Lords Sitting of 28 February 1991

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

New Homes Warranties: MMC Report
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty's Government:
When the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the new homes warranty market will be published.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on Structural Warranties for New Homes was delivered to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 14th December. It will be published in due course. The precise timing of the publication of the commission's reports on monopolies is commercially sensitive and is kept strictly confidential to avoid prejudice to interested parties.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is he aware that the National Housebuilding Council is the body presently responsible for most new home guarantees? Will he confirm that when the report is published there will be an opportunity for public consultation on the matter before any action is taken?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the role of the NHBC will have been examined in detail in the course of the investigation. However, as I am sure my noble friend will appreciate, it is not appropriate for me to comment on the contents of the report before it has been published, or to speculate what action the Secretary of State may take, if any, in response to the report.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, I hope that the Minister will forgive my ignorance. However, I strongly support the National Housebuilding Registration Council, which was set up some years ago. It gives a guarantee for a certain number of years. Is this body effective? Is it to be wiped out? Can the Minister disclose anything about that? The noble Lord must be careful what he says.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, if the noble Lord refers to the NHBC, I believe my previous Answer covered that point.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that it is highly desirable that there should be a widespread scheme for the protection of buyers of new homes? Should not part of that scheme include registration for proper inspection?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will understand that I cannot make comment on those items covered in the forthcoming document until it has been published.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware—
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is my noble friend aware—
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: Lord Elton.
Lord Elton: My Lords, unaccustomed as I am to such strong support, is my noble friend aware that the English House Condition Survey 1986 revealed that the urgently needed repairs to dwellinghouses in those parts of the United Kingdom were valued at no less than £17.8 billion? The figure refers to the time of the survey. It is now considerably greater. Does it not suggest that a warranty is not enough and that owners of houses, like owners of cars, should have instructions on how to look after them?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that most consumers when purchasing a house have a very good idea of (a) the product they wish to buy and (b) how they intend to look after it.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, will permit me—without shouting at about 110 decibels—perhaps I may ask the Minister this question. Does he acknowledge, as does the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, that once the report has been published a period of consultation is absolutely essential? We do not want a repetition of the beer report. When the report was published the Secretary of State immediately said that he was minded to accept it—and we know what happened to that.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am not sure that I accept the theory of comparability put forward by the noble Lord, but I am sure that he understands why I cannot anticipate something that has not already been published.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that for 25 years no complaint has ever been made of the work of the NHBC?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I shall certainly draw my noble friend's remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend.

EC Institutions: Staffing Recommendations
3.6 p.m.
Baroness Young Baroness Young asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many of the recommendations of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Staffing of Community Institutions (11th Report, Session 1987–88, HL Paper 66) have been implemented, in particular those which would encourage more British people to apply for jobs in the European Community institutions.
Lord Reay: My Lords, almost all the recommendations addressed to the Government have been implemented, together with a number of other measures to improve the level of British representation in European Community institutions. We have encouraged the Commission to adopt those recommendations which fall within its own area of responsibility.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that encouraging reply. Has the number of people applying for posts in European Community institutions increased as a result of the report? Have some of the longer-term proposals such as the right of a civil servant to return to this country without loss of pay or status been implemented?
Lord Reay: My Lords, it is too early to see positive results from the improvements that have been introduced. British representation is poor in all the Community institutions. At the moment it continues to become worse. However, we hope that the measures that have been introduced, in particular the European fast stream, will eventually make a significant contribution to improving our representation in Europe. But it will take some time before we see results.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, will the Minister inform the House how many British citizens have applied for posts in Community institutions and how many have been accepted? Has there been any inquiry into the examination that is given to applicants throughout the Community? Do applications from the United Kingdom compare favourably with those from other member states?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the British are underrepresented in the institutions. There is no evidence that British candidates are disadvantaged by the style of the examination set. However, one of the problems has been that the examinations have tended to reflect the traditions of the original six members of the Community.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, as the noble Lord will recall, there was a proposal to set up a special unit in the Cabinet Office to act as a single source of advice for European Community careers. What progress has been made in and with that special unit?
Lord Reay: My Lords, yes, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition is correct. The European Staffing Unit has now been set up in the Cabinet Office to co-ordinate efforts to improve British representation in Europe.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, is there evidence that the number of candidates applying or succeeding is affected in any way by our alleged deficiency in foreign languages?
Lord Reay: My Lords, languages in the long run are important but some potential candidates are deterred because they assume that they need fluent French. In the long term they do; but O-level standard is all that is required at the recruitment stage.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does the Minister acknowledge that the under-representation to which reference was made earlier was a direct result of the Government's inertia in influencing recruitment over many years? Is not the action that has now properly been taken very late in the day? It will not prevent a gap in British representation at certain important levels of the Commission, and therefore, our influence, which will emerge over a number of years.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the noble Lord's latter remark may be correct. However, an additional factor was that not until the party opposite had finally made up its mind no longer to seek renegotiation of the terms of entry was the cloud of uncertainty removed from over people who might otherwise have looked for jobs in Europe.

London Underground: Services
3.10 p.m.
Lord Jay Lord Jay asked Her Majesty's Government:
What restrictions of services, and what reductions in staffing levels, will have to be made by London Underground in order to comply with the Government's financial targets, and whether London Underground has postponed planned investments in order to meet those financial targets.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the setting and maintenance of staffing and services levels are operational matters which are the responsibility of London Underground. Like all public sector companies it must operate within its budgetary limits, but large-scale government funding is allowing record levels of investment in the Underground.
Lord Jay: My Lords, does not the Minister realise that the government's financial targets for current expenditure, which are really figures plucked out of the air, have led to staff shortages and cuts in maintenance resulting in delays, congestion, the cancellation of services and the risk of accidents such as the fire on the Central Line one week ago?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I do not accept that any Government figures are plucked out of the air. London Underground's financial objectives have no bearing on the staff service cuts that it is currently contemplating. The lack of available cash this year has provided more impetus in these moves, but it is not a major consideration.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is it not correct that appointments to the board of London Underground are a matter for the Government and that recently the Government have been exercising their power by appointing outside people with considerable experience?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the chairman of London Underground has wide financial and banking experience. Among his previous appointments was the running of an equivalent railway in Hong Kong. A new financial director has been appointed. As he comes from British Aerospace I believe that the

1099
appointment will inspire the confidence not only of London Underground but also your Lordships' House.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, bearing in mind the fact that the Government have a concern with London Underground, will the Minister meet the chairman to inform him that London's public are intensely dissatisfied with the underground's current inefficiency?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, my right honourable friend regularly meets the chairman of London Underground. I am sure that he will put that point forward, but whether the chairman agrees with it is another matter.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will the Minister indicate whether there is to be a slow down in the improvement programme relating to escalators? They gave rise to many safety problems, particularly at King's Cross Station. Are the Government likely to follow the comment made by the chairman of London Underground to the Transport Committee in another place? He said:
"Costs were reduced in a very impressive way. For example, it was decided in the case of escalators to apply the homespun American philosophy, 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it'. Unfortunately, it all got broke at the same time".
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I have no information about escalators. However, at more than £400 million, London Underground's investment this year will be at its highest level since our records began. During the next three years LUL plans to invest more than £1.7 billion. Safety is a key priority and an integral part of all major investment projects. LUL forecasts that by the year 2000 it will have spent more than £1 billion on safety.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will the Minister say whether the information and the reports are correct in indicating that the rate of improvement in escalators has been slowed down? If he does not have the answer now, will he give the House an undertaking that he will closely investigate the matter with the Secretary of State?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, certainly I shall do so and write to the noble Lord.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is it not the case that a further indicator of the underlying problems contained in the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Jay, is to be seen in the increasing number of "lost time" accidents by the staff of London Underground? That is a worrying trend. Will the Minister investigate to see whether that is due to the financial restriction?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am prepared to look into anything. The average number of staff for the year 1989–90 was 21,000–1,900 more than the previous year.
Lord Jay: My Lords, is the Minister proud of the fact that London Underground has been forced to
1100
send a circular to its staff stating that in the case of fires affecting driver-only trains in tunnels the passengers must organise their own escape?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I happened to read that in an evening paper.

Mental Illness: Long-Term Care
3.15 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that all district health authorities have a team dedicated to the long-term care of mental illness and that all such authorities have a formal way of monitoring the provision of such long-term care.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, we are satisfied that within district health authorities there is co-ordination between health care professionals for this purpose. Indeed, that is the whole thrust of the care programme approach to be introduced this April which involves systematic arrangements for assessment and aftercare to ensure that people with a mental illness being treated in the community receive the health and social care that they need. Last September the Department of Health issued a guidance circular reminding health authorities that in discussions with consultant psychiatrists, nurses, social workers and other professional staff and social services departments they should establish suitable local arrangements and see that they are maintained.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, is my noble friend sure that the directive is being implemented? Is she aware that interviews carried out three years ago by the National Unit for Psychiatric Research and Development with 52 health authorities showed that 40 per cent. appeared to have no team dedicated to long-term care and 54 per cent. had no formal way of monitoring the provision of long-term care? Does my noble friend agree that what she has told the House indicates a tremendous advance during the past three years? Is she sure that that has happened?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the care programme approach is an advance which is to be implemented in the future; that is, in April of this year. The arrangements for monitoring provide that regional health authorities will monitor the districts' implementation and the department's social services inspectorate will monitor the impact of the mental illness specific revenue grant. I am happy to report that there has been a 99 per cent. take-up of that grant. Furthermore, there is a White Paper commitment for the department to commission research into developments in this area.
Lord Carter: My Lords, does the Minister agree that postponement of the implementation of the community care plans until 1993 could make it harder to deal with the requirement of providing proper care for the mentally ill? Can she explain to the House how the care programmes for the mentally ill which are to be devised by the district health authorities are supposed to relate to the community care plans for the

1101
mentally ill to be implemented by the local authority and social services departments after 1993? How are the two plans supposed to be integrated?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the new care programme approach is to be implemented in the context of the wider reforms to be introduced after 1st April this year. I expect the phasing in of the community care programme to be to the advantage of the full implementation of the new care programme approach for the mentally ill. It gives local authorities a period during which they can make their plans and the necessary arrangements for their implementation.

Business
3.19
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the suspension of military operations in the Gulf.

Arms Control and Disarmament (Inspections) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Reay: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Caithness I beg leave to introduce a Bill to facilitate the carrying out in the United Kingdom of inspections under the Protocol on Inspection incorporated in the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe signed in Paris on 19th November 1990; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Reay.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Ministerial and Other Pensions and Salaries Bill
3.21 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, I understand that the amendments set down to this Bill have been withdrawn and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Waddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 27th February), Bill read a third time.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass—(Lord Waddington).
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, perhaps I may be permitted to refer to what was said a few moments ago about two amendments which I tabled for the Committee stage but which I have withdrawn. It was represented to me that the House is desirous of passing this Bill with the utmost haste. That is why we are taking the remaining stages of the Bill together by suspension of a Standing Order.
I shall not detain the House for more than a couple of moments because I shall not develop the point which I would have developed had I moved the amendments. I am content to draw attention to the fact that Clause 5(3), Clause 7 and other related clauses raise matters which I believe are worthy of consideration. For example, Clause 5(3) changes the existing Private Members' allowance into a stable allowance for Ministers without any conditions regarding proof of expenditure.
I believe that that raises certain implications from the point of view of conditions under which Members draw their subsistence allowances. Also, there is a question as to the status of payment to Ministers when it is not classified as remuneration but when it is nevertheless added to their total emoluments.
The other point raises the question as to what principles we now have to guide us through these matters regarding retrospection. That has a bearing on the attempt made in Clause 7 to overcome some of the shortcomings of the failure in the past to give full credit to Members of Parliament for the service which they rendered in another place but which was disallowed in the calculation of their pension from the parliamentary pension fund.
I am prepared to develop both points in correspondence with the Leader of the House. They do not affect the Bill as it stands and I have no desire to amend the Bill as it stands. However, the implications require attention.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am sure that the Government are right to try to get the Bill through as quickly as possible because it is designed to deal with a long-standing difficulty arising from the wholly inadequate remuneration in particular of junior Ministers and Lords in Waiting in this House. The proposal has been under discussion since 1988 and during that time several of our colleagues have been exposed to very severe economic conditions.
As I said on Second Reading, it is absolutely right for the Government to remedy that situation, as I believe these proposals do. Had it not been for that, I should have gone further into the question as to whether—as we were told on Second Reading—basing the allowance on 220 nights in the year was not treating those Ministers rather roughly. As I have suggested to my noble friend the Leader of the House, a more reasonable figure would be 235. Were it not for the urgency of the matter, I should have tabled an amendment dealing with that.
However, I recognise that the matter is now urgent. I am delighted that the Government recognise it as urgent and I hope that your Lordships will pass the Bill in the next few moments.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, earlier in the week I asked the Leader of the House for substantial time to discuss this measure. However, after discussions with my noble friend the Chief Whip on this side of the House, I understand the urgency of the Bill. I accept that entirely. I merely wish to place on record that in the context of this Bill I wished to raise certain inaccuracies in Dod's Parliamentary Companion which can be prejudicial to the prospects of Members obtaining employment, having lost their seats in another place after a general election.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, will be noted.
At the outset I should declare an interest, being one of the Ministers who would benefit from the new allowance. On behalf of my fellow Ministers who cannot speak at the Dispatch Box on this measure, I declare an interest, however unusual that may sound.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I believe that the part of the Bill which provides the allowance for Ministers is overdue. Many people make a considerable sacrifice when they decide to accept office in government. Parliament and government would be a poorer place were we to discourage them further as a result of inadequate remuneration.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, I believe that there is some misconception as to the origin of the allowance and the reason that it has been computed in the way that it has. The position is that an allowance will be paid in connection with the duties of ministerial office and, therefore, will be taxable. The allowance paid to Back-Benchers is not. After taking account of tax deductions and the withdrawal of the London supplement to which Ministers are currently entitled, the net benefit of the new allowance will be around £7,700 and the amendment originally tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, would have reduced it to £4,900. By comparison, a Back-Bench peer who attended every sitting day of the House for 150 sitting days is able to claim up to £10,200 tax free. Therefore, that puts the matter in perspective.
A formula was worked out which, on the one hand, kept some kind of link between the way in which Ministers were to receive an allowance and the way in which Back-Benchers here receive an allowance and which, on the other hand, also links what Ministers here receive and what is paid by way of an allowance to both Ministers and Back-Benchers in another place. I hope that what I have said puts the matter into perspective. I do not believe that anybody would argue that it is a particularly generous settlement in favour of Ministers but it goes the right way.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I raised a small matter regarding elderly retired Members from another place and the widows of some of those Members. I wish to express my appreciation to the Minister for the letter which he sent to me indicating that the Government are making an extra sum of £100,000 available in order to assist those people. I wish to put on record my appreciation of that.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may say that I was remiss in not responding to the second point made by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, in regard to Clause 7. It is a clause that was welcomed by the trustees of the fund. It widens their discretion and enables them to do more than it might be possible to do now. Again, that is a welcome improvement.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

Planning and Compensation Bill [H.L.]
3.30 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that Her Majesty and His Royal Highness, having been informed of the purport of the Planning and Compensation Bill, have consented to place their prerogatives and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Bill read a third time.
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause:

Planning and Compensation Bill [H.L.]

  Assessment of environmental effects
  .—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations for the purposes of requiring the assessment of the likely significant effects on the environment of any development for which planning permission is required under the provisions of the principal Act.
  (2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) regulations may—

  (a) specify classes of development for which an assessment of the likely significant effects on the environment shall or may be required;

  (b) specify the information which shall be supplied with any application for planning permission for which assessment is required;

  (c) specify procedures to be followed in connection with the assessment.

  (3) Regulations under subsections (1) and (2) above may be made—

  (a) for the purposes of ensuring the implementation of any obligations of the United Kingdom under Community Treaties or international agreement to which the United Kingdom is for the time being a party; or

  (b) as the Secretary of State considers necessary to ensure that where a development is likely to have significant effects on the environment planning permission shall not be granted unless those effects have been taken into consideration.").

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the principles which lie behind Amendment No. 1 were explained in detail in Committee and on Report. My noble friend Lady Blatch said in her encouraging response at the Report stage that she would like to be in a position at Third Reading to give a reply on the point of principle in the amendment, although she thought that might be a little optimistic. Therefore, I tabled my amendment again to give my noble friend the opportunity to indicate any progress that has been made.
  I am sure that the House will understand my desire to see the matter resolved. It is a matter that I pursued

  1105
  through the passage of the Environmental Protection Bill last year as well as during the passage of this Bill. I understand that my noble friend must consult widely with other departments. However, I am sure that she will understand my disappointment should we be unable to resolve at least the principle of the matter in this House before the Bill passes to another place.
  I hope that my noble friend now finds herself in a position to give a commitment that the Government will introduce an amendment at Committee stage in another place. I beg to move.
  Baroness Nicol: My Lords, my name should have been appended to Amendment No. 1. We on this side of the House still support the principle behind it. It is necessary to allow for greater flexibility in applying environmental assessment in the UK, and to allow for flexibility in the future in the case of new technology or circumstances which cannot be foreseen. Therefore, we continue to support the principle behind the amendment.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, as I said when my noble friend moved the amendment at the Report stage, the Government are urgently considering the case for taking a power to extend the environmental assessment requirements to projects which are not covered by the European directive. We recognise the arguments put forward by my noble friend, the noble Baroness and others in this House. However, the issue must be discussed with many of my parliamentary colleagues. Until that is done it will be difficult for me to be definitive. It is for that reason that I said at Report stage that, while I hoped to be able to give the Government's response at Third Reading, that would be an optimistic timetable.
  The Government's consideration of the issue is still in progress. I assure my noble friend, the noble Baroness and the House that consideration of his proposal is actively continuing. We shall give a firm response at Committee stage in another place.
  Lord Norrie: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her response and for her helpful approach throughout the Bill on this matter. I believe I am in a position to applaud the Government because my noble friend says that the matter will be taken further. As a result of what she hopes to do in another place, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Gulf War: Cease-fire
3.34 p.m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I beg to repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place.
"In the early hours of this morning, after consulting with us and with other coalition partners, President Bush announced our decision to suspend offensive military operations in the Gulf with effect from 0500 GMT today.
1106
"We took that decision as soon as it became clear that Kuwait had been liberated, and that Iraq's army had been comprehensively defeated. We took the view immediately that there could be no question of continuing to attack an army which had been defeated, notwithstanding the lack of a surrender by their commanders.
"By that time, 42 Iraqi divisions had been effectively destroyed. At the latest count coalition forces have captured, destroyed or disabled over 3,700 Iraqi tanks (out of 4,200 in the theatre); over 2,100 artillery pieces (out of 3,100), and over 1,800 armoured vehicles (out of 2,800). There are 60,000 Iraqi prisoners documented so far, with many thousands more yet to be recorded.
"Remaining Iraqi personnel should withdraw from the theatre of operations, but should leave behind their equipment and weapons. Should Iraq resume attacks on coalition forces or Scud attacks on any country, we shall be free to resume military operations. Meanwhile, we shall take whatever steps are necessary to defend the security and safety of our own forces.
"We also require the Iraqi government to nominate military commanders to meet our own commanders within 48 hours to discuss the military aspects of a cease-fire, including the immediate release of prisoners of war. There will be separate discussions on the political aspects. The United Nations Security Council will be asked to meet soon to discuss the necessary political arrangements for the war to end.
"We have spelled out the conditions which Iraq must meet for there to be a formal and permanent cease-fire. Iraq must immediately release British and other prisoners of war, as well as all Kuwaiti detainees, and return the remains of those who have lost their lives. We are already in touch with the President of the International Committee of the Red Cross, to urge them to redouble their efforts to secure access to the prisoners. We shall insist on the fullest co-operation from the Iraqi military authorities to locate land and sea mines, explosives and other booby traps in and around Kuwait. We shall also insist on a public and authoritative statement from the highest levels of Iraq's leadership of their intention to comply fully with all the relevant Security Council resolutions. This must include renunciation of Iraq's claim to Kuwait, and acceptance of Iraq's responsibility to pay reparations for the damage which its aggression has caused.
"The economic and commercial sanctions being applied against Iraq will remain in force until Iraq has accepted all the Security Council's resolutions, and the Security Council itself has decided that sanctions should be lifted. Through the United Nations, we shall also seek a commitment from Iraq to destroy under international supervision all its ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction, and not to acquire further such weapons in future.

1107
"Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the whole House will join me in congratulating the forces of the United States and other coalition forces on their historic and comprehensive victory, which has destroyed Iraq's offensive military capability. We are thankful that it has been achieved with very few coalition casualties indeed, although our hearts go out in sorrow to the families of all those who have lost their lives, of every nationality. Our thoughts are also with those who have relatives or friends missing. On the latest information which I can give the House, our own casualties are 16 killed in action, seven seriously injured, and 12 air crew missing.
"Our forces deserve the highest praise for the courage and professionalism which they have displayed, in the air, on land and at sea. The consummate planning and execution of the campaign is a tribute to the outstanding leadership shown by the coalition's military commanders. It could not, I think, have been done better. Here, in our own country, we may be justifiably proud of our British forces and their commanders.
"Our thoughts are also with the people of Kuwait whose country has been liberated, albeit at the cost of appalling human suffering and the destruction of so much of their property and natural resources. I saw the Kuwaiti ambassador in London yesterday to convey our pleasure and relief at the liberation of his country. I am glad to tell the House that our ambassador has returned to Kuwait and was installed once again at the embassy around an hour ago.
"Mr. Speaker, the war has been won. Now we have to set about establishing a durable peace. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has already begun discussions with the United States and other coalition governments. Such a peace has many facets. It must provide for the security of Kuwait and the other countries of the Gulf. It must also deal with the other problems of the region, above all that of the Palestinians.
"In considering our future dealings with Iraq, we shall be clear that our quarrel is with the Iraqi leadership, not the Iraqi people, who are themselves victims of the war to which Saddam Hussein condemned them. I hope that we can maintain in the period ahead the remarkable unity of the international coalition which has been so important a factor in our success so far. We owe a great deal to President Bush for that and for his leadership throughout the campaign.
"I would also pay tribute to my right honourable friend the Member for Finchley, whose resolution and staunchness from the outset of the crisis played a key part in rallying international support for Kuwait's cause. Her action has been vindicated by events.
"Finally, may I assure the House of our intention to bring home our forces who have been engaged in the fighting as soon as possible. The whole nation is proud of them and of their families:
1108
and proud that, through their valour, freedom and justice have prevailed. It has been a victory for what is right".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.42 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. We most warmly welcome the announcement by President Bush that a ceasefire has been declared and hope that the Iraqi Government will comply with all the reasonable and necessary conditions attached to the ceasefire so that the countries of the Middle East and the United Nations may proceed to work for a settlement of the problems of the region.
We are glad to know that the Iraqi army has been comprehensively defeated. Nevertheless, we cannot feel entirely at ease while Saddam Hussein remains president of Iraq. He alone has been responsible for the upheaval of recent years in the Middle East. He is responsible for the deaths of more Moslems than anyone in history. He pillaged and destroyed Kuwait, a small Moslem country, and in the process brought destruction and death on unfortunate Iraqis as well. However, the coalition forces could not proceed further and they have conformed to United Nations resolutions. We profoundly hope that the Iraqi people will very soon find new leaders of ability and compassion. We note that sanctions will continue to apply and we support that. Can the noble Lord say whether food and medical supplies will be allowed through to Iraq? That needs careful organisation to ensure that they go to the right people and the right destinations.
We note that discussions are to take place very soon. It is early days to be specific, but can the noble Lord say whether the Government will be asking for a United Nations presence in Kuwait to ensure that the conditions of the ceasefire will be complied with? Ministers have given the impression that British forces will be returning home very soon and that is confirmed in the Statement. I share that hope, but can the noble Lord say what that means in terms of time? Will it be weeks or months before British forces come back to this country? Furthermore, will the Government consider pressing for a United Nations commission of inquiry to investigate promptly and in detail the damage caused to Kuwait and its people?
My right honourable friend Mr. Neil Kinnock, who has also been firm and resolute throughout this critical period, referred to that possibility. It is important that that investigation should be undertaken soon while the evidence is fresh in people's minds and not deferred for weeks or months. Moslems everywhere, including Moslems in this country, should be made aware beyond doubt of the way in which the Kuwaitis were treated; and that should be compared with the civilised treatment accorded to Iraqi prisoners of war by coalition soldiers. We have seen that on television with great satisfaction.
Finally, perhaps I may say how deeply we have admired the skill and courage of our own Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force in the Gulf. How

1109
relieved and glad we are that the conflict has ended and that they can now look forward to returning home to their families. We sympathise with those who have lost their dear ones, but we can also be thankful that the war has ended without the scale of casualties which many of us feared at one time would take place.
The leadership of President Bush has been firm and impressive. We are also glad that the authority of the United Nations has been maintained and strengthened. Great problems remain to be solved in the Middle East, but this is not the moment to discuss them. However, if they can be tackled in the same spirit and with the same skill as the forces have displayed we can look to the future with some optimism.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I join in thanking the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Prime Minister's Statement. Even more are we thankful for the circumstances which have occasioned it. It is a day of great relief. Quite recently the risks appeared considerable. We are profoundly grateful to our troops and those of the coalition nations for the brilliance of their success. The generalship has been outstanding.
We also pay tribute to the political leadership. Mr. Major has conducted himself in a way that has greatly aided national unity, which has been achieved and maintained to an exceptional extent. Mr. Bush also deserves our thanks and admiration. He has maintained the United Nations coalition with a remarkable mixture of determination and tact, and avoided stopping either too soon or too late.
We have heard occasional complaints in this House and elsewhere that it has been too much a United States war and not enough of a United Nations war. First, the Security Council seems to have been very much engaged; obviously at the beginning and also in the past few days. Secondly, without the United States taking the military lead the authority of the United Nations would have been a fairly empty shell. We may have some differences with Washington about the form of the peace and we may find ourselves again closer to our European partners, which of itself will be a good thing, but further away from the United States, which will not. The peace will pose many problems. We start to face them from a foundation of considerable gratitude to the United States.
There has also been vindication of the judgment of the great majority in this House and in the country that in mid-January the time had come when the authority of the United Nations had to be exerted through military action and not left to the leisurely consequences of sanctions alone. Both the conditions revealed in Kuwait City and the swift effectiveness of the military action justify that judgment. I pose only one question to the noble Lord the Leader of the House in addition to those put by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. I do so as a former Home Secretary speaking to another former Home Secretary. What are the Government's plans for the release of the Iraqis at
1110
present interned in this country? There is a slight danger of that being a blot on the record of the tradition of tolerance in this country.
Today is not a moment for triumphalism or for minimising the difficulties ahead. It is one for satisfaction at what has been achieved and gratitude for the avoidance of greater perils.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am sure the whole House will be grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn and Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, for what they have said. I do not think that the mood of the House today is one of elation, but it is one of pride—enormous pride—in our forces. Parliament has something to be proud of too, because throughout the whole of this matter all sides of the House have stood together giving the Prime Minister the support he needed in order to do the job he was called upon to do. We are naturally very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, for what he has said about the work done by the Prime Minister and the leadership of the President of the United States. It would have been a terrible thing if after such a flagrant attack on a country we had been impotent and done nothing whatsoever. Indeed, we could have said goodbye to the United Nations as a force for good in the world, prepared to keep the peace and preserve freedom and justice.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said that we cannot be at ease so long as Saddam Hussein remains the leader. That, I fear, is true. On the other hand, as the days go by the extent of the defeat of the Iraqi forces will surely sink into the consciousness of the Iraqi public, as people stream back into Baghdad from the desert and from their defeated armies. Surely the time may come when they will decide that this man has led them to destruction and can no longer be their leader.
The coalition forces could not have continued to fight a defeated army. There was nothing more to fight. The House would also agree with me that we can take pride in that as well. We fought for a just cause and we have ended the war when the war ought to have been ended; when there was no war to be fought.
I cannot answer the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, about food and medical supplies. I should imagine that at the present time there is a great deal of disorganisation and much work to be done. I shall make inquiries, find out what might be done and write to him about it. Perhaps it would suit him better if I were to speak to him about it later this afternoon.
It is too early to say anything about whether there will be a United Nations presence, but the United Nations Security Council is to meet. These are very early days. I cannot answer the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, about a United Nations commission of inquiry, but I shall report what he has said to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The noble Lord also mentioned Iraqi prisoners of war. We can take pride in that as well because of the humane way in which they have been treated.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, referred at the end of his remarks to general internment. A

1111
number of people have been detained after deportation orders have been served on them, the Secretary of State having determined that their presence in this country was not conducive to the public good on grounds of national security. One has surely to bear in mind at this moment that, although armed conflict may have finished, it does not follow that there is no terrorist threat in this country. I must leave it at that at the moment.
3.53 p.m.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, how relieved and proud we all were to hear the splendid Statement from the noble Lord the Leader of the House. Our first and overriding emotion must be one of heartfelt thankfulness that an essential and honourable task has been completed with so miraculously few casualties, although our hearts do indeed go out, as the noble Lord said, to the families of those who have lost their lives in the cause of justice and who, sadly, will be unable to share in the general elation of the rest of us. That is the tragedy of war. Our second emotion is one of pride and immense congratulations to all those who have been responsible for planning and executing such a brilliant military operation which I believe will stand in history as a classic campaign to be compared with any of the great battles of the past. It was designed with the greatest skill and imagination and executed faultlessly, with flair, courage and the highest possible professionalism.
The lion's share was borne by our American friends and allies, and it is so good to see them with such outstanding success under their belt. But we are naturally especially proud of our own armed forces who played such a notable part in the victory: our pilots in the Royal Air Force who bore the brunt in the early difficult and dangerous days; the ships and men of the Royal Navy who ranged the dangerous waters of the northern Gulf; and the commanders and troops of the 1st Armoured Division who struck so rapidly and fearlessly deep into the heart of the Iraqi army in the true spirit of armoured forces. They more than upheld the great tradition of their proud regiments in a way that their forefathers and predecessors in the Desert Rats, of both the Red and Black variety, would indeed have been so immensely proud, and indeed are so immensely proud, because there are some of us still around. What great armed forces we have. I do hope that this will not be forgotten when the guns have gone silent.
When the parliamentary delegation, including Members of this House, was in the Gulf before Christmas the message of the Gulf states was unmistakable: "We want Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. We want him taught a lesson. We do not want him in a position to do it again, but we do not want Iraq destroyed as a country". I believe that virtually all those laudable aims have been triumphantly achieved. If there are still things to do I am sure they can be done by tackling and organising the peace with the same flair, imagination and compassion that were shown by the commanders and troops in the field. I
1112
only hope that Parliament will be able to show the same unanimity over securing the peace as it has during the course of the war.
Lord Waddington: How right, my Lords, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, was to point to the brilliance of the campaign—what a campaign—which has ended in the defeat of an enormous army in such a short time and with so few losses. But our hearts go out to those who have lost members of their families. It is something that we shall always remember—when our army goes into battle losses are bound to occur. People serve in the armed forces knowing that that is a risk they are prepared to take on behalf of their country. We are proud of them. The noble and gallant Lord said that our quarrel was not with the Iraqi people. That was said at the beginning of this matter: it remains so today.
The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, from these Benches we join in thanking the noble Lord the Leader of the House for the Statement this afternoon. This has been a stunningly brilliant campaign and we want to echo that from the heart. We also want to give thanks for its swiftness, which still staggers the mind. The word "miraculous" has been used about the small number of casualties emanating from the Gulf yesterday and it has been repeated by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, this afternoon. I do not think we should treat that word too lightly. It is amazing, and all of us are thankful for that, much as we deeply regret the totally unnecessary wastage of so many human lives, which could have been avoided if Kuwait had not been invaded.
I hope that noble Lords will have noticed that the Archbishops of the Church of England and the House of Bishops in general have consistently supported the Government's actions in the Gulf. In the face of evil aggression, which is something not to be tolerated in God's world, you need to balance the Biblical requirements to love your enemies with the Biblical command to fight against evil and to resist the devil so that he will run away from you.
The Archbishop of Canterbury designate defended that position in the face of considerable opposition recently in the World Council of Churches in Canberra. All Churches have been committed in prayer over these weeks and have been very active in caring for and supporting families of those involved in the Gulf. The Churches will now have the privilege of leading thanksgiving and in particular in urging that, alongside action for peace in the Gulf, we continue to pray for peace in the area in Biblical terms—the Shalom—which is not just the cessation of hostilities but the establishment of a wholesome, just and lasting peace for all who live in the Gulf.
One of the frustrations of being a Bishop in this House and leading Prayers is that you are confined exactly to the prayers in the Book. This week I have been especially frustrated as I wanted at least to lead the House in prayer in thanksgiving on Monday and again today—that is, if noble Lords had all been present in the Chamber earlier with the Law Lords. I am not allowed to do so, but perhaps in this small

1113
response your Lordships will allow me to say on behalf of most, if not all, people in this House, thanks be to God.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I know that all Members of the House will greatly appreciate all that the right reverend Prelate said. It is indeed miraculous that so few lives have been lost in the campaign. I do not think that any of us has underestimated the importance of the support which the Bishops have given throughout. People have recognised the fact that they have said that this was a just war. That counted for a great deal with people in this country. So we thank the Bishops for their support.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, does my noble friend have information about prisoners of war? For example, does he know whether they are alive, or where they are at present?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, no access has been granted to the Red Cross and therefore there is virtually no evidence whatever as to their whereabouts. However, it is top of our priorities to ensure that our prisoners of war are returned to us.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I am very grateful, as I am sure all noble Lords are, that mention was made of the humane treatment of Iraqi prisoners of war, not only in general but also by individual captors on the allied side. In view of the large numbers who have been made prisoners of war—60,000 or 80,000—can the noble Lord give an assurance that such numbers are not proving to be an undue strain on the planned resources of the allied forces for detaining prisoners of war and keeping up the standards which we would wish to give to those men?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I recall that plans were made to cater for up to 100,000 prisoners of war. It is possible that the figure of 60,000 or more which was mentioned in the Statement has now increased to something like 100,000. I rather gather from what I was told this morning that more and more prisoners are trickling in, many of whom have not been documented in any way. However, I have certainly heard nothing to suggest that facilities are not available to deal with all the prisoners of war who have come into our hands.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister the question which everyone in the street is asking. What will happen to Saddam Hussein? Is he to be left there so that he can again twist the facts and say that he has only been defeated by half the West? Is he not to go out as a beaten and defeated general? That is an important issue. The war is not yet over and it must be finished so that Saddam Hussein can never again do exactly what he did in Kuwait.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, Saddam Hussein, the villain of the piece, is not in the hands of the allies. But the conditions for a formal ceasefire certainly involve full compliance with all the UN Security Council resolutions, which include the renouncing of the claim to Kuwait and the acceptance of responsibility to pay
1114
reparations; the immediate release of all allied prisoners of war, third country nationals and the remains of those who lost their lives; the release of all Kuwait detainees; and compliance with the requirement that the Iraqis must help to clear up the danger which they have created and inform the Kuwaiti authorities of the nature and origin of all land and sea mines.
We could well ask today, "Well, what happens next?". We must wait and see what comes forth from the UN Security Council meeting. However, this is not a ceasefire; it is a temporary suspension of offensive military operations because there was no army left to fight. It is now up to the Iraqis to comply with the very proper demands of the allies.
Lord Elton: My Lords, this was indeed a staggering military achievement to which the British forces made a significant and honourable contribution. I hope that we shall not forget that it would not have been possible without a staggering diplomatic achievement in which the British played a considerable part. To achieve that amount of world unanimity under the tensions which existed before the war began was a notable accomplishment. It gives us confidence that the diplomatic services of the world, and especially those of this country, are equal to achieving an honourable and lasting peace.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend. Indeed, there must have been many times during the past few months when we have held our breath and wondered whether the international coalition would hold together. However, it did so, as a result of the efforts of the leaders. We owe them all our thanks. Time and again we heard siren voices expressing the view that we should wait and perhaps sanctions would eventually do the trick. But when we now see the appalling destruction carried out in Kuwait and the rape and pillage which took place, how much longer could we have waited while such atrocities continued to occur? As I said, the leaders kept the coalition together and it has now fought a victorious war. Kuwait is free and we are all thankful to God for that fact.
Viscount Slim: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House to bear in mind that when it comes to the repatriation of the Iraqi prisoners of war to Iraq, if Saddam Hussein is still in power it may be rather dangerous to return them to their country where they may receive the type of reception which we know he can give them. That applies especially as regards the senior officers who have been captured. Perhaps I may remind the House that we do not want another Yugoslavia.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I take the noble Viscount's point. However, it is almost too early to express an opinion. I do not believe that we are near the stage when large numbers of prisoners of war will be returned to Iraq.

Planning and Compensation Bill [H.L.]
4.10 p.m.
Proceedings after Third Reading resumed.
Clause 1 [Planning contravention notices]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 17, leave out ("fourteen") and insert ("twenty-one").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 16 which is tabled in the name of my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate. These two government amendments respond to the concern expressed by my noble friends Lord Stanley and Lord Coleraine when they spoke to Amendment No. 5 tabled in their names on Report. They were especially concerned that the time limit of 14 days for responding to a planning contravention notice was too short where the recipient may be temporarily away from the premises and that it gave too little time for solicitors to investigate complex matters which might be involved in responding correctly to the notice.
We have re-examined that procedural point carefully. While the recommendation in the Carnwath Report is that the time limit for a response to that new notice should be 14 days to avoid delay in obtaining essential information, we recognise that that period will in some cases be too short to enable the recipient of a notice and his advisers to acquire all the detailed information the planning authority may require. As my noble friend Lord Coleraine pointed out, a comparable procedure for requiring information to be given to the planning authority, which is now in Section 330 of the 1990 Act, provides for a response to be given within a minimum period of 21 days after the date of service of the notice. We now propose, as a reasonable compromise, a time limit of 21 days for the recipient's response to the "planning contravention notice" As well as going some way to meet the concern expressed by my noble friends, a 21-day limit will have the advantage of similarity to the provisions of Section 330 of the 1990 Act. Practitioners will therefore be able to assume, in most cases, that the same time limit will apply for both purposes.
I hope that that compromise commends itself to my noble friends and other noble Lords. Amendment No. 2 makes the appropriate change to Clause 1, for England and Wales; and Amendment No. 16 makes a corresponding change to the Scottish provisions in Clause 26. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, my noble friend never ceases to amaze me. When we discussed this point in Committee and on Report she more or less told me and my noble friend Lord Coleraine to jump in the Thames. I am therefore enormously grateful that she has changed her mind since then.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I join my noble friend in welcoming the amendment. I still believe that 28 days is the right time. It may be that this is a matter which will be referred to again in another place. To move from 14 days to 21 days—as against the 28 days for which we were asking—is, in all the practicalities of
1116
the matter, to meet us considerably more than half way. The 14-day notice in cases where failure to comply was criminalising—I make no apologies for using that word—the person who received the notice, sounded bad and would have been counterproductive; 21 days does not produce that feeling, and so I support the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Rights of entry for enforcement purposes]:
The Lord Advocate (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie)The Lord Advocate (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie) moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 17, line 46, after ("authority") insert ("and state the purpose of his entry").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 13, 19, 23, 30, 31, 47, 48, 52, 55, 57 and 58. The amendments are tabled in response to the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, when he moved his Amendment No. 44 on Report. He proposed that the words
"and state the grounds on which entry has been authorised"
should be inserted at the end of paragraph (a) in the new Section 196C(1) of the 1990 Act. The purpose of his amendment was to enable an owner or occupier, where the planning authority is exercising the right of entry on to land, to require the authorised officer to state the grounds on which entry has been authorised.
The Government's amendment is not in exactly the same terms as that proposed by the noble Lord because we believe that what an owner or occupier of land wants to know, when the right of entry is being exercised, is the purpose for which authority to enter has been given. Moreover, if we referred to "grounds" for entry, that might create confusion with the purposes for entry which are stated in Section 196A(1) and the reference in that subsection to
"reasonable grounds for entering the land".
While it is right that an owner or occupier should be told the purpose for which land is to be entered in pursuance of the planning authority's power of entry, it is also important not to place too onerous a burden on the authority, which might result in delay or an unjustified attempt to prevent entry. We envisage that the use of the expression "state the purpose" in the amendments will enable the authority's officer merely to say why he has been authorised to enter the land. We do not believe that a formal document stating the purpose of entry will always be needed provided that the authority's officer invariably carries proper evidence of his identity as an employee of the planning authority and of his own authority to exercise the right of entry.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for prompting these improvements. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, in the unavoidable absence of my noble friend Lord Meston perhaps I may thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for carrying out his promise to amend

1117
the Bill. I realise the amendment is not the same as that proposed by my noble friend, but it sounds satisfactory to me and I am extremely grateful.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 18, line 8, leave out ("is") and insert ("or chattels are").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I referred to this matter in Committee and on Report when my noble and learned friend conceded that I had something of a point. I am therefore assuming that he has something hopeful to say to me. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Stanley are concerned with the problem he raised on Report, where damage is caused to "property" as opposed to "land" when the right of entry on to land for enforcement purposes is exercised. I understand my noble friend's anxiety on that issue and I hope that we may arrive at a mutually acceptable arrangement for dealing with it.
In reply to my noble friend on Report, I said that we would write to him about the matter. In the meantime, it is fair to say that my noble friend has himself had further thoughts, because his amendments are now drafted in terms of "chattels", instead of "property".
I reassure my noble friend that we continue to think that there may be merit in his suggestion and we are sympathetic to it, but this is a difficult area of law and the precise effect of the proposed changes needs careful scrutiny. We also need to examine comparable provisions in other legislation. On Report my noble friend referred to the Water Resources Act and the Gas Act, but those are not the only two comparable pieces of legislation that must be considered. There is also, for example, the Building Act 1984.
We wish to ensure that any amendment we might make to planning legislation is consistent with similar provisons elsewhere. We should like the opportunity to consider the best way of achieving my noble friend's aim in his amendments. We shall then let him know how we think the matter might best be dealt with. With that further assurance, I hope that my noble friend will agree not to pursue his two amendments.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, as I understand it, my noble and learned friend accepts the principle of my amendment but has not got round to drafting the correct amendment because the "help" from his lawyers has not been helpful. I see nothing wrong with the two Acts that I proposed that we should follow, but obviously his lawyers think differently. If he can show by a nod that he intends to put this point forward in another place so that we have it right, I would be happy to withdraw the amendment. However, I point out—my noble friend may think that this is churlish—that I raised this matter in Committee and I have written to him since, and there has been time for the lawyers to sort the matter out. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
1118
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 6:
After Clause 11, insert the following new clause:

Planning and Compensation Bill [H.L.]

  General environmental duty
  . It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State and local planning authorities in discharging any of their functions under this Act to exercise their powers, so far as may be consistent with their functions under any other legislation, so as to further the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty and the conservation of flora, fauna and geological and physiographical features of special interest and the protection of sites, buildings and objects of architectural, historic or archaeological interest.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, we once again turn to what should be the Bill's key role—the improvement of environmental policy. The amendment would place a responsibility on local authorities and the Secretary of State to further conservation issues through the planning system while at the same time paying attention to social and economic concerns. The Government's sole argument against a similar amendment that I tabled on Report was that it would raise the protection of the natural environment above all other issues.
  I was disappointed by the Government's response and by their reluctance to discuss how we might change the wording. My noble friend Lord Renton and I had altered the amendment that we had tabled in Committee to ensure that the environment was not made paramount. The amendment followed similar wording in the Water Act 1989.
  Following the Report stage, my noble friend Lord Renton and I wrote to the noble Baroness expressing concern about the Government's response. Since the reply was only received yesterday I am sure that the House will understand if I take slightly longer than normal in moving the amendment. The noble Baroness has now put forward four main arguments against our amendment. The first is that we have misunderstood the role of environmental duties in other pieces of legislation such as the Water and Electricity Acts. The Government say that these duties are merely to regulate the behaviour of bodies whose commercial interests may encourage them to disregard environmental concerns. Planning authorities are different.
  I agree with the noble Baroness up to a point. However, I feel that she has been a little selective in her choice of duties. Duties are also placed on the Minister of Agriculture under Section 17 of the Agriculture Act 1986, on the Secretary of State under Section 3 of the Electricity Act 1989 and under Section 8 of the Water Act 1989. The Secretary of State is not a developer seeking the best commercial return on his investment. Indeed, his role as a regulator is similar to that of local planning authorities. There is a precedent for an environmental duty in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Section 197 places a duty on local authorities to use planning conditions for the preservation of and planting of trees whenever appropriate. Perhaps this precedent should set an example for wider environmental improvement.
  The second argument put forward by the noble Baroness is that local planning authorities already have to weigh up all material considerations when dealing with planning applications. The environment should not be the overriding factor and making the environmental duty consistent with the authorities' functions under any other legislation, as we suggest in our amendment, does not take all matters into account. I am at a loss to understand why the Secretary of State or the Minister of Agriculture is not put in the same position when meeting his environmental duties under other legislation. He must consider all issues but still has an environmental duty. My amendment goes wider, to deal with the preparation of plans as well as development control decisions. I am trying to influence development plans as well as individual development decisions.
  The third argument is that the amendment is unnecessary because the matter is already covered by other legislation, particularly in the Countryside Act 1968, the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. That takes a very narrow view of our amendment. The Countryside Act refers only to the countryside. What about the environment of urban fringes in our towns and cities? The other Acts deal specifically only with specially designated sites such as conservation areas, scheduled monuments and listed buildings. The historic and archaeological value of our natural heritage goes wider than this. It includes a wide range of landscapes, buildings and sites which are not designated but which, when put together, are enormously valuable.
  The final argument is that our amendment is too positive. The Government fear that a requirement to further conservation may lead to too many High Court challenges. That also takes a narrow view. Positive requirements already exist in the planning system. Section 31 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires structure plans to include policies for the improvement of the physical environment. Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires local authorities and the Secretary of State to give special attention to,
  "the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area".
  This positive duty is now being well tested in the High Court. The effect on local authorities and developers has been thoroughly good because they think much more carefully before damaging these areas.
  I believe that there are strong arguments in favour of a positive duty, but if the Government are willing to consider different wording then I should be delighted to see a revised amendment when the Bill returns to this House. I do not wish to delay the House much longer on this important amendment, but I hope that the Government can see the strength of feeling that lies behind it and will consider how we may find some common ground. I know it exists and I am sure it is worth working for. I beg to move.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Norrie has described our case fully and clearly, I can
  1120
  be fairly brief. I make no apology for the fact that this is the third time of asking under the Bill. The reason I make no apology is that to my mind it is the most important matter raised by any amendment to the Bill. My noble friend says that it is not necessary or desirable, but, with respect, I find the logic very strange indeed. She says that it is not necessary because a similar duty is already required under the Countryside Act 1968 and under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act and regulations. However, if it is required under those provisions, it must be desirable. If it is desirable for the purpose of those measures one wonders why it is not even more desirable under our general planning law. The main purpose of that law is, or should be, to ensure that unavoidable development is carried out in ways which are acceptable environmentally as well as socially and economically.
  Thus, if it is correct to say that such a duty is desirable and necessary, as both my noble friend Lord Norrie and I maintain, I trust that when the Bill goes to another place the Government will consider the matter further. I am prepared to concede that the word "further" may be difficult for my noble friend Lady Blatch to swallow. That word is sometimes ambiguous, but here it means "to advance". In her letter, my noble friend explained her problem and if that word is difficult then I suggest that the same object or something close to it could be achieved by using the expression "a duty to have regard to" conservation and enhancement of beauty, instead of "to further" them.
  If my noble friend will state that she will bear that constructive alternative in mind with a view to altering and improving the Bill in another place then, speaking for myself, I should be content. I hope that my noble friend realises the importance of the matter and the support that we have received from all corners of the House on previous occasions. I live in hope.
  Baroness White: My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House for long. I wholeheartedly support the two noble Lords who have spoken on the amendment. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has drawn attention to this. I understand the strong Civil Service pressure that must have been put on the Minister against using the word "further". Having had a good deal of experience with civil servants over many years, I know that they have a Pavlovian reaction to it. To "further" something is very dangerous indeed. Therefore I appreciate that the noble Baroness will have been under pressure not to further the amendment.
  I hope that the Minister will not misunderstand the feeling in the House on the part of those of us who have supported this amendment on previous engagements on this Bill and that she will take the amendment seriously. The amendment is very important and it is a complete cross-party provision. It reflects the deep concern of those of us who are engaged upon environmental matters that an adequate reference to those matters should be included in the Bill.
  4.30 p.m.
  Baroness Blotch: My Lords, I am conscious that I am up against considerable heavyweights in this matter in terms of knowledge of previous legislation and of the impact of legalese terminology on legislation. Therefore, it is with some trepidation that I reply to my noble friends on this amendment. I hope that my reply will be considered a positive one.
  I believe that there is a considerable meeting of minds on this issue in terms of what my noble friends wish to see in the Bill and what I can agree to on behalf of the Government. My reply will contain a great deal of repetition in regard to the pieces of legislation that I shall refer to. Further, I believe there will continue to be room for further consideration of these matters as the Bill proceeds from this House into another place. It would be quite wrong of the Government to say at any stage that we had done all we could on any of the issues. At the outset I give an assurance that we shall continue to consider these matters.
  During the previous debates, and on this occasion, my noble friends Lord Norrie and Lord Renton referred to the existence of environmental duties in other legislation and I have noted that the wording of their amendment echoes that of Section 8 of the Water Act 1989. However, as I explained during the debate on this issue on Report, the provision in the Water Act, and, indeed, similar provisions in the Electricity Act 1989 and the Electricity Act 1957, were introduced —my noble friend Lord Norrie pointed this out—to regulate the behaviour of the individual bodies concerned. That was necessary because developers, whether private companies or statutory undertakers, might otherwise be expected to act in their best commercial interests irrespective of the effect on the environment.
  The position of local planning authorities, and of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, is different from that of developers. Under Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, local planning authorities have to weigh all material considerations when they consider a planning application for a proposed development. I am aware that in drafting their amendment my noble friends have attempted to take account of local planning authorities' social and economic responsibilities by obliging them to further the interests of conservation,
  "so far as may be consistent with their functions under any other legislation".
  But that fails to recognise that local authorities' own functions in those areas, so far as they exist and are material, are only part of the wider range of considerations they have to take into account.
  My noble friends have also drawn attention to the existence of the general environmental duty in Section 11 of the Countryside Act 1968 which, as they rightly say, is not directed at individual developers but rather at every Minister, government department and public body. They wonder why the Government are opposed to the insertion of a similar duty in this Bill.
  1122
  Section 11 of the Countryside Act 1968 imposes a specific duty on local planning authorities and the Secretary of State to,
  "have regard to the desirability of conserving the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside".
  I cannot see what useful purpose would be served by repeating that duty in the present Bill. Furthermore,
  "sites, buildings and objects of architectural, historic or archaeological interest",
  which are also mentioned in my noble friends' amendment, are already protected by the provisions of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. It is therefore clear that in terms of the environmental issues covered, my noble friends' amendment would largely duplicate existing specific legislative duties.
  However, repetition of existing legislation is not the only objection the Government have to my noble friends' amendment. The amendment goes much further than the duty expressed in the Countryside Act. It would, in effect, impose a requirement on local planning authorities and the Secretary of State to demonstrate, in every case in which they proposed to grant planning permission, that the development concerned would positively,
  "further the conservation and enhancement"
  of the range of environmental concerns mentioned in the amendment. This would invest environmental considerations with an importance above all others. That would be undesirable and inappropriate, considering the range of matters which local planning authorities and the Secretary of State are required to take into account when reaching a decision on a planning application.
  I note what my noble friend Lord Renton said as regards considering the concept of "further" enhancing environmental considerations. Clearly that message will be passed on to my honourable friends in another place. The amendment would provide an opportunity for anyone aggrieved by a planning decision, taken after careful consideration of all the material considerations, to challenge that decision on the grounds that the development concerned did not positively conserve or enhance the environment. This could seriously delay acceptable development or potentially preclude it from proceeding at all. I am sure your Lordships agree that such a prospect is unacceptable.
  I understand and sympathise with the motives which led my noble friends to put down their amendments. The Government's commitment to the protection of the natural environment and our heritage cannot be doubted, and I would be concerned if anyone thought that in rejecting this amendment we were in some sense undermining the importance of environmental issues in the planning system. That is far from the case. However, as I have said, this amendment largely repeats existing specific statutory duties and would weaken the general statutory duty on local planning authorities under Section 70(2) of the 1990 Act to take all material considerations into

  1123
  account when reaching decisions on applications. What is worse—for the reasons I have outlined—it could prove counter-productive.
  I wish to refer now to the one point that seriously divides us on this issue. By elevating environmental concerns above all others in every single planning proposal, conservation could get a bad name. One only has to think of a small, much needed housing development in a beautiful rural setting. In environmental terms only, that development would be considered to be disadvantageous. It would certainly not be considered as further enhancing environmental considerations. Nevertheless, when everything is taken into account, approval of such a planning application could be very important to the area concerned. We must consider that kind of sensitive balance. In the light of that and other considerations that I have outlined, I hope my noble friends will not press this amendment.
  Lord Norrie: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her response and to my noble friend Lord Renton for his words of wisdom. It would do us great credit to respond to the great wave of public concern about the environment by amending the Bill. I believe there is still a positive way forward. The Government must be seen to be sympathetic to the concerns behind the amendment. My noble friend Lord Renton has suggested a new form of wording which I hope my noble friend will consider carefully.
  A new amendment requiring local authorities to have regard to conservation issues would have great merit. Such a provision would encourage better practice among local authorities and act as a clear statement on the face of the Bill. It would emphasise that the Government are willing to respond to public concern. With that suggestion in mind, I leave my noble friend to consider the matter further with a view to proposing a suitable amendment in another place. On that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 12 [Planning obligations]:
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 7:
  Page 18, line 41, leave out ("or otherwise") and insert ("with the authority or as specified in subsection (1B)").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are surprised that we have not made more progress in the matter with which this amendment is concerned. We are also surprised that the Government have been so adamant in resisting our arguments put forward in Committee and on Report about unilateral undertakings—that is, one-sided agreements for planning gain—being allowed for the first time in British legislation. We consider this small part of the Bill to be contrary to the thrust of the Bill as a whole. We make no apology for coming back a third time at Third Reading because, as it stands, the proposal is a blot on the face of a Bill of which we are largely in favour.
  The provision that developers may enter into unilateral undertakings rather than into planning agreements with local authorities has a number of serious defects. First, it would reduce the negotiating strength of the local authority in dealing with
  1124
  developers. The noble Lord, Lord Wade of Chorlton, among others, has rightly emphasised the need for effective development and the fact that the planning laws must permit and encourage good development in our towns and in our countryside.
  It is not that development is a bad thing in itself. But it is very rare for development to be an unalloyed good. It rarely happens that even the most necessary development for industrial, commercial or residential purposes does not bring with it implications—often of traffic congestion, sometimes of noise, sometimes of the need for infrastructure —which are damaging, which will have to be overcome and which involve expense, normally to the local authority, which is also the local planning authority.
  However, it is worse than that. In a significant number of cases unilateral undertakings made without the agreement of the local planning authority could very well be unwanted undertakings. The classic example would be where the developer of a shopping precinct offers to provide a car park while the local authority, eager to discourage excessive use of cars, would prefer to have a subway to a bus station or some other means of good access to the shopping centre. The issue here is the same as that we discussed yesterday afternoon. Who knows best? Is it the officials in Marsham Street or is it the planning authority on the ground which has been elected by local people and is responsible to them?
  In replying to debates on this subject at both Committee and Report stages the Minister suggested that the problem which made it necessary for the Government to propose unilateral undertakings rather than planning agreements was the log-jam which occurred in the planning process. I do not advocate unnecessary delays in the planning process. However, all the evidence that has been adduced about delays in the planning process indicates that the initial delay in consideration of the planning application is not the most serious delay. In practice the delays involved in the appeal procedure are very much longer than the delays involved in the original planning application. No one is defending delays, but those who attack local authorities for causing delay ought to look at their own procedures and where the delays actually occur.
  The line we are taking with this amendment is deliberately conciliatory because this is Third Reading. We say that if we cannot abolish unilateral undertakings there should at least be some distinction between unilateral undertakings and planning agreements and that there should be unilateral undertakings only,
  "where a local planning authority has been unwilling to enter into an obligation by agreement and an appeal has been made to the Secretary of State".
  I consider that a notable concession. It still allows unilateral undertakings, which I would prefer not to allow. However, it limits the incidence of unilateral undertakings to those occasions when the local planning authority is behaving badly and refusing to negotiate.
  I hope that that meets the arguments put forward by the Government at previous stages and that the House approves the amendment. I beg to move.
  4.45 p.m.
  Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, my objections have largely been met. As I understand it the amendment would cover the situation in which a developer who feels that he has a reasonable case cannot obtain the approval of the local authority for one reason or another, goes to appeal and, before the appeal is heard, unilaterally offers some planning gain which is discussed at the appeal. In that case the public is aware of what is offered. If that is correct the objections that I expressed previously have been met. One wants the public to learn about such proposals if that is possible.
  At Report stage I went into the matter at some length and quoted a number of examples in which I thought the local authority had been bloody-minded. I considered that the Government were right to introduce the idea of unilateral undertakings. However, if the amendment makes developers come forward before the appeal so that everyone will know what has been offered that covers the situation.
  Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I warmly support the thinking behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. As he said, it is conciliatory, unlike earlier amendments which would have wrecked the clause. In Committee, in connection with the Motion that the clause stand part of the Bill, I spoke about the words "or otherwise" in the drafting of the Bill. With this amendment they would come out.
  At Report the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, speaking to her amendment, said:
  "We do not need a "take it or leave it" agreement, but a way in which, at a reasonable point in time, should planning negotiations have broken down, unilateral agreement may come in as a last resort. It should not be a parallel alternative for developers to use and abuse the planning system".— [Official Report, 19/2/91; col. 496.]
  I have always understood that that was what the Government intended, and I have said so during the passage of the Bill. As I understand it, it is no part of the Government's intention that a developer should ride roughshod over a planning authority with which he may think that he will agree and go straight to the Secretary of State with a unilateral undertaking.
  The problem has been in the drafting of the clause. Once one thinks one knows what the Government intend one can see exactly what the clause means. However, that is only one of the many possible meanings of the clause. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will accept that the amendment is a desirable clarification of the Bill and should be accepted.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as I explained on previous occasions, the Government expect the prime use of such undertakings to be at appeal in situations where there is a planning objection to a development proposal which can only be resolved by a planning obligation under Section 106 and where the parties are not able to reach agreement about how to resolve the objections. By now, that is well-trodden ground.
  I welcome the fact that in the amendments the noble Lord is not pressing an objection in principle to unilateral undertakings. I hope that that indicates that
  1126
  our difference of view is now less pronounced. However, it is still our view that the amendments are unnecessary and undesirable.
  The amendments are unnecessary because the main use of undertakings as an alternative means of entering into a planning obligation will be at appeal stage anyway. The amendments are undesirable because we believe that they would create inflexibility. They would prevent an obligation entered into by undertaking being made until after the developer had lodged an appeal. It is our understanding of the amendment that the developer would not be able to signal his intentions in that formal way until a late stage. By contrast, under Clause 12 as it stands, a developer could make an undertaking at any stage. Such an undertaking might, by clarifying what the developer was prepared to offer, facilitate agreement between the parties. Alternatively, the local planning authority might be prepared to grant permission on the basis that the undertaking had removed the outstanding objections to the development proposal. There can be nothing objectionable about that.
  The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, suggested that perhaps elected planning authorities know best. What I can say is that the principle of unilateral undertaking has been subjected to public consultation, and overall this measure found considerable support, especially from development interests. It certainly was not at the whim of Marsham Street; it was at the end of a fairly extensive consultation process. I hope that this amendment will not be pressed.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is hardly surprising that when the matter went out to consultation development interests were in favour of the clause that the Government have introduced. As I made clear when I introduced the amendment, what this does it to shift the whole balance of power as between the developers and the local planning authorities. If the Minister is saying that the main use of a unilateral undertaking will be at appeal stage, what conceivable reason is there for the Government not to agree that it should be restricted to the appeal stage?
  I can confirm formally that the noble Lord, Lord Ross, is right in his interpretation of my amendment; it restricts the procedure to appeal stage. It does—to use the Minister's words—prevent a developer from using the formal unilateral undertaking procedure at an early stage of a planning application. It does not, of course, prevent a developer from saying, "If we are forced to go to appeal, this is the kind of unilateral undertaking which we shall put forward", but it means that the matter has to be pursued to appeal before the unilateral undertaking procedure is adopted.
  This is not a matter on which we sought the opinion of the House before, and it is a matter on which it is necessary that we do so now, because we have done everything in our power to point out to the Government the dangers of this uncharacteristic—in terms of this Bill—series of provisions.
  I am bound to say that, if the House does not agree with us on this matter, my friends in another place will not feel obliged to follow the conciliatory tone that I have taken. They may well feel it necessary to go back

  1127
  to the root and branch opposition to unilateral undertakings which we have proposed. The House has an opportunity now to give effect to the intentions expressed by the Government, without wrecking the major provisions and without damaging the thrust of the Bill. I invite noble Lords to do so by supporting the amendment.
  4.53 p m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 76; Not-Contents, 109.

  Division No. 1

  CONTENTS

  Addington, L.

  Kissin, L.

  Airedale, L.

  Leatherland, L.

  Ardwick, L.

  Listowel, E.

  Attlee, L.

  Lockwood, B.

  Aylestone, L.

  Longford, E.

  Barnett, L.

  Lovell-Davis, L.

  Blackstone, B.

  Lytton, E.

  Blease, L.

  Macaulay of Bragar, L.

  Bottomley, L.

  McGregor of Durris, L.

  Brightman, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L.

  Broadbridge, L.

  McNair, L.

  Bruce of Donington, L.

  Mayhew, L.

  Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

  Molloy, L.

  Carter, L.

  Monson, L.

  Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

  Moran, L.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Mulley, L.

  Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

  Murray of Epping Forest, L.

  Craigavon, V.

  Nicol, B.

  David, B.

  Peston, L.

  Dean of Beswick, L.

  Phillips, B.

  Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

  Rea, L.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  Ritchie of Dundee, L.

  Erroll, E.

  Rochester, L.

  Falkland, V.

  Ross of Newport, L.

  Gainsborough, E.

  Russell, E.

  Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

  Seear, B.

  Gladwyn, L.

  Serota, B.

  Glenarmara, L.

  Shaughnessy, L.

  Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Gregson, L.

  Tordoff, L.

  Hanworth, V.

  Underhill, L.

  Hirshfield, L.

  Wallace of Coslany, L.

  Hylton-Foster, B.

  Walpole, L.

  Jay, L.

  White, B.

  Jeger, B.

  Williams of Elvel, L.

  Jenkins of Putney, L.

  Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

  Kagan, L.

  Winterbottom, L.

  Kennet, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Cawley.L.

  Alexander of Tunis, E.

  Clanwilliam, E.

  Allenby of Megiddo, V.

  Cockfield, L.

  Astor, V.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Auckland, L.

  Cox, B.

  Bauer, L.

  Davidson, V. [Teller.]

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Denham, L. [Teller.]

  Beloff, L.

  Downshire, M.

  Bessborough, E.

  Eccles of Moulton, B.

  Blatch, B

  Elles, B.

  Blyth, L.

  Elliot of Harwood, B.

  Boyd-Carpenter, L.

  Elton, L.

  Brigstocke, B.

  Erroll of Hale, L.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Flather, B.

  Butterworth, L.

  Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

  Campbell of Alloway, L.

  Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

  Campbell of Croy, L.

  Gainford, L.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Gardner of Parkes, B.

  Carnock, L.

  Geddes, L.

  Cavendish of Furness, L.

  Gisborough, L.

  1128

  Glenarthur, L.

  Pearson of Rannoch, L.

  Grafton, D.

  Peel, E.

  Gray, L.

  Pender, L.

  Harvington, L.

  Pennock, L.

  Henley, L.

  Polwarth, L.

  Hesketh, L.

  Prior, L.

  Holderness, L.

  Quinton, L.

  Hood, V.

  Reay, L.

  Jeffreys, L.

  Remnant, L.

  Killearn, L.

  Renton, L.

  Knollys, V.

  Renwick, L.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Rippon of Hexham, L.

  Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

  Rochdale, V.

  Long, V.

  Rodney, L.

  Lothian, M.

  Romney, E.

  Lucas of Chilworth, L.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Lurgan, L.

  Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L

  Lyell, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Macleod of Borve, B.

  Strange, B.

  Mancroft, L.

  Strathcarron, L.

  Merrivale, L.

  Strathclyde, L.

  Mersey, V.

  Strathmore and Kinghorne, E

  Milverton, L.

  Sudeley, L.

  Monk Bretton, L.

  Swansea, L.

  Mottistone, L.

  Teviot, L.

  Mountevans, L.

  Thomas of Gwydir, L.

  Mowbray and Stourton, L.

  Trefgarne, L.

  Moyne, L.

  Trumpington, B.

  Munster, E.

  Ullswater, V.

  Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

  Waddington, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Wade of Chorlton, L.

  Norfolk, D.

  Westbury, L.

  Norrie, L.

  Whitelaw, V.

  Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

  Wise, L.

  Orkney, E.

  Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
  5.1 p.m.
  [Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
  Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 9:
  Page 23, line 15, at end insert:
  ("(1A) A development order shall make provision requiring a local planning authority to serve on anyone with a notifiable interest in neighbouring land a summary of any application for planning permission and a notice stating where and when they make representations.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment would require local authorities to notify neighbours of planning applications that might affect them. We discussed similar amendments at the Committee and Report stages, and on each occasion the Government gave an unsatisfactory response. As I indicated at Report stage, a duty to inform neighbours already exists in Scotland, with workable definitions of the terms "neighbouring land" and "notifiable interest". The Government have still to explain to the House why it is that only the Scots get such benefits. As my noble friend Lord Glenarthur said on Report, it puts the Scots at a huge advantage. The idea that the difference can all be put down to population density has already been dismissed.
  I accept that in Scotland notification is the developer's responsibility and not that of local authorities. I also agree with the Government that the Scottish system has the benefit of relieving local authorities from some of the time and expense of notification. But this must be balanced against the greater reliability of local authorities to ensure that notification is carried out efficiently. However, if my noble friend is able to assure me in his reply that the

  1129
  Government will bring forward proposals to implement the Scottish system in England and Wales, then I shall gladly withdraw my amendment. The principle of the need for notification would at least have been established, and the key issue is that the public should be told about planning applications; which body informs them is irrelevant.
  I was hoping to improve things in England and Wales so that we might be the envy of the Scots. But I shall be happy if we simply draw level with them. The Government have also queried my assertion that problems with neighbourhood notification are the single largest source of complaint about the planning system. The comparison made at Report stage between the tens of thousands of planning applications submitted to local authorities and the relatively small number causing complaints is totally false. We would be in a sorry state if we used only that statistic to prove there was a problem.
  The issue is the problem behind the applications that cause complaints. The local ombudsmen's annual report shows that almost 30 per cent. of all complaints are on the issue of neighbourhood notification, and they support the principle of my amendment. Complaints to the ombudsmen, who are at the sharp end of the problem, are the touchstone of public concern, and I hope that the House will attach great weight to their views.
  This amendment would ensure a minimum standard of public consultation. The Government have indicated that they will consider stronger guidance. Of course I welcome that, and I am sure that they will not be able to forget it, but I fear that the 25 per cent. of authorities which do not already undertake notification are unlikely to be swayed by extra guidance. I fear that even my amendment would not be enough, but it would be a starting point. Without it this Bill would pay very little attention to the importance of public participation in decisions over future development. I beg to move.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, I wish to support my noble friend Lord Norrie on this amendment. We heard some reasonably encouraging sounds from my noble friend Lord Astor at Report stage. I hope we shall have something even more encouraging now. Surely what 70 per cent. of local authorities already do could easily be done by all local authorities. If a planning application is made affecting neighbouring land, or even a neighbouring building, and the neighbouring land or the neighbouring building may be most adversely affected by the application if it goes through, the idea that the owner or occupier of that neighbouring land or building is not to be told in some way or another that the application has been made seems unjust to a high degree.
  I would say, supporting my noble friend, that guidance is not enough. It should be a right to the person concerned to be told. I quite agree that there is a slight difference in Scottish legislation in that it is the developer who under the law has to give the notice;
  1130
  but it does not matter very much, to my mind, so long as a notice is given by somebody, either the developer or the local authority.
  At Report stage my noble friend on the Front Bench said that the amendment would impose a considerable additional statutory burden on local planning authorities. That surely is not right. It cannot be right if 70 per cent. of local authorities are already willing to do it and take it in their stride. It seems to me that, as a matter of justice, on all the merits and administratively, this is an amendment that the Government not only would be safe to accept but ought to accept.
  Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Government remain unconvinced that this Bill should require local planning authorities in England and Wales to notify third parties of every planning application. Our resistance to my noble friend's amendment is not based on a belief that there are insuperable difficulties in defining "interested parties" or "neighbouring land". After all, this is dealt with in the legislation which applies to Scotland.
  There have been frequent references to the different approach to the subject of neighbour notification in England and in Scotland. Indeed, English planning law has been compared unfavourably in this respect with that which applies north of the Border. But planning authorities in England are statutorily required to notify parish councils of particular categories of planning applications, or indeed all such applications, depending on the wishes of the parish council. Similar arrangements apply in relation to community councils in Wales.
  This legislation recognises the important role which parish councils can play in disseminating information locally and in conveying the views of local people to the planning authority. In many areas the introduction of compulsory neighbour notification would amount to an unnecessary duplication of an existing, effective, means of canvassing local opinion. I reiterate the Government's belief that it is appropriate to retain a discretionary approach to neighbour notification in England and Wales.
  The Government accept that development control should be a fair and open process and that views expressed by third parties which are relevant to that process should be taken into account by the decision makers. We also accept that, to be in a position to express such views, third parties need to be made aware of the proposed development. However, there are a number of ways in which this can be achieved.
  Clause 13 proposes that a development order may make provision requiring notice to be given of any application for planning permission and provide for publicising such applications and for the form, content and service of such notices. The clause also specifies in that context that a development order may make different provision for different cases or different classes of development. Those provisions were drafted to allow maximum flexibility in both the form and extent of publicity for planning applications and to leave open the question of who should undertake such publicity.

  1131
  There are a number of options, such as a more widespread use of site notices, which are worthy of further consideration. I assured your Lordships during, the debate at Report stage that the Government were prepared to consider issuing further guidance.
  Local authorities must have regard to guidance. However, I am happy to say that we shall fulfil that undertaking on guidance. In the light of what I have said, I hope that my noble friends will agree to withdraw their amendment.
  Lord Norrie: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his response. But the House will not be surprised to know that I am still disappointed by it. One of the most glaring omissions in the Bill is measures to improve public participation. My amendment simply brings England and Wales in line with the Scottish practice, which has proved effective. The new guidance promised by the Government will have to be very strong. The unanimous support that the amendment received from all sides of the House at Report stage indicates the anxiety. I hope that my noble friend will now give serious consideration to the strength of guidance. On that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 13 [Notice etc. of applications for planning permission]:
  Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 10:
  Page 23, line 15, at end insert:
  ("(1A) Notice under subsection (1) of this section stall be given to any person (other than the applicant) who at the beginning of the period of twenty-one days ending with the date of the application was—

  (a) the owner of; or

  (b) the tenant of any agricultural holding any part of which was comprised in,

  the land to which the application relates.
  (1B) Where a notice of an application for planning permission has been given under subsection (1A) above, the local planning authority—

  (a) in determining the application, shall take into account any representations relating to it which are made to them before the end of such period as may be prescribed, by any person who satisfies them that he is an owner of any land to which the application relates or that he is the tenant of an agricultural holding any part of which is comprised in that land; and

  (b) shall give notice of their decision to every person who has made representations which they were required to take into account in accordance with paragraph (a).").

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I moved a similar amendment in Committee and on Report, and I received an undertaking from my noble friend Lord Astor that the Government were prepared to consider the matter. I suspect that I shall receive a somewhat similar reply from him as I received from my noble and learned friend on Amendment No. 4, which went roughly like this: "We agree that you have a point which we accept in principle. Unfortunately we have not decided how to achieve it. We are not prepared to
  1132
  accept your amendment because you don't understand our problems". If that is the reply that I shall receive, I ask my noble friend to give me this undertaking: that when the Government decide to table an amendment in another place to sort the problem out he will keep me fully informed in order to save the time of the Government and my advisers. I beg to move.
  5.15 p.m.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, I support my noble friend. I hope that he will receive the undertaking that he seeks. The amendment overlaps the previous amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Norrie. In replying to him my noble friend Lord Astor stated that notice is given to parish councils. Quite frankly, I do not believe that that is effective. I live in a large rural parish in East Anglia. I do not know the exact area; but it cannot be less than eight square miles and may well be more. The parish council is a small body which does not meet often. It has almost no administrative backing. If the parish council is notified of an application, there is no certainty that the owner or occupier—the tenant—of a small outlying farm will hear of the planning application. The idea that we can rely on the parish councils to ensure that justice is done and that there is public notification is not good enough. The department always does its best but it is often out of touch with reality.
  On the question raised by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley, and the somewhat similar point raised by my noble friend Lord Norrie, the Government must do better in another place.
  Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, I supported my noble friend Lord Stanley on this point on Report. I also wonder what undertakings the Minister will give. Notification is of great importance. I too do not believe that the news will be disseminated through parish councils. It will not necessarily filter through from them to a number of tenant farmers. I hope that something positive will result. If not, my noble friend may be justified in sticking to his guns.
  The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly state this. My wife is a parish councillor. I was revolted by the reply to the last amendment. I believe that the amendment should have been agreed to. No extra weight has to be given to the opinion of the parish council by the planning authorities. The parish council has no extra authority. From what the Minister said one may imagine that a parish council is enormous. However, it may consist of only a couple of people. How are they supposed to know to whom to disseminate the information? They will not. The proposition is ridiculous.
  Baroness White: My Lords, will the Minister explain what occurs when a parish council votes itself out of existence?
  Viscount Astor: My Lords, some of the comments on the amendment may refer to the previous amendment. I hope that I shall give a rather different answer from the one given on the last amendment, and

  1133
  indeed a slightly different answer from that given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate on an earlier amendment.
  The amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Stanley cover familiar territory. My noble friend has again argued that notifying owners and agricultural tenants of planning applications is too important to be left to secondary legislation.
  I indicated on Report stage that the Government were prepared to consider my noble friend's arguments. I am pleased to say that we find it hard to oppose the principle of including in Clause 13 a provision to meet his objective. The provision will be similar to that proposed by my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate for Scottish legislation, which is set out in Clause 36. We are at present considering the drafting of such a provision for the legislation covering England and Wales and the extent to which consequential amendments to that legislation will be required. We shall keep my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley informed of what we are doing.
  However, I must advise my noble friend that the Government are less happy about that part of Amendment No. 10 which would require the planning authority in determining a planning application to have specific regard to representations made by owners and agricultural tenants and to give notice of its decision to the authors of such representations. Such a requirement would need to be augmented by the revised provisions of Section 71(1) and (2) of the 1990 Act proposed by Clause 13. The result would be to reintroduce unnecessary clutter into the principal Act.
  The revised Section 71 will provide for a development order to specify which representations the planning authority must take into account in determining a planning application and which parties need to be notified of the decision. The Government envisage that such requirements will continue to apply to categories of representation other than those submitted by owners and agricultural tenants, such as those submitted in response to proposed "bad neighbour" development. Nevertheless, I assure my noble friend that we intend to ensure that representations made by owners and agricultural tenants will be covered by this arrangement too. It is also relevant to mention that Section 70 of the 1990 Act requires planning authorities, in dealing with applications for planning permission, to have regard to the provisions of the development plan and to any other material considerations.
  It is beyond doubt that representations made by third parties which address planning issues qualify as material considerations. Therefore, my noble friend may agree that the primary legislation will continue to safeguard the interests of owners and agricultural tenants who have made representations to the planning authority when planning applications are being decided.
  I hope that in view of my undertaking that the Government will concede the principal objective my noble friend will agree to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, is it still the duty of the planning authority to advertise in the local press all applications that are received?
  Viscount Astor: My Lords, the guidance notes state that it is for the local authority to choose the method of publicising the applications. It may be by advertising or by putting up a poster or a notice. I said in relation to an earlier amendment that the Government would issue guidance notes to local authorities but it is for the local authority to decide how to make the applications known to the general public.
  Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, my noble friend appears to be behaving like an old-fashioned nanny who says, "You can have a cake but you can't have any chocolate on it". However, I am grateful for his assurance. I shall study carefully the letter that I receive from the Government setting out their intentions in another place. I shall hand that to my advisers who will no doubt follow the matter through. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
  Clause 14 [Power of local planning authority to decline to determine applications]:
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 12:
  Page 24, line 30, at end insert:
  ("(1A) A local planning authority may decline to determine an application for planning permission for development of any land (referred to in this subsection as "the second application") if and so long as a similar application is the subject of an appeal in accordance with section 78 which remains to be determined under section 79 and, in the event of such appeal being dismissed by the Secretary of State, for the purposes of subsection (1) (a) the second application shall be deemed to have been received on the day following the date of such dismissal.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, we return to matters that were debated in Committee and on Report. We tabled a different amendment in Committee but it was this one that was before the House on Report. However, the Government then decided to reply to the amendment that had been tabled in Committee.
  There was a risk that the amendment tabled in Committee might have checked a planning appeal while the original application was under consideration by the local planning authority. The amendment provided that the applications could not run in parallel. The Minister reasonably pointed out that that was unfair. She said that it was more important to turn the applications round in eight weeks, which is the statutory period, in order to make an appeal on grounds of non-determination irrelevant.
  At the Report stage we tabled this amendment which tackles the question in another way. It provides that if the developer has lodged an appeal on the grounds of determination the local authority is freed from the obligation of continuing to determine the twin tracking application; that is, the alternative application still before the planning authority. The result will be a number of effects which are different

  1135
  from our original approach. First, the amendment does not encourage the local authority to slow down because there is no advantage in slowing down in order that the application can go to appeal. Although it does not eliminate the amount of twin tracking it does reduce it. We have had many debates about whether twin tracking is generally undesirable, as we would argue, or merely undesirable in some circumstances, as the Government would argue.
  The amendment now before the House protects the developer's right of appeal. It also puts pressure on the Department of the Environment—that is the inspectorate—which is where the delays occur. Local planning authorities are bad enough but, for reasons which I well understand, the inspectorate is much slower. It often takes 30 weeks or more to handle an appeal.
  When the Minister replied to the amendment on Report she talked about Clause 15 which relates to appellants who delay. That does not deal with the point at all. The problem is that in many ways they do not delay. I do not know why that response continues to be given. It is not true that our amendment encourages local authorities to delay; nor does it infringe developers' rights. It is irrelevant that local authorities should turn applications round in eight weeks. Of course they should but they are prevented from doing so, no doubt in part by incompetence but also by the pressure of work. Twin tracking increases the pressure of work.
  We are moving the amendment for the second time so that we have at least an argument in respect of it and not in respect of an amendment tabled at an earlier stage. It is difficult to understand why developers should wish to continue with the initial application if an appeal is under way. That is particularly true, as the House has determined this afternoon, if the developer has the alternative of opting for a unilateral undertaking. I beg to move.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have considered carefully what the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said on this amendment at the Report stage. Her speech showed that the Government and Opposition perceptions of the issues at stake are not far apart. I believe that both sides accept that twin tracking may involve inefficient use of resources by local planning authorities and the planning inspectorate. Equally, I was glad to hear from the noble Baroness and the noble Lord that they accept the importance of not imposing undesirable constraints on the individual's freedom to appeal.
  At the Report stage I undertook to review the present 75 per cent. discount of the application fee which duplicate applications enjoy. The review will form part of our wider look at the application fees regulations and may go some way toward discourageing twin tracking.
  In her speech the noble Baroness asked the Government to look again at the effect of her amendment. We have done so and we accept that it has gone some way towards meeting the concerns which we previously expressed. As I said during the debate at the Report stage, the Government would
  1136
  like to see the use of twin tracking diminish because it can be wasteful of resources. But we also recognise that twin tracking can be advantageous in that it may impose a discipline on local planning authorities. Moreover, although the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, argued on Report that her amendment would not curtail developers' freedom it is undeniable that it would require applicants to choose between continuing to negotiate with the local planning authority and lodging an appeal.
  We wish to look at this issue further and in particular to seek the views of interested parties such as the local authority associations, planners and developers. We would hope to announce the results of that consultation and, if appropriate, to bring forward amendments to the Bill in Committee in another place.
  I hope that in the light of the acknowledgement of the persuasive case put by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I can say only that that is a generous response which I can hardly resist. In introducing the amendment I should have said that we were grateful for the acknowledgment made on Report that the case against the discount for a second planning application was recognised and that attempts would be made to bring that into force. The undertaking to consult and to consider bringing forward appropriate amendments in the recognition that twin tracking ought to be reduced is most welcome. I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  5.30 p.m.
  Clause 19 [Trees]:
  Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 13:
  Page 29, line 41, after ("authority") insert ("and state the purpose of his entry").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 14:
  After Clause 23, insert the following new clause:
  Orders as to costs where inquiry or hearing does not take place
  (" .—(1) After section 322 of the principal Act there is inserted—
  "Orders as to costs: supplementary.
  322A.—(1) This section applies where—

  (a) for the purposes of any proceedings under this Act—

  (i) the Secretary of State is required, before a decision is reached, to give any person an opportunity, or ask any person whether he wishes, to appear before and be heard by a person appointed by him; and

  (ii) arrangements are made for a local inquiry or hearing to be held;

  (b) the inquiry or hearing does not take place; and

  (c) if it had taken place, the Secretary of State or a person appointed by him would have had power to make an order under section 250(5) of the Local Government Act 1972 requiring any party to pay any costs of any other party.

  (2) Where this section applies the power to make such an order may be exercised, in relation to costs incurred for the purposes of the inquiry or hearing, as if it had taken place."
  (2) In section 89(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and section 37(2) of the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990 (application of provisions of the principal Act) before "323" there is inserted "322A (orders as to costs: supplementary)".").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, noble Lords will recall that in discussion of proposed amendments to Clause 24 in Committee and on Report, we accepted in principle what Amendment No. 207 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, on Report, sought to achieve. On the Government's behalf, I undertook to consider further the substance and drafting of the noble Lord's amendment, with the intention of tabling a suitable government amendment before the Bill leaves this House. This new clause fulfils that undertaking.
  The clause gives the Secretary of State, or a planning inspector, a discretionary power to make an order awarding a party's costs against any other party in a wide range of planning proceedings where arrangements have been made for a local inquiry or hearing but, in the event, that inquiry or hearing does not take place because of the action of one of the appeal parties. A costs award could be made in favour of, or against, any of the parties to the inquiry.
  These provisions would allow a costs award to be made, for example, where an appellant withdraws his appeal at the last moment before an inquiry is due to take place, thus causing it to be cancelled, when the local planning authority has already incurred substantial preparation costs.
  In Committee when we were discussing Clause 14, on 29th January, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, drew attention to a planning appeal involving Bedfordshire County Council, which had cost the council an estimated £100,000 as a result of a late withdrawal. Other examples might include the local planning authority's decision to withdraw all its original reasons for refusing planning permission shortly before the inquiry is due to open, or it withdraws an enforcement notice, leaving no appeal issues to be determined at the inquiry.
  This is a useful extension to the present provisions for awards of appeals costs which will allow either party, and other interested parties, to recover their wasted costs where an inquiry or hearing has to be cancelled because of the unreasonable actions of the other party. I should like to emphasise that costs will not follow the event in these cases. Awards will only be made where the party against whom an award is sought is found to have behaved unreasonably, as that term is defined in my department's Circular 2/87. We intend, in due course, to bring up to date, and re-issue, the guidance in that circular. The revised circular will then give policy guidance to appeal parties on how this new discretionary power will be exercised.
  In this substantially revised form, I hope that the clause will be found acceptable on all sides of the House. It will enable costs to be awarded in some cases
  1138
  where considerable expenditure by an appeal party would otherwise not be recovered. I commend the clause to your Lordships. I beg to move.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for proposing this new clause and for the care which has been taken in a very short time to deal with the drafting aspects of my Amendment No. 207. As she says, it is right that wherever an appeal is withdrawn unreasonably then possibly small objectors and local planning authorities should be protected against the costs which they have unnecessarily incurred.
  There is one matter which puzzles me about the amendment. Amendment No. 207 referred to a specific definition of a late withdrawal; namely, when the date had already been fixed for a public inquiry. This amendment states
  "where … arrangements are made for a local inquiry or hearing to be held".
  I find that rather imprecise. There could be different interpretations as to what arrangements have been made. Does it mean the date, the location or the name of the inspector? There are a number of ways that one could look at that matter. Why is it not possible to say, "when the date is fixed", or perhaps, "when the date has been notified to parties"?
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 15:
  After Clause 23, insert the following new clause:
  Functions of Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission
  (" .—(1) In section 33 of the National Heritage Act 1983 (general functions of Commission) after subsection (2) there is inserted—
  "(2A) In relation to England, the Commission may—

  (a) prosecute any offence under Part I of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 or under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, or

  (b) institute in their own name proceedings for an injunction to restrain any contravention of any provision of that Part or of that Act of 1990."

  (2) In section 89 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (application of general provisions of principal Act, including power under section 330 to require information) after subsection (2) there is inserted—
  "(3) In the application of section 330 by virtue of this section, references to a local authority include the Commission".").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 15 is in two parts. The first part introduces a new subsection (2A) into Section 33 of the National Heritage Act 1983, which sets out the functions of English Heritage, to provide English Heritage with a power, first, to
  "prosecute any offence under Part I of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 or under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990".
  Secondly it has the power to institute in its own name proceedings for an injunction to restrain any contravention of any provision of Part I of the 1979 Act or any provision of the 1990 Act.
  The second part of the amendment amends Section 89 of the 1990 Act to make it clear that in the

  1139
  application of Section 330 of the principal Act (power to require information as to interests in land) the references to a local authority include English Heritage. This will put English Heritage in the same position to require information as if it were a local authority.
  During our discussions with English Heritage on Amendment No. 15 I sought an assurance from my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu that, before deciding to exercise the powers to prosecute or to seek an injunction, English Heritage would discuss the case with both the local authority involved and with my department. My noble friend Lord Montagu is unable to be in the House today for this debate but I am glad to be able to tell the House that I have received the assurance I sought from him in a recent letter. I am most grateful for this assurance and for the help which my noble friend has given with this amendment.
  Amendment No. 29 is a consequential amendment to Amendment No. 15. It inserts a new subsection (3A) into the new Section 44A on injunctions to clarify that, for the purposes of this new section, English Heritage is treated as a local planning authority.
  Amendment No. 32 is consequential to Amendment No. 29. Paragraph (21) of Schedule 2 inserted a reference to Section 44A into Section 45 of the 1990 Act, which deals with the powers of English Heritage in Greater London, thus giving it the power to seek injunctions in respect of London properties. With the inclusion of subsection (3A) in Section 44A, English Heritage will have a general power to seek injunctions and paragraph (21) is therefore no longer necessary. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 26 [Planning contravention notices]:
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 16:
  Page 33, line 8, leave out ("fourteen") and insert ("twenty-one").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 35 [Rights of entry]:
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 17:
  Page 46, line 19, leave out from ("(1)") to the end of line 20 and insert ("If the sheriff is satisfied").
  The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 18, 21, 22, 50, 51, 53 and 54. These amendments amend the rights of entry provisions in connection with general enforcement, tree preservation, listed building control and hazardous substance control for Scotland so that warrants to enter land for enforcement purposes will be obtainable from sheriffs.
  Noble Lords may remember that this amendment was first suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. This tidies up the provisions. I beg to move.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Carmichael I am very
  1140
  grateful. I think of sheriffs as being out in the wild west, but clearly my knowledge of Scottish law is not adequate to the purpose!
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 18
  Page 46, line 28, leave out ("the justice") and insert ("he").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 19:
  Page 46, line 45, after ("authority") insert ("and state the purpose of his entry").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 36 [Notice etc. of applications to owners and agricultural tenants]:
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 20:
  Page 48, line 27, leave out ("level 3") and insert ("level 5").
  The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is an amendment to Clause 36 for Scotland and parallels Amendment No. 77 to Clause 13 for England and Wales which was accepted at Report stage. It will raise the level of the maximum fine for the offence of knowingly giving false information in connection with the notification of applications for planning permission. It will thus align it with other similar penalties in the planning legislation. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 40 [Trees]:
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 21 to 23:
  Page 52, line 3, leave out from ("(1)") to the end of line 4 and insert ("If the sheriff is satisfied").
  Page 52, line 12, leave out ("the justice") and insert ("he").
  Page 52, line 33, after ("authority") insert ("and state the purpose of his entry").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 53 [Home loss payments]:
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 24:
  Page 60, line 28, leave out ("those conditions") and insert ("the conditions in paragraph ((a)").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 24 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 25, 26 and 28, and Amendment No. 27 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ross.
  These amendments concern home loss payments, and two issues in particular. The first is the issue of contractual licensees and the second is the more general issue of the rights of tenants as opposed to owner-occupiers. In regard to all these amendments I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for replying to written Questions which I tabled and to which she was able to reply yesterday. Her Answers appear in today's Hansard.
  The point of my Questions was, first, to determine what proportion of home loss payments under existing legislation goes to tenants and how much to owner-occupiers; secondly, to discover how much of the additional £50 million set aside for home loss

  1141
  payments under the Bill will go to tenants and how much to owner-occupiers. In a third Question I asked what would be the level of payments to tenants and owner-occupiers if, since the payments were first introduced, they had been index-linked in line with the retail prices index, earnings or house prices.
  The Answers are quite extraordinary. They show that four-fifths of the present £47 million home loss payments go to tenants; therefore they receive approximately £37.6 million. A much higher proportion of what is proposed under the Bill goes to owner-occupiers due to the planned sliding scale. Perhaps I may stick with the figures for tenants because they are the most important: payments to tenants go up from £37.6 million to £53.6 million. That is achieved by the reduction in the qualifying period. However, if there had been no Bill and instead home loss payments to tenants had been uprated in line with the retail prices index, the payments would now be £56 million, which is more than proposed under the Bill. If the payments had been index linked in line with earnings they would now be £77.6 million, which is far more than proposed under the Bill. If they had been uprated in line with house prices, the payments to tenants would have amounted to £75.2 million, which is far more than they will receive under the Bill as drafted.
  My point is that tenants are very hard done by under the Bill. Even under the proposals put forward as being more generous due to the reduction in the qualifying period, they will be doing worse in real terms than they would have done had there been no legislation but an index-linked uplifting of home loss payments. That cannot be justifiable. We cannot be told that home loss payments are to be more generous than before when we find that an amount more than that being given for the reduction in the qualifying period is being taken away due to the failure to index link the payments.
  Perhaps I may turn to the amendments in detail. Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 seek to remove an anomaly whereby housing associations are not able to make discretionary home loss payments. Amendment No. 26, the most important amendment of the group, deals with contractual licensees; in other words, it preserves the entitlement for licensees with restricted contracts (as in paragraph (a)); it preserves entitlement for licensees who would have been secure before the 1988 Act (paragraph (b)); and in paragraph (c) it extends the home loss payments to those with basic security under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. It still does not provide for those licensees who are sharing with the licensor and his family. Therefore it does not deal with those people the Minister claimed previously it dealt with; that is, those who are casual or short-term licensees.
  The Minister appeared to be under a serious misapprehension in opposing earlier amendments. She ignored the fact that some contractual licensees are already entitled to home loss payments—those with restricted contracts, service occupiers in tied accommodation and those who are local authority
  1142
  and housing association licensees with secure tenancies. Under this legislation many tenants lose out. The Housing Act 1988 is deliberately phasing-out restricted contracts and shifting housing association tenancies from secure to assured tenancies.
  At the moment licensees whose contracts were entered into after 1st January 1989 or whose rent has been varied over that period are no longer entitled to home loss payments although they would have been before. The argument that the time between January 1989 and today is short is fallacious. The legislation should continue in force, and over a period of time there would be more tenants who would have been entitled to home loss payments but who will no longer be so entitled. They will suffer not only in relation to owner-occupiers but absolutely.
  Amendment No. 28 caused some controversy. It reflects the Minister's view—which is my view also —that attachment to a house justifying a home loss payment increases over time. We are seeking to include that in the legislation. Apart from the planning provisions, this is the single most serious injustice of the compensation part of the Bill. I sincerely hope that the Government will support the amendments. If they are not able to do so it is a matter that will cause great controversy when it goes to another place. I beg to move.
  5.45 p.m.
  Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, this subject was debated at a very late hour at Report stage. The noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, tabled a number of amendments which I wanted to support. I was worried when we could not divide at that time and did not appear to make any progress. I therefore tabled from a fairly long distance—150 miles away—a stopper amendment suggesting that the amount should be £5,000. I meant to re-word the amendment slightly to say that the amount should not exceed £5,000. That was a fall-back position to persuade the Government to up the ante. As it is a faulty amendment I shall not speak to it. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has made a staggering and overwhelming case for these pro-visions. He has gone to the trouble of tabling a number of Questions and received revealing replies.
  I am concerned also that at a time when the Government are attempting to encourage more people to let and to look for tenancies, apparently under the new regulations some tenants who are now in occupation and may at some time in the future have their properties compulsorily acquired will not qualify for home loss payments. I was not aware of that, but that is what I understand to be correct. There will be a dwindling number anyway. That is wrong at a time when it is desperately important to widen housing tenancies in this country. Many people now, including some of my own children, with their limited finances, are quite unable to purchase and are paying very substantial sums of money to rent accommodation. My younger son is spending nearly 40 per cent. of his gross weekly income on a winter let. He is paying £65 a week for the tenancy of a cottage in a very

  1143
  windswept area of the Isle of Wight. His income varies between £130 and £150 gross a week. He is a fisherman.
  I give that as an instance of the problems that the younger generation in particular are facing. It does not apply only to the younger generation because other people are being dispossessed. In the past 12 months 46,000 repossessions have taken place, and the number is rising. It is wrong that existing tenants should be penalised under this Bill where the maximum allowed is £1,500. I now understand that this provision is to be phased out anyway.
  The Government should be going in the other direction and encouraging more and more tenancies. They should be assuring those who take up tenancies that they will not lose out if at some time in the future, and unbeknown to them, for example, a railway line is required in Kent. At the moment they will not get anything at all and I do not understand that. It is also important that we encourage tenants to improve their properties and put their own money into them. The sum of £1,500 is paltry when one considers what some tenants have done to their properties. If the Government cannot accept the amendment as it is now, I hope that at long last there will be some indication from them that they are prepared to think again and do something about the problem when the Bill goes to the other place.
  Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I am speaking to Amendment No. 28 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I would have spoken to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, but he has indicated that he does not wish to move it this afternoon. The amendments that I had before the House at Report stage are not tabled today. I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Ross, say that he would have wished to support them. Having listened to the debate today and heard the figures which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was able to quote as a result of the Answers to his Questions, I believe that there is still a strong case for giving a better deal to tenants in cash terms in their home loss payments.
  However, I would not do it in the way suggested by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I would return to the formula contained in my amendments at Report stage. I would treat all home occupiers alike and divide the payments into payments for distress and payments for incentive. Under that arrangement I would have a uniform payment for distress for owners and tenants alike. It might be the £5,000 mentioned in the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ross. As regards incentive, I would add an incentive supplement based on a percentage of the surplus market value of the interest of the occupier over a basic level of market value, with perhaps an upper limit. That would be for all home occupiers.
  The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, proposes a sliding scale of home loss payment for tenants based on the length of time that they have occupied their homes. I have two objections to his proposal. I do not think it is appropriate to make the direct connection between the time the home has been occupied and the amount
  1144
  of the payment that should be made. That is too difficult. There are too many cases where it would not be appropriate.
  Another point which the noble Lord has not fastened on is that his amendment is providing for a maximum of £15,000 as a home loss payment for a tenant who has been in the house for 10 years. That would be more than most home owners would get. It would be the amount which a person would receive in compensation based on a value of £150,000. Very few owner-occupiers would get more than that. A considerable number of owners of small terraced houses should receive the kind of sums that the noble Lord would give to tenants. I hope that he will not press his amendment because it has this unfortunate side effect.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 24, 25 and 26 relate essentially to the scope of the home loss payment scheme. Amendment No. 26 identifies three categories of people whom the noble Lord would wish to make eligible for home loss payment. The categories broadly encompass those living in accommodation on the basis of a licence or a letting by a landlord resident on the premises. Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 would extend the power of authorities to make a discretionary payment to include those occupying property without any legal interest in it.
  It has been a basic feature of the home loss payment scheme since its inception that eligibility for payment is dependent on having some form of legal interest in the property or at least some measure of security of tenure. Those living in accommodation on an essentially casual or short-term basis are not and never have been eligible for a payment. The thinking that underlies this distinction is that home loss payments are designed to compensate for distress at the enforced loss of a home. It is reasonable to assume that such distress will be experienced most acutely among those who either own their own homes or who are at least occupying them under arrangements which have a degree of permanence.
  As I understand it, the noble Lord is arguing that a legal interest in a property, or at least a statutory security of tenure, is not necessarily a reliable indicator of whether a person regards a property as a genuine home and will therefore experience distress at its loss. I do not lightly dismiss that point of view. I am not for a moment suggesting that people living in accommodation on the basis of a licence or similar arrangement will remain unconcerned about having to move.
  At an earlier stage the noble Lord identified the deserted spouse with the right of occupation under the Matrimonial Homes Act as a case where a property could reasonably be regarded as a genuine home even though the occupant had no legal interest in it. On the face of it that seemed a fair point. As I undertook earlier, I am considering that further. But I see considerable difficulty in applying that argument more widely. It seems fair that as a general rule those occupying property on a casual or short-term basis will not suffer the distress which is likely to affect people with a more substantive interest in the home. The noble Lord suggests that a possible compromise

  1145
  would be to give authorities the power to make a discretionary payment in cases where they considered that an occupant would suffer genuine distress at the loss of his home even though he had no legal interest in it.
  The Bill as it stands allows authorities to make discretionary payments to claimants who would be entitled to a home loss payment but for the fact that they cannot satisfy the one-year residence qualification. The requirement that they must have a legal interest in the property still applies, but I would find it very difficult to accept the case for removing the requirement even in the context of a discretionary payment.
  Given the wide variety of circumstances likely to be involved, it would not be at all reasonable to place authorities in the invidious position of having to decide who deserved a payment and who did not. It may be of some comfort to noble Lords who are concerned about the possibility of hardship among people who are displaced from accommodation in which they have no legal interest if I remind them that Section 39 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 places local housing authorities under a duty to rehouse anyone displaced from his home under statutory powers if suitable accommodation on reasonable terms is not otherwise available. That provision is not restricted to cases where the occupant has a legal interest in the property. It should thus ensure that in no reasonable case will anyone displaced from accommodation be left without a roof over his head.
  Finally, I turn to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ross, Amendment No. 27, and the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, Amendment No. 28. Amendment No. 28 would provide for home loss payments for non owner-occupiers to be £1,500 multiplied by the number of complete years the claimant has occupied the property subject to a maximum payment of £15,000. Amendment No. 27 would provide for a home loss payment of £5,000 to be paid to all non-occupiers Both amendments seek to increase very substantially in most cases the amount of home loss payments for tenants.
  I agree with the comments of my noble friend Lord Coleraine about these amendments. It is true, from the evidence that we have gathered so far, that the predominant number of claims are at the bottom end of the housing market; very often terraced houses on the sides of major road schemes. We know that we are dealing predominantly with low capital value homes. Therefore, a substantial number of people would be at quite some disadvantage compared with the maxim-um payment of £15,000.
  The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to levels of payment and went into some detail in comparing the 1973 levels with today's levels. There is no precise science about the 1973 levels. No one was arguing that they were right at that time. I have said a number of times that there has to be a judgment about what we consider to be right now. We have taken the view that what is on the face of the Bill at this time is the right level for today. The noble Lord, Lord Ross of
  1146
  Newport, said that the Bill brings about a reduction of entitlement. I have to say that the Bill as drafted does not reduce any entitlement to home loss payments.
  The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, asked why housing association licensees created after commencement of the 1988 Act should not be eligible for a home loss payment when payments are available to those housing association licensees who remain subject to Part IV of the Housing Act 1985. The Government took the view in bringing forward what is now the 1988 Act that there was no longer a case for applying any form of statutory protection to licences granted by housing associations. The noble Lord may take issue with this decision, but given that it has now been put into effect I hope he will agree that it would be illogical and inappropriate to bring these licensees within the scope of the home loss payment scheme.
  I have explained at some length during earlier stages why our home loss payment proposals involve a different approach as between those who are owner-occupiers and those who are not. It seems to us that the enforced loss of a home will in general involve a considerably higher degree of trauma and upheaval in the case of the owner-occupier than in that of the tenant. The owner-occupier normally expects to be able to live in the property for as long as he or she wishes, whereas the tenant always has to bear in mind the possibility that the landlord may at some stage wish to recover possession. The owner-occupier not only invests a substantial amount of capital in the property, but remains fully responsible for repairing and maintaining it. The tenant, by contrast, does not normally have responsibility for repairs and maintenance of the fabric. The owner-occupier faces the difficult task of finding a suitable replacement home, whereas the tenant can usually expect to be rehoused by the local housing authority and often in better accommodation than he had before.
  Perhaps I may say in passing that Amendment No. 28 would introduce the concept that tenants become more deserving the longer they have lived in a house. In a sense this is precisely the concept that the Bill moves away from by reducing the qualifying period of residence from five years to one year.
  Our firm conviction is that the home loss payment provisions in the Bill represent a fair and reasonable balance between the interests of owner-occupiers and tenants. That balance would in our view be upset if we were to accept either of these proposals advanced by the noble Lords.
  My noble friend Lord Coleraine has another formula which he has advanced at a number of stages during the passage of the Bill. I can only argue with him that the balance we have struck in the Bill is the one that we judge to be right at this time. Our firm conviction is that the home loss payment provisions in the Bill represent a fair and reasonable balance between the interests of owner-occupiers and tenants. That balance would in our view be upset if we were to accept either of the proposals advanced by the noble Lords.
  I remind the House once more that tenants do stand to benefit from our proposals in so far as the

  1147
  changes in the residence rules will mean that a great many more tenants will be eligible to claim than under the previous scheme. I very much hope that noble Lords will be prepared to accept that our home loss payment proposals provide a genuinely fair deal for all categories of claimant and that they will not therefore press their amendments further.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is as comprehensively a wrong-headed a reply as I have heard from the Minister at any stage in the passage of the Bill. In almost every respect it contains what seem to me to be misinterpretations of what the Bill says; misinterpretations of what the amendment says; misinterpretations of fact about the existing situation and what must be described as a wilful disregard of the changes that have taken place in the Government's own housing legislation. That is the single most important point.
  The Minister talks about home loss payments as being appropriate for owner-occupiers and those tenants with a degree of permanence—that was her phrase—in their tenancies. The whole thrust of government housing legislation has been to reduce and if possible eliminate the degree of permanence in the rights of tenants. Secure tenancies have been transformed to assured tenancies—secure tenancies qualify but assured tenancies do not—and the whole range of security both from eviction and from rent increases has been reduced deliberately by Government in the past few years as part of their housing policy.
  The Minister talks as if those changes have taken place almost at the wish of tenants when it is clearly the case that the changes are very profoundly to their disadvantage. The Government's intention has been to encourage the private rented sector. That is what they are trying to do. Now they are saying that because the private rented sector is to be encouraged by the reduction of permanency, the home loss payments will not be available because the degree of permanence has been reduced.
  I shall not go over the arguments in detail. By losing the opportunity to uprate the payments made in 1973 —I find it an extraordinary argument that the payment levels were perhaps wrong in 1973: after all they were brought in by a Conservative government —and by failing to uprate the 1973 level of payment and replacing the system with one which is very clearly biased towards owner-occupiers and against tenants, the Bill will make tenants worse off than they were in 1973 and than they ought to be now. As a matter of profound political principle we should resist that and the House should resist those government arguments.
  6.8 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 24) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 41; Not-Contents, 78.

  Division No. 2

  CONTENTS

  Airedale, L.

  Aylestone, L.

  Attlee, E.

  Bottomley, L

  1148

  Carter, L. [Teller.]

  Mayhew, L.

  Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

  Meston, L.

  Craigavon, V.

  Molloy, L.

  David, B.

  Morris of Castle Morris, L.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  Nicol, B.

  Erroll, E.

  Phillips, B.

  Gallacher, L.

  Pitt of Hampstead, L.

  Glenamara, L.

  Rea, L.

  Hanworth, V.

  Ross of Newport, L. [Teller.]

  Harris of Greenwich, L.

  Russell, E.

  Hooson, L.

  Russell of Liverpool, L.

  Houghton of Sowerby, L.

  Seear, B.

  Hylton-Foster, B.

  Serota, B.

  Lawrence, L.

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  Listowel, E.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Lytton, E.

  Underhill, L.

  McGregor of Durris, L.

  White, B.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L.

  Williams of Elvel, L.

  Mackie of Benshie, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Kinnoull, E.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Ampthill, L.

  Long, V.

  Astor, V.

  Lucas of Chilworth, L.

  Auckland, L.

  Lyell, L.

  Bauer, L.

  Macleod of Borve, B.

  Beloff, L.

  Merrivale, L.

  Birdwood, L.

  Mersey, V.

  Blatch, B.

  Milverton, L.

  Bolton, L.

  Monk Bretton, L.

  Boyd-Carpenter, L.

  Mottistone, L.

  Brigstocke, B.

  Mountevans, L.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Munster, E.

  Butterfield, L.

  Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

  Butterworth, L.

  Napier and Ettrick, L.

  Campbell of Alloway, L.

  Norfolk, D.

  Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

  Norrie, L.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

  Carnock, L.

  Orkney, E.

  Cavendish of Furness, L.

  Pearson of Rannoch, L.

  Clanwilliam, E.

  Peel, E.

  Cox, B.

  Polwarth, L.

  Davidson, V. [Teller.]

  Reay, L.

  Denham, L. [Teller.]

  Renton, L.

  Dilhorne, V.

  Rochdale, V.

  Downshire, M.

  Rodney, L.

  Eccles of Moulton, B.

  Seccombe, B.

  Elles, B.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Elliot of Harwood, B.

  Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

  Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

  Sudeley, L.

  Gardner of Parkes, B.

  Swansea, L.

  Gisborough, L.

  Thomas of Gwydir, L.

  Grafton, D.

  Trefgarne, L.

  Gray, L.

  Trumpington, B.

  Henley, L.

  Ullswater, V.

  Holderness, L.

  Waddington, L.

  Hooper, B.

  Wade of Chorlton, L.

  Jeffreys, L.

  Whitelaw, V.

  Killearn, L.

  Wise, L.

  Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
  6.16 p.m.
  [Amendments Nos. 25 to 28 not moved.]
  Schedule 2 [Listed buildings, conservation areas and hazardous substances]:
  Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 29 to 32:
  Page 82, line 44, at end insert:
  ("(3A) The references in subsection (1) to a local planning authority include, as respects England, the Commission.").
  Page 84, line 7, at end insert ("and state the purpose of his entry").
  Page 86, line 29, at end insert ("and state the purpose of his entry").
  Page 88, line 8, leave out paragraph 21.
  The noble Viscount said: My Lords, these amendments were spoken to in connection with Amendments Nos. 3 and 15. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 3 [Development Plans]:
  Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 33:
  Page 95, line 1, leave out ("section 35A") and insert ("sections 35A and 35B").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 34 to 38. I promised on Report to return to the House as regards Amendment No. 185, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, which was moved at that stage by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. It proposed that the holding of an examination in public in connection with structure plan proposals should be mandatory unless the Secretary of State agrees otherwise.
  The Government's proposals to that end are contained in Amendments Nos. 33 to 38. They are intended to give effect to the purpose of the noble Baroness's amendment. The key amendment is Amendment No. 37, which places a duty on a local planning authority to hold an EIP in association with its proposals for structure plan alteration or replacement. If an authority considers that such an examination is not required, it will need to seek a direction to this effect from the Secretary of State. The other amendments in the group are consequential on the change; together they honour the undertaking I gave on Report. I beg to move.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Hollis and on my own behalf, I should like to say that I am grateful to the Minister for putting forward these amendments.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 34 to 38:
  Page 95, line 9, leave out ("during the intervening period, direct the local planning") and insert ("before the local planning authority have adopted the proposals, direct the").
  Page 95, leave out lines 12 to 14.
  Page 95, line 25, leave out ("during the intervening period") and insert ("before the local planning authority have adopted proposals for the alteration or replacement of a structure plan").
  Page 96, leave out lines 10 to 16 and insert:
  ("(1) Before adopting proposals for the alteration or replacement of a structure plan, the local planning authority shall, unless the Secretary of State otherwise directs, cause an examination in public to be held of such matters affecting the consideration of the proposals as—

  (a) they consider ought to be so examined; or

  (b) the Secretary of State directs.").

  Page 96, line 28, leave out ("or (2)").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 39 to 46:
  Page 105, line 3, at end insert:

  ("(a) after "local plan" there is inserted "minerals local plan, waste local plan"; and

  (b)") .

  Page 105, line 6, after ("etc.)") insert:
  1150

  ("(a) in subsection (1) after "local plan" there is inserted "minerals local plan or waste local plan"; and

  (b)") .

  Page 105, line 8, after ("undertakers)") insert:

  ("(a) after "local plan" there is inserted "minerals local plan or waste local plan"; and

  (b)") .

  Page 105, line 8, at end insert:
  ("32A. In section 324(1) (a) (rights of entry in connection with preparation etc. of plans), after "local plan" there is inserted "minerals local plan or waste local plan".
  32B. In section 336(1) (interpretation) in the definition of "development plan" after "Schedule 2" there is inserted "and Part III of Schedule 3 to the Planning and Compensation Act 1991".").
  Page 111, line 3, at beginning insert:
  ("In this paragraph the references to saved local plans do not include a reference to saved local plans treated, by virtue of paragraph 42(2) above, as if adopted or approved under the new law.
  (1A)").
  Page 111, line 8, leave out ("the saved local plan") and insert ("any saved local plan in operation in that authority's area").
  Page 111, line 23, leave out from ("plan") to end of line 24.
  Page 111, line 31, at end insert:
  ("Proceedings for questioning validity of development plans
  46A. An application may be made after commencement under and in accordance with section 287 of the old law with respect to any plan adopted, altered, repealed or replaced under the old law.").
  The noble Viscount said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 39 to 46 are all consequential or drafting amendments to the development plan provisions of Parts II and III of Schedule 3. If necessary, I should be glad to explain the purpose of individual amendments if any noble Lord has a particular interest in them. I commend the amendments to the House. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 6 [Planning in England and Wales: minor and consequential amendments]:
  Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 47 and 48:
  Page 124, line 43, leave out ("In section 325(2)") and insert ("Section 325 is amended as follows.
  (1A) In subsection (1) (a) after "authority" there is inserted "and state the purpose of his entry".
  (1B) In subsection (2)").
  Page 125, line 1, leave out ("section 325(4)") and insert ("subsection (4)").
  The noble Viscount said: My Lords, these amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 49:
  Page 125, line 33, leave out sub-paragraphs (5) to (7) and insert:
  ("(5) In paragraph 8, for sub-paragraph (1) there is substituted—
  "(1) A district planning authority, or, in a metropolitan county, a local planning authority shall, if requested to do so by the council of any parish or community situated in their area, notify the council of—

  (a) any relevant planning application; and

  1151

  (b) any alteration to that application accepted by the authority.

  (1A) In sub-paragraph (1) "a relevant planning application" means an application which—

  (a) relates to land in the parish or community; and

  (b) is an application for—

  (i) planning permission; or

  (ii) approval of a matter reserved under an outline planning permission within the meaning of section 92.

  (1B) Any request made for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) shall be in writing and state that the council wishes to be notified of all relevant applications or all applications of a description specified in the request.
  (1C) An authority shall comply with the duty to notify a council of an application by—

  (a) sending the council a copy of the application; or

  (b) indicating to the council the nature of the development which is the subject of the application and identifying the land to which it relates,

  and any notification falling within paragraph (b) shall be in writing.
  (1D) An authority shall comply with their duty to notify a council of an alteration by—

  (a) sending a copy of the alteration to the council; or

  (b) informing the council in writing of its general effect,

  but they need not notify a council of an alteration which in their opinion is trivial."
  (6) In sub-paragraph (2) of that paragraph for "of which the council of a parish or community are entitled to be informed" there is substituted "required to be notified to a council under sub-paragraph (1)".").
  The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the amendment proposes for purely technical reasons to replace an amendment moved in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. The Committee agreed to the noble Lord's amendment, which is in paragraph 46 of Schedule 6 to the 21st February print of the Bill. It entails a requirement for planning authorities to notify parish and community councils of certain amendments to planning applications. It supplements the provisions of paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 to the 1990 Act which requires planning authorities to notify parish and community councils of planning applications in categories and locations specified by the parish or community council.
  In Committee, I accepted that the noble Lord's amendment represented a logical extension of the existing statutory requirement. However, on detailed examination, the Government identified some problems with its drafting. This amendment is designed to rectify those problems. In particular, the Government accept that the notification of trivial amendments would serve no useful purpose. On the other hand, it is important to keep in mind that planning applications ought not to be amended in such a way as to produce a development proposal different in substance from that originally submitted. The Government amendment respects that principle.
  The amendment is designed to give effect to the principle of the one carried in Committee. I trust that it will prove acceptable. I beg to move.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for the care that has been taken to put my amendment in order. So far as I can see it faithfully
  1152
  preserves the intention of my amendment. I am sure that the National Association of Local Councils will share my gratitude for the care that has been taken.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 8 [Listed buildings, conservation areas and hazardous substances—Scotland]:
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 50 to 55:
  Page 134, line 47, leave out from ("(2)") to end of line 48 and insert ("If the sheriff is satisfied").
  Page 135, line 8, leave out ("the justice") and insert ("he").
  Page 135, line 23, at end insert ("and state the purpose of his entry").
  Page 136, line 39, leave out from ("(2)") to the end of line 40 and insert ("If the sheriff is satisfied").
  Page 136, line 48, leave out ("the justice") and insert ("he").
  Page 137, line 10, after ("authority") insert ("and state the purpose of his entry").
  The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments with Amendments Nos. 3 and 17. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 11 [Planning in Scotland: minor and consequential amendments]:
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 56:
  Page 147, line 8, at end insert:
  ("Agricultural Land (Removal of Surface Soil) Act 1953 (c.10.)
  .For section 4 (application to Scotland) of the Agricultural Land (Removal of Surface Soil) Act 1953 there is substituted—
  "4. In the application of this Act to Scotland, for the references to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to Part III of that Act, and to section 192 of that Act, there shall be substituted references to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972, to Part III of that Act, and to section 90A of that Act.".").
  The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 59 to 64. These are amendments to Schedule 11, which applies to Scotland, and make minor and consequential changes to various Acts. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 57 to 59:
  Page 151, line 18, leave out ("subsection (3) or).
  Page 151, line 19, after ("entry") insert ("—

  (a) in subsection (1) after "authority" there is inserted "and state the purpose of his entry";

  (b) in subsection (3)").

  Page 151, line 41, leave out ("and").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 60 to 64:
  Page 151, line 42, after ("50";") insert:
  ("(iii) after the entry for sections 88 to 89 there is inserted—
  "Section 90A.
  Sections 91A to 91C.";
  (iv) after the entry relating to section 98 there is inserted—
  "Sections 99A to 99C.";").
  Page 151, line 43, leave out ("and").

  1153
  Page 152, leave out lines 7 to 9.
  Page 152, line 9, at end insert ("and
  (c) in Part III after the entry for sections 61 to 63A there is inserted—
  "Sections 83A to 83D.";").
  Page 152, line 9, at end insert:
  ("Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (c.65.)
  34A.—(1) For subsection (4) of section 173 (regional reports) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 there is substituted—
  "(4) Before submitting the report to the Secretary of State, a general or regional planning authority shall consult every other planning authority who are likely to be affected by the report, and at the same time as they submit the report to the Secretary of State they shall send a copy of the report to every such planning authority."
  (2) In subsection (2) of section 174 (structure plans) of that Act, after "State, a" there is inserted "general or".").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 15 [Amendments relating to land compensation in Scotland]:
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 65:
  Page 176, line 20, leave out paragraph 10.
  The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 66 to 68. The amendments comprise essential drafting amendments to Schedule 15 and are minor amendments to Scottish planning legislation. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 66 to 68:
  Page 178, line 18, at end insert:
  ("The Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963 (c.51.)
  15A. In section 28 (power to prescribe matters relevant to Part IV) of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963, for the words "The provisions which may be made by a development order shall" there are substituted the words "Regulations made under section 273(1) (c) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 or a development order may".").
  Page 178, line 25, at end insert:
  ("16A. In section 273 (regulations) of the 1972 Act, after subsection (1) (b) there is inserted "and
  (c) for any of the purposes mentioned in section 28 (power to prescribe matters relevant to Part IV) of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963;".").
  Page 178, line 26, leave out paragraph 17.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  An amendment (privilege) made.
  6.25 p.m.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move, that the Bill do now pass.
  The purpose of the Bill is to increase the efficiency, effectiveness and fairness of the planning system and the compulsory purchase and compensation pro-visions. Those aims are shared on all sides of the House, as was shown when your Lordships gave the Bill its Second Reading without dissent. Those aims
  1154
  also underlay the substantial discussions we have had during the Bill's subsequent passage through the House.
  Both planning law and the compensation code are very much concerned with how to achieve the right balance in the public interest. Planning law must maintain a proper balance between applicants and objectors or between authorities and developers; the compensation code must balance the interests of claimants and acquiring authorities.
  Where we have disagreed, it has largely been because of different judgments about where the proper balance lies. For example, we believe that the tougher enforcement procedures provided in the Bill, following the recommendations of Mr. Robert Carnwath QC, strike the right balance. The proposals put forward by my noble friend Baroness Gardner of Parkes to make a contravention of planning law an immediate criminal offence, would not, in the Government's opinion, have allowed sufficiently for the need to make a planning judgment before proceeding against a particular activity.
  Similarly, the provisions in Clause 12 for entering into planning obligations by means of unilateral undertakings will in our view provide a valuable means of breaking the deadlock in those cases where local planning authorities unreasonably refuse to enter into planning agreements that would facilitate essential development. I know that that provision is of concern to noble Lords opposite. However, in our judgment it strikes the right balance.
  My noble friends Lord Norrie and Lord Renton have initiated several important debates on the role of the planning system in promoting environmental protection and conservation. The noble Baronesses, Lady Hollis, Lady Nicol and Lady David, the noble Lord, Lord Ross, my noble friends Lord Stanley, Lord Wade and Lord Mottistone and others of your Lordships have taken a constructive part in these discussions. The balance that has to be struck here is between the importance given to environmental and other considerations.
  It is the function of the planning system to resolve conflicts between different interests. The Bill's provisions, both on development control and on structure and local plans, are concerned largely to ensure that the planning system performs that function more efficiently. The Bill has been amended to ensure that in respect of development plans the importance of "natural beauty and amenity" is fully recognised. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, for prompting us in that direction.
  Where I have resisted other proposals relating to conservation it is not because I regard environmental questions as unimportant, but because I remain concerned to ensure that all material considerations are properly taken into account and because I believe that in many cases the better way to achieve the right balance is through Government guidance rather than primary legislation.
  Our debates about compensation for compulsory purchase have also been essentially about the right

  1155
  balance. The current compensation code by and large already succeeds in ensuring that claimants are financially no worse off than if no compulsory purchase had taken place. The Bill aims to correct the law where it does not achieve that. In addition, it substantially improves the home loss payments scheme, in particular for owner-occupiers whose homes are compulsorily acquired.
  We have debated a number of proposals made by various of your Lordships for extending similar improvements to other claimants. We have also debated a number of more technical proposals, many of which have been put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, which would to some extent have altered the balance between claimants and authorities. Once again, we believe that our proposals have struck the right balance.
  In a number of respects the House has made significant improvements to the Bill; for example in relation to the enforcement powers of English Heritage, on which we have just agreed amendments which were originally inspired by my noble friend Lord Montagu. I am glad also that we have adopted the new form of Clause 24 reflecting proposals by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I want to put on record my apologies to him because I thought he was being rhetorical at the end of his presentation. I did not answer his question. I have sent him a note, and I promise to write to him in more detail. This was of course after we had deleted the original clause which my noble friend Lord Coleraine and other noble Lords criticised so cogently.
  On a number of other matters the Government have undertaken to bring forward amendments in another place. These include the important provisions relating to interim development orders. There are also a number of matters which I have undertaken to look into further: for example, an environmental impact assessment, twin tracking and so on. Where I have not been able to indicate to the House today what our conclusions are, I can assure your Lordships that I am pursuing these matters urgently.
  I should like to thank all noble Lords for the constructive tone of these debates. I have named some of your Lordships who have taken part already but I cannot name everyone. There have been 54 speakers altogether contributing to the debates. In particular I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ross, for the experience he has brought to the discussion. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, who is unable to be with us due to a family tragedy, and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for his characteristic courtesy and enormous experience. I thank too my noble friends behind me for their support.
  I should not forget the many people outside the House who have briefed your Lordships and my officials who helped us to discuss these important planning matters in an informed manner. Finally, I wish to thank my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate, who has been called away from my side just at this moment. I have been enormously strengthened by his presence. It has been noted by many noble Lords that he went well beyond what I call the
  1156
  "kilting" amendments, the Scottish ones. He has helped us considerably on other and more anglicised amendments. I wish too to thank my noble friend Lord Astor for his support on this Bench. This has been his first Bill and he has done a sterling job in supporting me. He has taken a large number of amendments and diligently carried out a great deal of work in the background.
  At times we have been unreasonable—and I include myself in that—and at times we may have been vexatious. At times we have been frivolous. But my overall impression has been the good humour that has characterised our proceedings. I thank everyone for their contributions through which we have an even better Bill than when it was introduced into the House. I commend it to your Lordships.
  Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Blotch.)
  6.30 p.m.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, basically this is a good Bill. It started off badly by containing 120 pages when it was introduced, after which 87 pages of government amendments were thrown at us at Committee stage. In appearance at any rate, if not in its basic thrust, it is very different from the Bill which initially came before the House. It represents a serious attempt, based on a serious report from Mr. Robert Carnwath, to improve the efficiency and justice of the planning system.
  As we said at Second Reading, it has received support from these Benches in most of its main provisions. There are still major defects which need to be put right and matters in the Bill which will cause considerable controversy when it goes to another place. I think in particular of the anguished debate which is bound to take place about criminalisation. I wish Ministers in another place well with that debate. A large number of Members will wish to bring their personal experience to bear on the issue of whether it should be an offence simply to breach planning control or only to breach an injunction against it.
  There is still much to be done to improve the provision to deal with the interim development orders from the 1940s. Progress has been made in registration, but we shall have to go a good deal further if the Bill is to relieve the considerable and justified disquiet about virtually unregulated mineral workings. We wait with bated breath to hear the Government's conclusion when they have read the transcript of the Widdicombe judgment about demolition. I very much hope that it will be found that Mr. Widdicombe was right in judging that demolition is a building operation which should therefore be subject to planning control. If that is not the case, I hope that the Bill will be amended to give effect to it.
  We have made some progress, particularly today, on reaching agreement about the undesirability of twin tracking, and we welcome it. Unilateral undertakings will clearly still be a matter of considerable controversy because we have not reached agreement on them.

  1157
  On the compensation side as opposed to the planning side, as I said perhaps too vigorously earlier this afternoon, I still feel that the Government's proposals are profoundly unjust. At a time when tenancies are becoming less secure, in effect to remove or reduce home loss rights from many tenants is moving in the wrong direction. I find it inconsistent with the rest of the Government's housing policies.
  I shall not list any more of the changes which have taken place on the prompting of the Government Back Benches, of these Benches or of the Liberal Benches. They have been quite extensive and we are grateful for the consideration which has always been shown by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and her colleagues, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. The Minister was right in saying that the progress of the Bill has been as good humoured as could be expected. Without listing all the others who have taken part, I am particularly grateful for the support of my noble friends Lady Hollis, Lady Nicol and Lady David. They have been an extraordinarily effective and coherent team. Behind them, I am grateful for the work of Elizabeth Gardiner in our office who has marshalled the views put to us from a large number of outside organisations which expressed interest in the Bill.
  I wish the other place well of the Bill. I hope that many of the defects which remain will be removed before it returns to us for final approval.
  Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I welcomed the Bill on Second Reading and I welcome it even more now. I believe that the learned professions will also welcome the legislation, and it is good to be able to say that. I have two main regrets. First, I share with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, the regret that, although we tried very hard, the Government did not take on board some remedies for flagrant breaches of planning control. It is referred to as "criminalisation", but perhaps if we had used the words "blatantly and flagrantly" we may have got somewhere. I regret that we could not suggest it a third time. We voted on it at Report stage and received all-party support. I very much regret that we have still not achieved what we wished.
  The other matter is home loss payments. I regret that we did not pursue that earlier because I am worried. There could well be litigation—I look across at the legal eagles on the other side. Will assured shortholds be claimed as a legal interest or will people be able to claim home loss payments even for a rather miserable amount? I hope that the Government will reconsider this.
  I congratulate everyone on the Government Front Bench, particularly the Minister. She has been assiduous in her efforts to keep us informed of all government amendments and she is well worth her rise in pay. I am also pleased with the Government's quick response to the interim development orders. There may well be problems but I may quietly say that the quarrying industry is concerned at the moment and the Government have moved quickly on this. Again, they are to be congratulated.
  1158
  We have received some concessions, even on these Benches, particularly my noble friend Lord Meston today. The subject is difficult and complicated. I managed to pass planning when I took my RICS exams, but I am sure that it is extremely difficult for someone coming fresh to the subject. It is a great credit to the government spokesmen that they have mastered their brief so well. I congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, on his efforts in that regard.
  The Official Opposition Front Bench team has performed a marvellous task. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and his team have been excellent. I agree with the noble Lord that the Bill has been debated in a good spirit.
  I wish to thank those who have supported me. I also thank Mark Williams in the Whips Office—if I do not mention him, he gets very hurt. I wish the Bill well. Having spent some 13 years in another place, I do not believe that legislation is discussed as well there as it is in this House. This House excels at examining legislation. We may almost examine it too well in that we appear to raise points time and time again. I am afraid that Ministers must get fed up with having to repeat the same replies. Nevertheless, legislation is thoroughly debated in this House. I cannot always say the same about another place.
  On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Royal Assent
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Serota): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Namibia Act,

Ministerial and other Pensions and Salaries Act,

Smith Kline & French Laboratories, Australia, and Menley & James, Australia, Act,

Midland Metro (Penalty Fares) Act.

Statutory Sick Pay (Rate of Payment) Order 1991 Social Security (Contributions) Amendment Regulations 1991 Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating) Order 1991 Child Benefit and Social Security (Fixing and Adjustment of Rates) Amendment Regulations 1991 Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1991 Statutory Sick Pay (Small Employer's Relief) Regulations 1991 State Scheme Premiums (Actuarial Tables) Amendment Regulations 1991 Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 1991
6.42 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, I beg to move that the four draft orders and four draft regulations, all of 1991, standing in my name on the Order paper be approved.
Before I address the orders I wish to repeat a point made by my right honourable Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security on 24th October last year in announcing the up-rating of social security benefits. In the corning year we shall be spending a record amount on social security; that is more than £60 billion. I believe that this is a measure of two important issues: first, the success of the Government's policies in generating wealth which can be shared by all: and, secondly, the level of our commitment to a social security system able to provide real help to those whose need is greatest.
I should first like to set out our intentions for financing contributory benefits, on which we plan to spend more than £33 billion in 1991–92. For the eighth year running we do not propose to increase the rates of Class 1 contribution in the coming year. In fact, as the House will already be aware, we propose to reduce the rates of national insurance contributions payable by employers. The standard rate will be reduced from 10.45 per cent. to 10.4 per cent. More importantly, the lower rates, currently 5, 7, and 9 per cent. in respect of employees earning up to £175 a week, will be reduced
1160
to 4·6, 6·6, and 8·6 per cent. respectively. These changes will reduce employers' costs by some £250 million and are likely to be especially helpful to employers, often in small businesses, whose employees are among the less highly paid, and will go a considerable way towards offsetting any additional costs which employers may meet as a result of the changes to statutory sick pay (SSP) made by the Statutory Sick Pay Act.
The lower and upper earnings limits will be raised to £52 and £390 per week respectively, the effect of which is that most employees will pay less in Class 1 contributions. I am sure the House will welcome that. As regards employers, we also propose as usual to increase each of the earnings limits below which they pay lower contribution rates. For self-employed people, we propose to increase Class 2 contributions by 60 pence to £5.15 per week from next April. We do not propose any changes to the profits related Class 4 contribution rate paid by some self-employed people; however, the profits limits between which contributions are payable will be increased to £5,900 and £20,280 respectively.
Before moving on from the subject of national insurance, I should like to make mention of the Social Security (Contributions) Amendment Regulations 1991, which deal with the special rate of Class 2 contribution paid by share fishermen. Unlike most self-employed people, share fishermen are, under longstanding arrangements, able to receive unemployment benefit and industrial injuries benefits. They earn their entitlement to these benefits by paying a special rate of Class 2 contribution. This consists of the standard Class 2 contribution paid by the majority of self-employed people with an additional amount related to the costs of the extra benefits payable to them.
I am sure the House will recollect that one of the measures contained in the Social Security Act 1990 was the removal from the scope of the National Insurance Fund of industrial injuries benefits, which are now funded from general taxation. Clearly it is no longer appropriate for share fishermen to pay extra contributions for benefits which are funded from taxation—and from April we propose that they should no longer pay the extra amount. I hasten to add that this change will have no effect on their rights to benefits. As a result of our proposals, the share fishermen contribution will rise this year by just 5p, from £6·15 to £6·20. They will therefore continue to enjoy unchanged benefit rights at very little extra costs. I am sure that the House will welcome this.
I turn now to the draft Statutory Sick Pay (Rate of Payment) Order. It provides for an increase in the lower rate of SSP, of £4·25 to £43·50 a week. The higher rate remains unchanged at £52·50. The order also proposes that the earnings threshold, which determines when the higher rate becomes payable, be increased from £125 per week to £185 per week, thus extending the coverage of the lower rate across the whole range of earnings for which employers pay lower rates of national insurance contributions. We discussed this matter at some length during the passage of the statutory sick pay legislation.

1161
The Government also recognise that there is very much less occupational cover for maternity than there is for sickness. We propose, therefore, to move away from the current link between the flat rate element of statutory maternity pay and statutory sick pay. As a consequence, the main draft benefits uprating order will increase the SMP rate by £5·25 to £44·50 per week, which is £1 above the retail prices index increase of 10·9 per cent. An additional £1 will also be added to the state maternity allowance, which will go up by £4·90 to £40·60 per week. There will thus be a real increase in benefit for some 315,000 mothers-to-be.
It would be appropriate for me to say a few words about the Statutory Sick Pay (Small Employer's Relief) Regulations at this point in my speech. I do not intend to spend long on these regulations; the House will recognise that they follow directly from the discussions we had on the Statutory Sick Pay legislation which changed the reimbursement rate for employers from 100 to 80 per cent. with effect from next April. The regulations fulfil the undertaking given during our earlier debates. They provide that an employer will qualify to be treated as a small employer where his contribution payments in the preceding tax year do not exceed £15,000 and that small employers' relief—that is 100 per cent. recovery of SSP—will operate once an employee has been entitled to SSP for six weeks in the same period of incapacity for work. They also modify the rules where the employer has only recently started up in business.
I should briefly mention the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 1991 which requires occupational pensions schemes which are contracted out of the state earnings related pensions scheme to provide post-award increases of guaranteed minimum pensions (earned in or after the tax year 1988–89) of 3 per cent. from 6th April this year.
I turn now to the Child Benefit and Social Security (Fixing and Adjustment of Rates) Amendment Regulations 1991. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State confirmed in his up-rating statement that child benefit is and will remain a strong element in our policies for family support. Families with children, at all levels of income, face additional costs compared to families with none. This year we recognise that fact by means of an additional payment of £1 a week for the eldest child for whom child benefit is in payment. This represents a worthwhile extra amount of child benefit for claimants—the majority of them mothers—in some 7 million families, and it involves a net cost of over £250 million a year.
The House will see that, overall, the various measures which we are introducing from this April acknowledge responsibilities towards the old as well as towards the young. They recognise that disability and the need for special care mean that families can face exceptional pressures. Consideration of the needs of families in that wider context and in the light of available resources did not allow an increase in child benefit for all children on this occasion. Bearing in mind that the extra £1 will go to every family and will be larger than a retail prices increase in one parent
1162
benefit, which is similarly payable for an eldest child, it was not possible to propose an up-rating of that benefit as well.
This year's increase in child benefit reflects the Government's complementary policy objectives of assisting families generally and providing extra help for the low income families who receive income-related benefits. The improvements to income support and family credit—introduced over the past three years to help less well-off families with children—will be maintained and increased in April to compensate for rises in the cost of living. This means that spending on income-related benefits for families with children is expected to be worth some £400 million more in real terms in 1991–92 than in 1987–88.
Historically, there has always been a link between child benefit and other benefits for children. When child benefit for the first child in a family was increased from £1 to £2·30 in April 1978 there was a corresponding decrease of £1·30 in the rate of other benefits for that child. We therefore propose to make futher regulations, to be laid before Parliament in due course, to ensure that the general principle whereby benefit rates for children are based on the overall level of child support continues to apply.
This year the draft up-rating order provides for an increase, from £9·65 to £10·70, in the rate of dependants' additions to contributory benefits. The effect of the proposed overlapping benefit adjustment to which I have just referred will therefore be to reduce the amount of such a benefit by £1 where the increase in child benefit is paid; £1 is of course the amount by which child benefit is increased.
Before moving on, I should like to say a brief word about the State Scheme Premiums (Actuarial Tables) Amendment Regulations. These are entirely technical and are concerned with the calculation of premiums which are payable in certain circumstances when people previously in contracted-out employment wish to buy back rights in SERPS. The formula for calculating the premium takes account of an index compiled by the Financial Times and the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries of 25-year British Government stocks. The FT and actuarial bodies have decided no longer to compile that index from the beginning of April but are replacing it with an equivalent index for 20-year stocks. The regulations are consequential on that change.
The main up-rating order follows the announcement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in October about the generality of social security benefit rates that will be payable from April. It provides for an increase in retirement pension and virtually all other benefits which are not income-related of 10·9 per cent., which is the increase in retail prices which took place between September 1989 and September 1990. Income-related benefits will be increased by 8·1 per cent., which is the increase over the same period in retail prices other than housing costs. The difference reflects the fact that for people on income support help with rent is available through housing benefit and help with mortgage interest separately within income support itself.

1163
However, in a number of areas the Government have been able to go beyond the normal uprating of benefits through a package of extra help to priority groups. This year we shall be spending an extra £80 million through increases in the basic pensioner premium which is paid to people aged 60 to 74. These increases will directly benefit about 400,000 pensioners on income support and will also feed through to housing benefit and community charge benefit. The premiums for single pensioners aged 60 to 74 will go up by £1 a week over and above a straightforward up-rating, while couples will receive an extra £1·50 a week. This comes on top of a previous measure, taken in October 1989, which directed extra resources to older and disabled pensioners through income-related benefits at a cost of £200 million in the first year.
There is also extra help for the elderly in another important area—residential care and nursing homes. The increases have been decided upon with the aim of providing the greatest help where it is needed most. The available evidence from voluntary and charitable bodies and organisations of home owners, as well as that provided by the Price Waterhouse survey into running costs, confirmed our view that the pressure was grater in nursing homes.
It was clear that although there was not a sufficiently clear pattern of geographical variation, except for Greater London, the limits for residential care homes are reasonably close to median costs across the whole country while those for nursing homes are significantly too low. The increases seek to redress that balance, and the increase in the nursing home supplement in Greater London from £23 to £33 addresses the higher costs facing nursing homes in London. That increase requires a separate amendment rather than forming part of this evening's debate.
For residential care, the basic limit will rise by £5 a week to £160 and the other limits—for the very dependent and blind elderly who include, for example, Alzheimer's disease cases and covering mentally handicapped, mentally ill and physically disabled people—by £15. There are higher increases for nursing homes of between £15 and £45 a week.
Although the increase for residential care may seem low when compared with the more substantial increases proposed for nursing homes, this limit has in recent years increased faster than inflation. It was increased by £10 in April 1990, and £5 in August 1990. This further increase of £5 means that, on the basis of the Price Waterhouse evidence, the limit is now fairly set in relation to median costs in homes across the country. I should also point out that the residential care limits for the more dependent groups, including that for very dependent and blind elderly people, are to be increased by £15 from April. I should re-emphasise that income support payments are not, and never have been, intended to meet all fees in full, however high they may be.
I am also aware that some anxiety has been expressed about the proposed increase of £15 in the terminally ill limit. However, the House will remember that not only was this limit increased by £10 along with all other limits in April 1990, but it was increased again by £15 (which was more than any other limit) in
1164
August 1990. The proposed increase of £15 this April will mean a total increase over the year of £40 a week. The terminal illness limit still remains the second highest limit and is exceeded only by that for younger physically handicapped people, for whom providing care generally incurs the greatest cost.
The total cost of those increases will be some £225 million. Together with those made in April and August last year, the increases mean that income support expenditure in homes will have risen by over £400 million a year, over and above the £1 billion it had already reached.
I am also pleased to take the opportunity of this debate to inform the House of some further good news which my right honourable friend was able to announce yesterday in another place. The lump sum available to those who suffer severe mental or physical disablement as a result of vaccination—payments made under the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 —was last increased in line with inflation in 1985. The Government have decided to restore the value of the payment broadly to what it was then. Consequently, the necessary action will shortly be taken to increase payment in cases arising from April by £10,000 to £30,000. I ought to make it clear that that increase does not represent a judgment about a change in the risk of vaccination—it is merely the appropriate time to restore the value of the payment.
At the start of my speech I said that the Government are committed to raising the amount of expenditure on social security to record levels. The sums of money involved are very large indeed, but of equal importance is the fact that not only have we honoured our pledges to up-rate benefits for the elderly and the long-term sick in line with prices but that we have also directed extra help towards those in the community who are in particular need. It is a record of which we should all be proud, and I commend all the orders and regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th February [11th Report from the Joint Committee]; the draft regulations laid before the House on 13th February [11th Report from the Joint Committee]; the draft order laid before the House on 13th February [11th Report from the Joint Committee]; the draft regulations laid before the House on 21st February [12th Report from the Joint Committee]; the draft order laid before the House on 13th February [11th Report from the Joint Committee]; the draft regulations laid before the House on 20th February [12th Report from the Joint Committee]; the draft regulations laid before the House on 18th February [11th Report from the Joint Committee]; and the draft order laid before the House on 11th December 1990 [6th Report from the Joint Committee] be approved.—(Lord Henley.)
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for explaining the eight orders so clearly. On Tuesday evening I had the pleasure of expressing the good wishes of the House to the noble Lord and his wife on their expectation of increasing their eligibility for child benefit. I understand that that expectation has now been fulfilled and I offer our congratulations to the noble Lord and his wife.

1165
I particularly enjoyed the noble Lord's explanation of the State Scheme Premiums (Actuarial Tables) Amendment Regulations, on which he waxed lyrical. We welcome the increase in the lump sum payment for vaccine damage.
I do not propose to cover all of the eight orders in detail. Instead, I prefer to raise specific points in relation to individual benefits. It is familiar ground and there is no need to repeat the arguments made in previous debates on the general subject of social security provision. We all know where we stand on that issue.
If I may deal first with child benefit, I fear that the order marks yet another stage in the Government's downgrading of this benefit as a provider of help for poor families who are not in receipt of benefit, those who are just above the poverty line, because we know that the child benefit is by far the most effective way of helping people during that situation. The extra pound for the first child is welcome; but, as I said to the noble Lord earlier, we feel that it is not targeted, which we are told is the aim of the Government in their handling of benefits generally.
The example which I have—I have given it before but it is worth repeating—is the rich family with one child, which will receive exactly the same increase in total weekly income as the poor family with three or four children. We do not feel that that is the right way to deal with this problem. We also feel that this benefit will never fulfil its intended role, until it is brought up to date in terms of inflation and is no longer frozen. This we are committed to do on this side of the House when we are returned to power.
I noticed the phrase of the Minister when he said that the child benefit was a strong element in the Government's policy towards the family. I ask him: what are the intentions of the Government on child benefit? There are a number of ideas apparently floating about. For example, replacing it with tax allowances, increasing it generally or handling it in a different way. It would be interesting to know what are the Government's plans in respect of the benefit.
To turn next to the one-parent benefit. This is frozen and it saves £14 million net or £19 million gross, which seems a small sum to save in terms of the problems that the freeze will cause to single parents. I know the Government argue that the increase in child benefit for the first child helps to make up for the freeze; but we feel that this takes no account of the extra costs of the lone parent and the losses which are due to the freeze in child benefit since 1987. If those losses were to be made up, the rate of child benefit would now be £9.55 a week instead of £7.25. Again, I ask the Minister: what is the intention for the future of the one-parent benefit? How do the Government propose to handle it in their rethinking of the child benefit?
As the noble Lord said, the up-rating of income support omits housing cost. No account is taken of increases in the poll tax or in water rates. The water charge is particularly important because of the recent
1166
announcement about the impending increases. It will be interesting to know how those on income support benefit from the recent announcement concerning poll tax relief, which I believe will not produce the reductions in poll tax that some people are expecting.
I believe that the figure the noble Lord gave was £80 million for the effect of this relief, which he said will work through into community charge benefit. That does not seem to me to provide a vast amount of relief for the substantial increase in poll tax which we all expect.
There is the problem of people in residential care and nursing homes. I wonder whether the noble Lord has seen the recent independent report from the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. There are three of the main conclusions of that report which are worth considering, and I should welcome the Minister's response. The report states in paragraph 7.5:
"income support rates should be set at levels which ensure that in all parts of the country there is a choice of homes available within income support limits."
In paragraph 7.7, it states:
"We therefore recommend that, as an interim measure until the relevant community care provisions are implemented"—
which, of course, will be in 1993—
"provision should be made for benefit levels to be 'topped up' by the Department of Social Security where the only alternative would be for a resident to be forced to leave the home, and it is demonstrated that this would cause severe hardship."
The only other recommendation which I shall quote is in paragraph 7.8:
"We further recommend that until such measures can be introduced, claimants should retain their existing entitlement to housing benefit, as in some circumstances this can avoid claimants having to face the consequences of an income support shortfall."
Just to illustrate the effect of the problem at the moment, I have a briefing from Age Concern. They point out that they recently heard from a retired couple in the Home Counties. The husband is forced to work to top up the £55 shortfall per week in income support, which his elderly aunt receives for her residential home care. The couple have already spent thousands of pounds of their own savings in topping up fees and feel that they cannot go on, but can see no solution to their problem. This issue is of particular concern in view of the delay in implementation of the community care proposals. We are now hearing over and over again of the problems that this is causing.
I know the Minister says that the Government are relying on the Price Waterhouse analysis of the median level; but it seems that, in practice, they either calculated the figures incorrectly or there was something skewed about the sample because we are now receiving information about a large number of cases of people who are in very real need.
I have a final word on statutory sick pay. I can only repeat our regret at the raising of the higher rate band from £125 to £185 a week, which I am afraid we regard as the sleight of hand with which we are now becoming rather familiar.

1167
On the small employer relief—and certainly we spent some time on that in discussing the Act—we all know that unless the £15,000 limit for small employer relief is increased annually, it will lift more and more employers out of the small employer relief as the level of earnings goes up and hence the level of insurance contributions.
For the record, it would be helpful if the Minister could reinforce the point that was made in the debate on the Act, that the Government recognise and accept this point. I am sure that they do. The Act, in words which were well chosen, requires the Secretary of State to,
"consider whether that amount should be increased."
Lastly, do the Government have it in mind to increase the amount annually, unless there are very substantial reasons for not doing so? I know that the Minister cannot commit the Treasury, but at least to know the intentions will be helpful. After all, the cost to the Government will be very small since the whole of the small employer relief scheme will cost less than £4 million.
To conclude—and I intend to be brief—as I said at the beginning, I have no wish to repeat all the arguments that we have had many times before. Both sides of the House recognise the views which we each hold about the level and direction of social security benefits. I repeat that when we return to power we shall increase child benefit to make up for the losses since 1987; we shall increase pensions and, over time, we shall restore the link between pensions and earnings. Again, over time—as I said only on Tuesday evening—it is our intention to introduce a comprehensive and coherent policy to compensate for disability costs and to provide a disability income. It will all take time and perhaps will take more than one Parliament; but I have to say that the thrust of policy when we are in power will be very different from that of the Government.
7.8 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I should like to join in the congratulations to my noble kinsman on his wife's new entitlement to receive an extra child benefit. I hope that it will be in the spirit of our debate if I also express the hope that my noble kinsman, as he realises that he incurs expenses which are not otherwise recognised in the taxation system, will feel entitled to draw this benefit with a clear conscience and to receive regular up-ratings on it.
The House will be glad to hear that I shall deal first, very briefly, with the statutory sick pay regulations. The important change in the first one, the rate of payment, is to alter the limit at which the higher rate becomes payable from f125 to f185. I shall confine myself to saying that after lengthy debates on this subject I have heard no good reason for that change and I am not satisfied with it.
The Statutory Sick Pay (Small Employer's Relief) Regulations, as my noble kinsman said, give effect to a great deal of what was said during the passage of the Bill through this House. It fixes the definition of a small employer in terms of national insurance
1168
contributions at a level at or below £15,000. I shall only comment on that, but that seems to me to create an incentive to keep down wages, which may tend to exacerbate the problems of low pay and may therefore tend sideways to exacerbate the burden on income support.
I share the misgivings expressed by my noble kinsman Lord Stanley of Alderley when this measure passed the House about the length of six weeks as a limit beyond which the employer becomes entitled to relief. I have been surprised, particularly in following the debates on the Bill elsewhere, to find how little support for industry there now is in the Conservative Party. I grew up thinking of the Conservatives as the party of industry. It seems to me that the Conservatives have now become the party of commerce. Their claims to be the party of industry are now distinctly questionable.
On the State Scheme Premiums (Actuarial Tables) Amendment Regulations, I am deeply grateful to my noble kinsman for his extremely lucid exposition. He said a great deal more about them than the Secretary of State did in another place. The Secretary of State confined himself to observing that he did not propose to say anything about the measure, which he said was entirely technical, not to say dense. I very much appreciate my noble kinsman's effort in going further than that. I find what he says appears to make sense; I have at present no complaint.
I had thought, at first sight, that the order which deals with Class 2 contributions paid by share fishermen might have been something about which I could afford not to say anything. It turns out that this is not the case. I should have known better. Whenever one starts ignoring any interest group on the ground that one does not need to know anything about it, one always ends up committing an injustice. The background, as my noble kinsman explained, is that industrial injuries are no longer a charge on the National Insurance Fund but on general taxation. Therefore, because of not having to meet industrial injuries compensation, national insurance Class 2 contributions are decreased.
But there is another problem affecting share fishermen which the regulations do not affect. I should perhaps explain that share fishermen are people who take a catch in common, sell the catch collectively, and take their profits in the form of a share of the catch. The problem is that they have an eight-day tying up period during which they do not fish and therefore receive no income. If that period is divided between two weeks and part of their fishing takes place in each week, they may be just above the level at which they would have been entitled to unemployment benefit in each week. It seems that this is a regulation which produces an accidental injustice. I agree with my honourable friend Mr. Kirkwood in asking the Government to think again about whether anything can be done.
On the Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating) Order, I have little to say. The only point I want to make relates to the level of Class 4 national insurance contributions. We have heard a great deal about the

1169
burdens created by the recession for small businesses and the self-employed. If anyone listens for any length of time to the complaints of the self-employed, Class 4 national insurance contributions usually come high on the list. I wondered whether, in a situation where the National Insurance Fund does have a degree of solvency, there might have been an opportunity to think about some possible reduction in the level of Class 4 national insurance contributions. I am sorry that this opportunity was not taken.
We have next the Child Benefit and Social Security (Fixing and Adjustment of Rates) Amendment Regulations. My noble kinsman, because he was better occupied, yesterday missed an extremely interesting debate initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, on the report by Professor Jonathan Bradshaw for UNICEF on levels of child poverty. If my noble kinsman were to read that debate, and even more if he were to read Professor Bradshaw's report, he might be induced to think again about the question of whether child benefit increases should be extended beyond the first child. It is in families with large numbers of children that poverty and malnutrition often create the severest burdens.
The Government do not entirely seem to appreciate the beauty of the dual purpose nature of child benefit. It is both a vital welfare benefit for those who are worst off and a measure of fiscal equity in lieu of a tax allowance for those on other parts of the income scale. It is because it is able to achieve those two purposes at once that it is such an excellent benefit. That combination should be borne in mind. On the clawback, which my noble kinsman mentioned, I say only that we expect to debate it further.
The big issue is the up-rating order. I feel a good deal of regret about the fact that in Schedule 2 the Government have made no attempt to close the gap between the rates of income support for those over and under 25. That gap is entirely unjustifiable and sooner or later will have to be abolished. When that time arrives, if it had been narrowed first, the immediate burden on the Treasury would be a good deal less. I hope, by way of keeping options open, the Government might consider the case for narrowing the gap.
I warmly welcome what my noble kinsman said about the increased vaccine damage limit. However, it raises the technical point of whether there is a case for making more effort to up-rate the capital limits annually in line with inflation just like the sums of income. My noble kinsman confessed that this sum had remained where it was for a pretty long time. If you move capital limits once every five or 10 years the movement becomes rather gentle, and inequities may on occasion result.
I shall not go into the arguments raised by Schedule 10 on community charge benefits. It still seems to me a rather expensive method of robbing Peter to pay Paul. I shall however ask the Government to think again about whether the benefit should be more closely related to the actual levels of community charge that people have paid, not the notional sum of
1170
an ideal, platonic community charge floating in the heavens which the Government imagine somebody might reach. Unless related to the actual sums that people have to pay, it will not be effective.
It appears that the principle that everybody should contribute something towards the community charge is becoming impossible. Community charge benefit has not been set at viable levels. This is a principle that our Victorian ancestors recognised as quite impractical. They agreed with the government view that people should pay taxes if they voted. They regarded that as an argument against universal suffrage. I think this is something that the Government are going to have to face, but I shall not go further into that at present.
I echo what my honourable friend Mr. Kirkwood said about cold weather payments. I know that we have had a concession on cold weather payments this winter, which is warmly welcomed. I also know that the Minister's right honourable friend, Mr. Scott, is engaged in a review of cold weather payments, which I warmly welcome. But there is a further problem to investigate. The entitlement emerges after the cold weather and therefore people are not sure whether they can put on the heating when they need it. Secondly, these things are uprated in line with the RPI. We know perfectly well that all heating costs are going up a great deal faster than the RPI. There may be a case for a really substantial uprating here.
The last thing I want to ask my noble kinsman about is the level of the budget for the social fund. It needs to be increased at least to £230 million to bring it up to date with inflation. That does not appear to be announced in the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order. I should like to ask when it is going to be announced. Since it is a vital figure, will it be announced on an occasion and in a form in which there will be opportunity for the House to address it?
Will my noble kinsman and his right honourable friend consider this question? If the shotgun marriage between discretion and budgeting—which is the basis of the social fund—is to be preserved, is there a case for adjusting the amount budgeted to the social fund to the amount of unemployment in any particular year? Is there a case for increasing the social fund in line not only with inflation but with recession?
I agree with my noble kinsman about the huge sums that the Department of Social Security is spending. I regard them as the cost of unemployment. I hope that that will come down.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am grateful for the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and my noble kinsman Lord Russell concerning my wife and the recent addition to our family. I should stress that I have acquired no extra entitlement. My noble kinsman touched on this point. Child benefit will continue as now to be paid direct to the mother. It makes no difference to me whether my wife receives it.
Lord Carter: My Lords, would the noble Lord like a chance to re-phrase that.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I may not have phrased it as felicitously as I wished.

1171
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his welcome of the increase of £1 for the eldest child of the family. Much the same argument was raised in the debate on the up-rating last October. I am always surprised that the noble Lord, who is a keen supporter of child benefit, objects that it will go as much to the rich as to the poor but then states that his party would do exactly the same except to up-rate it generally.
The noble Lord asked for an assurance about our intentions concerning child benefit. I repeat what my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said in the up-rating statement and only recently when speaking to Barnardo's. He stressed that it is and will remain a strong element in our policies for family support. However, one must always remember that it has never been intended to meet all the costs of bringing up a child. As is his statutory duty, my right honourable friend will continue to review levels of child support when he makes his up-rating announcement each October.
I am also grateful that both noble Lords welcomed the State Scheme Premiums (Actuarial Tables) Amendment Regulations. I am grateful that they understood my explanation of those regulations.
I turn now to one-parent benefit. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, objected to the fact that it has been frozen. Again I must stress that lone parents will benefit from the increase in child benefit for the eldest child. Child benefit, as we have already said, will be increased by £1 a week for the eldest, whereas if one-parent benefit had been increased, the increase in line with RPI would have been 60p a week for the eldest child. One-parent benefit has been up-rated every single year since 1977. In April 1990 its real value was 15 per cent. higher than in November 1978.
I turn now to the questions asked by noble Lords about how those on income support benefit from community charge relief. Income support recipients will benefit from the recently announced community charge reduction schemes—which are to be introduced in April at a cost of £1.3 billion—like everyone else who is a former ratepayer and satisfies the conditions of the schemes. The total expenditure on government reduction schemes in 1991–92 will be £1.8 billion. It must not be forgotten that those on income support automatically receive a rebate of 80 per cent. in their community charge.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, also raised the question of residential care in nursing homes and the NACAB report, of which I am aware. The noble Lord has put down a Question which I look forward to answering next Wednesday. All I wish to say today is that it is obvious to me, as I believe it must be to him, that at whatever rate we set our limit we cannot meet all charges levied by all homes. The increases that I announced at the beginning of the debate were based on evidence from various homes, but in particular the Price Waterhouse report—to which I shall return when the noble Lord asks his Question—which considered costs in homes. I believe that that is a more important figure to consider than charges which the NACAB report considered.
1172
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, and my noble kinsman Lord Russell asked various questions about small employers' relief in the new statutory sick pay arrangements, and whether the figure will be increased from £15,000. I stress that there is a duty in the Bill on my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to consider up-rating every year. He will certainly exercise that duty. As I said during the course of the Bill, we would never envisage it being up-rated by a fixed RPI figure every year, thereby producing rather peculiar figures. I imagine that we shall consider up-rating by rounded thousand pound figures whenever necessary.
My noble kinsman also objected to the change in the higher rate for SSP, increasing it from £125 to £185. He said that he was not satisfied and doubted that we ever would satisfy him. Nevertheless, I shall try yet again. Raising the earnings band to £185 extends the coverage of SSP across the whole range of earnings for which employers pay the lower rates of national insurance contributions. Again I stress the much larger reductions we made in the employers' rates in this year's up-rating.
The Government went part way towards this objective last year by moving to a threshold of £125, which was the top point of the then 7 per cent. rate of contribution. The movement this year completes that process. However, I should emphasise again that so far as concerns the majority of employers, the difference in SSP rates will be made up by occupational sick pay.
My noble kinsman spoke of the burden created by the current economic climate. He claimed that levels of Class 4 contributions were too high and that this would be an opportunity to make reductions in Class 4. We feel it only right that the better-off self-employed paying Class 4 contributions should make their contribution to the National Insurance Fund, just as the better-off employed people pay extra amounts in their Class 1 contributions. My noble kinsman referred to yesterday's debate. I assure him that I shall read the debate and take note of everything that was said.
He raised the question of cold weather payments. I can only repeat the assurance given by my right honourable friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People that they will be reviewed at the end of the winter. It would not be right for me therefore to say any more.
I was asked when the figures for the social fund budget would be announced. They will be announced in due course. My noble kinsman asked whether there would be a means in this House to debate them. I am sure that with his usual ingenuity he will find one.
Before I sit down I should like to reiterate a point that I made in opening the debate. It is the Government's aim to direct an increasing level of resources to those in the community whose need is greatest. I am sure that noble Lords will agree with me that the orders I moved today have achieved that aim. I commend them.
On Question, Motions agreed to.

European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Fourth ACP-EEC Convention of Lomé Order 1991
7.30 p.m.
Lord Reay Lord Reay rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 29th January be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Fourth ACP-EEC Convention, or Lomé IV as it is commonly known, governs development and trade relations between the Community and the 69 countries described as the African Caribbean and Pacific (or ACP) group. The convention was signed on 15th December 1989 in Lomé. I had the honour of representing Her Majesty's Government so I am particularly pleased to have the opportunity of commending the order to your Lordships today.
The draft Order in Council to which the Motion refers was approved in another place on 26th February. It will allow the convention's provisions to be effected in United Kingdom law, which opens the way for ratification of the convention by the United Kingdom. The convention takes force when ratified by all EC member states and two thirds of the ACP countries and concluded by the Community.
Lomé IV builds on the success of its predecessors. The convention's scope is unique, covering a wide range of countries. The ACP countries have populations ranging from fewer than 100,000 to more than 100 million. Of the 43 least developed countries, as defined by the UN, 33 belong to the ACP. The convention is nothing if not ambitious, for it seeks to consolidate the existing partnership between the Community and the ACP states, one which will further the aspirations of these countries. As I am sure your Lordships can imagine, negotiating such a wide-ranging treaty between such a variety of countries was no easy task. The Government put great effort into the process and I am happy to report are delighted with the result.
The new convention will last for 10 years. That is twice as long as Lomé III and an indication of our commitment to the partnership. The aid money will be provided by two separate five-year European development funds, or EDFs. There is a 46 per cent. increase in spending in EDF VII (which will run for the first five years of Lomé IV) compared with EDF VI for Lomé III. The Community has pledged 10·8 billion ecu, or £7·56 billion, of which the British share is 1·8 billion ecu (around £1·3 billion).
Lomé IV recognises the importance of co-operation in the areas of agriculture, trade and industry. The need for the environment to be preserved is also reflected in the treaty. Education and training, technical co-operation and the role of women in development are all emphasised by the convention. The European Investment Bank, or EIB, will channel funds to efficient private sector activities. Money will also be available for public administration programmes: these are the concrete results of the Government's determination to consider aid in the
1174
context of good human rights practices which is reflected in the convention. The fund will also support structural adjustment programmes, thereby bringing the Community's weight behind the efforts of the international financial institutions and of the bilateral donors. The new convention is aware of the need to provide aid effectively by helping the recipients to further their own interests.
The Government believe that developing countries can best progress economically by full participation in the world economy. They, therefore, welcome, the improved trade conditions, which were already generous. I should point out that these conditions are bettered only by those for our dependent territories, which are provided for under a decision parallel to Lomé
The Government are confident that the convention is a genuine advance, building on the strengths of previous treaties and learning from their weaknesses. The convention is the Community's development flagship. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 29th January be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Reay.)
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for presenting the order and for his clear explanation of it. I congratulate him on the personal contribution that he made. I wish to make only a few short comments about Lomé IV and ask a couple of questions.
We remember how Lomé III was negotiated in 1983–84 against a background of food shortages caused by drought, deforestation and neglect of the small farmer. However, the biggest problems now facing ACP countries are the burdens of debt, which by World Bank estimates doubled between 1980 and 1987, and the fall in agricultural income. Therefore, given that burden of debt, we welcome the decision that most Lomé funds will now be given as aid and not as grants. We also welcome the emphasis on the environment, on human rights and most certainly on the commitment to pay greater attention to the needs of women.
The convention refers to the decentralised co-operation which should bring NGOs into the process of development in ACP countries. We are also happy to see that both Stabex and Sysmin have been considerably improved. Can the Minister say what is the total estimated fund allocation within the convention's budget for the emergency aid and refugee aid projects for 1990–1991?
I turn now to the other side of the coin. When looking at the desperate straits of many of the ACP countries one wonders whether the 12 million ecu for the convention is enough. I believe that in financial terms the new agreement gives no more per person than the previous agreement. The ACP states requested 15.5 million ecu for the convention but the Commission imposed its offer, although there had been no room for negotiation. However, the 12 million ecu was certainly better than the UK Government's negotiating proposal, which I understand was only 10 million ecu. Therefore, I am

1175
happy that the other member states prevented the Lomé budget from being as the UK Government wished. Can the Minister give the total funds that are likely to be allocated under Lomé IV in relation to the development of trade and of small businesses in ACP countries? Does he know of any new initiative that the Government are taking to encourage investment within ACP countries?
I wish to comment on the spirit of Lomé in the restructuring of North-South relations, which is an important aspect. The preamble to the first Lomé convention referred to changing the North-South relations that were hampering development. It proposed instead the promotion of a new, more just and balanced world order. The ideal that the huge gaps in wealth and power could be transcended by a new North-South partnership based on mutual respect was the call of the time.
That ideal was conspicuously absent from the Lomé IV negotiations. There have been improvements but no major innovations since Lomé began. As the EC and NGO liaison committee said, the spirit of Lomé seems to be somewhat lost. Lomé IV bans the export of hazardous nuclear waste to EC countries, and we welcome that. But surely a real model of North-South co-operation would include an agreement on the activities of all multi-national organisations in developing countries. It would tackle the whole debt crisis in the international trade regime. Lomé IV does not endeavour to do that in any way.
The Labour Party has always pressed for an improvement in the European Development Fund but there is nothing in the convention that will bring that about. In addition, we have also believed that the ACP countries should be given more opportunities to sell their agricultural produce and manufactured goods within the EC. Again, Lomé IV will not assist them in doing that. Also, we recognise how much developing countries would benefit if EC countries stopped the practice of dumping farm surpluses on the world market at subsidised prices. Yet it is clear that EC farmers will continue to be protected and surpluses will continue to grow.
In view of the many other countries in that area whose economies are in such a very bad way, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord if he knows whether there have been any requests from other countries to join the Lomé Convention. A recent press report suggested that South Africa may wish to join. Perhaps the Minister could say what would be the European Community criteria regarding such a possible request from South Africa.
I welcome Lomé IV and the whole idea of giving assistance to the ACP countries. I hope that the convention will revive the fortunes of some of those countries which are struggling with such serious economic problems.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, my noble friends would wish me to add our satisfaction and congratulations
1176
on the new convention with its numerous improvements over its predecessor. Also, we are happy to congratulate the noble Lord on the personal part which he played in negotiations on the convention.
I have one very small but important procedural point to raise. I do not understand why the order requires the financing agreement to be designated as a Community treaty. Surely we can make our contribution without designating the agreement a Community treaty. Perhaps the noble Lord can clarify that point.
I believe that I have on my side the Foreign Office because I see from a report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments that the Foreign Office stated:
"It would not be regarded as improper to seek voted money for the purposes of the Treaty payment if the Internal Financing Agreement were not designated. Specific statutory authority for the payment of the United Kingdom contribution to the European Development Fund is contained in section 1 of the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980".
I am no great authority on these constitutional and legal points. It may be that my vitamin intake is not sufficient for me to comprehend the meaning of the order. However, at least I have the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on my side. Therefore, I am emboldened to ask the Minister to explain that anomalous situation.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I hope that the Minister will forgive me for not being in my place when he introduced the order. I should like to say a few words this evening on the acceptance of the order.
I was an observer at the original meeting in 1974 at the commencement of the organisation of the arrangements between the EC and the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. That was merely a preparatory meeting. The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, mentioned the good will and the way in which it was felt that we were moving into something good when the first Lomé Convention was signed. Unfortunately, that has not happened. Many of the countries in the ACP are worse off now than when it started. Therefore, we must look at each Lomé agreement in terms of whether it has forwarded the objectives which we had in mind.
It is true that each Lomé convention is an improvement on its predecessor. So Lomé IV is an improvement on Lomé III. On the other hand, Lomé IV has not improved on Lomé III to the extent it should and not as much as Lomé III improved on Lomé II. Lomé IV agreement was reached in an atmosphere which is very worrying from a trade point of view. The agreement is associated with both aid and trade, and the trade atmosphere is very difficult at this time. It is affected by 1992 and the single European market and also by the new GATT round. Therefore, it is a great pity that the EC could not agree to increase the fund at least to the extent to which the fund for Lomé III was increased over Lomé II. It seems a shame that that was so when a greater increase was required.

1177
I shall explain why. Trade difficulties mean that the need for aid is greater. To demonstrate that, I stick to the area of the world from which I come—the Caribbean. We shall have real problems as regards bananas and sugar. Fortunately, we shall do well on rum. Until now there has not been a good regime on rum; now there is. Because 1992 means an open market, the rum can be sold and we shall benefit if we are sensible and the arrangements function properly.
As regards bananas, the United Kingdom Government need to square a circle. The Lomé agreement states:
"In respect of its banana exports to the Community markets, no ACP state shall be placed as regards access to its traditional markets and its advantages on those markets in a less favourable situation than in the past or at present".
I do not know how one relates that to 1992. It is trying to square a circle.
I know that Her Majesty's Government are doing everything possible to square the circle. I am not trying to criticise HMG. I know that they are doing their best and that it is a very difficult situation. However, the opportunity should have been taken to provide additional aid which would have allowed those territories to try to find and develop another market because of the problems with the banana market.
It may well be possible to develop a market in avocado pears or pineapples in the same way that the banana market developed. It did not just happen. Those territories need to find another market so that they are able to earn the income which they now receive from the sale of bananas. Since that is a problem and Her Majesty's Government are apprised of it and are doing everything to help, it would have been sensible to provide the sort of grant which would have enabled those countries to start finding other markets.
Again there is sugar, which is not limited by what happens in the Lomé agreement. The cane sugar price is related to the price that the EC pays for beet sugar. Therefore the GATT agreement, by reducing the subsidy on beet sugar, could make it necessary to pay a lower price for cane sugar. Although technically sugar is not affected by the Lomé agreement, as a result of GATT it could be. Help to enable the territories that rely on sugar to find another way of meeting their problem would have been useful.
I deeply regret that the amount of the fund is as low as it is. I regret that no opportunity was taken to help the ACP countries with their colossal debt problems. When the Prime Minister was Chancellor of the Exchequer he recommended a method of approach which we all welcomed, and which would help the poorer countries by cancelling their debts. However, many countries are just above that level.
The last time I spoke on this matter, I mentioned Jamaica. It is doubtful that Jamaica, which is in my part of the world, is in the most debt and difficulties; it is doubtful whether Jamaica would benefit from the Major plan. One hoped that the Community would accept the request of the ACP to cancel the debts that the ACP countries owed on special loans. The Community could have done that. It could have
1178
converted some of those special loans into grants. That would have helped those territories with the debt problem, which is one of the biggest difficulties those countries face. There was an opportunity of doing something in that regard and one regrets that that opportunity was not seized.
The Lomé agreement is settled. But Her Majesty's Government, by administering the Major plan in the most understanding way, could go a long way to help those territories with their debt problem. The EC regards the debt issue as one that concerns member states and not the Community. I am sorry about that. It means that HMG could do something in that regard without reference to the other territories. I do not expect the Minister to be able to say that that will happen. I hope that he will say that he will convey to the Secretary of State and perhaps the Prime Minister that the most favourable interpretation of the Major plan will be made and that many territories which are on the border line will be helped by that plan. I hope also that wherever possible those territories will be helped with the structural adjustments they must make in order to cope with the present situation. I cannot ask the Minister for more assurance than that.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness and noble Lords, Lord Mayhew and Lord Pitt, all of whom made some kind remarks in regard to the convention. A number of points have been raised to which I should like to reply, and some criticisms which I could perhaps try to answer.
The noble Baroness asked what specific allocations were made within the EDF VII for emergency and refugee aid. I have the figures for the whole five-year period. They are 250 million ecu for emergency aid and 100 million ecu for refugee aid. The noble Baroness asked about aid to small businesses. The European Investment Bank, under Lomé IV, strengthened its role to act as a channel for funding to encourage small enterprises. The Commission is placing emphasis on provisions in national indicative programmes to encourage private sector operations.
The noble Baroness raised the matter of the dumping of European Community agricultural products. The United Kingdom is leading a call for reform of the CAP. We believe that the solution to unfair EC exports to third world countries is not so much to commit more aid but to tackle the root of the problem; namely, the unfair competition by the European Community. That is something we are attempting to do through the pursuit of the matter in the GATT round.
The noble Baroness asked if there had been further applications to join Lomé. There are no outstanding applications at the present time. Haiti and the Dominican Republic joined with Lomé IV and Namibia subsequently joined when it became independent, its accession having been agreed in principle during the Lomé IV negotiations. Since then there have been no developments.
It is possible that an application could be received from South Africa. There is no such application at the moment. The Community's relations with a nonracial democratic South Africa will be developed. The Community will want to find the appropriate means to

1179
support a pluralistic democracy in that country. Any request by South Africa for Lomé membership requires EC support before being given serious consideration. Its economy however is in many ways so different from that of most other ACP countries that another form of relationship with the Community may be more appropriate.
The noble Baroness raised the problem of debt, as did the noble Lord, Lord Pitt. It is a matter of concern which we share. The United Kingdom has taken a number of steps to help the poorest countries which are pursuing economic reforms; most recently the Trinidad and Toronto proposals to which the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, referred. When my right honourable friend the Prime Minister was Chancellor of the Exchequer he put forward the framework for forgiving debt of the poorest countries which are undergoing economic reform through programmes agreed with the IMF and the World Bank. Debt is a matter for member states rather than the Community. It is they, not the European Community, which are the creditors. Therefore Lomé does not address debt in the wider sense.
The noble Baroness was critical of the aid volume. Nevertheless it is a substantial amount. As I pointed out, it is 45 per cent. larger than the previous EDF. It is the largest ever single aid commitment made by the United Kingdom. It is not just aid; it has been calculated that four-fifths of the value of the convention lies in the trade provisions, which are remarkable for the fact that free access is given for all manufactured products.
The noble Baroness said that there had been no innovations in the convention. With respect, that is not so. We are continually building on what is already a comprehensive relationship. Lomé IV places new emphasis on the environment and human rights in particular. It is not a convention that has been allowed to remain in its old form; it has been added to in a substantial and meaningful manner.
The noble Baroness referred to multi-nationals. In our pursuit of the liberalisation of international trade we think that it will be inappropriate to legislate on the actions of multi-nationals. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, asked me a recondite question. We agree with the Statutory Instruments Joint Committee that the specification is not legally essential. However, doing so accords with the practice followed for the previous three Lomé Conventions. Politically we believe that it is an appropriate means of bringing the agreement before Parliament in the context of the debate on the whole series of instruments relating to the Lomé Convention. That financial commitment arising from our obligations under the convention will this year consume 9 per cent. of the United Kingdom's total budget.
The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, raised the matter of bananas. In the Lomé negotiations the United Kingdom fought hard to ensure that the new banana protocol committed the Community to maintaining preferential access arrangements for traditional suppliers in the Commonwealth Caribbean. We await proposals from the Commission for the arrangements to apply to bananas in the single market after 1992.
1180
We shall stand by these commitments as well as taking account of consumer interests, trade policy considerations and the competition and efficiency objectives of the single market. Those are the only points to which I have to reply. If there is anything further which I have omitted I shall write to the noble Lords concerned.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 1991
8.2 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 29th January be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the proposals before you seek authority for the Construction Industry Training Board to raise a levy on the employers in the building and civil engineering industries to finance the running costs of the board and to run a grants scheme. The proposals are the first to be submitted by the board since it was reconstituted last year. They are different to those submitted in previous years in that the levy is now based solely on a payroll basis.
The basis of the proposals is a levy of 0·25 per cent. on the payroll of employers in the industry and a levy of 2 per cent. on all payments made by employers for sub-contract labour. Employers with a payroll of £45,000 or less will be exempt from the levy. The proposals have the support of the employers, are required by the Industrial Training Act 1982 and have the full support of the board. Your Lordships will know that the Government thought long and hard about their decision to retain this statutory training board. In principle we believe that independent employer-led arrangements which have the full support of employers offer the best way forward for industrial training. In general the track record of compulsion through statutory levies in raising the quality and quantity of training is not a good one.
But in the White Paper, Employment for the 1990s, we recognised that this industry has particular characteristics which create peculiar problems for training. The mobile nature of the work of the industry, the mobile nature of its workforce, both geographically and between employers, together with the large-scale use of sub-contract and self-employed labour produce a unique set of circumstances. Against that background, we consulted widely with the industry about the CITB. There was a widespread and strongly held view that the CITB should be retained but that its management should be streamlined and reformed. In addition the employers in the industry argued strongly for the retention of a statutory levy because of the largely self-employed nature of the labour force.
We were persuaded to give the industry a chance to reform its training board, to remodel it as an employer-led body and to alter the basis of levy

1181
collection. The revised basis of the levy proposals before the House this evening is one indication that reform is taking place. I am happy to say that other reforms such as the internal restructuring of the board's management and improvement in financial control are also taking place. The Secretary of State expects shortly to see the board's revised proposals for its grants scheme and later in the year its strategic plan. All this is an indication that the CITB is proceeding in the right direction.
We intend to keep a close watching brief on this board. Its powers to raise a levy are exceptional and the Government, like your Lordships, must be convinced that they are absolutely necessary to preserve the basis of training in the construction industry. The Government have resolved, because of the peculiar nature of the industry, to continue with a statutory board for the time being. But they are not wedded to the principle of compulsion. I believe that it is right for 1991 that the House should approve the proposals before it. I commend them to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 29th January be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Ullswater.)
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am very pleased to welcome the order on this side of the House. I have no points of substance to make, although I am intrigued why it exempts a charity from the levy. With regard to the exemption of small employers as defined by the payroll, I remember that when we were debating statutory sick pay a great deal of time was spent by the Government in saying that that was not the right way to define a small employer. One hopes that occasionally one department will speak to another about the arguments that are used on a Bill or an order. We spent a long time arguing with the Government about the means of defining a small employer only to find that the size of the payroll is used for the purposes of this order. Other than that, we welcome the order on this side of the House.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Lord has posed a problem to which I do not know the answer at the moment. I shall write to him. I know that sole traders are not included. It may be that a charity does not fall within the normal employer status. I shall make inquiries and write to him. It is part of the Industrial Training Act that an exemption has to be made for a small employer. It is considered right at this time to raise the exemption to the figure that I quoted.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Hill Livestock (Compensatory Allowances) (Amendment) Regulations 1991
8.8 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington)The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 13th February be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these draft regulations, which apply to Great Britain, further amend the Hill Livestock (Compensatory Allowances) Regulations 1984. They bring into effect the increased rate of hill livestock compensatory allowances for cows and ewes in the less-favoured areas, which the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced on 11th February. Comparable regulations are being made in Northern Ireland. Noble Lords will be familiar with the system whereby financial support in the form of headage payments on beef cows and ewes is given to livestock producers in our less-favoured areas. It is of very long-standing, dating back to the 1940s. Since 1976 this assistance has operated under European Community legislation, currently the EC Structures Regulation 797/85. These payments are designed to compensate producers for permanent natural handicaps affecting farming in the LFA; the objectives being to ensure the continuation of livestock farming in the hill and upland areas, with the aim of preserving the rural fabric by keeping people in these areas and conserving the countryside.
The agriculture departments traditionally carry out, each autumn, a thorough going review of economic conditions in the hills and uplands in conjunction with representatives of farming interests. The 1990 review showed that net farm incomes are forecast to fall in 1990–91 by 35 per cent. following a 32 per cent. drop the previous year. In real terms the reductions are 41 per cent. and 37 per cent. This situation arises from a number of factors. These circumstances have imposed considerable difficulties on livestock producers in the less favoured areas and, as noble Lords will know, there is little scope for such farmers to diversify into other areas of economic activity. These farmers make a valuable contribution to the areas by helping to maintain the necessary infrastructure and preserving the traditional landscape of the hills and uplands.
The draft regulations will increase the headage rate for cattle in the severely disadvantaged areas to £63·30: the rate will be £8·75 for hardy breed ewes and £4·90 for other ewes. In the disadvantaged areas the rates go up to £31·65 for cattle and to £2·45 for ewes. In total these individual increases represent an average increase of 14 per cent. and amount to an additional £17·5 million for the sector bringing the total expenditure on HLCAs in the United Kingdom per year to about £142 million. It represents a considerable increase in the level of support to farmers

1183
in the less favoured areas and will, I am sure, be welcomed. Around a quarter of the total expenditure will be refunded by the European Community.
The rates now proposed have to be looked at against the background of very severe restraints on public expenditure and other demands on the public purse. The rates are a clear demonstration of the Government's commitment to support extensive livestock production in the less favoured areas. We shall be doing our utmost to ensure that payments reach producers as quickly as possible, once the new regulations come into effect.
To summarise, the purpose of the regulations is to give extra assistance to extensive livestock producers in the hills and uplands at a time when they are facing considerable difficulties.
I commend the regulations to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 13th February be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Trumpington.)
8.15 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House will be very grateful to the Minister for her explanation of the regulations. Any money from anywhere at the moment is certainly good news for farming. I was struck by the date on which the announcement was made by her right honourable friend the Minister. It was made on 11th February. Then I recalled that the Minister was speaking to the National Farmers' Union AGM the following day. As Max Miller used to say, "Here's a funny thing"—because exactly the same thing happened last year. The noble Baroness will remember that the Minister made an announcement about the increase in the compensation level for BSE cattle from 50 per cent. to 100 per cent. on the day before he appeared at the NFU AGM. Perhaps I may paraphrase Oscar Wilde: for it to happen one year is a coincidence; if it happens two years running it looks remarkably like news management.
The noble Baroness mentioned that the payment will be arranged as soon as the regulations are approved. But there has been a delay and it seems to have been later each year over the past three years. Perhaps, the Minister can explain the reason for the delay. Having said that, we welcome the increases. They are badly needed to help offset the second consecutive sharp fall in farm incomes in the less favoured areas. We know that farmers in these areas face severe problems as a result of low livestock prices and high interest rates. In addition, the recent adverse weather conditions have added to their problems. Like the Minister, we hope that these increases will help to restore their confidence, which is at a very low level.
The Minister will be aware that there are two problems. In the next review in the autumn of this year will the Government bear in mind the problems of the farmers in the disadvantaged areas—the extended less favoured areas? They have suffered a particularly adverse income trend. There is the point about the 50 per cent. relationship between the disadvantaged area rates of HLCAs and the standard rate in the severely disadvantaged areas—I apologise for the jargon. Is there any chance of a revision in that 50 per cent.
1184
relationship? There is also the problem of the growing impact of the monetary limit on HLCAs of £62.48. I understand that it is some years since this was last altered. The review is perhaps an occasion for the upward revision of that. A growing number of farmers in LFAs are adversely affected. Apart from these points we welcome this increase. I am sure it will be welcome news to the farmers who will benefit from it.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, while any help at the moment is of some benefit to hill farmers—and it would be churlish not to welcome it —the 14 per cent. increase in these compensatory allowances must be put against the actual decline in the income of farmers. To say that they are facing serious difficulties is a gross understatement of the true situation in the hill areas these days. They are in a chronic state of depression. In my own country of Wales real farm incomes have fallen by more than 60 per cent. over the past three years. One would appreciate the problems involved if people in any other occupation in this country were to say that their incomes had dropped by 60 per cent. These increases will not in any way enable farmers for any sustained period to continue farming in the hills. I have lived all my life in agricultural areas. I myself farm. I know perfectly well that, if I was not able to subsidise my hill farm from my profession, in no way could it be made to pay.
Farmworkers who are employed at the moment are very often in a better situation than the farmers themselves. I know many farmers whose income is actually nil at the moment. They are farming by kind permission of the banks. The banks themselves have to be careful that they do not foreclose, otherwise they could create a tremendous depression in the agricultural industry. This situation is also reflected in the fact that 6,000 farmers have left the land in the United Kingdom during the past year. Many of them were in hill areas. For example, unemployment in the county of Gwent increased by 28 per cent. in the past year. In Brecon and Radnor unemployment increased by 25 per cent. In my own county of Powys—I am talking about the Montgomeryshire part—unemployment increased by 48 per cent. It is generally believed that the larger proportion of this increase is to be attributed to agriculture. I know very good farmers who have had to dispense with the services of men who have been with them for many years simply because they could not afford to pay them the wages.
I was told today about a farm in Montgomeryshire which is run by the two sons of a family, together with one employed worker. The sons have had to try to eke out a living by pursuing other occupations in the evenings such as driving lorries for long distances, and so on.
The situation facing agriculture in the hill areas is very difficult. The Government have not properly addressed the size and acuteness of the problem. I believe that the problem is more acute in what may be described as the hill areas than it is in the extensive moorland areas. That is due to the headage payments. I have always had extreme doubts about the long-term advantages of such payments. The system ought to have been worked out in a different way. However, I

1185
do not believe that this is the right time to suggest the total scrapping of the system. One has to do the best that one can.
It is important that the Government should address the problem of the future existence of communities in the hill areas in a determined way. I was brought up on a farm; I remember my parents speaking to me about the depression of the 1920s and the 1930s. I attended an agricultural college in Essex, far removed from Wales, in my early teens. I recall that Henry Ford had taken over land in that area—some of the best land in England—which he had bought at £15 an acre. He transformed the farming in the region because he was able to invest a great deal of capital. That was just before the outbreak of war when farming took an upturn.
However, since the depression of the 1920s and the 1930s agriculture has not experienced anything like the present conditions. It therefore behoves the Government, and the people of the country generally, to appreciate the fact that this is a most acute problem and that the most devastating social consequences will result unless it is tackled head on. The increase of 14 per cent. is a pittance compared with the real problem facing agriculture in these areas.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for his kind remarks. He asked me two questions. He asked first why there had been a delay in introducing the 1991 scheme. Secondly, he asked why there were not larger increases for producers in disadvantaged areas.
We are acutely aware of the importance of HLCA payments to the producers in our less favoured areas and we distribute claim forms as early as we can. This year we encountered a very difficult legal problem over the interpretation of a new rule adopted in Brussels. Under this rule HLCA payments to individual producers are restricted to a maximum of 1·4 livestock units per hectare. But we had to consult with the European Commission on the detailed implementation and unfortunately it took time to resolve all the problems. We could not, of course, distribute the scheme literature without telling producers how the new ceiling would operate. But as soon as those difficulties were resolved, we made special arrangements for the claim forms to be printed and distributed as quickly as possible. The claims are now being returned to our local offices and payments will start as soon as the new rates have received parliamentary approval.
As regards the second question of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, I know that there is a strongly held view
1186
that producers in the disadvantaged area should receive payments at a higher rate than the 50 per cent. of the SDA rate that has been obtained since the DA acquired LFA status in 1985. It is a point that we look at very carefully in the course of each year's autumn review. Our conclusion this year was that the differential should remain at 50 per cent. There were two main considerations. First, available resources are limited. More in the DA would therefore mean less in the SDA. Secondly, under the EC rules, the headage rates have to be fixed according to the severity of the permanent natural handicaps. Farming conditions are clearly less severe in the DA and our judgment is that the 50 per cent. differential remains appropriate. But I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that we will look at this matter again in the course of this year's autumn review.
I turn now to deal with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. Of course, I am well aware of the general situation as he described it. We fully understand the problem. I submit to the noble Lord that a 14 per cent. increase is a very substantial help. Hill farmers will also benefit from special LFA payments under the ewe premium scheme. I listened most carefully to the points the noble Lord made about the future of hill farming. He should be pleased that we have been able to find this extra money. He should also be pleased to note that about 65,000 livestock producers in the United Kingdom are expected to benefit from HLCAs in 1991 at a total cost of about £14.2 million. It is a step in the right direction and a very substantial step, bearing in mind what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, about the extreme financial constraints from which we are suffering in a general way this particular year.
I would not want the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, to leave the Chamber tonight believing that we were not aware of the problem. I can assure him that we are doing everything we can both from an EC and our own point of view to make payments to those whom we wish to see continue to farm in the less favoured areas and in the severely less favoured areas. I commend the measures to the House.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I believe that the Minister said that producers would benefit from HLCAs in 1991 at a cost of £14.2 million. Am I right in thinking that she meant to say £142 million?
Baroness Trumpington: Yes, my Lords; that is correct. I have to say for the sake of my own pride that the typing in my brief is incorrect.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past eight o'clock.