: 60m turbines can be visually significant within a 15km radius (20km forecast for 95m turbines).

Table 2


  Data collated from published sources by Geoffrey Sinclair, Environment Information Services.

NameDeveloper Date builtTurbines kWNo IC MWTurbine size (m) hub rotor totalav altitude (m) sitecontext Grid refLocation and landscape
km from
CemaesWEG11.92 300247.2 25.016.541.5 42010-95SH 866 068 Inland, elevated moorland ridgeNP3
RhydygroesEcogen11.92 300247.2 30.015.545.5 500-140SH 395 930 Coastal, undulating in-byeAB1
LlandinamEcogen12.92 30010330.9 31.014.545.5 550120-570SO 038 837 Inland, moorland plateau edge
LlangwyryfonWEG6.93 300206.0 25.016.5 320140-360SN 621 696 Near coast, hillside edge
Taff ElyPerma Energy10.93 450209.0 35.018.553.5 26070-530SS 978 862 Inland, rolling moorland/in-bye
Bryn TitliNWP5.94 450229.9 30.018.548.5 480270-530SN 930 755 Inland, moorland plateau edge
Dyffryn BrodynNew World P'r 12.9450011 5.535.018.5 53.5210150-530 SN 219 268Inland, rolling in-bye
TrysglwynNWP5.96 400145.6 25.018.543.5 8040-140SH 440 890 Coastal, undulating in-byeAB3
CarnoNWP10.96 6005633.6 31.522.053.5 470200-520SN 915 960 Inland, moorland plateau
YstumtuenPowergen1.97 30082.4 30.016.546.5 370100-680SN 725 805 Inland, hilly moorland
M GlandulasCAT/WEG97 60010.6 25020-670SH 766 037 Inland, rounded hills, woodlandNP2
Llyn AlawNWP10.97 6003420.4 36.516.553.0 7030-100SH 365 875 Near coast, undulating in-byeAB3
M GordduTrydan Gwynt
2900-520SN 667 860 Near coast, irregular hilltopNP10
Hafotty UchaTegni9.98 60010.6 430250-670SH 935 455 Inland, hills near mountainsNP3
WALES 357149.1

Note: "Capacity" indicates the installed requirement in megawatts (MW) to generate the contract (1MW = 1,000 kilowatts). Latest turbines range between 600kW and 1.5MW and generate up to 30 per cent of capacity on a yearly average. A 12MW contract could thus consist of 20 x 600kW turbines (typically 60m high) or 8 x 1.5MW (up to 95m high). Contracts require subsequent planning permission in which individual and cumulative visual impact is the major factor: 60m turbines can be visually significant within a 15km radius (20km forecast for 95m turbines).

Table 3


  Source: ETSU. Data processed by Geoffrey Sinclair, Environment Information Services.
England N. IrelandScotland WalesUK
Year ending September 97
IC (kW)91,710 28,75047,550123,975 291,985
Output (kWh)199,053,890 85,360,45098,676,510 246,684,493629,775,343
Theoretical Max kWh803,379,600 251,850,000416,538,000 1,086,021,0002,557,788,600
CF (%) 24.8 33.9 23.7 22.7 24.6
Year ending December 97
IC (kW)93.085 30,00051,800138,200 313,085
Output (kWh)194,143,406 87,726,309108,253,530 266,812,097656,935,342
Theoretical Max kWh815,424,600 262,800,000453,768,000 1,210,632,0002,742,624,600
CF (%) 23.8 33.4 23.9 22.0 24.0
Year ending March 98
IC (kW)93.110 30,00051,800140,700 315,610
Output (kWh)199,336,726 93,971,161128,875,830 287,658,966709,842,683
Theoretical Max kWh815,643,600 262,800,000453,768,000 1,232,532,0002,764,743,600
CF (%) 24.4 35.8 28.4 23.3 25.7
Year ending June 98
IC (kW)93.385 30,00051,800143,200 318,385
Output (kWh)203,968,167 95,453,593139,068,370 306,322,377744,812,507
Theoretical Max kWh818,052,600 262,800,000453,768,000 1,254,432,0002,789,052,600
CF (%) 24.9 36.3 30.6 24.4 26.7

Note: 12-monthly rolling averages have been used in order to accommodate seasonal variations. IC=Installed Capacity. Theoretical maximum=IC x 8,760 (total hours in a year). CF=Capacity Factor=IC as % of theoretical maximum. Where IC is not constant for the relevant 12-monthly period an average figure has been used.




  In September 1996 an attempt was made by Mr Gareth Thomas, the Planning Officer of Montgomeryshire (arguably the local authority with the greatest experience of dealing with wind power station proposals) to define the potential visual impact of wind turbines by descriptors which could be assessed in the field, and which, with repeated observation, should produce a degree of observer consistency. The approach assumes good normal visibility, and is intended only to be a general guide, especially at the margins of each band, recognising the importance of local conditions, viewing direction, turbine angle and the scale and nature of the landscape context. The Matrix incorporates the following nine bands of visual impact ranging from "dominant" to "negligible", identified as "A" to "I" in the Table below.


  The Thomas Matrix was originally determined in respect of the 25 and 31 metre hub machines at Cemaes and Llandinam (overall height 41.5-45.5 metres respectively: significantly less than that of turbines subsequently constructed throughout the UK). Mr Thomas concluded from this that "15 kilometres is considered to be the appropriate radius distance for study", although many Zone of Visual Influence (ZVI) maps in Environmental Assessments have employed a much smaller radius (even for much larger turbines). Several hundred field observations have since been carried out in the visual hinterlands of constructed wind power stations throughout Britain by Geoffrey Sinclair of Environment Information Services to test the Thomas Matrix and the relevant ZVI threshold. Initially this exercise was confined to the two installations in Montgomeryshire where the Thomas Matrix was developed, and then extended to others using similar-sized machines. This established broad agreement with Mr Thomas' descriptions of visual impact, but found that his original distance bands were rather conservative. Minor amendments were made to his distances, as shown by the results in the second column of the Table below headed the "Revised Thomas Matrix".


  The Thomas approach was extended to viewpoints around other wind power stations which used larger turbines in order to establish the extent to which distances for each visibility band (and thus the appropriate ZVI radius) needed to be extended in relation to the increase in turbine size. In practice, the larger turbines used in most installations constructed since the 41-45 metre "1st generation" have tended to cluster around 52-55 metres, and the results for these are shown in the first column of what may now be called the "Sinclair-Thomas Matrix". Provisional results from the largest turbines subsequently built (the four 750kW 70 metre machines at Great Eppleton, Houghton-le-Spring, County Durham) have also been used to construct a further tentative set of distances. A projected series has been added to extrapolate the sequence in relation to the latest proposals for the 1.5MW 95 metre turbines at Mynydd Hiraethog, North Wales.

THE "THOMAS" AND "SINCLAIR-THOMAS" MATRICES to estimate the potential visual impact of different sizes of wind turbines
Overall height of turbines (m) 41-4541-45 52-557095**


DescriptorsBand Thomas Matrix Sinclair-Thomas Matrix
Original Revised
Approximate distance range (km)
Dominant impact due to large scale, movement, proximity and number A0-20-2 0-2.50-30-4
Major impact due to proximity: capable of dominating landscape B2-32-4 2.5-53-64-7.5
Clearly visible with moderate impact: potentially intrusive C3-44-6 5-86-107.5-12
Clearly visible with moderate impact: becoming less distinct D4-66-9 8-1110-1412-17
Less distinct: size much reduced but movement still discernible E6-109-13 11-1514-1817-22
Low impact, movement noticeable in good light: becoming components in overall landscape F10-1213-16 15-1919-2322-27
Becoming indistinct with negligible impact on the wider landscape G12-1816-21 19-2523-3027-35
Noticeable in good light but negligible impact H18-2021-25 25-3030-3535-40
Negligible or no impactI 20253035 40
Suggested radius for ZVI analysis 151820 2530


* Only four 70m turbines have yet been constructed (at Great Eppleton, Co Durham).

** Data extrapolated for 95m 1.5MW turbines (as proposed at Mynydd Hiraethog, Conwy)


1.   1995 Policy on Renewable Energy Installations, CPRW, 1995

2.   Wind Energy—Power for a Sustainable Future: Policy Statement of the British Wind Energy Association, 1996: BWEA, 1996

3.  Memorandum by the British Wind Energy Association to the House of Commons Trade and Industry Select Committee inquiry on Aspects of Energy Policy, January 1998

4.   Offshore Wind Energy—Building a new industry for Britain Greenpeace/Border Wind, June 1998

5.   Pla'r Twrbinau Gwynt: ple ar ran y Tirlun (Wind Turbine Blight: a Plea for the Landscape)—CPRW, April 1997

6.  Wind Energy and the Landscape: a Joint Statement by APRS, CPRW, CNP, CPRE and the Ramblers' Association—May 1997; accompanying CPRE Press Release 35/97 "Groups unite in calling for new direction for wind power policy", and letter to the President of the Board of Trade dated 15 May 1997

7.   Call for a Change of Wind Direction: Response by the Countryside Commission to the Government's consultation on the Fifth Round of the NFFO, October 1997

8.  Submission by CPRW to ETSU Research Study The Cumulative Effects of Wind Turbines (CEWT) February 1999

9.   Wind Turbines in the Welsh Landscape—Looking for the Way Forward: Seminar organised by the Countryside Council for Wales, 17 February 1999 (proceedings in course of preparation, March 1999)

10.  Public Inquiry into the extension of the Cemaes wind power station (Cemaes B) Montgomeryshire, Proofs of Geoffrey Sinclair (CPRW/GS/023) and Merfyn Williams (CPRW/MW/025) July 1998

11.  The formulation and operation of policy on wind power and its interaction with the planning system: Evidence to the House of Commons Trade and Industry Committee inquiry on Aspects of Energy Policy—CPRW, February 1998

12.  Appeal and Application by National Wind Power Limited (Barningham High Moor) ref APP/W1335/A/97/285005, Government Office for the North East, November 1998

13.  Renewable Energy: Dismissal of National Wind Power's Appeal at Barningham High Moor raises wider issues for government policy—Environment Information Services News Release, 20 November 1998.

previous page contents

House of Lords home page Parliament home page House of Commons home page search page enquiries

© Parliamentary copyright 1999