Lords Sitting of 16 December 1986

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ely.

Insurance Brokers: Registration
Lord Banks: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is their intention that, once the Financial Services Act 1986 is in operation, registered insurance brokers dealing in life assurance and pensions will have to register twice, once with the Insurance Brokers Registration Council, a statutory body, and once with the appropriate self-regulating organisation; and, if so, whether they will have to provide two sets of detailed documentation, comply with two sets of conditions and pay two fees.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, yes. However, after strong representations from the council, the Financial Services Bill was amended to allow a role for the council for the regulation of life insurance brokers but with safeguards aimed at integrating so far as possible the requirements of the two regimes so as to minimise the burden of dual regulation.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply, and declare an interest as I am a registered insurance broker. Is he aware that many small intermediaries will cease to register with the Insurance Brokers Registration Council if they have to register with both bodies? Is that what the Government want? Is it possible for the terms of registration for the council to be such that acceptance by the self-regulating organisation is automatic?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, on a number of occasions during the passage of the Financial Services Bill we felt that representations were made to us rather late in the day. The case put by the noble Lord today has been delayed. This question was considered at the time in both Houses of Parliament, and the Government's first response was to exclude the possibility of dual regulation by removing the scope of the IBRC for those who acted as intermediaries exclusively for life assurance. Following representations about that approach, the Bill was amended in the way that I have described. There has been a full airing of the issue, and a solution acceptable to both Houses was found.
Lord Banks: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the widespread concern that exists among small insurance intermediaries that a bureaucratic and financial burden is being placed upon them which many will find difficult to sustain? Is it correct, for
98
example, that the annual subscription to FIMBRA, which is expected to be the self-regulating organisation for insurance intermediaries, is to go up to £900 next year, that there is a £350 entrance fee, and that VAT is payable in addition?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the whole question of the fees charged by regulatory bodies and the implication of those fees on entry into the business will doubtless be looked at closely by the Director General of Fair Trading when he scrutinises the regulatory system for anti-competitive effects. The Secretary of State, who has the task of balancing the needs of competition and of investor protection, will also consider that question carefully. In those circumstances, it would be wrong of me to comment upon particular fees.

Lundy Island: Environment
2.38 p.m.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they are taking to safeguard the environment of Lundy Island.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, in answer to my noble friend I am delighted to be able to inform the House that we announced the establishment of the country's first marine nature reserve around Lundy Island on 21st November. The primary purpose of the reserve is to conserve the rich and varied populations of marine wildlife and the habitats on which they depend.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that interesting announcement. Following the announcement made by his right honourable friend in November, can he say whether this reserve has been developed over a period of years, whether there was any indication of this important development, and whether there are to be others?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in answer to a supplementary question from the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, on 18th July I said that the first marine nature reserve would be announced and confirmed by the end of November, and it has been. Further sites are being processed by the Nature Conservancy Council, which is currently discussing the setting up of further marine nature reserves, and those at Skomer and the Menai Straits are well advanced. I hope that at least one of them will be designated in 1987. Survey work and preliminary discussions are continuing at four other sites—Loch Sween, St. Abb's, Bardsey, and Scilly Islands.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, does the Minister accept that we warmly welcome the announcement about Lundy and are pleased about the progress so far; although we are sorry that it initially took five years for Lundy to be declared a marine nature reserve? Does he

99
foresee any difficulty with that part of the by-laws which does not make it unlawful for any vessel to discharge any substance? The by-laws seemed perfect, but that one rather worried me. Does the Minister foresee any difficulties?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as I understand it the by-laws are confined to 100 metres of low watermark. I do not see any difficulty with the by-law to which the noble Baroness referred. I am grateful for her expression of approval.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Lundy Island, with its magnificent marine life which the whole House I am sure is pleased to know will be protected, is run entirely by a charity? Can he inform the House what the new measure will cost that charity annually?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, yes, I am aware that the charity referred to by my noble friend is the Landmark Trust. The Nature Conservancy Council by-laws will control dumping as well as damage to plants and animals. Inevitably in such a case some cost will fall on the trust, but I am assured that full discussion took place over this long period—the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, mentioned five years—between the trust and the Nature Conservancy Council.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, has any opinion on this matter been expressed by the noble and tearful Lord, Lord Lundy?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am sorry. The noble Lord—not for the first time—has stumped me.

Rent Arrears
2.40 p.m.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what, at the present time, are the total rent arrears in Great Britain due for payment to local authorities, and which authorities are the worst affected.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the latest comprehensive figures on rent arrears owed to local authorities suggest that accumulated arrears in Great Britain total over £230 million. The authorities with the poorest performances—with arrears expressed as a proportion of their annual rent rolls—are the London Boroughs of Brent, Haringey, Southwark and Lambeth, and the Western Isles District Council.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, are not these uncollected arrears of rent of £230 million nationally a very serious matter? Have the local authorities been warned of the situation? In particular with regard to the London Borough of Haringey has my noble friend seen the report dated 10th November in The Times which states that the arrears in that borough have now reached £5·6 million? Has the situation been brought to the local authority's attention? Does not my noble
100
friend agree that on the national scene, with these huge arrears which exist and have not been collected, there is a failure by the local authorities which amounts to a discrimination between one section of the community who pay their rent and another who do not? And is this not a slap in the face for the first section?
Is this not a failure of local democracy——
Noble Lords: Speech!
Lord Gridley: This is a serious matter, my Lords, which should receive attention.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the current levels of arrears in a minority of authorities are quite scandalous. In Haringey, for example, to which my noble friend referred, the total arrears run at 28·5 per cent. of total rent income, at a smidgen under £5·6 million. They are one of the minority who place an unjustifiable burden on other tenants and on ratepayers, who have to bear the costs of interest charges and of ultimately writing off debt. It is very hard to see how such authorities justify such disgraceful conduct to their electors and their auditors.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that part, if not all, of this problem is due to the fact that some of the boroughs he has mentioned have now outgrown themselves? Over 80 per cent. of the entire rented population of a borough can come under the control of the local authority and the housing department completely loses control. I ask the Minister whether he has any ideas as to what ought to be done?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that this problem would not be nearly so serious if the local authorities concerned had proper management controls and identified the problem early.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Western Isles will not be pleased to be bracketed with Brent, Haringey, and Lambeth? Can he state the total amount outstanding in respect of the Western Isles compared with the three London boroughs which he has mentioned?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I have a whole realm of figures here. Perhaps on the precise figure it would be appropriate for me to write to the noble Lord. However, the Western Isles are indeed in the top five authorities concerned, and I trust that the electors will take notice of that fact.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Minister what happens to the arrears? Are they just written off? If they are not written off, how are they collected?
Lord Skelmersdale: No, my Lords, they are not written off in the first instance. There are discussions between the council officials and the individual tenants. Once they have been identified—which, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, is the major

101
problem in all this—then people's rights are described to them as to whether they should apply for supplementary benefit or have housing benefit. It may well be possible to come to an arrangement whereby the tenant pays off the arrears by a small surcharge over a period of time on his rent bill. Various ways are open to the council.
Lord Morris: My Lords, can my noble friend distinguish between the effect of deliberate overspending on capital or revenue account and the effect of negligently not collecting arrears of rent, bearing in mind that the deliberate overspending brings very severe penalties on the local council and the councillors involved?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, rent is a current account income and affects repairs and maintenance rather than capital spending.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister is able to tell the House to what extent the deprivation of rate support grant—which involves hundreds of millions of pounds, particularly to London authorities—affects the situation? Will the Minister also bear in mind that there are many authorities which, under pressure from the Government, have reduced their staff to such an extent that they are having great difficulties in carrying out their duties?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, if proper management entails very great difficulty perhaps local authorities are not the right people to manage public housing in this country. On the original supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, rate support grant has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether this situation is leading to a rapidly decreasing state of repair and maintenance, perhaps leading to houses becoming uninhabitable?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in severe cases, yes, indeed. It might well do so.
Lord Mackie of BenshieMy Lords, returning to the Western Isles, does the Minister not agree that a far lower proportion of the population of the Western Isles is housed by local authorities than is the case in Brent, Haringey and other such places?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Lord is no doubt an expert on the Western Isles and I am not. However, I can tell him that rent arrears as a percentage of rent collectable in the Western Isles is 24·1 per cent., which I suggest is a high figure.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that, of the aggregate arrears he has quoted, quite a considerable sum may well be money which is owed by people at the very bottom end of the wage-scale, who receive no support whatever but who have difficulty in meeting their rent? How does he expect a local authority to deal with that when the only final sanction it has is eviction? If local authorities evict
102
such people and place them in the care of their social services departments, it will cost an astronomical sum compared with the rent which they owe.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I can do no better than to refer the noble Lord to the answer I gave to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, are there not arrangements for the DHSS to pay rents direct to local authorities in cases where the tenants are on unemployment or other benefits? Can the noble Lord say what proportion of tenants who are in arrears in the three London boroughs mentioned are in receipt of benefit? Has he considered whether there are different arrangements between the DHSS and the local authorities in those three boroughs and between the DHSS and local authorities in other parts of the country where arrears are not so large?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as I understand the position, rent being paid direct to the landlord has to be with the agreement of the receiver of the benefit concerned. I shall have to write to the noble Lord about the precise proportion of the various London boroughs.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, can my noble friend tell us the difference in arrears between local authorities and housing associations? I understand that housing associations so manage their affairs that they have very little in the way of arrears.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, that is also my understanding. However, the Question is specifically on local authority rent arrears, and it is that Question which I came prepared to answer.
Baroness David: My Lords, does the Minister agree that as a result of all these questions this is a very much more complicated matter than appears at first sight? Occasionally there may be inadequate management, but very often there is good management and there are still substantial arrears, and a great many factors go to make them up. Is the Minister also satisfied with the way in which the figures are collected? In the press notice issued by his department on 10th December the rent arrears as a percentage of rent collectable for Brent was given as 63 per cent. The CIPFA figure for Brent was 33.51 per cent. They are admirable figures, but we must remember that until May 1986 Brent was a Conservative-controlled authority. Will the Minister look at the way in which these figures are put together and say whether they include rate as well as rent arrears? That will make a great deal of difference to the eventual answer.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, CIPFA and the local authority associations are discussing this matter at the moment. However, the figures given in the press release referred to by the noble Baroness and the figures which I have given come from the local authorities themselves. If they are incorrect, it is the local authorities' figures which are wrong.
Baroness David: My Lords, does the Minister agree that a local authority's response will depend very much on the questions asked by the department and on how it forms those questions?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, they are the same questions as have been asked for a number of years. We are looking at a moving picture, and the situation has become very much worse in recent years.

EC Food Aid: Administration
2.55 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what improvements are to be made to the system of administering Common Market food aid.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, the Council of European Development Ministers reached agreement on 11th November on a new regulation on food aid policy and management. This was subject to conciliation with the European Parliament, whose opinion differed on two institutional issues. The conciliation was successfully concluded today in Brussels and the new regulation will enter into force before the end of this year. This will allow food aid to become more responsive to the needs of developing countries, and give both the European Community and aid recipients better value for the large amounts of money we spend on food aid.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I thank my noble friend very much for the reply, which was most encouraging. I have always found the slowness with which aid is delivered to the people who are starving difficult to understand. Under these agreements can my noble friend say whether aid will move more rapidly so that we shall be able to help people more quickly than we have in the past? As she rightly says, the money is very good.
Baroness Young: My Lords, the new procedures which are to be introduced by the Commission will speed up the provision of food aid at all stages, and emergency needs are to be given priority.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we welcome the arrangement which the noble Baroness has just announced. Can she say what effect this will have on food surpluses in the European Community?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the features of these reforms are not in themselves designed to reduce food surpluses, which is a separate matter and separately under consideration. As I indicated in my original Answer, the object of these reforms is to meet the needs of developing countries rather than for the system to become a means for the disposal of surplus food and so that food aid should be better integrated with other forms of community development assistance.
Lord Blyton: My Lords, does not the Minister consider it disgraceful and disgusting that mountains of food are stored in England and all over the Continent, and that we sell cheaply to Russia while we spend billions to build Trident because we are all afraid of Russia, yet we sell them this food at very fancy prices? Why can we not give it to the British poor, the poor on the Continent and the poor in the Third World, instead of storing it at the expense of the taxpayer?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point about food surpluses. I am sure he will be aware that within the European Community we have been a leading nation in trying to get a reform of the common agricultural policy, which, among other matters, leads at the present moment to the creation of these large surpluses.
Lord Blyton: My Lords, will the noble Baroness tell me why the French Government and our Government are doing nothing about French farmers destroying British lamb in vans on the Continent?
Baroness Young: My Lords, that may be a very interesting question but I believe that the noble Lord will agree that it is wide of the Question on the Order Paper. If he cares to put down a Question on that subject I shall do my best to answer it.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that there is a great difference between food aid and famine aid, and that food aid wrongly applied can destroy agriculture and the social structure in many of the countries to which it may be sent?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very important point. On balance we would agree that the existence of surpluses may damage agriculture in developing countries. There are mitigating factors; for example, importing to developing countries food at cheap prices. However, the surpluses can do economic damage to producer countries, as the recent World Bank studies have shown.

Business
2.58 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon, my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on local government: definition of relevant and total expenditure.

Patents (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Northfield: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the Patents Act 1977 to exclude the pharmaceutical use of products from the acts authorised by licences available as of right by virtue of paragraph 4(2) (c) of Schedule 1 to that Act and as to the time when application may be made to settle the terms of such a licence.
I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Northfield.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Consolidated Fund Bill
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911; read a first time.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended; (pursuant to Resolution of 15th December), Bill read a second time: Committee negatived; Bill read a third time, and passed.

Committee for Privileges
3.1 p.m.
Lord Bridge of Harwich Lord Bridge of Harwich rose to move, That the special report of the Committee for Privileges of the last Session on Peerages in Abeyance [H.L. 1985–86 176] be agreed to.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships may recall that last July the House agreed the report of the Committee for Privileges on the petition to call out of abeyance the Barony of Strange. My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay told the House, when moving the agreement of that report, that it was the intention of the Committee for Privileges to make a further report to the House regarding the appropriate procedure for the consideration and examination of such petitions, and it is that further report that I now commend to your Lordships' approval.
Consideration of the petition in the Strange case brought to the attention of the Committee for Privileges what seemed to us to be a quite unnecessarily cumbrous feature in the present procedure. That procedure is governed by the terms of the humble Address which the House presented to His Majesty King George V in 1927 following the report of the Sumner Committee into Peerages in Abeyance.
By that procedure the Attorney-General must refer to the House, and the House must refer to the Committee for Privileges, any "arrangement"—that is the word used—
"between a petitioner for a peerage in abeyance and any co-heir",
to see if the arrangement, and again I quote, is "tainted with any impropriety". What seems to have troubled the Sumner Committee was the possibility that a Peer might die entitled to more than one peerage and that there would then be some kind of trade-off between two or more co-heiresses, one petitioning to call out of abeyance barony A, another barony B, and so on, each agreeing not to oppose the petition of the other. The Sumner Committee evidently thought that the House would not consider such a proceeding proper.
In fact, in the 60 years which have elapsed since the Sumner Committee reported, no such case, nor indeed any case which smacked in any way of trafficking in peerages, has come before the Committee for Privileges. Nevertheless holders of the office of Attorney-General from time to time have felt themselves obliged, when learning that there had been, as there must have been, some discussion between co-heiresses preceding a decision as to who should petition for the abeyant peerage, to treat that discussion as an arrangement which necessarily involved a reference to this House and in due course
106
consideration of the matter by the Committee for Privileges. Such references were made even in cases where the Attorney-General himself considered that the discussions were wholly innocuous.
As your Lordships will appreciate, the reference of a petition to the Committee for Privileges, however simple and straightforward the issue may appear to be, is an expensive and time-consuming matter. The amended procedure, which the committee's special report now recommends for your Lordships' approval, will if adopted require the Attorney-General to refer a petition for a peerage in abeyance to this House if, and only if, after investigating the matter, he is of opinion that there may be some taint of impropriety about the matter.
In order to give effect to the committee's recommendation it would be necessary that a new humble Address be presented to Her Majesty to supersede that presented to her Royal predecessor in 1927; and I understand that if your Lordships agree to this report it will be the intention of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to move the necessary motion at an early date. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the special report of the Committee for Privileges of the last Session on Peerages in Abeyance [H.L. 1985–86 176] be agreed to.—(Lord Bridge of Harwich.)
Lord Shackleton: My Lords——
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, it may help the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, as he was a member of the committee, if he hears what I say. He may like to comment. Your Lordships will see the point when you have heard what I wish to submit to the House.
I have no objection at all to the decision that the Committee for Privileges made in connection with this particular barony claim, but I think that we ought to look closely at the suggested alterations which, if we approve them today, will alter the procedures for the future. I ask whether a committee looking at a specific case ought to extend its powers to the point of wanting to alter the procedures under which it works.
I am a little disturbed that there have been one or two instances where the House seems to be altering its procedures in a rather casual way. In this instance I feel that we can draw to the attention of the various committees with powers the fact that they should not redefine those powers and so affect traditional procedures.
The point made by the noble and learned Lord was that until this Motion is passed, the Attorney-General in future would have to show that prima facie there was a taint of impropriety before it could be questioned. Under the alteration now being made, he has no longer to satisfy himself that prima facie there "is" a case but that there "may be" a case.
This significant change in the procedures, although not important in this particular instance, could be so in future. Ought we to encourage committees—even the Committee for Privileges—to make recommendations arising out of a specific case which will alter the future procedures of the House? Recently, under the guise of an experiment, we passed through on the nod,

107
that a Committee stage is to be taken, as another place does, in a room upstairs. I wonder whether that is in accordance with what this House ought to do? The House as a whole has always controlled its Committee stage, and it has worked. There was also a case some years ago when I raised the question of the 1911 Act. We had seen tacked on to a money Bill something that was not a money Bill. The matter was eventually sent to the Procedure Committee which agree with my criticism.
The point of my intervention—the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, will be interested because he sat on the Committee for Privileges which took this step—is whether it is right for the Committee for Privileges to recommend an alteration in our procedures which arises out of a specific case. Ought they not to wait until they are asked to look into any necessary alterations which can be done at leisure and with greater detail than at present seems the case? I have no objection to approving this report and I have no strong objection to the change that is embodied in it. But if it is that we are easily going to allow even minimal changes in our procedure, we may be undermining the whole basis on which this House operates.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I admire the skill of the noble Lord in bringing in the question of the Public Bill Committee upstairs. He is obviously right to take any opportunity, however out of order it may be, to raise a point with which he is concerned.
As a Member of the Committee I wholeheartedly support the Motion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge. I think the arrangement is entirely sensible and that the Attorney-General should be given discretion. I should like the noble and learned Lord to comment on the following. There may be circumstances other than the question of tainting. Indeed the argument of primogeniture comes up. It was not clearly understood until it was discussed in Committee that in this case no right of primogeniture arose. Is the Attorney-General still free, even if he is satisfied that there is no tainting or potential tainting, to have access to the Select Committee?
Lord Bridge of Harwich: My Lords, I apprehend that it is open to the Attorney-General to refer, before he advises the Crown, any petition for a peerage in abeyance to this House if on any ground he feels that such a reference is called for. This House would then refer the matter to the Committee for Privileges. It is in the first instance for the Attorney-General to investigate every issue which arises on a petition to call a peerage out of abeyance. In due course the question of the establishment of the necessary pedigree and the propriety of the petitioner are examined before the Crown is advised. But I do not apprehend that there would be any bar to a reference to this House on any ground which the Attorney-General felt was appropriate as a matter to be examined by the Committee for Privileges.
Lord Shackleton: I am much obliged, my Lords.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Gairloch Harbour Order Confirmation Bill
Considered on Report.
Shetland Islands Council (Ham Voe, Foula) Order Confirmation Bill
Considered on Report.

Advance Petroleum Revenue Tax Bill
3.14 p.m.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Advance Petroleum Revenue Tax Bill implements the proposal announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Autumn Statement to accelerate, on a carefully targeted basis, the arrangements for the repayment of advance petroleum revenue tax due to oil companies.
Your Lordships will no doubt be familiar with the background to this Bill and will thus appreciate its importance both to North Sea activity itself and to the offshore supplies industry which has grown up to support that activity. The fall in world oil prices has had a serious impact on the economics of North Sea development, resulting in cutbacks in activity and orders. Companies involved in North Sea activity have had to reassess their project plans to take these low oil prices into account, but some of them still face the more immediate problems caused by a shortage of the cash available to press ahead with new and existing developments.
The Government received numerous representations from the industry on the effects of the fall in the oil price. While these have generally recognised that the present fiscal regime is reasonably price sensitive, it was still felt that the Government ought to do something to help the companies adjust to the sharp deterioration in their finances and thereby ease the problems currently facing the offshore supplies industry.
This Bill then is aimed primarily at alleviating companies' immediate cash flow problems. It concentrates its effects on those companies where the reduction in cash flow from their North Sea operations could act as a real constraint on their ability to press ahead with development work. It also recognises the importance of providing finance for the companies as soon as possible in order to avoid any interruption to development activity that might otherwise be brought about by cash flow difficulties.
Although the APRT Bill is designed to boost company cash flow, the precise targeting of its effects had to be considered very carefully, as the Government did not think that it was justifiable to boost the cash flow of every company, regardless of that company's own resources. They concluded that the measure would be best targeted if it applied to those companies in fields which had not reached their payback period by 30th June 1986. As payback refers to the time at which cumulative income first exceeds cumulative expenditure, the Bill will limit repayments to companies in fields that have not yet begun to produce a positive cash flow.
During the Bill's progress to date, the appropriateness of this payback criterion has been discussed by the Government and the industry. As my right honourable friend the Financial Secretary to the

109
Treasury explained in another place, this particular qualification was considered to be the one that would best target the measure on those developments and companies most in need of help.
Repayments under this criterion will be subject to a limit of £15 million per company per field and, in all, the APRT Bill will increase by around £300 million the amount of cash available for investment in the North Sea by the beneficiaries of this measure.
The result of the careful targeting of the APRT repayments will be to give proportionately more help to the small and medium-sized companies, which tend to have fewer sources of finance than the integrated majors. These smaller, non-integrated companies may have interests in possible future developments but only limited access to finance. The APRT repayments will reduce the risk of those developments being delayed by cash constraints.
As my right honourable friend said in another place, the Bill is all about development. It is particularly important that the companies involved in key developments are not prevented from going ahead by cash flow shortages. Accordingly, the Bill concentrates its effects on those companies which might be subject to cash constraints and which might as a result have particular difficulty in continuing to finance their activity on various North Sea developments.
Under the provisions of the APRT Bill, 75 per cent.—that is, £230 million—of the total repayments will go to independent, medium-sized and smaller companies. In terms of developments, targeting the measure in this way should result in significant benefits for those companies at present involved in key developments. These developments, as well as being important to the prospects of the North Sea generally, are all planned to commence shortly. They thus have the potential to generate substantial orders for the offshore supplies industry over the next few years. We estimate that some 70 per cent. of the total benefits under this Bill will accrue to companies involved in such key developments.
The implications for the offshore supplies industry were a major concern for the Government when considering the details of this Bill. We are only too conscious that many jobs are at risk and, although the Government do not wish to impose any restrictions on the industry as to where it chooses to spend the money, by targeting the APRT repayments, as this Bill does, it seems likely that this area will benefit. Many of the companies qualifying for early APRT repayments are heavily involved in key developments in the North Sea.
APRT would, as your Lordships will know, normally be a Finance Bill matter, but one of the main aims of this measure is to improve the immediate cash flow position of those companies that are facing particular difficulties with the financing of developments at this time. By introducing the APRT Bill at this early stage of the Session, all the repayments will be in the hands of the oil companies early next year and will thus be available for their 1987 expenditure programmes.
As to the cost of this measure, oil tax revenues will suffer a net reduction of up to £310 million in 1986–87, but this will be fully recouped by
110
corresponding increases in oil tax revenues over the following three financial years. The industry has welcomed the Chancellor's announcement of the measure implemented in the Bill, recognising that it will alleviate some of its cash flow difficulties and provide additional funds for investment in the North Sea over the coming year. This Bill was well received in another place. I have no hesitation in commending it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Beaverbrook.)
3.20 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for having introduced the Second Reading of this Bill in the House this afternoon. As the noble Lord has indicated, this is a money Bill and therefore the amount of influence that your Lordships' House can exercise upon it is very limited indeed. One of the first things that Her Majesty's Government did on assuming office in 1979 was to abolish the British National Oil Corporation, thereby depriving themselves and therefore the nation of any influence at all over the rate of depletion of the fields themselves or of any price-determining policy. Specifically within their own terms of reference, and indeed as part of their own dogma, they have left it to the free market forces; and great progress was made in that connection.
Then in 1982, as a result of their previous legislation, they found that, owing to the very large capital allowances that were available against petroleum revenue tax in the early stage of development of particular fields, they were getting rather less revenue than the Chancellor of the Exchequer anticipated. In those balmy days of 1982 the Chancellor of the Exchequer apparently had cash flow problems. So do we all. So in Section 139 of the Finance Act 1982 advance petroleum revenue tax was brought in in order to put a claw into the revenue, with the stipulation that at the end of the operation such advance petroleum tax that was paid under the 1982 Act could be set against the liability for petroleum revenue tax.
It was not referred to in those terms in the balmy days of 1982. The Chancellor of the Exchequer at that time was welcoming it as an additional source of revenue to assist the worthy works, so he said, upon which he had at that time embarked. But, alas! in spite of all the wisdom at the disposal of the energy department of the Government and despite the wisdom of the Cabinet as a whole, lo and behold! as many of us predicted, with an unrestricted depletion policy and with absolutely no voice at all in the determination of the price of oil—for we are operating under the free market economy—the price of oil dropped. And it has dropped very considerably indeed, much more than the Chancellor of the Exchequer envisaged in 1982 or 1983.
So income began to dry up. Of course, that did not prevent the Chancellor of the Exchequer from making a very great virtue out of it. Your Lordships will recall those very happy phrases in his Budget speech earlier this year in which the decline in the price of oil was reckoned to be a positive benefit to the economy.

111
Mind you, it took a long time for it to go into petrol prices, as your Lordships well know. Indeed, many protests were raised on all sides of the House.
So here we are in a position where the oil companies concerned, which have suffered this decline in the price of oil, have made representations to Her Majesty's Government saying—although they would not put it in these terms—"Thank you for your free market in oil, thank you for the restoration of free competition and free enterprise and everything else; but, alas, in accordance with the laws of supply and demand, the prices have now gone down". No, they went to the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a genuine misfortune. They said, "We have a problem with our cash flow".
One of the reasons so often put forward by Her Majesty's Government as to the virtues of free enterprise is that it leaves industries free of all government interference; they no longer have to bother about government at all. For example, if they find themselves in financial difficulties no longer are the purse strings of the Government available to be loosened in order that they can relieve their cash flows. Not at all. The right honourable lady the Prime Minister has set her face against such things. If a company gets into difficulties through cash flow, through profitability, then the weakest to the wall and Devil take the hindmost.
However, not so with the petroleum industry. One would have thought, with the brains, the management expertise, the connections in the City—which are very well known and which I will tabulate for the Government if they wish—that the companies could have gone to the City of London or to the financial institutions and said, "We require help. We have had a decline in the price of oil. True enough, the Bank of England in its latest report forecasts that the price may rise from 18 to 20"—a fact of which a number of undisclosed people apparently took advantage and made a quick profit in gilts; but that is another story. No, what they did was this. They did not go to obtain temporary finance, which is the facility the Prime Minister always offers private industry when it gets into trouble. They come back to the Government, and of course the Government acquiesce.
In fact, in language which they did not use at the time of the passing of the 1982 Act and indeed the 1983 Act, the Government now say, "Well, of course, originally it was only a forced loan, anyway. All that we are doing is repaying some of the forced loan that we inflicted upon them in 1982". They did not sing that little song in 1982. But they have come to the rescue of the oil companies.
I do not want to cavil about this point, and I might say straight away that had a government of which I was a member been in this position we probably would have done the same because we believe that private enterprise firms can fall into adverse circumstances and, always provided that they have exhausted the means of credit available to them through the institutions, we do not treat them as lame ducks. Therefore, it is quite feasible in these circumstances that these forced loans should now be repaid. And it is important that the country as a whole knows perfectly well that
112
the whole purpose of Section 139 of the 1982 Finance Act was exactly to hasten the payment of petroleum revenue tax in order to benefit the Exchequer.
So we support it. But, of course, there are other matters. One does not know how far the Government are going to be able to resist the pressures that will now be placed upon them. The oil companies themselves are not merely requesting—as they have in this case successfully—the repayment of the forced loans that were extracted from them in 1982 and modified in 1983. They are also asking for the removal of royalties. They are also asking for the extension of petroleum tax treatment to exploration and appraisal costs and design and engineering expenditures. They are also asking for a modified enterprise-zone status or a relaxation of the PRT ringfence for a defined proportion of new development expenditure. These are demands that have not yet surfaced in another place but doubtless will do so in due course. They are also asking for support for incremental investment in existing fields. So the Government, while acknowledging our general support on ideological grounds for the steps that they propose to take, can also, I hope, inform the House how they propose to deal with these extra demands. Or are we going to have another session at a later stage informing us of the further concessions that are going to be made to the oil companies?
The idea is, of course, a very simple one: that they must be given an incentive. Somehow there is a supposition on the part of the Government that if you are going to get the best out of private enterprise, without even troubling them to go to the normal sources of loans to ease their cash flows, you have to give them an incentive. That is not the attitude they take in other parts of the economy. Many of your Lordships will have suffered from cash flow problems. Speaking personally, I have suffered like that from time to time and maybe I am joined by others of your Lordships. But let us consider the cash flow difficulties of the unemployed owner of a house who has mortgage repayments and mortgage interest payments to make. There is no question of giving him an incentive. What the Government have done in connection with the unemployed householder who has suffered a serious cash flow difficulty in order to pay his mortgage interest is to say that they will no longer bear one-half of the cost for four months. What humbug this is! When a cash flow difficulty arises among those who habitually support the Conservative Party by their subscriptions, we have one kind of treatment: they must be given an incentive. When cash flow difficulties are experienced by the unemployed, they are bashed over the head. This strikes me as humbug. However, we are in amiable circumstances. This is a money Bill; we support its purpose. We have given our comments and, so far as that is concerned, we have no objection to the Bill receiving a Second Reading.
3.33 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I should like to join with those who have already extended a welcome, albeit a qualified welcome in my own case, to this Bill. I disagree almost entirely with the previous speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, who has made certain insinuations about the oil industry and

113
who has suggested that it is going through a "lame duck" period. I can assure him that my experience of dealing with the oil industry while I was Minister of State for Energy indicated that it was far from being a lame duck industry. Indeed, in 1982 and 1983 the measures which the Government took in regard to the advance payment of revenue tax were fully justified because, at that time, the oil industry was on a "high". In 1982–83, I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, we were talking about oil prices in the region of 38 dollars a barrel. There was every justification for the Chancellor of the Exchequer taking the action that he did.
Since then, the oil industry has gone through a traumatic period, certainly of two years and perhaps a little longer, when oil prices have fallen very substantially. Not only has this affected the oil industry itself, but it has also dramatically affected those who supply the oil industry and those involved in the fabrication industry.
I shall say a little more about those industries in a few moments. First, the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has decided to repay £300 million of advance petroleum revenue tax in 1987 is to be welcomed. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench who is dealing with this matter today will suggest to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer not only that he repays the £300 million of advance petroleum revenue tax in 1987 but also that he brings forward the further £500 million which remains outstanding and which would be paid in 1988 in order to assist the companies who will benefit. Accordingly, if the companies benefit, those who supply them will benefit, and some of the jobs which have been lost, mostly located in parts of the country where they are particularly difficult to replace, will, in fact, be replaced.
The nature of the fabrication industry, in particular, is such that it requires an area of flat land and an area of deep water, normally to be found in rural areas. They have principally been found in Scotland, and especially in the north and the north-east. Those were very welcome projects when developed because they provided considerable employment of a type which was readily acceptable in rural areas. In other words, there was no pollution problem attached to those developments, and they received, often with accelerated planning procedures, a ready acceptance by the communities in which they were located. One can imagine, therefore, the distress faced by many communities as a result of the reduction in orders and the postponement of exploration and development plans by many of the oil companies.
My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is extremely sensitive to the problems of the oil industry. I remember only too well, before the 1983 Budget, accompanying him when we discussed the whole question of the oil industry with the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Geoffrey Howe. There was nobody more effective than the present Chancellor when he was arguing with his predecessor about the necessity for making certain concessions to the oil industry. I would like my noble friend to remind my right honourable friend that any further concessions which he can make at the present moment to the oil industry in order to assist with cash flow
114
problems and thus ensure that some of the jobs which have been lost are replaced will be doubly welcomed.
I want to say just a word or two about the suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, about other ways in which the oil industry could be helped. It is quite obvious that the noble Lord has received a letter similar to that which I received—I understand my noble friend behind me to say that he also received a letter—from the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association. I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that these are not new ideas. These ideas were all presented to the Department of Energy back in August, and I understand that my right honourable and honourable friends in the Department of Energy are at present considering these matters. I can only suggest to my noble friend that he expresses to them the anxiety of many of us who were, and are, involved in the welfare of those who live in areas which have suffered as a result of the depression within the oil industry.
No, I do not take the line of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. I welcome this as a very sincere and genuine effort on the part of the Government to make a contribution towards the problems of the oil industry. I commend the Bill to your Lordships' House but I make the plea to my noble friend that it simply does not go far enough. I hope he will pass on my views to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Rate Support Grant
3.40 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: 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 the Environment about the calculation of expenditure for rate support grant purposes. Do I assume that I have the leave of the House?
Lord Graham of EdmontonMy Lords, I think that there is some misunderstanding. We on this side thought that the Statement would be taken after the present business had been concluded. I am sure that the House will be tolerant. There has been a misunderstanding, which of course can be put right. I am sure that the Minister would wish to continue.
Lord SkelmersdaleMy Lords, in that case, I am perfectly prepared not to repeat the Statement. I am totally in the hands of the House.
Lord Graham of EdmontonMy Lords, it would be appreciated on these Benches if the next speaker inscribed on the list could speak. If that were done, the noble Baroness, Lady David, could then be in her place.
Lord SkelmersdaleMy Lords, I think we are now in a position to have the Statement. I apologise to the House.
The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about the calculation of expenditure for rate support grant purposes.
"Relevant and total expenditure are two key concepts which are basic to the local government finance system in England and Wales. Since 1981 relevant and total expenditure have been calculated on the basis of the expenditure charged to a local authority's rate fund revenue account. This expenditure includes contributions from that account to, for instance, the housing revenue account and other special funds. Contributions from such funds and accounts to the rate fund revenue account have been regarded as income reducing relevant and total expenditure. This approach was adopted in 1981 in response to the views of the local authority associations.
"I have looked closely at the definitions of relevant and total expenditure because of some anomalies in the returns of expenditure received from a number of authorities. I was concerned that the accepted approach, despite the local authority associations desire for it, did not seem to correspond to the statute, and I sought legal advice about this. That advice made it clear that the department's treatment of expenditure was incorrect in law. Transfers between funds and accounts within the rate fund are not expenditure: expenditure only takes place when an authority has liabilities in the outside world and meets these from the general rate fund. A second opinion confirmed the advice.
"I must accept that advice. It means that past decisions which involved the concepts of total or relevant expenditure are put in doubt, and that it would be quite improper for me or my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales to ask the House to take further decisions on the present basis. Until this matter is put right, we cannot therefore make any further RSG reports, including the main report for 1987–88, or complete the rate limitation process.
"To deal with this highly technical problem, the Government will therefore be bringing urgent legislation before Parliament which will validate for England and Wales all past decisions involving the use of relevant or total expenditure and allow decisions to be properly taken for the remainder of the present rate support grant system in line with the practice which has hitherto been adopted. Because the Bill is unlikely to receive Royal Assent in time to allow for the normal timetable on rate limitation, I propose to include in it provisions to set rate and precept limits for designated authorities by formula. The Bill is designed to make no changes in policy but as far as possible to apply existing policy within a tight timetable.
"My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland administers the Scottish rate support grant under separate legislation and the same problem does not arise. Some more minor difficulties in Scottish practice which have come to light will, however, also be remedied in the proposed legislation.
"Authorities will be concerned, in the light of my Statement, about the immediate position for 1987–88 and on outstanding supplementary reports. When the House returns in January I hope
116
to announce my firm intentions for the 1987–88 settlement for England and the supplementary reports for 1986–87 and 1985–86. The Bill is designed to fulfil those intentions. I shall make the relevant reports immediately on Royal Assent to the validating Bill. Authorities will therefore be able to plan their budgets and rates for 1987–88 with confidence on the basis of my Statement in January. Also in January my right honourable friends and I will inform designated authorities of the exact rate and precept limits which will be set for them in accordance with the provisions of the Bill.
"My department is today writing to all authorities and their associations to explain the position."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend, but I cannot think that it has given either of them very much satisfaction to make, as it shows up the political ineptitude of a succession of Secretaries of State. This is the fourth Statement on rate support grant in five months, and it shows the shambles that Ministers have caused for local government. One can only feel sympathy for the officers and the members of local authorities when they are trying to prepare their budgets for next year.
May I ask the Minister how long his department has been aware of this legal difficulty? When was the advice mentioned in the fifth paragraph of the Statement received, and how does that explain the failure to make an RSG Statement in November, as was promised by Ministers? Indeed, it was promised by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, in this House when I particularly asked him about it.
Why was the Secretary of State not frank when my honourable friend Dr. Cunningham asked his Private Notice Question on 3rd December? The Secretary of State must have known of the difficulties then. Was there not a circular letter dated 13th February 1981 which made it clear that total expenditure for the calculation of block grant should include contributions from the rate fund to the housing revenue account and other trading accounts, and that it was only interest receipts on the rate fund revenue account which should be taken into account to adjust relevant expenditure to total expenditure? Is the Minister aware that there have been five Acts of Parliament since 1980 affecting these matters? Does he recall that the Bill to overturn the court's decision on Birmingham on that issue gained Royal Assent only in October this year?
The Minister, Mr. Waldegrave, said in another place on the occasion of that Bill leaving the Commons last July:
"We are about to pass a Bill which will clarify the law and make it what it was thought to be in a number of important technical respects in relation to rate support grant settlements".—[Official Report, Commons, 21/7/86; col. 150–151.]
Now we are going to have to do the same thing again and go through a similar exercise. It will of course be the duty of this House to examine the Bill with very great care.
Baroness StedmanMy Lords, from these Benches we also thank the noble Lord for repeating the

117
Statement and we share many of the views of the noble Baroness who has just spoken. The complications of the system are entirely the fault of the Government, who have changed the relevant items of expenditure so often that they have left all the problems to be faced by the local authorities. Whereas prudent authorities have been cut back even further under the present formula, the spendthrift authorities seem to have benefited.
Can we be assured that the definitions in the new Act will be in good, plain English, which even the layman can understand? Is the Minister aware that with the present set-up the bible for all of us interested in local authority affairs has been the Association of County Councils list of definitions on understanding block grant? This is the clearest definition that I have been able to find on total expenditure:
"'Total' expenditure is the expenditure definition around which the block grant system functions. Confusingly, it is not actually the total of expenditure at all, but is defined as 'relevant' expenditure minus expenditure supported by a specific or supplementary grants, and certain minor items such as student grants. It is an authority's total expenditure on which its block grant receipt is based".
That is the clearest exposition that we have to date. I hope that, if we are to have new legislation at least the definitions will be much easier to understand than that.
The announcement is now to be made in January. I remember berating the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, when he sat where the Minister now sits, on the lateness of the announcement of the rate support grant. We had a go at the late Lord Avon and we had a go at the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I am sure that the Minister himself has been told from time to time that local authorities cannot effectively budget and set their rate if they do not know well before November what they are likely to get in the way of government receipts.
The announcement is not now to be made until January. Many of the shire counties will have had their quarterly meeting in December and will not have another due until March, which would be their rate fixing meeting. That means extra meetings to be called for members of local authorities in order to meet the department's deadline.
It is quite disgraceful that this sort of thing can happen and can go on happening. If I were still a local councillor, or if I were the officer in authority, I should be extremely angry. I should also wonder where we had lost out in the previous settlements which this retrospective legislation is hoping to put right. It is one further instance of the sheer incompetency of this Government in their handling of local authorities.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in answer to the two noble Baronesses, clearly no one can be pleased that there is a further need to legislate in this highly complex and technical area. I am sure the House will agree, however, that once the Government had been advised that the basis on which they had operated was incorrect in law, it would have been quite improper to continue without putting matters right. I should make the point that the existing system, although we are advised that it is incorrect in law, was adopted to meet the wishes of local government itself. This legislation is therefore validatory and will enable the existing system to continue.
118
The noble Baroness, Lady David, asked me when my right honourable friend received legal advice on this matter, to which the answer is, in late October. My right honourable friend, having received that advice—I say this before the noble Baroness gets too excited on this matter—considered it wrong to come to the House until he had clear proposals for handling the problem in view of the considerable uncertainty that could otherwise have been caused. The way that my right honourable friend has chosen to handle the problem will not cause uncertainty because, as I explained both just now and in my repetition of the Statement, what we are doing is maintaining the status quo. There is no change to what the authorities thought was legal—and, indeed, what we thought was legal—and the system that has been operating heretofore.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, got at me—she did not use the phrase "got at", but that is what she meant—in the same way as she has got at all previous holders of my post. On this occasion it is here. But what she conveniently forgot is that this year my right honourable friend made his rate support grant proposals Statement earlier than we have ever had it. In the meantime, the local authorities produced new information, which they are perfectly entitled to do, and as a result of that, my right honourable friend made another Statement of his proposals; and I have said that the final announcement and decision will be made in January. I regret just as much as the noble Baroness that new information came to light, but that is the sort of thing with which this very complicated system is designed to cope.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, does the Minister not recall when his predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, earlier this year made a Statement on the rates? Members of your Lordships' House from every quarter—even from the Government's own Benches—were critical of the chopping and changing of the rate system in which the Government were indulging. Quite a lot of us wondered how local government managed to cope with these changes when they had to make financial predictions and charge accordingly.
The Minister said that this Bill is necessary because the law is not what the Government thought it was, and so they are putting it right. We had the same situation some time ago, because the Government were about to lose a case to Birmingham city council on this very fact. How can we be sure, bearing in mind that this is the second Bill in a matter of months to correct anomalies in the rating system, that the Government have it right now? Is there any possibility that they will be coming back later for another correction, or is this just a case once more of government in Blunderland?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Lord knows as well as I do that the only way that the House and the country can be 100 per cent. certain of any piece of legislation, whether it is in the rates field or any other, is when it has been tested in the courts and, in some cases, has reached ultimately what I might refer to as the judicial arm of your Lordships' House. But what I can tell the noble Lord is that there is

119
absolutely no change proposed in this legislation to the system which has been operating ever since the Local Government, Planning and Land Act—which my noble friend Lord Bellwin took through this House on the Government's behalf—became operative.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, as my name has now been mentioned twice, let me comment briefly on just two aspects of the matter? The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, was at great pains to stress how complicated the matter is and how difficult it is to understand. I remind her that when we switched in 1980 to the block grant system we were told that what we were proposing was so obscure that no one would understand it. At that point I asked noble Lords who were present in the House which of them would care to stand up to explain the system which had operated under a Labour Administration for several years.
That was the multiple regression analysis formula for the distribution of rate support grant, with its complicated calculation, which meant that the final calculation had to go by satellite to a computer in Ohio, as we did not then have one sufficiently able to work out the final figures. I asked noble Lords to explain how that system worked, and when no one stood up to give an explanation I asked how they could criticise as obscure what we were proposing when no one understood how the system had worked anyhow.
Let us have no illusions about this. It has always been a very complicated matter. If you think about it and try to find a formula to distribute £12 billion or £13 billion among 430 or so authorities in a manner which is fair and which will assess their respective needs and requirements, it will always be very difficult, no matter what you do.
The noble Baroness was at great pains to say how iniquitous it is that the decisions will not come out till January. She said that she had always berated me and others when we were in the position that my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale is in today. But I remind her that when I used to sit on the other side of the Table, on behalf of local government and of my own authority of Leeds for years and years I used to plead for the decision to be far earlier. In fact it has been coming out in the last years earlier than we have ever had it.
Let us all keep the matter in perspective. It is unfortunate that it requires the legal confirmation that my noble friend has said will be brought about. Let us get on with it; let it be done. The authorities will be no worse off at all when it is done.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend. He trained me well when I was aiding and supporting him and he taught me, as it were, to know myself. Since then my theory has been that if I cannot understand a matter I cannot possibly help your Lordships understand it. That reminds me to answer a question of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, which was what expenditure we are talking about. Relevant expenditure is the amount met by rates, block grant and specific and supplementary grants and any use of reserves. Total expenditure is the amount met by rates and block grant and any use of the reserves. I hope that that helps her.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, one matter needs careful clarification. When the Secretary of State made his RSG proposal Statement in November (I have a recollection he may have made two Statements, one of which was revision in favour of the Conservative-held shires) he had been advised that there was a doubt about the legality of the position. Why, at that stage, did he not make it plain to Parliament, the local authorities and indeed to the country generally that that doubt existed? Ought he not to have made that reservation in all honesty?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as I explained earlier, the rate support grant proposals are announced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. It is perfectly true that there were two Statements this year, which I also referred to earlier. The Statement in July was the original proposal; since then, as I explained, new information came to my right honourable friend and he made another Statement in December. As I have said, the confirmation, once consultation has again taken place, will be made in January.
The noble Lord can rest assured that the implications for rate support grant—in other words, either extra or less money from central government—will not be effected as a result of the Statement I have made or the Bill which my right honourable friend intends to introduce very shortly.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, that does not deal with the core of my question; namely, he knew when he made the November Statement that there was doubt about the legality of the procedure: what prevented him at that time from saying that the matter was being reviewed and he was taking further legal opinion?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, nothing. But I have already explained to the House that my right honourable friend considered it wrong at that point to come to the House until he had clear proposals for tackling the problem. That was my right honourable friend's decision.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, perhaps I may be excused for asking a third question from a Member of the Front Bench on this important item. In paragraph 7 of the Statement the last part of the penultimate sentence reads:
"I propose to include in it"—
that is, the Bill—
"provisions to set rate and precept limits for designated authorities by formula".
Can the Minister explain exactly what is meant by that and whether or not there will be, or have been, discussions with the local authority associations for doing that precise act?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, because total expenditure is relevant to the calculations on rate and precept limitation and the Bill is likely still to be going through Parliament, we cannot operate the normal Rates Act timetable. New rate and precept limitation procedures for 1987–88 only will be included in the Bill as a temporary phenomenon. I do not know

121
whether discussions have already been held with local authorities. I suspect that it is unlikely, but I can assure noble Lords that they will be held.

Advance Petroleum Revenue Tax Bill
4.4 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, returning to the matter the House had in hand about an hour ago, which was the Advance Petroleum Revenue Tax Bill, I must first declare a remote interest in that I am an oil company director. However, this is not a matter which I discussed with my company and it has not briefed me at all.
I should like to take up a point which has just been made by my noble friend Lord Bellwin in another connection. He said, "Let us look at this rates thing in perspective". I ask the House to do the same as regards this relatively short and uncomplicated Bill. We have this afternoon witnessed two rather dramatic reversals of role. My noble and dear friend Lord Gray of Contin was a party to the advance PRT arrangements. He was in government at the time and shared some of the responsibility. He is now—I do not say "with egg all over his face", because he is looking very well—but he is somewhat penitent and realises that whether it was wise then, it certainly is not very wise now. Perhaps I may remind him of the words of the poet:
"He blamed and protested, but joined in the plan.
He shared in the plunder but pitied the man".
We have also heard from my noble friend Lord Beaverbrook who is so welcome to the Front Bench and whose performance I have not hitherto witnessed. He is busy defending, on the government side, the damaged and threatened cash flow of companies which, three or four years ago, the Government were very happy to plunder. May I say that he reminds me of a poacher turned gamekeeper?
This is an extraordinary situation and, if I may say so with respect, does not really relate to tax. The fact is that this is no tax easement whatever. It relates to gun-point loans to the Government. They were made at gun-point and they were interest-free. The Government said to the companies, "Give us this money whether or not you like it". They rather remind me of the chap who once said, "One day I shall get married, but I shall take the wedding presents now and let you off when the time comes". The Government were really saying to the oil companies, "Give us the money now and if you pile up tax obligations against that, we shall offset the one against the other".
These were gun-point and interest-free loans—an extraordinary situation. The loans totalled much more than £300 million. That is only the amount being returned now, almost as a gesture of charity. It is being returned to those who were forced to surrender to the gunmen what the gunmen took—but not all of it. All this Bill does is to propose the restoration of about three-eighths of the stolen goods. This Bill proposes the return of £300 million-odd out of a total of more than £800 million. Remember, that money was stolen! May I also say that that money was extracted from an
122
industry which has brought enormous advantages to the country. Everyone now bewails the fall in oil prices, not because they are sorry for the oil companies, but because they are sorry for the consequential unemployment. These moneys were stolen from companies creating employment. There is another £500 million still to come and still due to be returned to the languishing enforced lenders.
I am reminded of a German visitor who came to London in the 1780s. He said, "What a marvellous city to plunder!" That is how the Government treated the oil companies. They were marvellous to plunder, and the Government went about it. It was a brutal, uncivilised and, so far as I am aware, unprecedented piece of highway robbery to begin with. It was an interest-free forced loan three years ago. If we can suppose that the money would have been earning interest at, say, 15 per cent., which is modest enough nowadays, that would have meant an income to the industry of nearly £400 million over three years. It is proposed to return a mere three-eighths of the loot of a highway robbery.
I should like to stress to your Lordships that the employment implications are rather wider than those to which my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin referred. He described the effects on fabricating yards in Scotland. There is no need for me to dot any "i" or cross any "t" on that subject. He is more familiar with that aspect of the subject than anyone in this House, and it is also well known all over Scotland. However, it is not only a question of the fabricating yards. The ramification of oil company expenditure on, first of all, exploration and, later, on development, extends all over the country.
Eighteen months or two years ago, I did an exercise to discover where the orders relating to the development of the North Alwyn oil field, with which my company is concerned, went. I found that only a part of them, numerically, went to Scotland. It is true that the fabricating yards were in Scotland, but many of the bits and pieces that go on to a platform, ranging down to pumps, nuts and bolts, were made all over Britain. I found that about 50 or 60 constituencies up and down the country were involved in the employment benefits of our enterprise and would consequentially be involved in the unemployment disbenefits of any slowdown. If the Government wish, as I am sure they do, to ease the employment situation other than by measures which sometimes appear cosmetic, here is a simple one where they are only dipping the toe into the water. They propose to return three-eighths of a gunpoint piece of plunder.
Other points have been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. They come from the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association and concern various matters that the industry would like to see. As my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin said, they have been on the table for a long time. I refer to the remission of royalty, extending PRT exemption to exploration and appraisal costs and design and engineering expenditure. Whatever may be the other items that the industry thinks it needs and which those of us involved in the industry believe would be good for employment in the country, a situation such as the one we witnessed when the Government simply stole this money from perfectly law-abiding companies

123
doing a great deal for the development of our country and its economy should never arise again. The Government should wash the whole slate clean now. I remind them of the words of the poet Shenstone, who said:
"Let me that plunder forbear
She'll say t'was a barbarous deed".
It was a barbarous deed and I hope that it may never be repeated. But let us be thankful for small mercies; getting back three-eighths of the loot is after all better than getting nothing at all.
Lord Bruce of Donington: Before the noble Earl sits down, he has spoken in strong terms about Her Majesty's Government and has described as "plunder" the taxation measures introduced in the Finance Act 1982. He has spoken of stealing. These are very strong terms. It is not normally my function to protect Her Majesty's Government from such accusations made by such prominent supporters, but before the noble Earl sits down, will he give some indication as to whether he agrees or disagrees with the estimates of the Chancellor of the Exchequer made in 1982 when he said that the industry was making very large profits indeed and could well sustain the measures that he was proposing to lay before the House? Will he say also whether he has researched the proceedings in another place to ascertain whether, from his own Benches in another place, there was any loud protest about APRT aside from those who had declared an interest in the oil industry itself?
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to bring the noble Lord to his feet even when he has spent 20 or 30 minutes on them already. There was a good deal of protest in another place about this matter at the time. A great deal of it was conducted between the industry and the Government. When the noble Lord asks if I object to large profits being plundered, the answer is yes, I do. Profits are to be enjoyed by those who make them; and therefore, just because profits are large, that is no reason why the Government of the day should pinch them.
4.14 p.m.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene in this interesting exchange. I am most grateful to noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon. As I said earlier, the Government received many representations from the oil and offshore supply industries calling for some measure to ease company cash flow difficulties in the light of the fall in oil prices. The provisions of this Bill are aimed at taking prompt action to alleviate these present difficulties by providing qualifying companies with cash to help finance their existing and future developments. The benefits of the repayments under this Bill should thus flow through to the United Kingdom offshore oil industry.
Noble Lords raised several points. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, commented that since the abolition of the British National Oil Corporation the Government had less, or indeed very little, control over the oil industry in the North Sea. The Government take the view that production levels are a
124
matter for the companies. Apart from setting technical limits it is not for the Government to interfere. To break from this consistent approach would needlessly damage the confidence of investing companies and threaten future prospects for the United Kingdom oil sector.
I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, agree with me when he argued that it was sensible to encourage investment in the future of the industry by some fiscal adjustment. Despite current difficulties the industry has a long-term future ahead. There are still significant oil and gas resources to be developed on the United Kingdom continental shelf.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, also asked what other fiscal measures could be forthcoming. The Government have noted all the points raised by the industry so far. I obviously cannot anticipate anything that might come through next spring in the Budget of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The noble Lord also asked me why the Government are returning £300 million to the oil industry when there are a number of other areas where expenditure is restricted. Not only will the oil companies benefit but the supply industry will as well. The oil price fall has imposed particularly sharp adjustment problems for both oil and supply industries and some help with the process of adjustment is needed. But in any case the early APRT repayment is not a Government handout but merely advances the return of money due to the companies.
My noble friend Lord Gray of Contin asked me why we do not accelerate the repayment of APRT to include another £500 million. Full repayment would have been very costly with much of the additional benefit going to companies that are not obviously in need of a cash flow boost in order to press ahead with the development of other North Sea operations. I was also asked why the ceiling is to be £15 million. Exchequer resources, as noble Lords will all be aware, are not unlimited. We want any money spent to be productively spent. Hence the need for targeting on companies which might otherwise face difficulty in pushing ahead with North Sea developments. The £15 million limit together with the pay-back qualification are designed to achieve this target.
My noble friends Lord Lauderdale and Lord Gray of Contin specifically mentioned the offshore supply industry. We recognise that this industry is going through a difficult time and we sympathise with those affected. However, we are now discussing a measure which will improve the situation in that industry.
My noble friend Lord Lauderdale spoke of gunpoint measures and referred to this return of APRT as "a gesture of charity". Some of the outstanding APRT would anyway be offset against PRT liabilities that will accrue. The rest will be repaid over the next three financial years. The North Sea fiscal regime was designed not to plunder the oil industry but to ensure that the nation obtained its fair share of economic rent from its natural resources. My noble friend should note that it is very unlikely that fields that come under development in future will pay any petroleum revenue tax.
The repayments of advance petroleum revenue tax will be carefully targeted on those companies and

125
developments most in need of help. Over three-quarters of the total benefit will go to those independent, medium-sized and smaller companies which have been among the worst hit by the oil price fall. Many of these are companies involved in developments which in some sense hold the key to the prospects for the off-shore supply industry. We all recognise that it is a particularly difficult time for that industry.
I should like further to stress the importance of getting repayments to the companies as soon as possible in order to reduce the risk of key developments in the North Sea being delayed by cash constraints. The fall in the oil price and the possibility of a reduction in North Sea activity are matters of grave concern for the nation as a whole. It is therefore vital that the Bill, which will provide much needed finance early next year, is implemented without delay in order to boost the industry's cash flow and encourage further investment in the North Sea over the coming year.
Both the oil and off-shore supply industries have recognised the importance of this Bill and are anxious to see it implemented as soon as possible. As I have already said, the Bill has been well received in another place and was approved there without amendment. I hope that your Lordships will support me when I say that we likewise should allow this Bill to proceed today.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, before the noble Lord concludes will he answer one question? He spoke about the targeting of the reliefs afforded by this Bill to various companies. The noble Lord will know quite well that in the normal way in taxation you do not target reliefs to specific, identified companies. They have to comply either with the income tax Acts or with the regulations. Matters are then determined by the appropriate taxation authorities according to a strict legal entitlement.
While speaking about targeting the relief to specific companies, I am sure the noble Lord will agree that it is desirable that in due course particulars are given as to exactly the amount received by each company. That will give greater transparency to how the reliefs are given. They are not covered in detail in the way that applies to ordinary taxpayers in relation to the contents of the income tax Acts and the contents of the specific provisions in Finance Acts. Can the noble Lord answer the point?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I think it is untrue to say that taxation is never otherwise targeted. There are many aspects of taxation that are designed to achieve specific ends. The aim of this particular measure is to help the companies in the North Sea that are most in need of help in developing the fields and the projects that are the future of the North Sea oil industry. I do not accept that targeting is alien to our tax regime.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend—
Noble Lords: Order!
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
126
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 15th December), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Ministry of Defence Police Bill [H.L.]
4.25 p.m.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [The Ministry of Defence Police]:
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved the amendment:
Page 1, line 11 at end insert ("; and (c) special constables without remuneration.")
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment and I shall be brief. It is not easy to follow this short Bill, and the drafting is difficult for anyone who has not studied the whole subject of this branch of the service. I had hoped that the noble Lord would agree with me about the drafting and bring forward an amendment on Report, but I rather gather he is hurrying the Bill on for Christmas, which he would prefer. I will oblige the noble Lord as far as I can, but I must make one point on this amendment.
I want to find definitely a way, and there must somewhere be a possibility, of recruiting special constables; a contingency of auxiliaries without pay. This is not clear in the Bill, if it is mentioned in so many words. Two days ago I looked up the word "constable" in Halsbury's Laws of England and I found that it is used so many times in the course of a certain chapter that it is hard to find exactly what is at the back of our heads when we think about special constables. What I think is in our minds, and what we should have in mind, is the police constables whom we have recruited for every force in the Home Office in the counties right across this country.
We in Britain have a certain genius for mixing the professional and the amateur in many branches of our administration. I believe we have a chance in this Bill of putting our Ministry of Defence Police on what looks like being a better basis, particularly if any noble Lord refers to the beginnings of the Bill and finds what uncertainty there has been for some years past. I should like to see this British genius for mixing the professional and the volunteer.
I should like my noble friend the Minister to tell the Committee the position of the individuals, which may be a little different from the contingents such as described in the principal police Acts.
Finally, what is the future of the force? I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: If the Minister will allow me to intervene it would certainly expedite

127
business. The Committee fully recognises the long-standing interest and special knowledge not only of police matters but particularly of matters relating to the special constabulary that are in the possession of the noble Lord. I certainly see the amendment as a probing amendment, and I very much hope that the Minister will use it as an opportunity to state more precisely than was perhaps otherwise thought the role of special constables in respect of defence police matters.
It needs to be clearly understood that there is a distinction between the roles of special constables. There is what one might call the normal run of events. They are often used additionally, at short notice, for special events—for example, those covered in the Bill that will be before this House later this afternoon; sporting and other events—where they can perform a very valuable duty. The last thing that anyone here wants to do is to denigrate the worth of the special constabulary. Nevertheless, I think that we must be very careful not to complicate something which I understand has taken many years to achieve, and the present Bill will give the Defence Police Federation a much firmer legal basis than it has ever had.
I think it is perfectly proper to ask questions and receive the assurances which are sought by the noble Lord, but we need to be very clear about the enormous responsibilities already undertaken by the Ministry of Defence Police and the Defence Police Federation. One needs to think in terms of the areas from which the special defence police constabulary will come. The officers will be either individuals who already work within the defence establishments or persons who come from outside. If they come from within the establishment, one needs to reflect before inflicting upon them the difficulties with which they will have to work within the defence establishment during the day and the knowledge of their workmates that they are part of the extra, para-police activity. That is a possibility.
One also has to envisage possible conflicts at trade union level. The special police, though loyal and patriotic, nevertheless in some instances could be seen as offering an opportunity to deny employment to what one might call full-time policemen.
I hope the Minister will assure the Committee that there is neither a need nor a place for this amendment, which, although it may be very well intentioned, in my view will cause more problems than it seeks to resolve.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: I should like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Graham, in paying tribute to the interest and concern shown for many years by my noble friend Lord Inglewood in police matters, especially in regard to the special constabulary. There is no doubt that on certain occasions the special constabulary has a very important part to play in the ordinary way.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, raised the question of the trade unions. My own experience many years ago of dealing with the Police Federation over police matters was that the unions were perfectly happy to have the special constabulary help them out on special occasions but they did not wish them to usurp the
128
functions of the regular police force in a general way. I think that is a perfectly proper attitude and it is in that spirit that we should face the questions that arise.
Applying to the particular circumstances of the Ministry of Defence as stated in this Bill, the principle that special constables have a part to play, I wonder whether I may venture an opinion—and perhaps my noble friend Lord Inglewood will not agree with me entirely—and for better or worse put forward the view that, first of all, we must acknowledge that special constables in the Ministry of Defence have a different part to play and, secondly, there is an even greater security element in their work than there is in the work of the normal special constabulary. Therefore, those who are eligible to join the special constabulary may not necessarily be the right kind of people for employment as special constables under the Ministry of Defence.
However, I should have thought that if the Ministry of Defence needs special constables for special occasions and special places, especially in times of emergency—such as a strike, for example, where they are there simply in order to protect defence establishments and with no suggestion of strike-breaking—the question then arises as to what kind of people they should be. In this country there are always large numbers of men who have served as officers, NCOs and other ranks in all three branches of the armed forces and for whom it has been a part of their lives in the forces to have special regard for security. Therefore, if the Ministry of Defence needs a pool of special constables, I should have thought that the best people it could obtain for that purpose would be those who had served in the armed forces and are now retired.
Lord Trefgarne: At the outset, I should like to be associated with the tributes that have been paid to my noble friend Lord Inglewood with regard to his lifelong interest in police matters, for which I know he is held in great esteem and affection by all police forces. I know that his amendment is inspired with the best interests of the MDP at heart, and your Lordships will be interested to know that a recommendation for such a scheme was made by the Ministry's own Police Review Committee under Sir Ewen Broadbent. Indeed, I am happy to be able to reassure my noble friend that the Bill as drafted allows for such a scheme in Clause 1(1)(a).
The proposal for a special constabulary scheme is being studied by a working party. In a reply given in another place in July this year we made it clear that such a scheme raised major issues about the practicability and effective use of the force. Indeed, some of the issues have been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and by my noble friend Lord Renton. This complex subject is still under discussion from many standpoints, including that of remuneration, and I hope that the Committee will agree that I should not prejudice the outcome of the working party's discussion.
As I say, as it stands the Bill already includes provision for a special constable scheme if one is required, and I hope that my noble friend will feel reassured by that and feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Inglewood: I am grateful to my noble friend for giving me that answer, which has met my point. At the same time I should like to say—and I hope that he agrees with me—that over the last few years relations between the professional and the volunteer have improved out of all recognition. I therefore hope that the noble Lord opposite will agree with me and do his best—as I hope to—to help to bring them closer together. I ask leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Jurisdiction]:
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Inglewood: I should like to add the very briefest word to this discussion. The jurisdiction as defined in Clause 2 should make the position clear not just for the experts to understand but for the ordinary man in the street and every police constable, irrespective of whether he is a member of the Home Office force or the Ministry of Defence Police, because there is a difference between jurisdiction which affects property and jurisdiction which affects persons. I hope that my noble friend will say a word about that now.
There is also a difficulty in that there may be a clash between different forces and different jurisdictions. I believe that this would also apply even to our foreign forces. We now have much of our material on the Continent, although in the first full instance we do not have men there. However, I imagine that with the present situation in Europe, which is quite different from the situation in years gone by, we are in a more difficult position than we were before. I hope that what I have said about the clash will not occur at this time; but does my noble friend agree that in the future we shall have to look very closely at this point? We must not look backwards and assume that the same conditions will always apply.
Lord Trefgarne: I am obliged to my noble friend for raising this point. I shall begin by making a distinction between when the MDP is within the establishment which it may be called upon to protect and when it is outside such a place. Inside the establishments which, broadly speaking, are those in the possession or under the control of the MoD, visiting forces, ordnance factories and dockyards, the powers of the MDP will not change. When in those establishments, its members have full powers of a constable covering all types of crime in the same manner as for a Home Department police constable. When ouside those establishments, MDP powers are more restricted. Under existing statutes it has constabulory powers in Great Britain in relation to Crown property and service personnel, including the property and personnel of visiting forces and international military headquarters, and the property of ordnance factories and dockyards.
Such powers may be exercised only up to 15 miles from any establishment. Under the Bill the 15-mile limit will no longer apply; instead the MDP will have constabulary powers throughout the United Kingdom but it will be able to exercise them only in relation to
130
Crown property and the property of those I have mentioned, Ministry of Defence personnel, visiting forces and matters connected with defence contracts.
The Bill also contains some minor provisions which enable the MDP to assist its Home Department police colleagues in the vicinity of defence establishments and to exercise constabulary powers in United Kingdom territorial waters and in certain places such as the Royal Mint, which will be published in gazettes.
If I understand him aright, I think my noble friend referred to the need to ensure that the boundary between Home Department police forces and the MDP is one that is clearly understood. I am sure that it is, but I am also sure that the best way to resolve the matter is by local agreements among the various police forces concerned. That is the way the matter is handled at present; it is the way that I think it should be handled in the future. I know of no reason to think that that will not happen.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

Fire Safety and Safety of Places of Sport Bill [H.L.]
4.43 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill seeks to implement the Government's proposals for making improvements in two distinct areas of safety legislation, and in order to do so amends the Fire Precautions Act 1971 and the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975. There are also minor amendments to entertainment licensing legislation. Part I in particular relies extensively on textual amendments—in this case to the Fire Precautions Act 1971. As is usual with amending legislation of this kind, Parliamentary Counsel has been in touch with the Statutory Publications Office to see what can be done about producing a revised text of the 1971 Act for the series Statutes in Force. The Statutory Publications Office has said that it will try to give it priority in its programme of revised reissues. In the meantime it is our intention to make available typescript copies of the 1971 Act showing the effect of the textual amendments before your Lordships consider the Bill in Committee.
Part I of the Bill deals with fire safety. The main legislative instrument for controlling fire precautions in occupied buildings in Great Britain is the Fire Precautions Act 1971, and it may be helpful if I say a few words about the way in which that Act operates. The central feature of the 1971 Act is the requirement for those occupiers of premises, put to a use designated by order made by the Secretary of State, to obtain a fire certificate from the local fire authority. The fire authority is required to satisfy itself as to the adequacy of fire safety on the premises, including the means of escape, the means for fighting fire and the means for giving warning to people on the premises. The fire authority can require appropriate improvements and

131
the fire certificate can impose requirements on maintenance conditions, staff training and the keeping of records.
In 1972 the Secretary of State designated hotels and boarding houses as premises requiring a fire certificate. In 1976 the fire certification requirements under the 1971 Act were extended to factories, offices, shops and railway premises which were previously subject to certification under the Factories Act 1961 and the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963. Under the designation order such premises in which more than 20 persons are employed, or more than 10 persons are employed to work other than on the ground floor, are required to be certificated. Factories in which explosives or highly flammable substances are stored or used also need a certificate regardless of the number of employees. In general terms, fire certificates are thus needed for many places of work and for all but the smallest hotels and boarding houses.
Since the certification provisions of the 1971 Act came into force fire authorities have carried out extensive programmes to certificate premises in the categories which I have described. Surely none of us has any doubt that the provisions of the 1971 Act and the earlier legislation have made an important contribution to fire safety. Our present system of fire precautions has served us well, and compares very favourably with those of other countries, although we must never be complacent. Our requirements for hotels, for example, already satisfy the EC recommendation which was recently approved by the Council of Ministers.
Any substantial piece of legislation is inevitably subject to a continuing process of review by those who are affected by it, and by those whose task it is to enforce it. The Fire Precautions Act has been no exception. A consultative document based on proposals produced within the framework of the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Councils, which includes representatives of fire authorities and the fire service, was published in 1985 and a further consultative document embodying modified proposals was issued earlier this year. It is this consultative process which has resulted in the proposals set out in Part I of the Bill.
Underlying the review of fire precautions legislation has been the desire to improve safety standards. Two aspects of the 1971 Act have been of particular concern to the fire service. First, the existing certification procedure is such that the cost of enforcing the Act in the event of any further designations which the Secretary of State might consider necessary would be so great as to endanger the prospects of such designations. Secondly, the Act provides for inspection on certification but it does not demand further inspections to ensure that adequate standards of fire safety are being maintained. Many fire authorities have sought to carry out programmes of inspections following guidance given by the Fire Service Inspectorates of the home departments. But for some the pressure on resources has meant that little priority has been given to this work. Part I of the Bill is designed chiefly in order to free resources for such improvements and will, in time, also enable us to contemplate further designations where these can be shown to be necessary.
132
I have spoken of the cost of enforcement. We must not forget a cost of compliance falling on those who are responsible for ensuring that adequate fire precautions are maintained in their premises. It remains our firm belief that businesses must be responsible for the safety of their employees and their customers. Members of the public rightly expect that in premises which they visit reasonable measures will have been taken to protect their lives in the event of fire. The Government are also committed to ensuring that the burdens imposed on businesses are kept to a minimum. Standards of safety must not be allowed to fall, but we wish to see that they are kept up in a way which is not unduly inflexible or onerous in the requirements they impose on business.
In the light of comments made on the first consultative document, the Government formulated and circulated modified proposals in which certification would be retained for normal and high risk premises. However, premises in defined categories which were assessed by the fire authority as constituting a low risk could be exempted from the need to have a fire certificate. Occupiers of such premises would, nevertheless, be subject to a statutory duty to have adequate means of escape and fire fighting equipment, for which a code of guidance will be issued by the Secretary of State. These proposals, which met with more general approval, form the basis of the amendments made to the 1971 Act by Part I of the Bill.
Clause 1 provides that a designation order may specify categories of premises which the fire authority may consider suitable for exemption. In the case of shops, for example, the designation order might specify those which consist of a ground floor only or of a ground floor and basement separated by a fire resisting barrier. The fire authority would be able to consider each case on its merits after either an inspection or a scrutiny of plans and other relevant documents and, where they thought fit, grant exemption. In premises where certain quantities of highly flammable substances were stored the fire authority might decide against exemption even though the shop was of a layout and construction that brought it within the range of exemption. The intention is to allow for greater flexibility than is provided for by the present system of certification. In doing so, we must rely on the judgment of the fire authority.
Of course, flexibility must not be an excuse for inconsistency. I can reassure your Lordships that we intend to issue guidance to fire authorities about the way the criteria for exemption are to be applied to ensure fairness and consistency. The Fire Service Inspectorates will monitor the way fire authorities use their powers of exemption, and training will be provided at the Fire Service College.
We expect significant numbers of low risk factories, offices and shops to be exempted from the need to have a fire certificate. This will be of particular benefit to businesses. Premises which are exempted will be relieved of the obligations that certification carries, and this will also reduce the burden on fire authorities of keeping the certificate up to date. But that does not mean that safety will be put in jeopardy. The Government are, however, satisfied that essential fire safety standards will be maintained in these premises

133
by the imposition and enforcement of the statutory duty to which I have already referred as regards means of escape and fire fighting equipment.
Supporting this principle your Lordships will note that Clause 2 requires occupiers to notify the fire authority of any material changes to exempted premises to enable the fire authority to review the exemption. Clauses 5 to 7 provide for the statutory duty on occupiers of exempted premises to have adequate means of escape and fire fighting equipment, and for the provision of codes of practice and their legal effect. Provision is also made for a system of improvement notices which can be served on the occupiers of exempted premises who are not meeting the duty.
Exemption of premises on the scale envisaged should free fire authority resources for carrying out programmes of inspection under a new duty imposed on them by Clause 10 in accordance with guidance issued by the Secretary of State.
Part I of the Bill makes a number of other changes to the 1971 Act which are not directly related to exemption. Clause 3 empowers fire authorities to make reasonable charges to recover the cost of work done in certification, other than the cost of inspection. Your Lordships will be aware of the Government's policy of encouraging local authorities, where appropriate, to finance their services by charging fees. This provision is in line with that policy. It is not intended to seek to recover the full cost of certification, only in effect that of administrative work associated with it. The charges are not expected to be substantial. However, it is not intended to charge for the advice given by fire prevention officers on a goodwill basis, nor to charge for fire fighting or other services.
Clause 13 removes the exemption of places of worship from the requirement to have a certificate if put to a designated use. We wish to make this amendment in view of the fact that an increasing number of premises are now used for worship which were not built for that purpose and which could perhaps be a matter of concern in the future. I can, however, reassure your Lordships that the Government have no plans under present circumstances to designate places of worship. Nor is it likely that purpose-built places of worship, which have a good record of fire safety when in use, will be considered for designation as long as they are used for that purpose. I am sure the House will agree that it is undesirable that the Secretary of State should be left in a position where he would be unable to require places of worhip to be certificated if it was felt that there was pressing need so to do.
I turn now to those parts of the Bill which deal specifically with the safety of spectators at sports events. Your Lordships will recall that the Committee of Inquiry into Crowd Safety and Control at Sports Grounds, chaired by Mr. Justice Popplewell, was set up following the terrible events of 11th May 1985 when 56 people lost their lives in the fire at the Valley Parade Ground, Bradford. At a time when we have all been reminded of that terrible tragedy it is perhaps appropriate that the two main results—the opening of the new stand at Bradford, and the Government legislation to improve matters elsewhere—occur in the same week.
134
The inquiry's final report was published in January 1986, and those of its recommendations dealing with crowd safety were considered in the consultative document, Fire Safety and Safety of Sports Venues. Responses to the consultative document indicated that our proposals were widely supported. Parts II, III and IV of the Bill generally follow the conclusion of that document.
The main mechanism under the 1975 Act for securing safety is the safety certificate. The Act empowers the Secretary of State to designate any sports stadium with spectator accommodation for over 10,000 people as requiring such a certificate. For this purpose a stadium means a sports ground which is wholly or substantially surrounded by spectator accommodation.
The Bradford fire demonstrated that the level of risk to spectators does not necessarily depend upon the type or particular layout of a sports ground. Thus the Government accepted the Popplewell Inquiry's conclusion that the distinction between a sports "ground" and a sports "stadium" should be removed. Clause 19 of the Bill does this, enabling designation to be applied to all classes of sports ground. Clause 20 enables the 10,000 accommodation threshold for designation to be varied. Between them Clauses 19 and 20 provide the means for a wider but more flexible application of designation should the need arise.
Clause 22 amends the procedure under the 1975 Act for local authorities to take action where there is a serious risk to spectators. In such circumstances a local authority has at present to apply to a magistrates' court for an order restricting or prohibiting the use of a ground, or part of it, until the risk is reduced to an acceptable level. Under the new procedure of Clause 22 the local authority would be empowered to issue a notice on those responsible for administering the ground restricting or prohibiting the admission of spectators until that risk is reduced.
The Government recognise that this gives a significant new power to local authorities for improving safety. Clause 23 therefore provides a right of appeal to the courts. However, the lodging of an appeal would not in itself have the effect of suspending the notice. We would not expect these prohibition powers, which are really a last rather than a first resort, to be used lightly or frequently. The safety certificates for grounds already designated under Section 1 of the 1975 Act, together with the certification procedures proposed in Part III, should in themselves go a very long way to improve safety at sporting events likely to attract spectators in any number. Clause 24 also imposes a duty on local authorities to carry out inspections on designated sports grounds in accordance with guidance which will be given by the Secretary of State, and there is similar provision in Part III, Clause 33, for the inspection of certificated stands at sports grounds.
Part III of the Bill introduces a system of certification, similar in outline to that which applies to designated sports grounds, for stands at undesignated sports grounds where there is covered accommodation for 500 or more spectators.
Clause 25 establishes the requirement for a safety certificate for such a stand—which is referred to in the

135
Bill as a "regulated stand". The task of determining whether a stand is a regulated stand falls to the appropriate local authority. The mechanism for doing this is provided for in Clause 27 whereby the local authority makes a preliminary determination that a stand requires a safety certificate. That determination becomes final after no more than two months have elapsed, unless of couse further information is brought to the local authority's attention leading them to conclude that a safety certificate is not required. Once a determination is final those responsible for administering the stand, or stands, at the ground are notified. It then becomes an offence under Clause 35 to admit spectators to that stand if no application for a safety certificate has been made or to contravene a term or condition of such a certificate once issued.
Clause 29 provides a right of appeal against final determination that a stand is required to have a safety certificate. It also provides for appeals against the terms and conditions of the certificate itself.
We are proposing this system of preliminary and final determinations because it is essential that those who are responsible for the administration of the stands are clear as to whether or not theirs is a regulated stand. It may appear to be straightforward enough to calculate the capacity of a given stand but in practice it may not be so easy. Guidance in such matters as capacity calculations for a stand will therefore be given to local authorities to ensure consistency. However, the crucial element here is that, once an authority has determined that a safety certificate is required and given notice in accordance with Clause 27, the management of that stand will be in no doubt as to the duty in law upon them to apply.
I return now to the question of the safety certificates themselves. As in the case of a certificate issued in respect of a designated ground, the terms and conditions of a certificate for a stand will be decided by the local authority, which will consult the building authority or fire authority as appropriate and the police. These conditions will include such matters as fire protection; size, location and number of entrances and exits, including means of escape, and the means for maintaining those entrances or exits. A certificate may also contain terms limiting the number of spectators who may be admitted to a stand or part of a stand. Reasonable safety may often be achieved by a combination of remedial work together with a limitation in the number of spectators allowed to use the stand. If the cost of remedial work was high the person responsible for the stand might wish to phase such work over a period. To preserve flexibility, provision exists for the Secretary of State to stipulate by order under Clause 38 different obligatory terms and conditions to be contained in safety certificates for different classes of sports ground—for example, to deal with particular safety problems which might arise as a result of the crowd patterns at a particular type of event or sports ground. The aim is not that stands should be closed down but rather that they should continue to remain open and to operate within safe limits set by safety certificates.
I turn finally to Part IV. I hope your Lordships will agree that there is no need to go into any detail on Part V, which contains miscellaneous and general
136
provisions at this stage. Part IV provides for the licensing by local authorities of sports events held in indoor premises to which the public are invited as spectators. Mr. Justice Popplewell was struck by the fact that, under existing entertainments licensing legislation, it is quite possible for premises to be subject to safety requirements imposed by licences if used for music and dancing and other entertainments including boxing and wrestling, but the licences' conditions did not apply when the premises were being used for other sports events. Other premises used solely for sports events were not required to be licensed at all.
The Popplewell Report proposed that indoor sports premises should be designated under the Fire Precautions Act 1971. However, subsequent consultation with local authorities showed that the great majority of such premises were already subject to licensing legislation and that it would be simpler and just as effective to extend that legislation. Local authorities and their representative organisations have generally expressed a preference for these proposals, which have been incorporated in the Bill. There is the added benefit that amendment of the licensing legislation will allow local authorities to consider safety in a more general way than is catered for by the 1971 Act. They may, for example, have regard to structural matters as well as to fire safety.
In closing I would simply reiterate that the Bill is two-fold in its purpose, dealing as it does both with fire safety and with safety at sports events. The Bradford fire served all too well in associating the two in all our minds. I hope that the Bill will substantially reduce the risk to spectators at sports events both indoors and out. However, we should remember that fire safety goes much wider than sports events, and that there should be means for securing the required standards in other places to which the public resort. We are confident that the proposals in the first part of the Bill will improve the effectiveness of the 1971 Act and will thereby enable the fire service to secure the necessary standards. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
5.6 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in expressing the appreciation of the House to the noble Earl the Minister for having so clearly explained the provisions of this important Bill, perhaps I may ask his forgiveness and that of the Members of your Lordships' House if I have to leave before the end of the Second Reading debate. I have a long-standing engagement of some importance. The House will be consoled by the knowledge that my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock will be winding up. His name ought to appear on the list of speakers and it is only by mistake that it has been omitted.
If I may be egotistical for one moment, for seven years I had the privilege of being the chairman of the Fire Brigade Committee of the London County Council—may it rest in its dignified peace. It is therefore of some personal interest to me that I am allowed to participate in this important debate on general fire safety and safety at sports grounds. Your

137
Lordships will not find it surprising that I consulted what is now the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority on its reaction to the Bill.
In regard to the seriousness of fire risk, it is of some significance that in the Greater London area in 1985 there were 175 fatalities as a result of fire. Your Lordships will ponder for a moment that it is over three for every week of that year. Of that number, 144—that is 83 per cent.—occurred in dwellings.
I immediately turn to the first part of the Bill dealing with general fire safety in dwellings and buildings other than sports grounds. I begin with a small point but I am trying to deal with things in the order in which the clauses stand in the Bill. Clause 3 contains provision for charges to be made for certification. The clause provides that the fees charged should cover the cost and there should be no excess charge over and above cost. Fire authorities are a little concerned about that happening before there is clarification. They hope there will be consultation, otherwise the divergence in charges between various authorities may cause some bad feeling. There is nothing yet to guide the authorities on what is administration and what is to be included in the cost. Your Lordships will appreciate that the fees will vary with the size and nature of the building and the work involved.
So far as my query is concerned, can the Minister say whether these fees are intended to cover the cost of collection of fees and of recovery of fees? Can the noble Earl tell us the effect if a fee is not paid? Is the fire authority entitled to withhold a certificate until payment? Indeed, is a certificate invalid if issued but no payment is made? If they are not paid, are fees to be recovered by way of civil or other remedy?
I move at once to a very much more important point, and emphasise that I am dealing with general buildings other than sports grounds. I turn immediately to Section 10 of the Act which the noble Earl described as the original Act with which we are dealing in this connection. Section 10 is headed:
"Premises involving excessive risk to persons in case of fire".
It deals with a situation where things are so serious that,
"the use of the premises ought to be prohibited or restricted".
Your Lordships will realise at once that under Section 10 of the old Act we are dealing with a vital and serious risk to life of which the fire authority is aware. Under that Act the procedure, when the fire authority found that to be the case, was that it had to apply to the magistrates' court. The magistrates' court would then hear the matter and decide whether an appropriate order should be made.
The opportunity was taken when this Bill was under consideration to point out that more and more are the lists of the magistrates' courts replete with all types of case. Indeed there are complaints in many parts of the country that cases do not get heard when they should be heard and when the magistrates would like them to be heard because of the very full lists. Can your Lordships imagine a worse procedure than that, in the conditions that we have today, when the fire authority finds out that there is a severe risk to life and limb because of the condition of premises and it has to apply for an order to a magistrates' court?
138
The opportunity was taken to put forward, when discussion documents were being consulted upon, the suggestion that there ought to be a different procedure; what should happen is that the fire authority ought to have the right to issue an order in that emergency but that there should be a right of appeal to a special tribunal, an ad hoc tribunal, that could meet speedily and deal with the matter. It was hoped by the fire authorities—certainly by the London fire authority—that that procedure was to be adopted in respect of general buildings.
This Bill does not modify in that context Section 10 of the Fire Precautions Act 1971 at all. I ask the noble Earl please to consider whether the procedure that I have discussed is not obsolete and clumsy in this day and age, and that we ought to have the procedure that I have advocated. I appreciate that this can be dealt with at Committee stage, but it is sensible to announce a matter of that kind which is of concern so that the Minister can deal with it.
My attention was drawn to a recent case where the magistrates' court in question, on an application for an emergency order of this kind, did not manage to deal with the matter on the day it came before the court and had to adjourn it for 14 days. What sort of scandal would emanate from a situation if a fatality occurred—heaven forbid—or even more than one fatality, as a result of the fact that the court was not able to deal with this emergency?
I turn at once to another matter, which is the third and last item I want to deal with under general safety. Why do we await such a tragedy as Bradford, for example, before we have the useful and eminent Popplewell Inquiry and an Act of Parliament due to pass through to deal with safety at sports grounds? We have done it, and I ought not to complain about that. We are dealing with the matter now. But should not the opportunity be taken to look broadly at the areas of fire danger and not wait for another scandal to occur? I refer to houses in multi-occupancy, and I refer to hostels.
I talked about the Greater London area figures and I mentioned to your Lordships that out of 173 deaths in 1985, 144 were in dwellings. Of the 144 in dwellings, 41—that is 29 per cent.—were in houses in multiple occupation. Your Lordships may want to know from me what the law is at present, as I understand it. It is that there are powers for local authorities under the Housing Act to consult—indeed there are duties on the local authorities under the Housing Act—fire authorities about means of escape in dwellings of this kind. But I am talking not just about means of escape; I am talking about early warning systems, about the supply of fire equipment, and that the opportunity has not been taken in this Bill to deal with that matter, although representations have been made.
I now turn to three points that I wanted to raise in regard to the second part of the Bill, which deals with sports grounds. The noble Earl touched on this in his interesting and lucid exposition of what the Act was to deal with, but I am not sure that I got the clear words that I believe your Lordships may want to hear from him on one matter.

139
In dealing with sports grounds, one is obviously thinking in terms of what I might broadly call spectator sports. One example is greyhound racing and another is Wimbledon tennis. Do the provisions of this Bill in regard to designation, and so on, and which refer to stadia and also to the occupancy of the stadium concerned, cover greyhound tracks and Wimbledon tennis? If they do not, why not?
My second rapid point is that the Popplewell Inquiry dealt with the need for safety teams. One observes in this Bill that the local authority, very properly, is given powers and duties in regard to sports grounds. But there is no mention of the Popplewell recommendation of the safety teams, which ought to be inserted into the statute as a statutory duty. My last point is that there is no specific mention made in the Bill with regard to inspections. It would seem appropriate for the Bill to include a provision requiring an annual inspection and during-performance inspection of the grounds by the local authority and the fire authority.
The fact that I ventured to make various suggestions for the improvement of this Bill does not mean by any means that we on these Benches do not express gratitude to the Government for having brought it forward. It is necessary. As the noble Earl pointed out poignantly in remembering that dreadful Bradford tragedy, only two days ago Bradford built its stadium again and there was an appropriate ceremony to greet it, but the ceremony had a little bit of mourning about it for the many who died in the fatality and those who were severely injured. It is Parliament's duty to do its best to safeguard the public in those circumstances and generally in regard to fire. The Government are doing that, and my only plea is to do it completely now that we have the opportunity of such a Bill before us.
5.19 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I, too, like the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, did not anticipate that there would be a lengthy Statement in part of this afternoon's proceedings in the House. I agreed to speak on behalf of the Alliance and to welcome this Bill, but I apologise to the House and to the Minister for the fact that I, too, have to leave at a fairly early hour. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I am reassured, since my experience of these matters is substantially around sports grounds in Scotland, that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, as the president of the Scottish Football Association, will make a much more authoritative comment than I can.
From these Benches we welcome the Bill. However, I have received representations from two organisations which I must mention. The first, from the Association of County Councils, states that the lesson of recent years is that the statutory framework must be sufficiently flexible to allow the fire brigade to recover expenditure it incurs on this activity, especially if there are corresponding shortfalls in the level of central government funding. We are imposing on the fire services certain additional new responsibilities. The Minister referred to recovery of costs, but there is also pressure on manpower. We have to be extremely
140
careful that the resources are available which match the responsibilities we are now imposing on the fire services.
The other representation I have received is from the Consumers Association. The association says that one major criticism of the Bill is that it fails adequately to address the issue of informing the public about fire hazards, that it dwells on the responsibilities of the fire service and the business concerned, be it a sports ground, football club or whatever, but that it says little or nothing about making available to the public full information about the dangers and fire hazards involved. Perhaps the Minister will take these two points on board.
Following the Popplewell Report and the legislation we passed in that connection, it is encouraging to see what a useful impact this has had. I am speaking, based on my experience in Scotland. We have ensured a greater degree of safety. I am not talking simply about safety from fire but the general safety in sports grounds. There has been a remarkable increase in attendance at football matches. Rangers football club in Glasgow has had an average attendance this year of 34,000. That includes attendances at small and insignificant games. For a recent game with Heart of Midlothian, 38,000 people were at Ibrox Park. There was a total of four arrests for various misdemeanours. It can be said that football clubs, following the Popplewell Report and the provisions we have made for greater safety in sports grounds, have responded. And the public have responded by making football once more a family game. The secretary of the Rangers football club told me that following one game at Ibrox Park that drew 38,000 people there was not a single beer can to be seen in the whole of the stadium.
The restriction on carrying alcohol into grounds and to and fro on buses and other means of transport to matches has ensured a high degree of safety not simply in relation to fire hazards, but also as regards the general safety and comfort of the people who attend these exciting events.
I should like to make one additional point based on our experience. If we are saying in this Bill that additional burdens will need to be carried by the clubs, we should be very careful. It is all very well for the Rangers football club or for some other clubs with a lot of money. But some of the smaller clubs in Scotland, for example, a little club like St. Mirren in Paisley, pay the same amount in rates as Arsenal at Highbury. For a little village club, this discrepancy in rating burdens is an important burden to be carried. It makes it extremely difficult for clubs to take on additional burdens, even in the interests of safety. The difference to safety provisions of additional policing is rather anomalous, and, certainly, Scottish clubs suffer greatly compared with clubs south of the Border.
While the Bill insists that local authorities must be able to impose on the customer or the business some of the costs of the new responsibilites, we have at the same time to be flexible. Some of the smaller clubs are already carrying substantial burdens, such as the provision of video—a major factor in protection and safety at sports grounds—which is only partly met by the Football Trust. Many clubs are having to pay a substantial contribution themselves.

141
Having said that I want to say from these Benches that we very much welcome the Bill. It is a necessary step. It will improve safety standards, but it will perhaps give the public a greater assurance that when they go to sporting events, the legislation is there to protect them from the kind of disaster that occurred at Bradford. We welcome the legislation.
5.27 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, to have witnessed the tragic fire at Bradford City football ground in May 1985 must have engraved on the minds of those present an indelible image. The rest of us saw the horrifying pictures of the fire on our television screens and read in our newspapers the heartrending reports of the families destroyed and injured. We have been made aware, if we were not already aware, of the considerable hazards presented by packed stands of spectators and of how a sweeping fire can engulf such a stand within minutes. For those reasons alone we must welcome this Bill and I am sure it will receive a Second Reading today.
Part II of this Bill, which will amend the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975, is the Government's response to the Popplewell Inquiry into that tragic fire at Bradford City football club. It extends the provisions of the safety controls of the 1975 Act and removes the distinction between a "sports stadium" and a "sports ground". Whereas previously a stadium holding 10,000 or more spectators in a covered stand needed a safety certificate, now under Part III of this Bill a stand safety certificate for any covered accommodation for 500 or more spectators will be required from the local authority.
I must declare my interest at this point, as I am chairman of Wincanton Races Company, which operates a National Hunt racecourse at Wincanton in Somerset. My interest today is not necessarily on behalf of Wincanton, but for racecourses in general. The racing industry considers itself to be very responsible in its attitude to the safety of the public at its courses. Racecourse executives have always endeavoured to fulfil the fire and safety requirements contained in the Green Guide. When financing new capital works the Horserace Betting Levy Board insists that all plans meet the local authorities' health, safety and fire requirements.
However, I should like to point out three differences between the stands at racecourses and the stadia at football grounds. The first and main difference is that racegoers, as opposed to the public at football matches, enjoy unrestricted access to the stands and the use of the stands is primarily for the short duration of each race. At that stage the racegoers are relatively static, but they move in and out of the stands before and after every race.
Secondly, the stands at racecourses are designed for this movement of spectators. As your Lordships may imagine, that allows for speedy access and egress. The stand itself forms only part of an enclosure on racecourses and many racegoers prefer to watch the race from the lawn in front of the stand or standing beside the rails of the racetrack itself.
In my opinion, the third and last difference is just as important as the first two. Racing, unlike football and
142
other team competitions, is non-adversarial. By that, I mean that the public attending the race meeting are there to watch the spectacle of horses racing against each other and to place bets on the probable result; whereas, as we have seen so often on the terraces, the public attending football matches become very involved with the team that they support and with the outcome of the match. As a result of that, fights and uproar break out between one team's supporters and the supporters of the opposing team.
It should be noted that Mr. Justice Popplewell concluded after visiting a number of racecourses that any changes in future legislation should, because of the mobility and attitude of the spectators, not affect racecourses. I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister to say when he comes to reply to this debate whether Clause 25 (in Part III of the Bill) allows the Secretary of State sufficient power to distinguish between sports stadia where the stands effectively surround sports grounds and the stands at other sports grounds which form only part of the viewing area. Will the local authorities be issued by the Home Office with guidance which will allow them to distinguish between the different aspects of the risks involved, as I have tried to make clear that there are differences? The local authority should be allowed the flexibility that commonsense demands as it carries out its duties under this Bill to inspect and issue safety certificates for the different stands in its area.
5.32 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I too join with previous speakers in giving a welcome to this Bill in principle since I was one of the members of your Lordships' House who spoke quite extensively on the Bill dealing with sports grounds, mainly football grounds, that went through some 12 months ago. Some of us thought at that time that the Government were going a little too far in some of the measures they were introducing.
I accept and appreciate some of the points that we made during those debates. I may also say that I was one of the Members of your Lordships' House who had the privilege of meeting Mr. Justice Popplewell and his commission and of putting to him some of the points that now feature in his report and recommendations. I would ask the Government to keep under constant review the matter of private boxes. There are still some two and a quarter hours at peak periods when I consider that the clubs could be benefiting from the finance to be obtained from those private boxes which at present they are debarred from using. I do not think that that prohibition of use is necessary and I am not aware that Mr. Justice Popplewell recommended that that particular course should continue.
My noble friend Lord Mishcon from the Opposition Front Bench referred to the appalling number of deaths from fire in London. That is not the first time that those figures and that subject have been referred to here. He referred in the main to houses in multi-occupation. Perhaps I may digress for a moment to tell your Lordships that some years ago I had the pleasure of introducing a Private Member's Bill in the other place, with all party support, to deal with that. Successive Members of another place have also taken up the cudgels on this.

143
The weakness of course is that while the Government have moved some way along the road that we suggested—that is, inspection for fire hazards and prevention measures—unfortunately, most of the legislation that they have introduced is non-mandatory and most of the local authorities are not carrying it out. I cited a particularly horrific incident which took place, I think, about 10 years ago at a women's hostel in London, where 11 women died. One was a young woman who had left home to work in the hostel only 12 hours previously. They were victims of the kind of carnage to which my noble friend Lord Mishcon was referring. I hope that, based on the more recent figures that he has introduced, the Government will see that that situation requires to be kept under review so as to obviate such tragedies.
Although I say that I welcome the Bill, there are two or three points for clarification that I should like to put to the Minister. It is true that the Bill refers to the present procedure, which in the main has worked well. I have to mention that I live not far from the Valley Parade football ground where the horrendous fire took place. In what I say I do not want to appear to cross the sub judice line, because I understand that civil litigation is taking place in connection with the relatives of victims of that fire. Certainly this is the case with one particular police officer who was involved. In general, I may say that charges were made that certain authorities had not carried out the public function that they were supposed to. I am saying merely that charges were made and that matters are before the civil court on the question of damages being awarded. I assume that if people obtain damage awards following that fire, that will indicate that some of the authorities did not carry out the function that they were supposed to carry out.
One of the other matters that I should like to talk about is the fact that the Minister made great play, quite rightly, on the role of the fire authorities in this Bill. I fully support that point of view; but there is a provision that I should like him to look at when winding up the debate. I refer to Clause 22(8), which reads:
"A copy of any prohibition notice shall be sent by the local authority to each of the following, namely—

(a) the chief officer of police; and

(b) where the local authority is in Greater London or a metropolitan county, the fire authority, or, in any other case, the building authority".

Does that mean that local authorities can take action without reference to the recommendations of the local fire authority? If it means that, it is going away from what has been the normal practice in connection with the licensing of buildings or establishments in any other way.
I have experience of attending licensing meetings as an applicant. Always the strongest recommendations in your support come from the local police authority and the local fire authority. Very often, if they recommend it the local authority will follow what they recommend. Talking mainly about football grounds, the Bill provides for an appeal in cases where a ground has a prohibition slapped on it. It has right of appeal to the local magistrates' court. But there is nothing in the Bill which indicates a time limit on the period
144
during which a ground will be allowed to lodge such an appeal.
I think I am right in saying—and perhaps the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that local authorities very often delegate their licensing functions to a committee of councillors of the authority. A situation may arise—and I am saying that it is possible but not probable—that those who constitute that committee are people who could take a particularly dim view of football taking place in their area. We have a recent example in the case of Leeds United, the club of the city in which I live, which is supposed to visit Yeovil to play in a cup tie but cannot find a venue for the match because nobody wants the visitors there.
As I say, we could be in the situation of a committee of the local authority meeting on, say, a Thursday to decide whether to ban or prohibit a football match on the following Saturday afternoon at which a large crowd of people are expected. In that situation, there is no right of appeal at all. There is no time to have one. All I am asking is that before the Committee stage of the Bill the Minister will look at the possibility of putting into the Bill conditions by which the applicant who wants to make the appeal shall have a reasonable time-span in order to see that the appeal is possible and that it is possible for it to be carried out.
There is no point in saying that local authorities will act in a uniform manner, because they never do. I remember that when the partial ban on the sale of alcohol was lifted and it was restricted to certain places—I believe it was the dining areas from which you could not view the game—quite a number of the larger clubs with those facilities made application and were granted permission in accordance with the spirit of what the Government had suggested. At that time a match was taking place at the most prestigious football ground in Great Britain; that is, Wembley. I believe it was a match in which England was taking part. I do not remember who the opponents were. That application for a licence was refused by the local authority and it would not allow drinking to take place at the Wembley ground even in parts which were in accordance with the Government's suggestions. There is no point in thinking that the local authorities will always universally act in the same way.
There has been a change in the views of how local government operates. I have been involved in it, as have some other Members of your Lordships' House. Councillors, particularly these days, have a tendency to act as administrators instead of letting the administrators administer and to make policy on the advice of their safety officers. I see the danger, in connection with this Bill that you can get different circumstances in different parts of the country. I should like to think that the Government would look at the possibility of writing into this legislation some of the suggestions I have made so that we can have a common approach in football grounds in a general sense, rather than perhaps having just one authority taking a sympathetic view and dealing with the matter by consultation, with a reasonable time factor, so that everything can be properly organised and nobody is particularly hurt.
In this Bill, welcome though it is, I see some possibilities of conflict if some of the points that I have

145
made are not looked at at the very least. I certainly want to emphasise once again that if your Lordships' House and another place are putting into a Bill that the clubs or the establishments have a right of appeal it ought to be written into legislation what those rights of appeal are. Otherwise I believe that in certain circumstances there could be unacceptable indications of rather unfair play and some odd decisions. With those few remarks, as I say, I accept the Bill in principle.
Finally, I turn to the question of enforcement. Once the Bill has become law and the Secretary of State takes certain powers and indicates what the line should be in a particular area relating to certain incidents, there is the question of enforcing the law as enacted in this House and in another place. One of the weaknesses in the system and one of the reasons for the Bradford disaster concerns doors that were bolted when they ought to have been open. However, one can go into many public places in this country where fire exits are indicated by signs but when you get to the door there is no possibility of opening it because it is locked and the key is not available.
I have to say that this was one of the things that happened at Valley Parade. The question of enforcement will have to be looked at during the Committee stage and later stages of the Bill. If we make regulations and expect certain disciplines to be carried out somebody will have to enforce them, and we shall have to think about the question of enforcement during the later stages of the Bill. With those comments, I welcome the Bill in principle with other Members of your Lordships' House.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I think the Government should be reasonably pleased about the welcome that has been given to the Bill. It is certainly timely. Reference has been made more than once to the fact that Bradford Football Club has got a new stand and we have had references to the poignancy of the fact that they are mourning as well as celebrating. But too often we are catching up. If we go back to all the Acts that are mentioned here—the 1975 Act, the 1971 Act and the one which was passed last year—they have always been preceded by something that made us do it. So from that point of view there is a great deal in what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said (and this was repeated by others)—that really we need to take a cool look and see that everything is properly covered in this Bill. There is a lot of fragmentation about it, but certainly a great deal has been cleared up following the 1971 Bill. That Bill did not cover factories or railways and so on. Some of that has been rationalised, but not all of it.
What we did in 1971 was positive. We created categories of those who would require fire certificates. What we are doing here in Part I is negative. We are making categories of exceptions. Let us not misunderstand or misinterpret all that is being done here, because we are providing exemption for categories of premises from the requirement to have a fire certificate: low-risk people.
Is the initiative coming from the fire authority or from the people who are responsible for the premises? That is one thing that we should get clear. What
146
troubles me about this is—I think it comes fairly early on on page 2, in the new Section 5A—that we are told that the fire authority, for the purposes of subsection (2), have to get the information and they also may well have to examine the place. On the other hand, we are told in the new Section 9C that—
"A failure on the part of a person to observe any provision of a code of practice"—
that is going to be produced by the Secretary of State—
"shall not of itself render him liable to any criminal or civil proceedings."
What is the legal standing on this code of practice, of this failure to get information or failure to inspect? I know it refers to a failure to observe a provision of a code of practice, which may be taken as tending to establish liability—or, on the other hand, may be relied upon as tending to negative liability. But it is a very unsatisfactory position where the Secretary of State does not lay down that "you will do this" or "you will not do that." The fact that all premises, whether they are exempt or not, must have adequate means of escape even though they get exemption from the necessity of a fire certificate should be welcomed by everyone else. I think the Act of 1971 was preceded by a series of hotel fires in the Highlands of Scotland. People suddenly realised that we had not properly looked at this aspect. That was a UK Bill.
We remember how the hotel trade was concerned about this because it meant a lot of expense for them. They had to put in fire doors at various points, and sometimes that was very troublesome. There is no doubt that it was well worth while from the point of view of the results. Therefore I am not concerned about that. However, what I am concerned about is page 2 of the Bill. I think I got the last quotation wrong. Section 5A(4) reads:
"For the purpose of making that decision the fire authority may"—
in granting an exemption—
"give such information as they require about the premises and any matter connected with them; and … cause to be carried out an inspection … but the fire authority may make that decision without requiring any such information to be given".
This is a very, very dangerous subsection to put in a statute: "You should do (a), and you should do (b); but if you do not do it, you can carry on and make your decision without it." I think we shall need to look at that point when we come to the Committee stage.
There is also the question of the fees which are to be charged. It was touched on by more than one noble Lord. There are different ideas about this point. I believe that in the Civic Government (Scotland) Act we require certain licences and certificates to be obtained and that the local authority should cover the administrative cost so far as it is reasonable. That is not always so. There have been cases in respect of certain activities by local authorities where I know that some football clubs have been staggered by what they have been charged.
I do not know whether we are going to get any guidance from the Government in respect of that matter. Are we perhaps going to get into the position which my noble friend Lord Mishcon spoke about, where different authorities will charge different fees? It is something which the Government should think about.

147
Perhaps I may turn to the code of practice regarding means of escape. All we are promised in the Bill is that we shall have a code of practice from the Secretary of State. However, Section 6 says that the code of practice, which has to be laid before both Houses (so we shall see it again), has to be drawn up after consultation with the persons appearing to him requisite. My Lords, what does "such persons as appear to him requisite" mean? I know that the consumer councils would like to be consulted. I am sure that the fire authorities want to be consulted. People in a particular trade who require a certificate want to be consulted. There has been consultation. I think the process of education about the hazards of fire was certainly carried on last year. The greatest hazards are in the home. That is certainly something that should be in the mind of the Government. That should be carried out nationally. From a Scottish point of view, it should be dealt with by the Scottish Office rather than by individual authorities. The dangers of fire should be brought home to people. I hope we get an answer on the question of the vulnerability of houses in multi-occupation.
My Lords, turning to the safety of sports grounds, the 1975 Act was introduced after a horrible disaster which took place in Glasgow at the Ibrox stadium. I am surprised that the Government have changed "sports stadia" to "sports grounds". In the 1975 Act (I think in Clause 15), they have the power to make that change by regulation at the present time. They could change "stadia" and extend that to other sports grounds.
My Lords, why have they not done that? If there was an element of obduracy about it, we did not need to wait until Mr. Justice Popplewell reported. We could have taken steps much earlier. However, I am not objecting to what has been done.
May I now deal with sports grounds and the variation in capacity? We are taking the number 10,000 out, and yet at another part of the Bill we are putting the number 500 in. Why did the Government not take the power to vary the figure of 500 in respect of the capacity of regulated stands? There is more conflict about this aspect than others—and certainly to the Appeal Court in Scotland. I think it is the summary court.
Perhaps I may now turn to the safety of stands. I hope the Government appreciate that the Acts passed in relation to this have placed a tremendous burden not only upon local authorities in the matter of certification, but in the matter of checking. I sincerely hope that there will be, as my noble friend said, visits made in order to see not only that stands are safe, but that safety standards are maintained.
I remember a tremendous fire in the South of Glasgow. They had just recently received a fire certificate. The terrible thing was that the fire escape door was actually locked and barred, and there was a tremendous loss of life in that place. People should appreciate the dangers in these places. They should know where the means of escape are, and they should know the fire drill. I do not know that these matters are carried out entirely to everyone's satisfaction, even in large hotels in London.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that even in a place where there are a number of fire exits which are clearly marked if some of those exits are locked there is danger of people being trapped, and without any hope of means of escape?
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, if people go to a fire exit and discover they cannot get out, there will be very considerable difficulties in respect of that. In Part III of the Bill, the topic of regulated stands is raised. I wish to ask why the figure of 500 has been chosen. It may well be we are spreading the net far too wide. I think in the discussions with the Scottish Office involving the Scottish Football Association and the Scottish League it was considered that that figure was far too low. It could have started at a much higher figure, and that could have been gradually reduced. A great deal of work will be involved for fire authorities and local authorities. There will be a great amount of expense laid upon football clubs and perhaps others as well. I shall come to racecourses in a moment. I cannot say much about Wincanton but I can say plenty about Ayr, where there is both national hunt and flat racing. We have to think not just of the stands, but what is behind and under them. That is certainly worth looking at from the point of view of safety as well. It was wrong to put the figure of 500 in the Bill. We could have taken the power which, so far as I see, is not in the Bill—and I referred to this earlier on—to change that figure of 500. The power to vary should have been provided for. Once again there is guidance from the local authority and, indeed, regulation by the local authority. The local authority is taking a great deal on itself.
As to the question of fees, I spoke about the burden that this will be upon the fire authorities. Do they have the manpower? There is an endless amount of work for them in Part I of the Bill. What about those who have to pay the fees? We already know that the Government just shrug their shoulders when it comes to fees to be paid by clubs or businesses, but, if nothing is laid down and people do not know what they will be faced with, considerable difficulties will be experienced.
I think that we have been very hard on football clubs. They can be prohibited from using their stands, and that prohibition remains until such time as they conform with the notices given by the local authority. Where will they get the money from? I saw what I think one would call a first division or fairly high standard game in England the other day—I believe a cup replay—at which 500 people were present. The Government seem to think that endless sums are available to local clubs, large and small, to enable them to make these improvements.
The Government are laying down the law to the clubs, but they are not providing any help. They are shuffling it off on to the Football Improvement Trust. The Government are getting plenty of money out of football from the pools promoters, but very little is going back to the clubs in respect of the improvements that have to be made. Have the Government thought about this? The more they reduce the standard, say to 500-plus, the closer they are getting to clubs—possibly the athletic clubs—that are not up to it and do not have the money.

149
In Scotland certainly the clubs are hard pressed by the level of rates, and we have spoken about this previously in comparison with the situation in England. Celtic probably pay for the police alone—and reference has been made to crowds of 34,000 or 38,000, and a recent game had 42,000—about £30,000. In London, for the same size of game, the police would have cost only £15,000, if that. One finds that clubs not as wealthy as Celtic and Rangers have relatively the same burden of rent and rates costs. The new rates legislation that is on the way does nothing about the rates as promised during the passage of the last Act. All it does is to freeze them, limiting them as regards the increase in charges.
A friend of mine recently went round football clubs in eight cities on the Continent. What did he discover? There were wonderful stadia, owned by each city and rented free to football clubs. They paid no rent because it was regarded as one of the attributes of a city to have a stadium and a football club. There were 500 people at one of the games he went to. What was the cost? Nothing.
The clubs—certainly those in Scotland—are loaded down with rates, the costs of the police and the cost of improvements. The Government shrug and say, "It is up to you, the Football Improvement Trust is there". That is not good enough. We want safety, and we can get it. The clubs are prepared to give it, but they want considerable help from the Government.
Reference was made by Lord Taylor of Gryfe to the considerable improvement that has occurred since we took up the question of drink on the terraces. There is no doubt that the behaviour in Scottish football grounds is laudable in comparison with England.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Ross of Marnock: Before noble Lords cheer just a wee bit too much, we had better look at hooliganism on the park as well as hooliganism off the park because we still have a problem there, so all is not well.
We are all in favour of the Bill, and should like to see the Government support the clubs, including the National Hunt club at Wincanton and others. I nearly added Bogside, but we do not now have Bogside. This, of couse, shows the difficulties that people are in.
One could mention Perth, for instance. They have premises quite apart from the stands where people are watching the racing and they too, I presume, would come under the Bill from the point of view of safety certificates. As to their being asked to make any improvements there, anybody who knows anything about racing will remember what Lord Kilmany—who, sadly, departed the scene just last year—used to tell us about the trials and tribulations of racecourses today. They too are up against it, so there has to be a balance between what the Government lay down and the ability of clubs to respond.
Lord Mishcon, I think, mentioned greyhound racing and, indeed, Wimbledon. I did not think we were worried about the dangers of fire at Wimbledon, judging by the kind of weather that one always gets there. I hope that the Minister will realise that there is a balance to be struck by the Government in regard to the burdens that they place upon local authorities.
6.7 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. It has been an interesting and stimulating, covering a wide range of issues. I am also grateful for the general welcome that your Lordships have given the Bill.
Safety matters are rightly of considerable public concern, particularly in the wake of Bradford and other disasters. It is not surprising to find that there is a broad measure of support in the House and, I am sure, in the country at large, for continued vigilance by the authorities to secure adequate protection for the people of this country through a system of precautionary measures.
I look forward to the Committee stage because, although there is general agreement between us, there are obviously points of detail that we must study in some depth. Your Lordships have raised a number of points, which I shall endeavour to answer, although some, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon said, are perhaps more appropriate for Committee. The noble Lord asked me about the provision to ensure that charges for fire certification are uniform between authorities. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, raised the same point.
Clause 3 provides that in Section 8B(3) fees charged,
"shall not exceed an amount which represents the cost to the authority of the work reasonably done by them"
in issuing or amending a certificate other than the cost of inspection. It follows that the benefits derived from more efficient administration will be passed on to the user of this service. This is in accordance with the Government's policy of local authority fees and charges. Of course, we hope that all fire authorities will seek to emulate the most efficient ones so that, in time, there may be a tendency for fees to become more uniform between authorities.
The Government do not expect very wide variation initially. But it would certainly not be desirable for the Government to set fees nationally. If that were the case, there would be no incentive for fire authorities to become more efficient. In addition, it would be difficult for central government to take into account the variations between premises. This means that fees can be accurately assessed only by the fire authority. Nor, indeed, would it be desirable for the home departments to become involved in regular reviews of the level of fees. The efficiency of administration procedures within fire authorities and the means by which fees were calculated would be within the remit of the fire service inspectorate in carrying out their regular inspections of fire authorities. I can confirm to the House that we shall be issuing guidance on this point.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked what would happen if the fee was not paid. Of course, rightly, there is no provision in the Bill for a fire certificate to cease to have effect in these circumstances. The Bill provides for the fee to be paid on issue or amendment of a certificate. In practice, we would expect the fire authority to request payment before issuing a new or amended certificate, taking account of the administrative work undertaken in each case, and unpaid fees would become a debt recoverable in the normal way.

151
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, also asked about prohibition notices. We reflected on the provisions for dealing with excessive risks in each of the Acts, in the light of the comments made on the consultative documents. We were not persuaded that the powers under Section 10 of the 1971 Act providing for the fire authority to apply to the court for an order prohibiting or restrictng the use of premises which present a serious risk to persons in the event of fire have proved inadequate.
Fire authorities have not found it necessary to apply for many such orders. In 1984, 138 applications were made, of which 42 resulted in orders being issued. The remaining 96 were withdrawn after remedial action had been taken. We suspect that in other cases the threat of an application to the court is sufficient to induce an occupier to take the required remedial action. I look forward to debating that point with the noble Lord at a later stage.
I turn next to houses in multiple occupation—a point raised by the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon, Lord Dean of Beswick and Lord Ross of Marnock. The Bill is concerned with establishing a modified statutory framework of fire precaution controls, which will enable more effective use to be made of fire service resources. Any capacity freed by the new exemption procedure will initially be channelled into programmes of inspection, particularly of high risk premises, but in time it should also be possible to contemplate the designation of further classes of use. Priority would be given to classes of use where the fire safety record gave cause for concern and where the premises concerned were not adequately controlled under existing legislation.
It is too early to speculate about what, if any, new designations might be made, but in view of the comments made today we are fully conversant with the concern about fire safety in houses of multiple occupation. Fire safety in such houses is currently controlled under housing legislation, which the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, has already mentioned and in which he played a great part in his time. We hope that he will continue a great part.
This housing legislation is the responsibility of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. Local housing authorities have powers under the Housing Act 1985 to require satisfactory standards of means of escape from fire in houses of multiple occupation. There is a requirement to consult a fire authority before exercising those powers.
I turn next to racetracks, both horse racing and greyhound racing. The noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Ross of Marnock, also mentioned Wimbledon. Although Part II, in abolishing the distinction between sports grounds and stadia, makes it possible for racecourses, or indeed tennis facilities, to be designated as a class of ground, there is no proposal to do so, nor did the Popplewell Report make such a recommendation.
Such racecourses and tennis facilities will be affected by the new system of stand certificates under Part III of the Bill. Local authorities will notify managements of racecourses, on making a preliminary determination that a stand provides covered
152
accommodation for 500 or more spectators, that they should apply for a certificate if they wish to continue using the stand. Where a final determination is made that a stand is indeed of that capacity, a certificate is issued. It will impose conditions, including those which relate to the general condition and fire safety of the stand, the need for adequate entrances and exits, and stewarding.
On racecourses, in particular, a certificate will not seek to impose requirements based on assumptions about crowd movements which are derived from other sports and which may be inappropriate to crowds at race meetings for reasons enunciated by my noble friend Lord Ullswater. I hope that he is reassured on that point.
The non-statutory guide to safety at sports grounds, often known as the green guide, is intended to be flexible in the advice it gives for ensuring the safety of spectators. I understand that the Horserace Betting Levy Board and racecourse executives insist on high standards in safety matters, and we are confident that most racecourses will therefore need to take few remedial measures to achieve the necessary standards.
Having mentioned the green guide, perhaps I may say a further word on it. Much of the material in the guide is relevant to securing safety in stands which will be brought within the scope of legislation by the provisions of Part III of the Bill. There is, for example, guidance on stairways and ramps, exit routes and doors and fire precautions. The guide envisages that the requirements of safety for spectators can vary between different sports. Therefore, it underlines how difficult it is to give guidance from a central point when each stadium might differ.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked whether local authorities should set up safety teams. As he rightly pointed out, local authorities are responsible for administering the 1975 Act and for issuing safety certificates. They are required in Greater London to consult the chief officer of police; in metropolitan counties, the fire authority; and elsewhere, the building authority, about the terms and conditions contained in a safety certificate. It is for the local authority to decide how best to carry out this consultation duty, but clearly it makes sense to form a safety team drawn from the different disciplines involved in securing safety.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, asked whether the Government would take this opportunity to make far wider provision for disclosure of safety information than that contained in the Bill. I am sure that many of your Lordships have received a letter from some consumer associations on the matter. Your Lordships will appreciate that fire authorities depend to a great extent on the goodwill and co-operation of owners and occupiers of premises for the effectiveness of their fire prevention work. They have a right of entry to premises, and this is as it should be. But they rely also on the frankness of owners and occupiers in supplying information about the use of premises, plans for future use and such matters.
Such information may go across the boundary into areas usually covered by commercial confidentiality. While it is essential that fire authorities should be able to inform other health and safety authorities on

153
matters relevant to their tasks, any further extension of the right of disclosure—for example, to employees or even to the public at large—would be undesirable as likely to compromise the working relationship between fire authorities and occupiers of premises. Such wide disclosure is best left to the discretion of the occupiers.
Another point raised by many of your Lordships was the extra work that the Bill will involve for local authorities and fire authorities. In particular, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, raised this point. It is hoped that Part I of the Bill will release the full redeployment of resources and quite a number of people for new inspections of properties. Therefore, we do not see much extra work. In this part of the Bill we see a change of role.
In Part III, the initial work of inspecting and certificating stands at undesignated sports grounds is expected to require the equivalent of about 4,000 man days spread over 128 certificating authorities. It is anticipated that this should be achieved by reordering existing priorities. A small increase in staff may thereafter be required for inspections of new grounds and stands and for re-inspection.
Turning to Part IV, most indoor sports premises have already been inspected by local authorities. So this should not involve much extra work. The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, raised the question of boxes at football grounds and the sale of alcohol therein. It reminds me of the Public Order Bill—now the Public Order Act—which we discussed earlier. Schedule 1 of that Act comes into force on 1st January next year. I hope that the noble Lord has seen our circular, which was issued on 10th December following the announcement on 3rd December that the implementation will be in the new year.
The noble Lord also asked about Clause 25, how it related to regulated stands and the time allowed for those responsible for managing the stands to appeal against determination. As that is the last resort, we hope that the situation he envisaged, of the authority meeting on the Thursday for a football match on the Saturday, will be avoided because of the prior consultation that will have gone on. I repeat, it is not our intention to close a stand but to make a stand a safe place for the public to go and view whatever sport they may seek to watch.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, went into some detail on Clause 1(4), which will be new Section 5A, and particularly subsection (4). I think that is one of the many points we shall need to look at in detail at Committee stage. Perhaps I may say that exempted premises are required to have adequate means of escape and fire-fighting equipment. That is the statutory requirement. The code of practice will give guidance on how the duty can be achieved. However, the occupier can meet the duty in other ways, provided that the necessary standard is still achieved. The code of practice cannot hope to cover all the circumstances of every case. There does need to be necessary flexibility.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, also asked about consultation regarding codes of practice. These will include fire service interests and representatives of
154
occupiers affected by a particular code. We have noted the interests of the Consumers' Association and shall ensure that they also are consulted.
The figure of 500 was challenged by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock. This was the figure that was recommended by the Popplewell Inquiry and that is why it is included in the Bill. The inquiry itself acknowledged that the figure was an arbitrary one. However, it was an attempt to balance the cost of inspection and certification against a reasonable degree of safety. A stand which can accommodate no more than this figure is likely to be small. Given the usual open-fronted nature of such a stand, spectators who occupy it are therefore likely to be within close reach of a place of safety in the event of a fire or other emergency. But I do take the noble Lord's point about premises underneath the stand. That is another point which we shall doubtless discuss at a later date.
If I have failed to respond to any points raised by noble Lords, I apologise. I shall look carefully at the Official Report, and if necessary I shall write to your Lordships. Perhaps I can conclude by saying that it is impossible to foresee all conceivable combinations of circumstances which can lead to the kind of tragic accidents to which our attention has been turned today. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, that all too often successive Governments have found themselves legislating in the aftermath of a disaster, as is unfortunately the case with the provisions of this Bill which deals with the safety of spectators at sports events.
The Government's review of the Fire Precautions Act 1971 is designed to improve our arrangements for fire safety with the benefit of experience gained in the enforcement of the Act over the last 15 years. In so doing, it is hoped that resources can be concentrated on those premises presenting the greatest risk and thereby perhaps averting tragedy. Our hope must be that the provisions of the Bill will reduce loss of life from fire and prevent another disaster occurring at a sports ground.
We must all realise that legislation cannot of itself guarantee safety. At least as important is a high level of public awareness of the dangers of fire so that appropriate preventive measures can be taken and so that, in the event of a fire or other emergency, people will know what to do. The onus is upon all of us to make sure that that message is put across clearly and regularly.
In view of the welcome given by your Lordships to this Bill, I am glad to say that it is—
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. Bearing in mind that this Bill stands the normal law procedures on their head, in that when a prohibition is placed and an appeal is lodged the prohibition nevertheless continues to apply, can the Minister look very seriously at the question I put during my speech in this Second Reading debate as regards writing into the Bill the time factors of an appeal? This will ensure that appellants can, in all justice, have time to prepare a case in advance of the event, rather than make an eleventh hour appeal which does not have much chance of succeeding.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I shall of course take very careful note of what the noble Lord has said. It is one of the points I shall look into.
In view of the welcome given to this Bill by your Lordships, it is not just the Government's hope that this Bill will receive a speedy passage through Parliament, but the hope of all of us. We must not forget that we have some details to look into. I therefore hope that these proposals will meet with your Lordships' approval today and I commend the Bill to your Lordships' House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Employment Protection (Variation of Limits) Order 1986
6.27 p.m.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Employment Protection (Variation of Limits) Order 1986 be approved.
Perhaps I may also speak to the other orders on the Order Paper, the Unfair Dismissal (Increase of Compensation Limit) Order 1986 and the Unfair Dismissal (Increase of Limits of Basic and Special Awards) Order 1986. All these orders were laid before your Lordships' House on 2nd December 1986.
The draft Employment Protection (Variation of Limits) Order 1986 has been laid before your Lordships in accordance with Section 148 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. Under this legislation the Secretary of State for Employment is required to review in each calendar year the upper limit that is imposed on the amount of a week's pay for calculating certain payments and awards under the employment protection legislation. These are redundancy payments, the basic and additional awards for unfair dismissal, and debts that can be paid under the insolvency provisions of the Act. My noble friend the Secretary of State is also required to review the limit on the amount of guarantee pay due to an employee in respect of any day on short time or temporary lay-off, and the duration of such payment.
In making the review the Secretary of State has to consider the general level of earnings obtaining in Great Britain at the time of the review, the national economic situation as a whole, and any other matters he considers relevant.
The Government have consulted a wide range of organisations in the course of the review. As in previous years, these consultations brought a different response from organisations representing employers and those representing employees. Employer organisations in general argued against any increase on the grounds of extra costs to industry, or suggested alternatively that any increases should be modest. Trade unions, on the other hand, argued for increases at least in line with average earnings.
Having carried out a review this year the Government therefore propose to increase the limit on the amount of a week's pay from £155 to £158—that is by 1·9 per cent. The Government propose to increase the limit on the daily amount of guarantee pay from £10·70 to £10·90, or 1·8 per cent.
156
There will be no increase in the other limits relating to the duration of guarantee pay. The specified number of days in the relevant period for which such payments can be made will remain at five, and the relevant period will continue to be three months. The Secretary of State laid a report at the same time as the draft order, giving his reason for the decision which is that both these limits still seem to strike a fair balance between the employers' obligations and the employees' rights.
I make no apology for restating the Government's belief that the employment protection legislation, taken as a whole, has acted as a brake on recruitment. The Government are anxious to remove the barriers facing businesses and encourage the creation of new jobs. I must make it clear that at the same time the Government recognise the need to safeguard the essential rights of employees. I believe that the proposed increases in these limits do strike a fair balance between the interests of employers and employees.
I now turn to the second draft order. This is the Unfair Dismissal (Increase of Compensation Limit) Order 1986, which has been laid before the House in accordance with Section 75(2) of the 1978 Act. It revokes the Unfair Dismissal (Increase of Compensation Limit) Order 1984, which set the limit on compensatory awards for unfair dismissal at £8,000, and raises the limit to £8,500. That represents an increase of 6·25 per cent. The limit is not subject to annual review but may be increased from time to time. It was last raised in 1984.
This award compensates the employees for the loss suffered as a result of the dismissal, including loss of earnings from the dismissal to the date of the tribunal hearing, future loss of earnings, and loss of benefits such as pension and other entitlements he would have had but for the dismissal. The limit also applies to compensation for discrimination in employment under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Race Relations Act 1976; and to compensation payable in certain cases involving unreasonable exclusion or expulsion from a trade union. As this limit was not increased last year we have increased it this time by a higher percentage than for the other limits. As with the increases proposed in the first draft order, I believe the Government have achieved a sensible balance that safeguards the essential rights of workers without overburdening employers.
I come finally to the Draft Unfair Dismissal (Increase of Limits of Basic and Special Awards) Order 1986, which has been laid before the House in accordance with Sections 73(4B) and 75A(7) of the 1978 Act. These awards were introduced by the Employment Act 1982 and they apply to dismissal for membership or non-membership of a union. The limits are not subject to annual review, but may be reviewed from time to time.
These special provisions were introduced in order to protect the individual's right to choose whether or not to join a union. They were intended as a deterrent and their real value needs to be maintained. We have decided, therefore, to increase the basic and special awards by 4·6 per cent. This means that the minimum basic award will be increased from £2,200 to £2,300.

157
We also propose that the limits which apply to the calculation of the special award should be increased from £11,000, £22,000 and £16,500 to £11,500, £23,000, and £17,250 respectively. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 2nd December be approved. [4th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Viscount Long).
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I must thank the noble Viscount for his attempt to explain what the Government are doing this year but it does not become any more consistent as the years go by. Each year the Government advance a different Minister to deal with the Christmas updates. Last year it was the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. Each year the Minister tells us a different story; and each year when one looks closely at the figures one sees that the Government tend to favour their favourites and discriminate against everyone else.
I do not want to go back in detail beyond last year, although I could, but I must go back to last year because of some of the things that the noble Viscount said. Last year (at col. 938 of the Official Report of 19th December) the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, spoke about three orders of this kind; but they were slightly different. First of all he talked about the Employment Protection (Variation of Limits) Order about which the noble Viscount, Lord Long, has spoken tonight. The noble Lord proposed last year an increase of between 1·9 per cent. and 2 per cent., the same as the increase which is being proposed this evening.
Then the noble Lord went on to the Unfair Dismissal (Increase of Limits of Basic and Special Awards) Order, which, as the noble Viscount told us earlier, does not have to be reviewed every year. In fact the noble Lord did so last year and he did it by the same amount as is being proposed this year. He proposed an increase of 4·5 per cent. This is at least the second year in which we have had increases under the Unfair Dismissal (Increase of Limits of Basic and Special Awards) Order which are significantly larger than the increases which the Government propose under the Employment Protection (Variation of Limits) Order.
Then last year the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, went on to talk about the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Specified Diseases) Order. He proposed an increase of 5 per cent. There has been no mention of that one this year. I do not know whether it is coming later or whether it is not coming at all, but it was there last year and it is not here this year. I asked on that occasion, and I repeat the question: why do the Government give less than the movement in the cost of living in the case of the first order, the Employment Protection (Variation of Limits) Order, and why last year did they give no increase at all for the compensatory awards and for failure to comply with orders of reinstatement which they have introduced this year?
The answers which I received from the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, seemed to be similar in some ways to the answers that I have received this evening; and they are just as unsatisfactory. I was told first of all that the Employment Protection (Variation of Limits) Order, which for two years has been increased by 1·9 per
158
cent., has been increased by that amount because it has to be borne by industry, and industry cannot afford more than 1·9 per cent. The same list of criteria was put forward this evening—the general level of earnings, the national situation and any other factor which the Government want to take into account. We are not told why the improvements in the minimum payment for unfair dismissal, the minimum payment for insolvency and the minimum redundancy payments calculation are only 1·9 per cent.; but when it comes to people being discriminated against because they refuse to belong to a trade union (and where an employer might also have to pay), the Government give an increase of 4·5 per cent.
We heard the arguments, but they are not convincing. We asked last year why there had been no increase in compensatory awards, because the last increase, as the noble Viscount admitted this evening, was in 1984. I am glad to see that the Government have turned to that one this evening, though in order to turn to that one they appear to have dropped off the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Specified Diseases) Order. Apparently you only get three out of four; you never get four out of four.
I turn to this year. I say once again that the full cost of living settlement for basic and special awards has been given at 4·5 per cent. for dismissal on grounds of refusing to join a union. The employers have to pay that. Why is that more than twice as much as the increase for other types of unfair dismissal? Why again the miserable 1·9 per cent. for all the categories under the Employment Protection (Variation of Limits) Order? Why this time is there nothing under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Specified Diseases) Order? Does that mean that the Government are saying that you get 5 per cent. over two years, which is 2·5 per cent. a year? Will this come every other year? Why is there the re-emergence of the forgotten improvement in the compensation orders for 6·5 per cent.? I do not complain about it, but are we not going to have that for another two years?
I have five questions. First, how do the Government defend the difference between the 1·9 per cent. increase and the 4·5 per cent. increase? Secondly, what do the Government propose to do about the workers' compensation update? Is it to be for two years at 2·5 per cent. a year, or shall we get it again next year? Thirdly, can the Government really say that they have done right by those who are covered by the compensatory awards; by the awards to discourage refusal to re-engage? Are they then to be paid at the rate of 3·25 per cent. a year? Are we not to have that for two years?
The fact is that since 1979 the retail price index, under this Government, has moved by 72 per cent. Since 1979 this Government have proposed improvements in the most important, widespread unfair dismissal protections worth 51·2 per cent. That includes the proposals being advanced this evening. In other words, that is two-thirds of the rate of increase in the cost of living; or the real value of those awards has been reduced by one-third. Are we to take it that that is what will happen to the compensatory awards? Are we to take it in fact that the only awards to be fully

159
indexed against increases in the cost of living are those that relate to the closed shop? How do the Government justify that?
Lord Rochester: My Lords, from these Benches I should like to join in thanking the noble Viscount, Lord Long, for the clear way in which he introduced these orders.
I have very little to add to what the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, has already said. However, I feel that the very small increases in the amounts of guaranteed payment that it is now proposed to make under the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 compare most unfavourably with some of the salary increases that are currently available to many people in the private sector of the economy. It is, I suppose, too much to expect that any renewed attempt to establish agreed long-term procedures for pay determination which would have application to both the public and the private sectors of the economy will appeal to the present Government. Nevertheless, I take this opportunity once again to call for them. In my view—and here I think I speak for my noble friends on these Benches—it is only when they are introduced that it will be possible for payments such as those that are the subject of these orders to be determined in a way that will be seen to be fair and therefore generally acceptable.
I simply add that the view I have expressed in relation to the first of the three orders has equal application to the unfair dismissal orders for which our approval is now also being sought.
6.45 p.m.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lords, Lord McCarthy and Lord Rochester, for the intense interest they have taken in this order. Of course, it was going in 1978 before this Government came into power and we have regularly tried to update it and upgrade it as we have gone along.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lords that there may be some confusion as to how we reach the figures we are talking about. I do not blame the two noble Lords, or any other noble Lord in the House, because there is always a screen and one does not always understand how these figures are arrived at. However, in reply to the query, may I say that there are three different ways the matter is approached? Both noble Lords feel that there seems to be an unfairness in the awards. The weekly limit and guaranteed pay which is just under 2 per cent. is less than the rate of inflation. There is then a second consolidatory award of 6.25 per cent. and the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, was seeking to ascertain the extent. It covers two years. Therefore, as we understand it and as my noble friend the Secretary of State understands it, it is broadly in line with inflation.
There is a third question, relating to the special award under the Employment Act 1982, which amounts to 4.6 per cent. and is above inflation because the Government attach special importance to dismissal for membership or non-membership of a union and believe awards must reflect this. My noble friend the Secretary of State is trying to get the right balance on this aspect. I have to warn the House that if he does not get the right balance and goes too far, it
160
would create problems for the smaller firms—which the noble Lord says cannot afford to pay these redundancy moneys, and so on—and there would be a certain amount of firms with unemployment.
I have listened to both noble Lords and I think we are in agreement that something is being done, that it is not easy and that it is a sensitive area.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Unfair Dismissal (Increase of Compensation Limit) Order 1986
Viscount Long Viscount Long rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 2nd December be approved. [4th Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, having already spoken to this order, I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Unfair Dismissal (Increase of Limits of Basic and Special Awards) Order 1986
Viscount Long Viscount Long rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 2nd December be approved. [4th Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, having already spoken to this order, I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

British Railways (No. 2) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
Mersey Docks and Harbour Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with an amendment; the amendment considered and agreed to.

River Humber (Burcom Outfall) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the amendments considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes before seven o'clock.