Sitting of 2 July 1986

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  HARROGATE BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
  Read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

  BLYTH HARBOUR BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions

  SCOTLAND
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): Representations have been received from each of the new town development corporations and from the forum of Scottish local authorities with new towns.
  Mr. Lambie: I thank the Minister for his reply and for recognising the need for consultation with the new town development corporations. Is he aware that for the first time in the history of the Scottish new towns we are experiencing a serious housing shortage as second generation families start to apply for new rented houses? Will the Minister consider giving special consideration to Irvine new town? It was the last of the new towns and has an ever-increasing housing list. Will he give the development corporation the permission and the resources to start building immediately new houses for these second generation families?
  Mr. Stewart: I have asked the development corporations, including the one for Irvine, to provide detailed information which will enable me to make a thorough assessment of housing needs in the Scottish new towns. Irvine has £2·3 million gross to spend on housing in the current year. It is fair to say that home ownership in Irving, at 25 per cent., is low.
  Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that 80 per cent. of the cases that come to my surgery in Glenrothes relate to housing problems? Flats for single persons have been empty for months in Glenrothes yet
  990
  large numbers of single people are homeless and cannot occupy those flats because the Government insist that they must be sold, even though they were built to be rented. Is he prepared to have another look at the senseless housing policies inflicted on the people of Glenrothes and elsewhere by the Government?
  Mr. Stewart: The Government's housing policies are based on a proper and balanced mix of housing. I reject the hon. Member's general allegation. I reassure him about Glenrothes, because I shall consider carefully the detailed case made recently by the development corporation on housing matters.
  Mr. Norman Hogg: Does the Minister not understand that the current policy of sales linked to a lack of new building is producing an imbalance in the provision of housing which gives young married couples no hope? Will he agree to meet the development corporations and the district councils that have new towns to discuss this as a matter of urgency so that we can get the construction of houses under way as quickly as possible?
  Mr. Stewart: The construction of special needs housing is going ahead in the new towns, which have been building at a rate of 130 specially adapted and amenity units per annum. Of course I shall consider the representations from Cumbernauld, and after I have had an opportunity to assess the evidence recently put to me I shall he able to undertake consultations and the meeting with the local authorities that has been requested.
  Mr. Hugh Brown: May I widen this debate, because we are in danger of dealing with the matter as if it were a problem only of new town development corporations? The Minister has said that he will consult chairmen in assessing the need. Will he also take into account the need to have discussions with his colleague the Secretary of State, who does not have a housing policy for Scotland? Many constituents in local authority housing will never get to a new town, either because they are on benefit or because they have small incomes.
  Mr. Stewart: My right hon. and learned Friend has an excellent housing policy for Scotland, and we have been discussing new towns because the question is about new towns. Obviously I have been in correspondence with the hon. Gentleman about dependent relatives, and the needs of that particular group will be taken into account in the current review.

  SCOTLAND
    New Towns (Housing)
    Mr. Lambieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on the case for more general needs housing in the new towns of Scotland.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Hirstasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on the Government's proposals for rating reform; and if he will make a statement.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): Over 300 representations have now been received from individuals and a wide range of organisations.
  Mr. Hirst: Does my hon. Friend agree that there has been a broad welcome from the business community, which sees the reforms as helping to redress the appalling imbalance in business rates north and south of the border? Is he aware that the business community also warmly welcomes the protection which will be given to it during the transitional period of rating reform? Will he contrast

  991
  the worth of the Government's proposals with the fact that the Labour party will do nothing to reform the rates, and with the rather loopy idea which is circulating in alliance circles that rates should somehow be linked to the profits of a business?
  Mr. Ancram: I am pleased to confirm that we have had a broad welcome for our proposals on non-domestic rates from a wide sector of commerce and industry. In particular, they have welcomed the proposal that, following the legislation which we intend to introduce in the next Session, non-domestic rates will be controlled within the rate of inflation by my right hon. and learned Friend. This will enable them in their cost projections to take account of the rate settlement, and will give them a stability which has not been possible in the past.
  Mr. Wallace: As I understand the Government's proposals, students attending Scottish colleges and universities will be liable to a community charge at their place of residence. Do the Scottish Office, the Scottish Education Department and, indeed, English local authorities which have students attending Scottish universities and colleges intend to make appropriate provision in the university grant to meet the community charge which may be levelled?
  Mr. Ancram: As the hon. Gentleman knows, at present the Green Paper is out for consultation, and obviously no firm decisions will be taken on its details until after that consultation period is completed.
  Mr. Douglas: The smack of firm government.
  Mr. Ancram: The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) talks about the smack of firm government, but he would be the first to criticise us if we were to take firm decisions before we had finished the proper consultations that we are at present carrying out. Obviously my right hon. and learned Friend will carefully consider the position of students in Scotland who become liable to pay the community charge and will do so against the background of progress with the comprehensive review of all aspects of financial support for students which was announced on 18 June.
  Mr. Henderson: Is my hon. Friend aware that there will be a warm welcome, especially among less well-off ratepayers, for his reiteration of the Government's commitment to introduce legislation next Session? Does he agree that students are already paying substantially for local government in that through the rents for their residences they are paying rates?
  Mr. Ancram: I can confirm my hon. Friend's last point. As students benefit from local government services I am sure that most of them would accept the fairness of making a contribution towards them, together with every other adult in the Scottish community. These proposals have been warmly welcomed by those who, in the past, have suffered under the inequitable and wholly discredited rating system which at present operates and which appears still to be Labour party policy.
  Mr. Dewar: With so many important points still subject to consultation, will the Minister give an undertaking that before legislation is introduced he will produce a firm account of how the scheme will work, so that we know exactly what the implications will be? Why does the Secretary of State insist on pressing ahead with a scheme
  992
  against all the advice from the very bodies whose advice he sought specifically on its practicality? Is it not true that COSLA has described the poll tax as sheer folly? If, in the Minister's view, it is a suspect organisation, will he dwell on the fact that the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives, which is in a position to know, has urged a final rethink because it believes that the scheme is unworkable? Surely the Secretary of State should retreat from forcing this measure through and consider whether it would not be wiser to desist from introducing a tax which is not related to the ability to pay and which will inevitably result in individual injustices for very many people in Scotland.
  Mr. Ancram: Once again the hon. Gentleman has failed to come forward with any alternative to the existing rating system. From what he has said today and on previous occasions, I think we can take it that he stands by the present rating system and that he will be prepared to land on the domestic ratepayers of Scotland further revaluations of the sort that we saw last year. I hope that the domestic ratepayers of Scotland are aware of that.
  The hon. Member asked about the ability to discuss this in detail. I assure him that before this becomes law there will be plenty of occasions to discuss the full details. He also mentioned two bodies which he said were against these proposals, the first of which was COSLA. As I have said before, it would be a great surprise if COSLA were to recommend getting rid of a system that suits high-spending Labour authorities in Scotland, to the disadvantage of their ratepayers. As for SOLACE, my understanding of its criticisms is that it says that the present rating system is simple, straightforward and easy to manage. The same argument could have been made about a window tax in the past, but that would have been no justification for keeping it.

  Rural Development Fund
  Sir Hector Monroasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will reconsider his decision not to establish a rural development fund outwith the Highlands and Islands Board Development area.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I am not convinced that such a fund is necessary, bearing in mind the very extensive measures of assistance already available to rural areas.
  Sir Hector Monro: Bearing in mind the urgency of revitalising the rural economy, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the SDA has insufficient funds and that the Select Committee reported unanimously in favour of a rural development fund? Will he give a very high priority to providing more jobs in the rural areas of Scotland?
  Mr. Rifkind: If it were to be established, the rural fund would simply utilise existing funds that go to the rural areas from other sources of public expenditure. This year the total sum spent in the rural areas of Scotland on agriculture, fishing, forestry and related matters will be £316 million. That indicates a very high level of investment to ensure the viability of the rural areas, to which the Government attach very great importance.
  Mr. Ron Brown: Does the Secretary of State accept that a rural fund may be necessary for the Lothian region—which is largely a rural area—bearing in mind the

  993
  decision rushed through by his Tory councillor colleagues who insisted that the Edinburgh relief road should be built and that its cancellation would cost a tremendous amount in compensation from the public purse to contractors? Will he think about that deeply and, indeed, agree—surely he must—that his collegues who were responsible for the decisions to build it should be surcharged were for their reckless behaviour, knowing full well that what they did immediately before a local election would be overturned afterwards, and rightly so?
  Mr. Rifkind: I am not certain under which aspect of a rural fund the road would be considered eligible, but it was the hon. Gentleman's party colleagues on Lothian regional council who decided to destroy the prospect of a substantial number of jobs in Lothian region by cancelling that project.
  Mr. Pollock: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the existing levels of aid to the rural areas are already substantial, even without a rural development fund? He mentioned the figure of £330 million or thereabouts. Will he confirm that on average that works out at a sum from central Government of about £15,000 a year assistance to every full-time partner in a Scottish farming enterprise?
  Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct to say that under the existing proposals there are many ways in which the rural areas of Scotland benefit substantially. More than 25 per cent. of the SDA's funds go to the rural areas of Scotland, as do similar resources from other organisations. The figures that I mentioned do not take into account rate support grant or other provisions relating to the local authorities.
  Mr. Home Robertson: It seems that the 12 Tory Members from the rural south and east of Scotland cannot get even a bag of sweeties out of the Government. Is the Secretary of State aware that the Labour party accepts the need for new initiatives to deal with the special problems of rural communities throughout Scotland, and that it intends to take action to divert resources from the discredited common agricultural policy to achieve an effective programme of support for all of Scotland's rural areas?
  Mr. Rifkind: That is a proud statement. We must presumably add it to the many billions of pounds of additional expenditure to which the Labour party is happily committing itself in every area of public concern. It is easy for an Opposition who know that they will never be in government to make such promises.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Secretary of State accept that there are legitimate legal constraints on what the SDA can do? I support what was said by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), because the Borders and Dumfries areas are having trouble providing the infrastructure necessary in the form of roads to exploit their forestry. If the SDA had some money it could do that, but it has no access to European funds.
  Mr. Rifkind: As for the provision of roads relating to forestry requirements, I remind the hon. Gentleman that when Borders regional council or other local authorities seek capital allocations for road works, they could draw to the attention of the Scottish Development Department the needs of their local forestry industry. That would be
  994
  a relevant factor to draw to the attention of the Scottish Office, and it could be taken into account when capital allocations were determined.

  Housing Improvement Grants
  Mr. Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the progress being made to eliminate the backlog of housing improvement grants built up since October 1983; and when he expects this to be completed.
  Mr. Ancram: I am not satisfied and I am particularly concerned that, in Edinburgh, unless the council changes its priorities, it may take several years to clear the backlog.
  Mr. Fletcher: Is my hon. Friend aware that the delay in eliminating this backlog is causing great distress and disappointment to many of my constituents, who have waited years to discover when their grants will be awarded and when the work will be completed? They are fed up with hearing the district council blaming the Government for that state of affairs. When will all the outstanding grants be settled, assuming that my hon. Friend can persuade the district council to give the matter top priority?
  Mr. Ancram: I share my hon. Friend's anxiety. When I met representatives of Edinburgh district council on 9 June, it was a matter of some disappointment to me that when I asked it to state its priorities within the non-HRA block it could not do that. It seemed to be confused about those priorities. That will have an effect on the length of time needed to settle the backlog. The Government have recognised the size of the problem. This year we have increased the non-HRA block by 26 per cent. over the March 1985 figures. We shall examine closely the representations made to us when considering future allocations.
  Mrs. McCurley: Has my hon. Friend any plans for reintroducing the level of housing improvement grant which existed before the cut-off period, which gave much encouragement to home improvement and especially encouraged the construction industry and employment in Scotland?
  Mr. Ancram: We welcome the amount of work that was done as a result of the Government's two-year programme in which those boosted grants were available. The results are clearly evident in some of the most deprived areas of Scotland, and they must be welcomed. But the Government recognise that under the previous scheme there was a failure of targeting. The money was not necessarily going to those who most needed it. That is why we issued a consultation paper, and we are considering the representations made to us as a result.
  Mr. Maxton: Is the Minister aware that the thousands of people in Glasgow who are waiting for housing improvement grants will be astonished to hear that he is blaming local authorities for failing to provide them? The Government's failure to provide sufficient funds to remove the backlog is the problem. Is he further aware that there is widespread opposition to his consultative paper? Will he make it clear, as his colleagues in the Department of the Environment have made it clear, that he has no intention of introducing such a silly scheme?
  Mr. Ancram: We shall respond to the results of the consultations in due course, and I shall not pre-empt the

  995
  statements that we shall make on it. In the current year, Glasgow, which has 11 per cent. of the private housing stock in Scotland, receives 33·5 per cent. of the total non-HRA block. I do not understand how the hon. Gentleman can claim that Glasgow is underfunded. I remind the hon. Gentleman, who makes so much of this, that during the lifetime of the Labour Government only £55 million was provided for repair grants, as against £550 million by this Government — 10 times as much. We can see the benefits that have been enjoyed under this Government.

  Manufacturing and Service Jobs
  Mr. Bill Walkerasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide details of the number of manufacturing jobs in Scotland which are directly involved in Government projects; and if he will also give details of any service jobs which are directly involved in Government projects.
  Mr. Allan Stewart: Government support for industrial projects in Scotland takes many forms. Information on employment associated with Government contracts is not available but, for example, offers of new regional development grant in the year to end May were associated with 16,980 manufacturing jobs and 2,440 service jobs in Scotland.
  Mr. Walker: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that many thousands of jobs in Scotland depend on defence programmes such as Trident and Polaris at Coulparts—for instance, at Babcock Power, Ferranti, Rolls-Royce and British Aerospace, all of which depend on continuing Government orders, and that that is what we must protect?
  Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement pointed out in the defence debate, 1·2 million jobs depend directly or indirectly on defence work. In Scotland we have a record of real success. My hon. Friend has mentioned a number of the companies involved. We have strength in electronics, shipbuilding, explosives and similar industries which are heavily dependent on defence work and highly successful in obtaining it.
  Mr. Buchan: Does the Minister accept that 250,000 full-time jobs in Scotland have been lost since the Government came to power and that just over 30 per cent. of manufacturing jobs have been lost in that time? Did he read the report of the Scottish economic summit yesterday which said that Scotland urgently needs major public investment? Will he assure the House now that he and the Secretary of State will meet members of the Scottish economic summit to discuss its proposals?
  Mr. Stewart: Manufacturing output is up by 10 per cent. on 1983.—[HON. MEMBERS:] "What about jobs?"—The total number of jobs in Scotland is not falling, but rising, and is up 50,000 on mid-1983.
  Mr. Craigen: The Minister says that information is not available, but surely he has details of the amount of Government procurement, whether in the manufacturing or the service sectors. Does he think that Scotland is getting a fair proportion of Government purchasing power in the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Stewart: Yes. Detailed information is not available in the form requested by my hon. Friend the Member for
  996
  Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) but he referred to a number of companies which have been highly successful in obtaining defence work, which is a very important area for the Scottish economy as a whole.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: Does my hon. Friend recall the article on employment in manufacturing industry by the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) in the Glasgow Herald in 1978 predicting that more than 3 million people would be unemployed under any Government and said that to blame this on any Government would not get us far because it was entirely due to the increasing number of people coming on to the labour market? Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have done remarkably well in creating extra jobs in manufacturing and in service industries to mitigate the disaster predicted by hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. Stewart: I assure my hon. Friend that the passage that he cited also has pride of place in my library.
  Mr. Ewing: As always, the Minister is highly selective in the statistics that he gives. He referred to 50,000 extra manufacturing jobs since 1983. Why does he not tell the House how many jobs have been lost since 1979 and confess that fewer people are working in manufacturing industry in Scotland now than when the Tory Government came to power in 1979? Is the Minister proud of the fact that 100 of the 16,000 jobs that the Government claim to have created are in the manufacture of Skoal Bandits, which will be responsible for killing people rather than creating jobs? When the Secretary of State is involved in his favourite pastime of totting up the cost of the next Labour Government's programme, will the Minister bear in mind that part of that cost will be getting people back to work, because the next Labour Government will invest in public expenditure to get hundreds of thousands of people back to work and to create good services?
  Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman's reference to Skoal Bandits was irresponsible. As he knows, the Government have supported the Bill that was introduced by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) on that subject. More generally, it is astonishing to hear from the hon. Gentleman these forecasts of what would happen under a Labour Government, because he was a member of a Labour Government under whom 10,000 manufacturing jobs on average were lost every month.
  Sir Hector Monro: Will the Government take credit for the excellent road building programme in Scotland, both in the interests of jobs and of the environment? Is he aware that the people of Dumfries and Galloway are very pleased with the proposed start of the Annan to Gretna bypass in the autumn, and with the further improvements this year, and that they look forward with interest to the start of the Dumfries bypass as soon as possible?
  Mr. Stewart: I am grateful for the comments of my hon. Friend. As the House knows, he has been assiduous in ensuring that the road needs of his constituents are fully considered by the Scottish Office.
  Mr. Kennedy: Given the historic difficulties of siting manufacturing industry capacity in the Highlands, when does the Minister think that his economic policies will be sufficiently successful to replace, either in a direct manufacturing capacity or in a subsequent service capacity, the horrendous loss of jobs in the Highlands through the closure of the pulp mill in the constituency of

  997
  my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), and through the closure of the smelter at Invergordon in my constituency?
  Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman will know of the very substantial support that is given to the Highlands and Islands Development Board. As I have emphasised, the total number of jobs in Scotland has been rising and the prospects now for the Highlands, as for the rest of the country, are for the best combination of growth and reflation for a generation.
  Mr. Henderson: Does my hon. Friend recall that on several visits to north-east Fife recently, and perhaps particularly on his visit to Auchtermuchty, he met manufacturers who had made a substantial contribution to the increase in employment in Scotland through being very effective, despite having no regional development assistance? In addition to those successful manufactures, which include hosiery, ties and things like that, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the greatest amount of employment in a constituency such as mine is in the service industries, and that the largest single employer is the Ministry of Defence?
  Mr. Stewart: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I recall with pleasure my visit to Auchtermuchty and to his constituency where there is, as he pointed out, a large number of relatively small firms which are showing enterprise by creating wealth and new jobs. My hon. Friend is also right to point to the importance of service industries. Almost two Scots in three are now employed in service industries. That pattern is common to the whole industrialised world.

  Electricity Generation
  Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the proportion of electricity which it is expected will be generated from coal-fired power stations in Scotland in the years 1986 to 1990.
  Mr. Rifkind: I am advised by the South of Scotland Electricity Board that, following negotiations, an agreement has now been concluded with the National Coal Board for coal supplies in 1986–87 and that the approach adopted in these negotiations should allow a stable coal requirement in Scotland through to the mid-1990s.
  Mr. Douglas: I have heard many replies from the Secretary of State, but will he concede that that reply was an exercise in obfuscation? The question asked what proportion of electricity supplies would be related to coal burn. Will he reply to that question? Is it not true that he is disclosing a reduction in coal burn and a threat to mining jobs throughout the whole community and particularly in my constituency? Will he concede that the Coal Board is being forced to bring down prices because of oil prices? Will he meet both boards, through the Secretary of State for Energy, to get a rational view of coal burn in the next few years, with particular regard to refurbishing existing stations such as Kincardine?
  Mr. Rifkind: I understand that both British Coal and the SSEB are content with the agreement that has been reached. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that the at the SSEB has a statutory responsibility to try to ensure that electricity tariffs for its consumers are as cheap as possible. Given the substantial fall in oil prices, both the
  998
  CEGB in England and Wales and the SSEB have had successful negotiations, which will lead to a continuing substantial use of coal and ensure that coal tariffs—not just for domestic consumers but for Scottish industry—will be at a level compatible with their needs.
  If the hon. Gentleman wants electricity boards to use more coal than they need, he is doing a disservice to Scottish industry, which must bear greater energy costs than is the case elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take every opportunity to remind the elderly and those on supplementary benefit in Scotland that, if the Opposition had their way on energy policy, they would get rid of nuclear power and substitute more expensive coal generation? As a result, heating costs would go up by 30 per cent. Does that not show the sheer hypocrisy of their campaign last year when they said that they were concerned about heating costs?
  Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend says no more than the truth. The Opposition must come to terms with the fact that, if they wish to discontinue the use of civil nuclear power in Scotland, they are saying to their constituents and to Scottish industry that electricity costs will go up by between 25 and 30 per cent. [Interruption.] No. My hon. Friend said that the figure was 30 per cent. I am saying that it is between 25 and 30 per cent. If the hon. Gentleman cannot hear properly, that is his problem, not mine.
  Mr. Strang: Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity categorically to deny the report in today's Daily Record that the Government and the Coal Board are contemplating the closure or Monkton Hall and a major cutback in Bilston Glen collieries? Does the Secretary of State recognise that anything remotely like that would be an act of industrial sabotage against Scotland and would be a criminal attack on employment prospects in Lothian? Will the Secretary of State give a clear assurance that, as long as he is Secretary of State, both those major collieries outside Edinburgh will continue to contribute to our economy and to employment in Lothian?
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I am not responsible for the coal industry. I shall give no such assurance, because it does not come within my area of responsibility. I understand that British Coal has had discussions with the mining unions and has considered areas of concern affecting the coal industry. I understand that no decisions have yet been reached. As a consequence, we must await developments.
  Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it would be irresponsible, in the nation's interests, not to have a balanced programme on energy, involving hydro-power, oil and coal, as well as nuclear? It is by that balance that the nation is best served. Anyone who suggests that any single area should have priority over others, because of short-term advantages to that area, is not taking the nation's best needs into long-term consideration.
  Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct. I suggest to hon. Gentlemen that they read the excellent speech by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, in which he pointed out that failure to use the opportunities offered by civil nuclear power would be disastrous, not only to the United Kingdom and Europe, but to Third world countries, in the years to come.
  Mr. Wilson: Is the Secretary of State aware that the export level of electricity to England from Scotland is one third of what it was during the miners' strike last year? In view of the huge over-capacity that exists, and which will be magnified on the commissioning of Torness, what does he intend to do? Will action taken be at the expense of the coal industry, as has been suggested?
  Mr. Rifkind: The SSEB has a continuing interest in a healthy coal industry in Scotland. Indeed, it expects to see itself using a substantial amount of coal in the years to come. Clearly its primary responsibility, under statute determined by the Parliament, is to meet the needs of its consumers. It is encouraging that the SSEB sees coal as playing an important part of helping it to meet its obligations.
  Mr. Dewar: The right hon. and learned Gentleman may not be responsible for the coal industry, but he does have an interest in employment in Scotland. He must be more forthcoming. Is it true, as has been reported to me, that, under the agreement, the SSEB coal burn will be 3·6 million tonnes per annum? If so, does that not represent a considerable drop in current levels, which are around 5 million tonnes per annum? Would not a decrease of 1·4 million tonnes per annum have a significant impact on employment in the coal industry? Does that not underline the fears about pits such as Monkton Hall and Bilston Glen, which have always been seen as having a secure future? Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say what estimate his Department has made of the impact of such a cut? If he cannot give those figures today, will he find out what they are and report back to the House at the first possible opportunity?
  Mr. Rifkind: I have not yet seen the detailed figures arising from an agreement between the SSEB and British Coal because that agreement has only been concluded in the recent past. The SSEB has made it abundantly clear that it wishes to continue using significant and substantial amounts of coal. It is likely that its demand for coal will be less than it was, because of this agreement. That would follow the pattern of agreements reached elsewhere in the United Kingdom with the Central Electricity Generating Board. The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that it is the board's duty to meet the interests of the Scottish public and Scottish industry. If it had failed to meet that duty, I believe that the hon. Gentleman would have been the first to complain on behalf of Scottish consumers.
  Mr. Douglas: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. In view of the inadequacy of the reply, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

  Fisheries (Net Mesh Sizes)
  Mr. Kirkwoodasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he plans to meet the Scottish Fisherman's Federation to discuss the impact of European Economic Community proposals to increase net mesh sizes on the Scottish east coast fishery.
  Mr. John MacKay: My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State met a delegation from the federation to discuss this matter on 6 May.
  Mr. Kirkwood: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and noble Friend would have been made
  1000
  aware at that meeting of the vital importance of the retention of the 80 mm net regime to the continuation of inshore fisheries out of ports such as Eyemouth in my constituency. If a 90 mm net is introduced, it will effectively eliminate the whiting fishery for inshore ports such as Eyemouth. I offer the hon. Gentleman an invitation. I shall give him a Bank of Scotland new pound note for every whiting he can catch with a 90 mm net off the coast of Eyemouth.
  Mr. MacKay: I know the problem that exists. Recently, when I visited the constituency of my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, I met fishermen at Arbroath who explained the problem. There is a difficult balance between conservation and the number of whiting that the fleet can catch and the number of under-sized fish that are discarded. We are continuing to discuss these matters at Brussels. We must try to strike a sensible balance in the industry's long-term interests.
  Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way to help the east coast fishery would be to agree with the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to phase out the north-east of England drift nets, which have such a damaging effect on salmon and sea trout stocks coming to Scotland?
  Mr. MacKay: I have heard what my hon. Friend has said about this matter, but I do not think that it comes within the scope of the argument on 80 mm and 90 mm nets.
  Mr. Donald Stewart: As the EEC has been able to agree a derogation to 80 mm for whiting in the Kattegat and Skagerrak, why is the Scottish Office not able to do something along the same lines to protect the Scottish whiting industry?
  Mr. MacKay: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will recall that we recently had considerable difficulties in Europe with the pout fishery in regard to the by-catch and discard of undersized white fish. This is a much more difficult question than the right hon. Gentleman seems to appreciate. We are considering with the European Commission officials whether it is possible to derogate for whiting only. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman realises that that is not easy, because unfortunately the fish do not realise that they must swim only into certain types of nets.

  Scottish Development Agency
  Mr. Pollockasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will increase the resources available to the Scottish Development Agency to tackle environmental needs, including land renewal projects.
  Mr. Allan Stewart: In the agency's estimates for the present financial year, which are subject to parliamentary approval, the amount allocated to environmental improvement and land renewal is £38·6 million. This is £4·2 million greater than the corresponding provision made last year.
  Mr. Pollock: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I urge him to press the Scottish Development Agency to recognise the full value of land renewal projects, such as the Kingston village project in my constituency, and to encourage the SDA to work as closely as possible with other national agencies such as the Forestry Commission

  1001
  and the Countryside Commission to co-operate on joint projects that can enhance the locality for the benefit of residents and visitors alike.
  Mr. Stewart: I appreciate the point made by my hon. Friend, who has corresponded with me about the project in his constituency. I know that the SDA is always anxious to work in co-operation with other agencies, but I will ensure that it takes of board the point made by by hon. Friend.
  Mr. McKelvey: Will the Minister reflect on the response that he gave to me last week on a question about the SDA? Having seen the table detailing the way in which the SDA spends its money throughout Scotland, will he give serious consideration to the fact that there are massive disparities and that the SDA is feeding its pet projects year after year, to the detriment of other areas such as Kilmarnock? Therefore, will he initiate an inquiry at the highest possible level into how the SDA budgets are managed?
  Mr. Stewart: The SDA must take account of the economic returns on projects which are put to it. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the SDA has responded to public concern over the priority given to environmental schemes and in future it will assess such schemes in accordance with environmental priorities as well as the economic impact of particular projects.
  Mr. Hirst: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Scottish Development Agency has done outstanding work over the past few years on land renewal projects? Is he aware of the letter which the chairman of the Scottish Development Agency recently sent to COSLA confirming that the support of the agency for the Glasgow garden festival in no way compromised the ability of the agency to continue to fund and support land renewal projects?
  Mr. Stewart: I am aware of that letter. In the current year, which is the peak for expenditure on the garden festival, it will account for only about one third of the agency's total land renewal budget. It is also worth emphasising that the garden festival is important not only to Glasgow but to the whole of Scotland.
  Sir Russell Johnston: Can the Minister confirm that he will give his fullest support to the approach to the Treasury which will be necessary to enable the SDA to spend money on the Aonach Mor ski development on Ben Nevis, which combines environmental protection with extremely exciting and necessary economic potential for Lochaber?
  Mr. Stewart: That project is under consideration in general terms in my Department, but the Highland and Islands Development Board, which is also involved, and the Scottish Development Agency have not yet put forward a detailed submission seeking the formal approval of Ministers. Of course we shall consider that as soon as it is submitted.
  Mr. Ewing: Will the Minister accept that the Opposition are grateful to him and his colleagues for the support given to the SDA against the background of their having voted against its establishment by the Labour Government? May I have an assurance from the Minister that the increase in the land renewal budget of the SDA will not come from another part of the agency's programme?
  Mr. Stewart: The Scottish Development Agency is a wholly different institution in the way that it operates
  1002
  under this Government compared to the way it operated under the Labour Government, in a number of important respects. I must emphasise that there has been a steady increase in both real and cash terms in the resources available to the Scottish Development Agency, and this year it will have over £136 million to spend on all its programmes.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Fairbairnasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many appeals against refusal of legal aid were successful in the last three years for which figures are available.
  Mr. Rifkind: No appeal may be made against the refusal of legal aid in criminal cases. In civil cases, 135 appeals were successful in 1981–82, 237 in 1982–83 and 224 in 1983–84.
  Mr. Fairbairn: I thank and congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend and the Government on the sensitive response that they made to the criticism from both sides of the House on the scheme proposed under the Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill. May I say that the reforms announced improve not only on the Bill but on the present situation? If my right hon. and learned Friend deals with the same matters, which are still in contention, on Report he will earn the lasting gratitude of the people of Scotland, who are either accused by the state or find themselves in conflict with other citizens, including the state.
  Mr. Rifkind: I have found my hon. and learned Friend to be appealing for many years, and I am happy that on this occasion his appeals have borne fruit. I accept that there was some convincing and persuasive argument that the system should be introduced at present. Of course, in due course the Government will bring forward detailed proposals that meet that requirement.

  Mentally Handicapped People
  Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied with the standards of care for mentally handicapped people in hospitals and in the community.
  Mr. John MacKay: The Government have made it clear to health boards, which have the primary responsibility for services for the mentally handicapped, that those services should be given greater priority. There have recently been significant improvements, but much still remains to be done, and we are monitoring developments.
  Mr. Canavan: Does the Minister agree that the vast majority of staff at hospitals such as the Royal Scottish National hospital in my constituency are very dedicated to their patients, but the main problem is that there are not enough staff? In view of the problems arising from staff shortages, as highlighted in the recent television coverage and also in the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland report, will the Minister give a commitment that he will give enough resources to the Forth Valley health board area to employ the 600 extra nurses required to bring the RSNH up to the Telford standard, and also the £12 million necessary to implement the health board's longterm strategy of moving towards maximum community care, while at the same time improving hospital provision for patients who, unfortunately, will require hospital care probably for the rest of their lives?
  Mr. McKay: I am happy to associate myself with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the dedicated work of the staff who work in hospitals such as the RSNH. Over the past four years we have managed to increase the number of nursing staff in that hospital by about 200. At the same time, we have managed to reduce the number of patients, so we are making progress. On 10 June officials in my Department met the board and discussed the future plans for the hospital, which, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, involve scaling down the size of the hospital so that it becomes a much more manageable institution, and, I believe, a better one.

  SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

    Legal Services (Costs)
    Mr. FairbairnTo ask the Solicitor-General for Scotland if he will estimate the cost of time, travel and inconvenience occasioned by the separation of the Crown Office from Parliament House and the separation of the procurator fiscal's offices from the sheriff courts.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Peter Fraser):It is not practicable to attempt to estimate generally the costs involved. However, with regard to the Crown Office, savings would he likely to be made if it were situated closer to or connected with Parliament House, and it would certainly be more convenient.
    Mr. Fairbairn: Does my hon. and learned Friend appreciate that those of us who understand the workings of the courts find the separation of those who have to work in the courts, whether it is in the fiscal's office or the Crown Office, to be inconvenient and expensive, and an unnecessary burden on public expenditure? Will the Government do all that they can to redeem that unnecessary cost so that the service can be provided more frugally, sensibly and efficiently?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I shall attempt to give an undertaking. As I said in my orginal answer, it is our desire to get the Crown Office located where it will be possible for Crown Office staff to have more access to the High Court. As my hon. and learned Friend rightly says, there is the other side of the question. It would be much more convenient for those on the defence side who want to make contact with the Crown. I hope that as a consequence of that there might be greater agreement before we go into court in future.
    Mr. Wallace: I know that many people who are involved in the legal system in Scotland will be pleased to hear the Solicitor-General showing some flexibility and saying that the Crown Office might be closer to the courts once again. Does he not agree that there could be a double benefit? If the Crown Office were to move out of the old Royal High, it could once again be used for the purpose for which it was primarily intended — a Scottish parliament?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: One of our proposals would be to relocate the Crown Office in Chambers street. That would be useful for the first purpose that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. With regard to the second part of his question, I am surprised that, after Monday, he thinks that it is an appropriate building. Given the attendance of Opposition Members, clearly it is far too large.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that after the performance on Monday, when there were bits falling off the ceiling, the time has come to dispose of that building and to return it to the use for which it was intended, as a school?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I do not know whether it would be appropriate to use the building as a school, but I shall rely on the ingenuity of my hon. Friend to produce a scheme that will be of benefit to the public purse.
    Mr. Ron Brown: Despite our present problems, lawyers do very well out of the system. They get rich, fat fees do they not? Is not the real difficulty that it is the general public who suffer? I think immediately of the many innocent miners who were unfairly dismissed and who have no chance of receiving justice or even assistance. They want to know whether justice still exists in this country. Will the Solicitor-General intervene to help them?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I shall not intervene, as I am not sure how I possibly could. If the miners wish to seek legal remedies they can use industrial tribunals. But if they feel that they should have access to the court, there is, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, a very generous system of legal aid, which has been significantly upgraded under this Government.
    Mr. Dewar: Will the Solicitor-General note that we strongly feel that using the Royal High school as a meeting place for the Scottish Grand Committee is totally justified? The widespread coverage of, and public interest in, the lively debate on Monday makes that point. This is a matter of considerable interest in Scotland, so will the hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the Government are thinking of disposing of that building on the commercial open market? If so, what is the time scale? If that is a positive plan, we would want to know about it at the first possible opportunity.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The hon. Gentleman will recall that it was my motion that allowed for the Scottish Grand Committee to move from the House to Edinburgh. He is being far too sensitive about an alternative use for the Royal High school building. As I said in my original answer, there are distinct advantages in moving the Crown Office back to a location that is closer to Parliament House. It will be convenient not only for the prosecution but for the defence. Beyond that, the hon. Gentleman is speculating too wildly on any future use of the building.

    Procurator Fiscal, Kilmarnock
    Mr. Lambieasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if he is now in a position to pay a visit to the procurator fiscal's office in Kilmarnock.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I intend to visit the procurator fiscal at Kilmarnock over the summer.
    Mr. Lambie: Is the Solicitor-General aware that when I drew the Lord Advocate's attention to the case of Mr. Chris Walker, who had been sacked by Irvine development corporation, he suggested that the case was more suitable for consideration by an industrial tribunal. That was in April 1985. Is the Solicitor-General futher aware that in April 1986 an industrial tribunal in Glasgow found that Mr. Walker had been unfairly dismissed? In view of the

    1005
    serious issues involved in the evidence and submissions to that tribunal, is the procurator fiscal or the Lord Advocate now prepared to look at all the issues involved, including private work, the placing of contracts, and the part played by individuals and companies in the affairs of Irvine development corporation?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate wrote to him about the matter last year and indicated at that time, ex acie, that the matters appeared to reveal no criminality on the part of any individual. However, if, following the appeal to the industrial tribunal, the hon. Gentleman or anyone else feels that there are matters of criminality that require further investigation, I should be grateful if he would let me know. I will undertake to see that they are looked into.
    Mr. Bill Walker: When my hon. and learned Friend visits the procurator fiscal at Kilmarnock, will he advise him of the Crown Office's determination to ensure that the procurator fiscal service is staffed by men and women of the highest calibre, and inform him that the Crown Office is confident of their future integrity?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. I should be glad to pass on that point. However, I should have thought that there was still considerable confidence among hon. Members on both sides of the House in the independence of the procurator fiscal system in Scotland.

    Mr. Malcolm Kelly
    Mr. Foulkesasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland what action he has taken regarding representations about possible illegality in proceedings surrounding the dismissal of Malcolm Kelly by the Northern Lighthouse Board; what precautions he took to ensure that final consideration and decommission on the matter was carried out by someone who is not a Commissioner of Northern Lights; and if he will make a statement.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: As my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate explained in a recent letter to the hon. Gentleman, Crown counsel have instructed that the police investigate certain allegations. Neither the Lord Advocate nor I will have any involvement in the matter.
    Mr. Foulkes: Will the Solicitor-General for Scotland —I note that, appropriately, that he is wearing his tie as a Commissioner of Northern Lights — give a clear assurance that if the police inquiry shows any irregularity or illegality there will be a review set up either by the Lord Advocate or the Secretary of State for Scotland to consider overturning the decision of the industrial tribunal on the sacking of Malcolm Kelly and what compensation might properly be made available to him?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: As I have already said, Crown counsel have been instructed to carry out an investigation. It remains to be seen what will emerge from the investigation. It is not for me to pre-empt any consideration of it. As a commissioner, I would not have any personal involvement — the same applies to my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate—as I am aware that certain of the allegations are against me.

    Dogs
    Mr. Kirkwoodasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many prosecutions were taken against individuals for offences relating to control of dogs for the last five years for which figures are available.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The total numbers of persons prosecuted for such offences, including the failure to pay dog licences are: 1981, 660; 1982, 701; 1983, 597; 1984, 553; 1985, 484.
    I will, with permission, Mr. Speaker, circulate a breakdown of these figures in the Official Report
    Mr. Kirkwood: That answer is very helpful. Is the Solicitor-General aware that there is concern that perhaps more could be done to try to control and limit the number of dog control offences that are being committed? Will he give us an assurance that he will consult his colleagues south of the border to ensure that the imminent Government proposal to abolish the dog licence will be considered carefully to ascertain what authority and powers local authorities will have to control dogs in future?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: It is not for me to consider whether dog licences should be retained or abolished. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there is a wide range of offences already in Scotland relating to the regulation of dogs. In the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, further provision was made to avoid what can be the unpleasant nuisance that is caused by those who are irresponsible in their ownership of dogs, and not so much by the dogs themselves.
    Following are the figures:

    Offence

    1981

    1982

    1983

    1984

    1985

    Cruelty to dogs

    31

    25

    38

    29

    21

    Failure to pay dog licence

    255

    251

    203

    147

    145

    Protection of livestock from dogs

    136

    163

    157

    130

    131

    Guard Dogs Act 1975

    20

    21

    17

    13

    11

    Other offences involving dogs

    218

    241

    182

    234

    176

    3.33 pm

    Sporting Events (Wagers)
    Mr. Richard Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday you made a ruling on Members' dress. You showed a most enlightened attitude in some respects, although I do not necessarily agree with it. As I am sure you are aware, Mr. Speaker, a most important sporting event is to take place on Wednesday 16 July. It would seem not inappropriate that we should be able to have the odd wager on who might win or lose. I find, Mr. Speaker, that only games of chess can be the subject of the odd wager in the House. Would it not be appropriate, in line with your modern thinking of yesterday, that: we should have a bookmaking facility to raise funds for your charity next Wednesday?
    Mr. Speaker: That is very ingenious. I believe that there are certain Members who make a speciality of that sort of thing. If the hon. Gentleman will come to see me privately, I shall tell him who they are.

Education and Training
3.34 pm
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Kenneth Clarke.
Mr. Donald Dewar: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I understand that a significant statement is about to be made—I have not seen the text —on vocational education and training. May I inquire through you, Mr. Speaker, whether the Minister who is to make the statement will deal with questions about Scotland? I ask this because on the Order Paper there is a written question in the name of the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley)—No. 140—which asks the Secretary of State for Scotland to make
"a statement on vocational education and training in Scotland."
A statement is something of a misnomer, as the response will be a written answer.
If the Paymaster General is not to deal with the Scottish aspects of vocational education and training, Scottish Members will not be able to raise any parallel or Scottish difference points and will not have rights that will be available to Members from other parts of the United Kingdom. I want to be clear on whether Scottish Members can ask questions of that sort and whether something can be done to protect their interests.
Mr. Speaker: I am unable to answer that question because I have not heard the statement yet. But perhaps the Paymaster General will be able to enlighten us in his opening words.
Mr. Gordon Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the same point of order?
Mr. Wilson: It is in connection with this matter.
By arrangement with the House, Members of the Scottish National party receive advance copies of statements on Scottish business. I have checked and apparently we do not have a statement on this. If the statement is to refer to Scottish business, we shall be at a disadvantage.
The Paymaster General and Minister for Employment (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The position in Scotland will, I trust, become clear in the course of the statement and the subsequent exchange of questions. My responsibility for the Manpower Services Commission extends to Scotland and I am making this statement because it appertains to the work of the MSC. It also has implications for Scotland and I shall be in a position to answer questions on that.
But, with permission, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should first make the statement, which is about major Government decisions on vocational education and training announced in the White Paper published this afternoon. They are about the national extension of the technical and vocational education initiative and the reform of vocational qualifications.
The technical and vocational education initiative was launched on a pilot basis by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in November 1982. In chosen schools since then the Government have, through the Manpower Services Commission, made additional funds available to local education authorities to develop new ways of
1008
increasing the vocational content of the curriculum and offering pupils of all abilities between the ages of 14 and 18 more work-related learning.
By the end of this year there are likely to be almost 100 education authorities in England, Wales and Scotland taking advantage of the initiative; which will be covering over 600 schools and colleges and helping nearly 50,000 pupils.
As the pilots have developed, so too has appreciation of the way in which TVEI has been able to enrich the curriculum. It has opened up new opportunities for more young people of all abilities to see how school can be made more relevant to adult and working life.
We want to keep up the momentum and to extend the benefit to many more pupils. We have decided that the MSC should be asked to administer the extension of TVEI from a pilot to a national scheme beginning in the autumn of 1987.
The Government are making a substantial financial commitment to this improvement in our schools. We are setting aside sums which build up from £12 million in 1987–88 to £41 million in 1988–89 and to £84 million in 1989–90. The average annual expenditure over the next 10 years or so will be about £90 million. These amounts will be found from the provision we have planned for young people within the MSC's budget.
Each authority's TVEI proposals must be consistent with our overall policy of improving the school curriculum. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who is in his place today, is publishing separately today a statement of the curicular criteria which extension proposals must meet.
The extension of the technical and vocational education initiative to a national scheme is a major advance. But reforming and developing the curriculum in schools is not enough. We also need to improve the vocational qualifications system to encourage more people, young and old, to improve their skills when they have left school. For that reason we are also announcing a new system of qualifications for skilled work at all levels in England and Wales.
Last year we set up a working group under the Chairmanship of Mr. Oscar de Ville to review the pattern of vocational qualifications in England and Wales. The group's report was published in May.
The group concluded that the present system was complex and incomplete, and recommended that a new system of qualifications should be set up within a framework to be called the national vocational qualification. It urged that a National Council for Vocational Qualifications should also be established to work with the existing bodies to set up that framework. The Government accept those recommendations.
The council will be set up in the autumn of this year and will be asked to have the new system of qualifications in England and Wales and Northern Ireland in place by 1991. I am glad to say that Mr. de Ville has accepted our invitation to act as chairman of the council during its all-important formative period.
We shall provide pump-priming funding, but the aim will be that after three years the council will become self-sufficient, from income received from bodies whose qualifications it accredits.
The recommendations of the report have been generally welcomed and we believe that they will lead to a much better system of vocational qualifications, which will be

1009
widely understood and respected by individuals and by employers. We hope that they will be encouraged to invest more time and money in training.
It is vitally important that for young people moving from school to adult working life we have a good system of vocational education and training. All young people must be given the opportunity to leave full-time education or training with relevant qualifications and to build on them throughout their working life. The extension of the technical and vocational education initiative and the setting up of the new framework of national vocational qualifications are major advances towards that objective.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: Regardless of the promises to us about other statements, this statement was made in another place at 3 o'clock. One would have thought that, on the auspicious day of the Paymaster General's birthday, the noble Lord the Secretary of State would have allowed him to go first for a change. If the statement on the extension of technical and vocational education means that technical, academic and practical education will be available to all our students, we broadly welcome it.
From reading the statement, we suspect that the amount of cash will not be enough. Will the Paymaster General tell us how much will be available per school for implementing technical and vocational education and how that compares with the pilot financing? Will he assure us that it is not a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul? Reading between the lines of the statement, it seems that the money for this expansion of the technical and vocational education initiative will come away from the youth training scheme. The YTS is already under-financed and under pressure and the quality of its training is inadequate. If money to fund the TVEI is taken from the YTS, that will lead to a further deterioration in training standards, and we are extremely worried about that.
The Paymaster General spoke about a review of educational and vocational qualifications. Will he think again about the way in which the new council will be set up? Many Opposition Members have great misgivings about the decision of the Government not to take the opportunity to review all qualifications at the same time. There is to be a review of vocational qualifications, but academic qualifications have been left alone.
We are fearful that we will see from the Government an attempt via the back door to introduce a 14-plus or a 16- plus examination to take the place of the 11-plus selection that we all know damaged children's opportunities and perspectives. Will the Paymaster General assure us that he is aware of the dangers of polarisation that arise because of technical education for some children and another more expensive and exclusive type of education for other children.
We have had many statements over the last few years and all of them introduced minor changes, some of which were welcome. Those statements were made against the background of a collapse in our training and technical training. As the National Institute of Economic and Social Research said just last week, there has been a 40 per cent. drop in training since 1982. This statement is small beer compared to the collapse of our training system.
Mr. Clarke: The extent to which statements are first made in one House or in another depends on the procedure of both Houses. This statement was delayed in
1010
this House by the vital matter of Scottish questions. I was able to sit on the throne—[Laughter.]—on the steps of the throne in another place and there I listened to the noble Lord Stoddart of Swindon welcome the statement. He did so with a considerably lesser show of reluctance than the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) has shown, but in the end he welcomed it.
The cash that is being made available for the extension of technical and vocational education is substantial—an average of £90 million a year over a 10-year period. During that period, it will steadily increase as the applications come in and the benefits of the initiative are spread throughout our school system. It will be up to individual local authorities to determine exactly how that money is to be distributed within the schools put forward, but on average it should work out at about £30 extra per school —[Interruption.]—at about £30,000 extra per school in each authority which applies. That is a significant addition to the budget of each school, enabling it to broaden the curriculum and improve the relevance of its education to pupils.
I was delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman defending the youth training scheme, and I think there is a growing realisation among Opposition Members about its value. I am happy to be able to assure him that these arrangements do not in any way jeopardise the YTS or the financing of it. The money is coming from the provision we have made for young people generally. The exact spending will depend on the number of local authorities that take up the opportunity presented by this initiative, and the number of pupils between 14 and 18 years who choose to remain in school, taking part in this curriculum, compared with the number who leave and engage in YTS. Obviously, the total number of young people will not increase in the 10-year period. Indeed, it will fall markedly. For that reason we can make this generous financial provision to schools for extending the curriculum without jeopardising other provision for young people, particularly YTS.
The review of vocational qualifications has also received a general welcome. I believe that that was the implication of what the hon. Gentleman said. The particular qualifications that we have had reviewed and which we shall now have farther reviewed by this new national council are the maze of technical qualifications, which are difficult to understand for parents, would-he trainees and employers looking for qualifications of the right type. The new arrangements will be of benefit to all of them, and will enable a clearer system to emerge and people to know exactly what qualifications of what standard they should aspire to for any particular occupation.
I note what the hon. Gentleman describes as a collapse in training. We know that we have a serious problem and that more resources and effort need to be invested, particularly by employers, into the training and preparation for work, especially of our young people. I do not accept his description, especially when it is applied to the Government's efforts. He knows that as a result of our changes in training arrangements we have virtually doubled the number of adults whom we are assisting in training through Government programmes.
Sir William van Straubenzee: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend two questions arising from this most welcome statement? First, regarding the new council or otherwise, does the White Paper contain

1011
any mechanisms for monitoring the effects of these new initiatives on academic achievements in schools, for example through the number of pupils taking A-level courses, bearing in mind the evidence published yesterday by the Education Select Committee which seemed to establish a linkage between YTS and the fall in the number of those taking A-levels? Is any monitoring envisaged?
Secondly, although I make it perfectly clear that I intend no personal reference, is this statement not one further proof that the time is past when training as a subject, however ably administered at present, should be brought within the ambit of the Department of Education and Science?
Mr. Clarke: On his first point, I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall monitor the position closely. We are carrying out a number of surveys to see what happens to the post-16 age group. We are hoping to produce a system which will allow for a well-informed choice to be made by more pupils. They will decide whether they wish to remain in school and then pursue an academic course in further and higher education, to leave and join YTS, or to take advantage of this sort of curriculum in a school which has taken advantage of this initiative. We shall certainly study the Select Committee's report.
It is difficult to analyse what has happened to the figures, but it is probably in the interests of some pupils, for example, to contemplate the possibility of a YTS scheme rather than staying on in the sixth form to retake one or two 0-levels or going through to a full A-level course. We are carefully monitoring what is happening, and the main thing is to ensure that people take well-informed choices in the genuine interests of the individuals seeking to make the transition from school to work.
Obviously I cannot comment on the proposals that my hon. Friend makes about the structure of government, but on the issue that lies behind it, I hope that when he looks at the White Paper he will see it as a considerable breakthrough in narrowing the gap between the world of education and the world of work. It brings together the objectives of good education and good training policy very considerably. The two Departments are working closely together. The beginning of the White Paper contains a statement of the objectives of my Department, and it concludes with a statement of the objectives of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. Between the pages is a considerable improvement in the system that will bring the two closer together and make the transition from school to work much better.
Mr. Richard Wainwright: Does the Minister agree that the careers preparation scheme for those between the ages of 14 and 18 has in recent years been confused and frustrating for such people? Therefore, the thrust of his statement is welcome. Can he also assure the House that in the new TVEI—as distinct from a regrettable lack in the pilot TVEIs—there will be ample bridges and ladders for young people who in midstream find themselves on the wrong course so that they can change direction and be assisted to a new level of learning if they prove able to take such courses?
As for the admirable de Ville recommendations, which the Government are so wisely accepting, what precisely will the Government do to enable the 35 per cent. of our
1012
adult work force with no qualifications to obtain them, or are they merely erecting new and rather impressive goal posts without assisting people to shoot for goal?
Mr. Clarke: I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman's extremely clear analysis of the problems that people are facing in moving to their careers from the ages of 14 to 18, and I hope that this statement helps to bridge that gap.
I shall certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of those responsible for looking at the applications submitted by education authorities. I am sure that the education authorities will seek to build in the necessary ladders to enable people to correct choices that they might make mistakenly during this vital period of their educational lives.
The criteria for the curriculum that we are setting down are today being published by my right hon. Friend, and it is important that these schemes are set up in the right way.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for welcoming the new system for national vocational arrangements. It is indeed important that a higher proportion of our population get training and qualifications of good quality before and during their working lives. The Government have already doubled the number of people that they are assisting to obtain that training, but it requires a greater effort on the part of society as a whole and British employers to increase the amount of training in our economy.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: I welcome the extension of TVEI, which has been a great success in two schools in my constituency. Is my right hon. and learned Friend satisfied that employers will be able to play their part by providing sufficient work experience places for people on these courses?
Mr. Clarke: I am delighted to hear that the pilot schemes have gone so well in Bolton. I believe that employers will readily provide the number of places required to give work experience to pupils. Such places are of enormous benefit to pupils, because they enable them to have an insight into what it will be like when they take up a career while they are still taking advantage of their
Mr. Jim Craigen: The Paymaster General referred to his MSC responsibilities in Scotland. How much of the £90 million coming from the MSC budget is earmarked for Scotland, and how will the new Scottish Vocational Education Council dovetail with the arrangements that are being proposed for England and Wales?
Mr. Clarke: In answer to the hon. Gentleman's first point, Scotland has taken considerable advantage of the pilot schemes. As Strathclyde is such a large authority, it has several pilots within its territory. I believe that it is the only authority which has several pilot schemes. The announcement that I made today on TVEI applies fully to Scotland, which will receive at least its fair share of the available resources if experience is anything to go by.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has decided that he wishes to make progress with the changes already in hand in Scotland under his 16-plus policy. However, the Scottish Office will have observer status in the national council and will keep in touch with developments on the National Council for Vocational Qualifications which will apply directly to England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Sir Kenneth Lewis: I welcome the statement which my right hon. and learned Friend has been able to make on his birthday, which will help many young people to become better qualified through their education. However, has he had any discussions with the trade unions to enable them to become more up to date? Has he consulted the trade unions with the aim of encouraging them to provide apprenticeships and so help young people when they leave school and enter a place of work? The trade unions are still old-fashioned in that area and it is time that they came to terms with the 1980s and 1990s.
Mr. Clarke: I was proposing to spend my birthday at Wimbledon at one stage. However, I was absolutely delighted to find myself spending my birthday in the Chamber delivering my statement instead, as it is of great value to the young people involved.
Oscar de Ville's working party contained people from the world of education, employers and trade unionists. It was a remarkable achievement that these bodies reached unanimity. They all agreed on the analysis of the problem and the Government have accepted their proposals. One of the most important facets of the new national council's work is that it will accredit qualifications which are based on measuring the standards of performance and ability of someone who has been trained for that qualification. It will rely to a much lesser extent than was previously the case, on time-served or academic qualification before admission can be obtained. That is an important step as it brings everyone concerned into the 20th century and into line with the modern economy that is likely to exist.
Mr. Max Madden: Will the Paymaster General confirm what some of us thought that he said, that the money that he has announced this afternoon represents £30,000 per school? Can he say when he will be ready to receive applications? Will he give an assurance that those local education authorities such as Bradford which have co-operated in the pilot study, will be given sympathy if applications are submitted for the national scheme, bearing in mind that Bradford has been starved of education resources and is unique amongst local education authorities in facing a considerable increase in school rolls?
Mr. Clarke: I will not say that I was leaving a few noughts off my figures, but the figure that I finally gave of £30,000 per school was the correct figure. That would be an average figure. It does not mean that there will be precisely £30,000 for each school. In each case, the local authority will determine exactly how it distributes the money between its various schools. The new national extension will come into effect from September 1987. Obviously, applications will come in and be considered between now and then.
There are a few local authorities which, for one reason or another, have not felt able to participate in the pilots. We will expect these authorities to have a three-year pilot scheme before that is extended. It is important to build up the initiative in such a way that people build on their experience of TVEI. If, as I believe, Bradford has been participating, it should be well placed to submit an application and to take advantage of the scheme on a much wider scale.
Dr. Keith Hampson: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his presence here
1014
today supports the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Sir W. van Straubenzee) about the fact that this is a Department of Employment statement rather than a DES statement? Does he agree that it is odd that some local education authorities are not participating? If it is so important, and the previous Labour Government started this debate in 1977, to have a more practical thrust in British education, the authorities should be required to ensure that all pupils of that age group take part in TVEI.
Will my right hon. and learned Friend comment on the fact that a long time scale is involved under the national vocational qualification — to 1991 — and there is a pressing need to quicken the process up? It is not a good precedent to consider the Engineering Council and the Finniston report and the amount of time that has been taken to get more direction through that body?
Mr. Clarke: On the first point, the present constitutional position is such that this is essentially a voluntary arrangement. It is up to each local authority to decide whether it wishes to participate and whether it wishes to apply for funds. There has, however, been a rapid increase in the number of authorities taking part in the initiative. I very much hope and believe that the remaining 18 will rapidly take advantage of the opportunity again being presented to them to come into the scheme, acquire additional funds and broaden the curriculum available to their pupils.
On the second point, there is a great deal of work to be done by the national council in beginning to pull together the present mish-mash of qualifications. Although 1991 seems some way away, the council has a formidable undertaking to take on in collaboration with all the certifying bodies and all the examination bodies.
Mr. Hugh Brown: Will the White Paper proposals be flexible enough to cater for the special needs of schools in socially deprived areas, where the big problem is in getting 16-year-old low achievers to stay on at school to take advantage of TVEI? If the proposals do not specifically include that, will he and his colleagues look sympathetically at such representations as may he made?
Mr. Clarke: Each local authority will obviously look at the particular problems of its schools when putting in an application and deciding how it wishes to distribute the available funds among the various schools. I very much hope that broadening the curriculum in this way will make staying on at school more attractive to many young people, particularly those living in districts of the kind described by the hon. Gentleman who probably have the most advantage to derive from it. An average amount of £30,000 per school per year can make a significant difference in what a school is able to offer.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on widening the scheme? Does he agree that the success of TVEI has been due partly to the value of the course content and thus the pupils' interest in what they are doing and partly to the fact that the scheme has always been well staffed? As the staff required will have to come out of a teacher shortage area, will there be any problems in staffing the widened scheme? Will he also consider giving parity of esteem to pupils involved in A-levels, YTS and

1015
TVEI? Does he agree that if one group is advantaged compared with another, pupils may not always make the right choice for their needs?
Mr. Clarke: I note my hon. Friend's comments about the courses being well staffed. The money available will certainly extend to an additional member of staff—not necessarily always a member of the teaching staff, but perhaps a technician—in each of the schools involved, with other expenditure on equipment, and so on. That is what authorities find best. The extent to which this might increase demand for teachers in shortage subjects is outside my responsibility and outside the scope of my statement today, but it is no doubt being addressed, among other things, by all concerned in the discussions about teachers' remuneration and career structures currently taking place under the auspices of ACAS.
With regard to parity of esteem among the various qualifications, I agree with my hon. Friend. It is important that pupils of all abilities have a clear and intelligible choice before them and that they make the right decision for their own case in terms of what suits their temperament and career wishes. The various paths through A-levels, YTS and TVEI, possibly followed by A-levels or some other qualification, are now coming together to present a much better and clearer way forward for the average 14 to 16-year-old contemplating the possibilities available.
Mr. Derek Fatchett: Does the Minister agree that to get the best value at 14 additional resources are needed for education before the age of 14 and that to differentiate between today's training statement and a possible education statement is dangerous and false in that respect? Is he aware that the recent report by Her Majesty's inspectors shows that the scarcity of resources for books and school buildings is having a damaging effect on education at all ages? Does he accept that until we put education right at an earlier age we shall not obtain the value of the money announced today to do the things that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned?
Mr. Clarke: On this occasion, we are talking about new resources for local education authorities in a particular part of their education system. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science will clearly not diminish his interest in problems in the rest of the education system, including the need for more expenditure on books and repairs. I believe that recent reports on the education system show that more money alone is not necessarily the answer. The Audit Commission, Her Majesty's inspectors and others have suggested that improved management of resources also has a part to play.
Mr. Edward Leigh: I welcome today's statement, but has my right hon. and learned Friend considered taking the process further by discussing with our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science the setting up of technical and vocational schools on continental lines, particularly on the lines of the West German hauptschule which I suppose might be loosely translated as "secondary modern"? Do I take it that we are now rejecting the Socialist concept that there is something inferior about technical training and that all children should be force fed with academic training
1016
with the result that large numbers of children leave school without any qualifications at all and totally alienated from the education system?
Mr. Clarke: Like my hon. Friend, I hope that we are rejecting any distinction in status between academic and technical education. The boundary is often artificial and impossible to draw. All these qualifications should be available to pupils of all abilities so that they may choose one route or another. Questions on the structure of our schools should continue to be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
Mr. Wilson: As the Paymaster General purported to speak as a United Kingdom Minister, why did his statement not explain the impact of the new scheme on Scotland? In view of the disgraceful lack of information provided in response to the question put to him by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen), will the Paymaster General now tell the House how the scheme will affect Scotland as we have had no information so far?
Mr. Clarke: I made the statement because of my responsibilities for the Manpower Services Commission, which operates in England, Wales and Scotland. I have responsibilities for the MSC in all three countries but not for education in any of those places. I have made it clear that the part of my statement concerned with technical and vocational education applies to Scotland as much as to England and Wales and that we expect full Scottish participation in that initiative. On the review of vocational qualifications, the Scots are pursuing a separate path, having already embarked on their own policy, but they will retain observer status in what we are doing. Both Departments agree that we must have qualifications accepted throughout the United Kingdom. We are keeping closely in line on these matters, but my statement about the new national council does not apply directly to Scotland.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I will do my best to call those hon. Members who have been seeking to catch my eye.
Mr. Richard Holt: I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's statement, but I am sorry that his Civil Service advisers did not read the whole of my maiden speech, including the part concerning qualifications, in which I suggested that the City and Guilds might be expanded. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that that institution, of well over 100 years' standing, enjoys international as well as national repute, that it has all the qualifications modules on base and that employers accept City and Guilds qualifications beyond all others? hope that it will not be stifled.
Mr. Clarke: A large number of bodies give qualifications of one kind or another, but the field is dominated by a few. Bodies such as the City and Guilds, the Royal Society of Arts and the Business and Technician Education Council all provide very well known and well recognised qualifications and they will continue to do so. The new national council will not supplant them in any way by giving qualifications of its own but will set up a framework into which all the qualifications from the various certifying bodies can be fitted so that they can be accredited by the council and people can understand exactly how one relates to another. People seeking qualifications and employers seeking qualified people will

1017
then have a better understanding of the relationship between one qualification and another. The City and Guilds will continue its very distinguished work, but its qualifications will now fit into a far more intelligible framework governing the qualifications of all the certifying bodies.
Mr. Alan Howarth: I welcome the statement made by my right hon. and learned Friend. Does he agree that the important progress that the Government have made in the provision of opportunities for technical and vocational education needs to be complemented by a vigorous continuation of the programme of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education to make the content of education more appropriate for less academic children from the primary stage? Does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we have to devote too many resources of time and money to remedial education in basic numeracy and literacy in the 14 to 18-year-old age group?
Mr. Clarke: I believe that this policy fits in with the Government's whole policy of examining the content of education in schools to ensure its relevance and to maintain good quality academic standards. Certainly I am told repeatedly that in many YTS schemes a great deal of time has to be spent in the first place on essentially remedial education to make up for deficiencies in the basic skills that my hon. Friend has described.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: In the event that a local education authority asks for this money and is granted it, can my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that it will be possible to ensure that that money is used on that project and not generally? For instance, would my right hon. and learned Friend be content to give that money to the alliance-controlled Devon county council which,while constantly criticising the Government for lack of funding for training and educational matters, has just approved £25,000 expenditure on a car for the chairman?
Mr. Clarke: Education authorities can make application to the Manpower Services Commission for the appropriate sum of money. That money will be granted once a deal has been struck between the MSC and the education authority on what the money is to be spent on and what changes are to be made in the curriculum and content of the school's programme. One reason why some local education authorities are not participating at the moment is that they put in applications that were rejected because they would not bring themselves into line with the objectives of the technical and vocational education initiative. That is how we shall ensure that the money being allocated to TVEI goes on worthwhile TVEI objectives. Other than that, I do not want to get drawn into what I hope will be fruitful negotiation between the MSC and Devon county council if it chooses to apply.
Mr. Roger Gale: In congratulating my right hon. and learned Friend on his most welcome statement, may I suggest that the success of the National Council for Vocational Qualifications is likely to rest largely on the calibre of the people invited to serve on it? Can he shed any further light on the criteria that will be used to select people to serve on that body? Can he assure the House that the qualifications that are approved by
1018
that body will bear a relationship to the actual rather than the theoretical needs of industry in general and of the service industries in particular?
Mr. Clarke: As I have announced, during the early formative stages of the council the chairman will be Mr. Oscar de Ville. I am not in a position to announce the full membership. Our objective will be to have people with practical experience of the world of work and of education, who will represent a broad range of interests and experience required to make the system relevant both for trainees and for the needs of industry and the world of work outside. I accept my hon. Friend's introduction, that the success of the council will depend to a large degree on the quality of the people who are appointed and who agree to serve on the council.
Mr. Nicholas Lyell: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the pilot schemes under TVEI in Bedfordshire have been enormously successful, both in the full schools and in the linked schools? Is he aware that almost every upper school will be looking hungrily at the £30,000 that might be available to it? How much, overall, can Bedfordshire expect to get in money terms out of the £90 million?
Mr. Clarke: I am delighted to hear again that the pilot has been so successful in Bedforshire. I am sure that I shall find somewhere an example of a pilot that has not gone down so well, but I have not yet. The reaction of everyone concerned over the country has been pretty well as my hon. and learned Friend has described. Therefore, I suspect that there will be no lack of applications. I regret that off the cuff I cannot put a figure on the likely sum that might go to his county, but if anyone can make an estimate I shall put it in a letter to my hon. and learned Friend.
Mr. Malcolm Thornton: May I assure my right hon. and learned Friend that Crosby and other parts of Merseyside where skill shortages and a general lack of vocational training have been identified as problems, his statement will be greatly welcomed? Can he assure us that in the reform and development of the curriculum there will be adequate monitoring of the input that will be essential from employers and industry if the scheme is to succeed? As my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) has already said, it is important to ensure that people of the right calibre are on the council and that they have an input into the reform of the curriculum. That has long been identified as one of the deficiencies in developing vocational training in schools. Can my right hon. and learned Friend assure us that there will be adequate monitoring of that factor?
Mr. Clarke: There will indeed be monitoring of the technical and vocational education initiative as it goes forward. Changes in the curriculum will be determined by agreement between the Manpower Services Commission and the individual local authority. My hon. Friend will be able to see in a written answer by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science the kind of criteria that we shall expect local authorities to fulfil when they make applications for funds under the initiative. I believe that one of the advantages of the change will be to bring industry and local employers into close contact with the schools, because it is in everybody's interests that schools turn out people who are prepared to meet the needs of local industry to help revive the economy in such a depressed area as Merseyside.
Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's statement and his continuing commitment in supporting technical and vocational training in schools. Does he not agree that one of the major problems is that careers guidance in schools has failed dismally and that the Government have to pick up the tab and give genuine advice? Does he not also agree that the successes of the YTS — [Interruption] —particularly in Leicester where 80 per cent. of those on the scheme now have genuine jobs, shows that the Government are totally committed to giving a real opportunity to the young, something that the Labour party always seems to be negative about. This Government provides real help, genuine qualifications and an opportunity for young people.
Mr. Clarke: It is my impression that the quality of careers guidance available varies considerably from place to place. The criteria we are laying down for TVEI put emphasis on the need for good careers guidance within the schools that participate. I agree about its importance. I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said about the efforts that we are making to help young people. Of course, we still have a desperately difficult unemployment position and we still have far too many unemployed young people. I am glad that the rate of unemployment amongst those under 20 is dropping sharply—by 10 per cent. for that age range. Obviously we have to make sure that that continues. It will continue, partly as a result of the announcement today.
Mr. Sheerman: Can the Secretary of State clear up a mystery that seems to have developed during his answers to his colleagues? The figure of £30,000 per school does not add up to the right amount if he is talking about a national scheme. How soon will this be a truly national scheme covering all schools that want to take part and all pupils? When will he give consideration to the strong point made by the hon. Member for Wokingham (Sir W. van Straubenzee) that, to give real choice and real coordination of that choice at 16, we need educational maintenance allowances? His answer was not good enough. The extent of take-up in staying on at school in this country is appalling compared to our competitors.
Mr. Clarke: The purpose of answering questions is to solve mysteries rather than create them. I shall check on the consequences of my arithmetic for a national scheme. The figures that I gave in the body of the statement show
1020
how we expect expenditure to build up over the first two or three years. We expect average expenditure over the next 10 years of £90 million each year on this initiative. Where we go will depend to a large extent on the way in which local authorities react to the initiative, how quickly they come forward with applications and on their decisions about the extent to which they intend to take advantage of the initiative. It will also in part depend on the way in which young people react and on the effect on the number who choose to stay at school and on the number who choose to go outside to YTS and so on.
In regard to the suggestion about educational maintenance grants to encourage young people to continue studying after 16, I know of no evidence to support the beliefs of some people that the lack of a maintenance allowance reduces significantly the number who stay on after 16. It would be extremely expensive to introduce such a scheme. One has only to consider student grants to realise the difficulties that arise in trying to get the right priority between expenditure on meeting the living costs of the pupils and expenditure on the educational system itself. The expenditure proposed on positive improvements in the quality of education that is available to young people is the first priority for our money.
Mr. Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. While my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East, (Mr. Bruinvels) was asking his question, I distinctly heard the hon. Member for Islington, North, (Mr. Corbyn) say that my hon. Friend had been raised in a circus. Judging by the dress of the hon. Member for Islington, North, if anyone has been raised in a circus, it is him. But did not the hon. Gentleman make an unparliamentary remark about my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East, especially as we were both educated at the same convent?
Mr. Speaker: I am lost for words. Fortunately, my microphones do not pick up everything that is said in the Chamber.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Just to clarify the matter, I said that I thought that the hon. Member for Leicester, East, (Mr. Bruinvels) had started his career in a circus, and ended up in a pantomine.
Mr. Speaker: I am glad that I did not hear.

Customs Consolidation (Amendment)
4.23 pm
Mr. Chris Smith: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to update the law affecting the importation of obscene articles and to increase the penalties therefor and to amend the Obscene Publications Act 1959 and the Customs Consolidation Act 1876.
The present law is completely anomalous. Any book or article imported into the United Kingdom is subject to the Customs Consolidation Act 1876. That Act leaves interpretation wide open to individual Customs officers, and sometimes gives rise to highly peculiar decisions about the seizure, impounding or prosecution of particular items. However, any book or article that is home produced and published within the country is subject to the Obscene Publications Act 1959, which carries with it the important test of a tendency to deprave and corrupt, along with the potential defence of literary merit.
For all its faults, the Obscene Publications Act is much better, and much more tightly drawn than the Customs Consolidation Act. It leaves less scope for the operation of arbitrary censorship. Sometimes, the same book can be treated differently under each of the two Acts. For example, a few weeks ago we learnt with sadness of the death of Jean Genet, the French author. Upon his death, the press rightly lavished much praise upon him. His book "Querelle" has been widely available, quite legally, and is approved under the Obscene Publications Act.
However, two years ago that hook was impounded by Customs when it was being imported into Britain, and was made the subject of a prosecution under the Customs Consolidation Act. It is surely nonsense that precisely the same material should be legally available under one Act because it is produced in this country, but should be open to prosecution under another Act, because it is being imported. There is an obvious need to clear up that anomaly and to bring all material, whether home-produced or imported, under precisely the same definition. That is what my Bill seeks to do: to bring all such material within the scope of the Obscene Publications Act 1959.
The law is not only anomalous but has, in recent months, been thrown into confusion. The European Court recently ruled in the Conegate case that any material that was imported from the EEC should be subject to the same
1022
provisions as material produced here, thus creating a difference between material imported from the EEC and material imported from non-EEC countries.
Further confusion has arisen following the Customs and Excise decision of last Friday to drop all its charges against the Gay"s the Word bookshop in Marchrnont street, London. It was right that it should take that decision. The outdated law—the Customs Consolidation Act—was being operated in a discriminatory way. I am delighted that that will no longer happen, but the decision of Customs and Excise leaves a legal uncertainty that requires clarification.
This Bill is the best way of clarifying the situation. Not only is the law anomalous and uncertain, but the existing state of the law inappropriately diverts resources which could be much better employed in the real protection of this country. With a flood of hard drugs coming into Britain from abroad, and with reductions in the staffing of the Customs and Excise service, Customs officers must have better things to do than to act as censors of what the British public can or cannot read or buy.
The Bill is a simple measure which carries within it a simple point. It is supported by the Booksellers Association, the Publishers Association, the Society of Authors, the National Council for Civil Liberties and the Society of Civil and Public Servants, which organises staff within the Customs and Excise service. The Bill will help to make sense of an anomalous, absurd and out-dated bit of law that has been, and can be, used in a profoundly discriminatory fashion.
I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Chris Smith, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Alex Carlile, Mrs. Ann Clwyd, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Alfred Dubs, Miss Janet Fookes, Ms. Harriet Harman, Mr. Michael Meadowcroft, Mr. Peter Pike, Ms. Jo Richardson and Mr. Clive Soley.

Customs Consolidation (Amendment)
  CUSTOMS CONSOLIDATION (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Chris Smith accordingly presented a Bill to update the law affecting the importation of obscene articles and to increase the penalties therefor and to amend the Obscene Publications Act 1959 and the Customs Consolidation Act 1876: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 4 July and to be printed. [Bill 195.]

Supplementary Benefit
4.26 pm
The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
That the draft Supplementary Benefit (Requirements and Resources) Miscellaneous Amendment Regulations 1986, which were laid before this House on 18th June, be approved.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this, I understand that it will be convenient to discuss the following:
That the draft Supplementary Benefit (Requirements and Resources) Amendment Regulations 1986, which were laid before this House on 26th June, be approved.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Social Security (Unemployment, Sickness and Invalidity Benefit) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1986 (S.I., 1986, No. 1011), dated 13th June 1986, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th June, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Supplementary Benefit (Conditions of Entitlement) Amendment Regulations 1986 (S.I., 1986, No. 1010), dated 13th June 1986, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th June, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Housing Benefits Amendment (No. 3) Regulation 1986 (S.I., 1986, No. 1009), dated 13th June 1986, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th June, be annulled.
Mr. Newton: It must be acknowledged that any link, other than for debating purposes, between some of these regulations is somewhat tenuous. The regulations refer to two particular aspects of the benefit system, and so my speech will correspondingly fall into two halves. I shall discuss first those parts of the regulations that concern the position of students in relation to social security.
As the House knows, the background to the proposals can be found in the view expressed now for a long time by the Government, which is reflected in the social security Green Paper of 1985 and in the social security White Paper of December 1985, and which has been clearly stated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and myself several times in the House. In the long term, it cannot he sensible that students be subject to two separate but related systems of support. It cannot be satisfactory to have students permanently dependent on a system—the social security system—that is principally designed for those who, for various reasons, cannot work, rather than for those who have withdrawn voluntarily from the labour market in order to study.
That general view is not confined to the Government. As the Opposition and others have fairly made clear, it also has their broad assent. The same is true of the Social Security Advisory Committee and of many students. The issue in relation to students is perhaps not one of principle, but of how we can return to a situation that almost everyone really wants.
In January, the Government published a set of proposals concerning social security benefits for students and associated proposals concerning the grant for students living away from home. Those were put to the Social Security Advisory Committee for consultation. I pay tribute to the committee. It engaged in a substantial and thorough consultation exercise. We are grateful to the committee for its work.
I met the National Union of Students in what I felt, and I hope it felt, was a useful and constructive meeting. I need
1024
hardly say that Ministers and officials received a substantial stream of representations from Members of Parliament and others about the consultative proposals.
It is fair to say that the consultation revealed a view that, while some steps on social security were generally thought to be appropriate, others went somewhat further than was generally felt right at that stage. It was felt that some of the proposals needed further consideration in conjunction with a review of the main system of student support.
The Government have responded considerably to both those lines of concern. The social security proposals have been modified significantly. However, they maintain the proposed £36 additional grant increase to students living away from home. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science said in a statement to the House on 18 June, the Government have
"decided to institute a comprehensive review of all aspects of financial support for students"—[Official Report, 18 June 1986; Vol. 99, c. 1046 ]
The debate is concerned with the modified social security proposals. It may be easier if I deal with them in terms of comparison with the proposals originally put forward in January. Essentially, we are proceeding with four of the original changes in the forthcoming academic year — 1986–87. First, supplementary benefit and unemployment benefit will be removed in short vacations. I emphasise the word "short" because there was some initial misunderstanding. It was never proposed that the measure should apply to long vacations. The benefits will be removed in short vacations. Support is provided in the grant for short vacations. That points to the fact that students are indeed students at such times, and not unemployed people.
We know that many students have course work to do in short vacations. They may even have to get their tutors' permission to do any paid work. In future, we shall treat them as being on their courses for the whole of the grant-aided period. There is also an administrative consideration. I think the House knows that we are in the somewhat absurd position whereby it costs £1 to deliver every £3 of unemployment benefit. The position is even more absurd with supplementary benefit when small sums of money are often involved.
Secondly, housing benefit will be removed for halls of residence. In general, hall fees need not be as high as private rents since the aim is simply to cover their costs. Therefore, we see no justification for bolstering hall fees via a kind of alternative housing benefit subsidy, especially since that entails wholly disproportionate administrative costs in which £5 of benefit paid out costs £3 to administer. I stress that there is one significant, and I hope helpful, modification to the proposal concerning halls of residence in that the exclusion will not apply where the education institutions are acting simply as intermediaries between students and private landlords. Using the jargon of the trade, the problem is known as head leases. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) for the part he played in bringing the problem to our attention.
Thirdly, students' income will be averaged across the whole grant-aided period, instead of them being treated as having different amounts of grant available in the term time and in short vacations. That logical proposal has been widely welcomed. It is, again, something which is sensible not least for its administrative advantages. The change will

1025
prevent the need for local authorities to undertake up to six reassessments of housing benefit and will help to reduce delays in processing claims both for students and other claimants, especially those in university towns.
Fourthly, the regulations will restore our policy on the treatment of students' income from deeds of covenant. Some hon. Members will be aware, especially those representing university towns, that a commissioners' decision last year led to a position in which students would have had the parental contribution to the grant taken into account during the summer, which the grant is not intended to cover. As soon as that came to my notice during last year's summer parliamentary recess, I initiated urgent extra-statutory action to overcome the injustice involved. Since then, we have made extra-statutory payments to prevent losses to individual students.
The regulations will restore our policy that the assessed contribution to the grant should not be taken into account outside the grant-aided period. Should a parent choose to be generous and give his student son or daughter covenanted money in excess of the contribution to the grant, we shall take the excess into account over 52 weeks, subject to the usual disregard.
Those are the four social security proposals from the original package that are going ahead, broadly as originally proposed, but with some modification. Alongside those proposals, we are proceeding with the extension of the students' dependants' hardship scheme to cover two-parent families as well as single-parent families for the full year which is the position at present.
We shall continue to make two changes contained in the original package a year later than we originally intended. One concerns the proposal that housing benefit should no longer be payable to students who take accommodation specifically to study and then leave it empty in the long vacation for more than a brief period. We have made no secret of our view that it cannot be right that housing benefit should pay large numbers of students for accommodation in which they do not live—perhaps for over three months. The measure does not affect accommodation in which students actually live. It only affects accommodation in which they do not live.
Mr. David Alton: What happens to property which is not occupied by students during the summer? Is it relet to someone else? Does the hon. Gentleman understand that enormous turmoil is caused in a student's life when he returns at the end of a vacation and someone else has taken the property?
Mr. Newton: Historically, students have managed to overcome the problem. It is only in recent years that students have received housing benefit on any significant scale. I acknowledge, in part, the point that the hon. Gentleman made. That is why the proposal was deferred. Our original intention was to implement it effectively from this month. We have deferred that until next year, because we have listened to the view that to have introduced the change this summer would have caused undue difficulty for students who would already have entered into commitments for the current year. To ease the problem, we deferred the proposal for a full year, until the long summer vacation of 1987.
It seemed right to us to defer the proposed improvement in the disregards for housing benefit — a disregard of the amounts in the grant for books and
1026
travelling costs. It must be right to bring housing benefit in line with supplementary benefit. That is what we intend to do. That is a helpful move. Alongside the deferment of the measure to which I have just referred, we are also deferring the proposal until the academic year 1987–88.
Apart from deferring the long vacation changes until next year, we propose to make a concession which will modify the effects of the proposal for existing non-grant-aided students. Those who do not live in their parents' home but have to rent accommodation are clearly the most vulnerable group. One effect of the fact that the regulations treat all students in the same way would have been a reduction in housing benefit entitlement for non-grant-aided students. To protect those already on their courses, who would have made certain assumptions about their income and the benefit they were likely to get, we shall allow them to carry on claiming on the same basis as before, so that they do not lose benefit. That concession will last until April 1988 and the introduction of the new housing benefit scheme. By that time, we expect that the vast majority of non-grant-aided students will have finished or be about to finish their courses.
Those are the two proposals which we have deferred rather than dropped.
Lastly, there is one proposal which we have withdrawn. It would have changed the method of calculating housing benefit for students, and would have taken the grant accommodation element fully into account instead of only partially. Although this can be seen as doing no more than putting students on the same footing as other claimants, it was clearly felt in the consulation process that it could cause disproportionate difficulty, perhaps particularly in London. We have, therefore, withdrawn that proposal. I think that is widely seen to have been an appropriate action.
On a number of occasions, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made his statement and since, hon. Members have made it clear that they wish to know what the practical effects will be for students. More than 400,000 in all will be affected, and we estimate that some 140,000 of them will gain the full value of the £36 increase in the grant for students living away from home. The effect on the rest will vary, depending on their particular circumstances. I reaffirm what my right hon. Friend said at the time of his statement, that it is not possible to make generalisations beyond the 140,000 about the numbers and levels of the losses because students' circumstances vary so much, especially their housing benefit entitlements. Some students will gain less than £36; some will come out with more or less a neutral effect; and some will have a measure of reduced entitlement overall. Taken as a whole, it is now widely accepted that our proposed steps are a sensible move to simplify and rationalise the present system and to remove some of the worst anomalies and complications, while making some contribution towards the longer-term aim, which is generally accepted by both sides of the House.
Mr. Alton: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned three times the £36 extra that students will receive. Would he quarrel with the figure put forward by a number of students' organisations that during the eight-week vacation students will lose welfare entitlements worth £309?
Mr. Newton: Without the details of the particular calculation in front of me, it is obviously difficult to

1027
comment in detail, but that cannot be conceivably true of the general number of students affected by these proposals. The precise effect on any given student depends on his particular circumstances. It will vary according to those circumstances. For example, a student whose only benefit entitlement is a modest amount of supplementary benefit in the short vacations would not suffer a loss on anything like that scale. It would obviously be much tidier and neater for me if I could generalise. Points of the kind which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) has reported were made in other quarters simply cannot be made to stand up as generalisations. It is grossly misleading to suggest that that represents the general pattern of the effect on students of these proposals.
Mr. Nick Raynsford: Given the Minister's reticence in giving us figures on the impact of these changes on students, will he at least inform us of the number of students currently receiving housing benefit in respect of halls of residence who will cease to be eligible to receive that benefit as a result of his proposed changes?
Mr. Newton: From memory — I shall ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to correct this later if I am wrong — about 80,000 students are receiving housing benefit in halls of residence. I want to emphasise that most of the amounts are very small.
The student benefit regulations represent a sensible, limited step towards simplification and rationalisation and towards removal of anomalies. They are a step in the appropriate long-term direction and I commend them to the House.
I come now to the other set of regulations concerning board and lodging. Although their main subject is board and lodging, I should make it clear that the new regulations also cover a change announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his uprating statement in February. The Supplementary Benefit (Requirements and Resources) Amendment Regulations make provision for changes in non-householder contribution and non-dependant deductions made from supplementary benefit. From 28 July no new awards of the non-householder contribution will be made to non-householders aged 21 to 24. Equally, no deductions will be made from the householder's supplementary benefit or housing benefit in respect of such non-dependants in that age group, so the poorest householders will therefore remain fully protected. This change is consistent with bringing the current supplementary benefit scheme into line with the proposed income support arrangements. The regulations provide only for changes in the supplementary benefit provisions. Regulations providing for changes in non-dependant deductions from housing benefit will be made shortly.
I come now to the main purpose of these regulations which concerns the board and lodging limits, both financial and other. As the House is aware, the draft regulations give effect to the outcome of the Government's proposed review of the financial limits from 28 July, the date of the supplementary benefit uprating. As I said in my statement on 18 June, we undertook to monitor carefully the operation of the revised arrangements introduced last year. We have now placed in the Library copies of the extensive—I might almost say voluminous—monitoring
1028
and statistical surveys which have been undertaken by us or for us, including the report by the consultants Ernst and Whinney on residential and nursing homes.
As I told the House on 18 June in respect of our concern about the growth in ordinary board and lodging payments, our latest figures show that the position at the time we acted was significantly worse than we had realised even then. In 1984, expenditure on ordinary board and lodging rose not to £380 million, as we thought earlier, but to more than £500 million, representing an increase of no less than 80 per cent. in a single year. At the same time, there was a 45 per cent. increase in the number of boarders, to more than 160,000.
As I said at the time of my statement, our monitoring fully confirms the existence of the accommodation market, heavily influenced by the available benefit rather than by normal commercial considerations, with widespread advertising to attract payments. In the light of our concern and the outcome of the monitoring, the House will be aware that one thing these regulations do not include is a general increase in the financial limits for ordinary board and lodging or in the related meals allowance. On our evidence, we did not believe that such increases were justified at the present time, and we felt that the evidence showed no case either for an increase in the hostel limits.
There is, however, one change in the shape of the regulations to which I should draw attention. We have taken the opportunity to incorporate in the regulations the main details of the ordinary board and lodging areas, the financial limits and the time limits by including them as a schedule. A number of representations were made to us that this would be more convenient than having them available only in a separate HMSO booklet, although that separate booklet containing maps and details of relevant DHSS local offices will continue to be available for the convenience of those who prefer to have it in that form.
There are two principal changes in the regulations in relation to ordinary board and lodging. The first is relatively limited and important and the other is of perhaps rather wider significance. The first is, of course, our decision that the ordinary board and lodging limit for couples without young children, which is currently one and three quarter times the single adult limit, should be increased to twice the single limit to avoid some of the difficulties about which representations were made to us. I hope that that will be thought helpful. The other, which has certainly gained wider notice and is of much greater general significance, is that the regulations incorporate the necessary provisions to prevent time limits being reapplied to claimants who were in board and lodging before November 1985, as had been intended on 28 July 1986.
The new regulations extend indefinitely the exemption that operated until 28 July 1986, which was included in the previous regulations, for those being paid as boarders on 24 November 1985. New boarders aged under 26 will continue to be subject to the existing time limits unless they come within the extensive range of exemption categories designed to protect those in need of board and lodging.
The limits for residential care and nursing homes were the subject of a good deal of that monitoring and research, including the study by Ernst and Whinney to which I have already referred. Following the significant increases of £10 a week in the residential care limits and £31.40 a week in the nursing home limits in November 1985, the evidence

1029
is that, in general, the average costs in homes fall within the benefit limits and in several categories it falls well within.
As I said to the House on 18 June, we concluded that no general increase in those limits was justified, but, on looking at the point at which the fit was tightest, if I may put it that way, we felt that there was a reasonable case for some further increase in the residential care limit for the elderly. Therefore, the regulations incorporate a further increase of £5 in that limit from £120 to £125, which makes a total increase of some £15 a week in just over a year. I should emphasise that the ordinary residential care home for the elderly caters for by far the largest number of claimants in homes.
Apart from that, on the evidence that had come to us, we felt that the appropriate course was to concentrate on some more specific problems that had emerged. I should like to pay tribute to the work of a number of groups within and outside the House — the Social Security Advisory Committee, the all-party group on social services, ably chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), and the National Council for Voluntary Organisations which, among other things, held a useful conference a few weeks ago which I was able to attend. Having listened and sought to respond to the representations that had come from those and other quarters, we felt it particularly important to make some improvement in the limits for those very dependent elderly people in residential care homes, for whom there are clearly additional costs. For elderly people in residential care homes who are very dependent and who are, in most cases, at present limited to £120 a week we have put a new limit of £140 a week in the regulations where they qualify for the higher rate of attendance allowance, which seems to be the best available indicator of the degree of dependence which is the cause of concern.
Mr. Harry Greenway: I have a smallish number of constituents whose income from all sources, including the benefits that my hon. Friend has been discussing, does not quite match the charges of the home in which they are staying. That must be common across the land. I should be grateful for some sort of slightly more elastic procedure whereby there can be some adjudication process between what is available to the resident and the charge of the owner of the home so that some means of producing a match can be achieved. Perhaps it cannot be done. Perhaps the proprietor must be told that no more money is available. However, maybe the charge is legitimate and some more money should be made available somehow. Can anything be done?
Mr. Newton: I understand and appreciate my hon. Friend's concern in this matter. I should like to make two comments. The first is that the proposals I was outlining to the House are clearly and specifically designed to introduce a greater degree of flexibility into the limits to meet the sort of problem my hon. Friend has in mind. The second is that, as some hon. Members who are present will know, we have been actively pursuing discussions with the local authority associations through two working parties to see whether we can move towards a system in which there can be more individual assessment in relation to the needs of an individual claimant and in relation to the costs and charges of individual voluntary or private homes. Clearly the expertise involved in operating such a system
1030
significantly resides in local authority social services departments rather than in local DHSS benefit offices. That is why we have put so much emphasis on seeking to develop and carry forward this endeavour to work more closely with the local authority associations. We are actively seeking to pursue that and I can only hope, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) hopes, that it will bear fruit.
As part of that effort to work more closely with the local authority associations we are intending later this year to mount some pilot studies to test possible assessment procedures within that sort of framework. Although I cannot give my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North immediate satisfaction, I hope that he will accept that we recognise the importance of the point he has raised, and, far from being one we are ignoring or neglecting, we are actively exploring whether it is possible to move closer to the sort of policy which my hon. Friend has said he would like to see.
I have referred to the severely dependent elderly in ordinary residential care homes and our concern to give additional help to them through the device involving the use of attendance allowance as an indicator of the need for a somewhat greater payment. We are putting forward in the regulations similar proposals in respect of those who are blind, especially those who became blind in old age, but are in ordinary residential care homes. There, too, we are proposing a new limit of £140 for blind people over pensionable age where it is more advantageous than their present limit.
The other significant change, which I outlined in my statement and which is contained in the regulations, is the introduction of, effectively, a higher limit for residential care and nursing homes in London. Since my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North counts as being within Greater London, I hope that this will be of some help to him. We are proposing to increase the limits by a special extension of up to £17·50 a week. As I said to the House on 18 June, when taken altogether these proposals would mean, for example, that a severely disabled or a blind elderly person in a residential care home in Greater London could get extra help of up to £37·50 a week. That is a significant improvement.
One of the other concerns that emerged from our work and from the representations made to us by many hon. Members was about claimants who entered residential care or nursing homes before April 1985 when the revised structure of limits was introduced. We made what the Social Security Advisory Committee called generous transitional arrangements ensuring that benefit continued at protected levels, in most cases for life. We are now proposing, exceptionally in terms of the conventions that normally govern transitional protection, an addition of up to £10 a week above the protected rate for those transitionally protected at July who have had no extra help towards fees increases since April 1985. That has undoubtedly been welcomed by both sides of the House. There is another provision that has undoubtedly been welcomed, in respect of which I pay a special compliment to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State who took a particular interest in it. We are proposing new provisions to help meet retaining fees for those who are away from home for a short period such as a holiday with their family.
Apart from those main changes, the regulations contain some clarificatory amendments of a beneficial nature, and

1031
change to restore the original policy intention concerning the treatment of attendance allowance in relation to the transitional protection provision.
As I said in response to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North, the regulations, with the specific and well-targeted changes that we have proposed, introduce greater flexibility, which is welcome, while maintaining a firm framework for that part of the benefit system, which is undoubtedly needed. The regulations as a whole rest on our determination to see that help is given as effectively as possible to the many people who need such help, but in a way that can be justified as compatible with the sensible administration of the benefit system as a whole. I believe that what we have proposed has been widely welcomed, and I commend the regulations to the House.
5 pm
Mr. Michael Meacher: On one point at least, I am glad to say, the Minister and I are agreed. That is that there should be a single channel of support for students, and that that channel should operate through the education rather than the social security system. However, that is about as far as agreement can readily go, because beyond that point the story of how that principle is being applied by the Government has been one of muddle and mishandling. It is our strong contention that, despite the Government's concessions, they are still far from getting it right.
The Rowe report on housing benefit and the Social Security Advisory Committee both insisted that a complete overhaul of the student grant system was necessary before benefit could be withdrawn from students. That fundamental principle is still being breached by the Government. Indeed, neither the Secretary of State, when he made his statement on 18 June, nor the Minister for Social Security today has answered the basic question why it is necessary to make changes, except, perhaps, for those involving short-term vacation claims, in advance of the new review of student support.
In effect, students are being asked to take losses in benefit now in exchange for some vague, uncertain IOU, cashable at some unspecified time in the future. For students this summer, the question is not so much whether they would buy a second-hand car from the Government as whether they would part with money for a third-hand review of student grants—not a very enticing prospect in view of the aborting of the first two.
Secondly, we question whether it is warranted to carry through that upheaval when it will now produce such relatively small savings while generating major inequities among students. The original proposals would have saved about £40 million to £45 million gross, according to the Government. That is before the compensating increase in student grants and housing benefit disregards. The net figure, after compensation, is £20 million to £25 million. It is now stated by the Secretary of State that the "overall saving"—that was his phrase—will be £8–5 million this financial year and £16 million next year. Presumably that includes the extra expenditure on grants and disregards. If not, the savings would be piffling and not worth all the confusion. Even if those savings are net of the extra
1032
expenditure, the gain to the Government is still small and is certainly obtained at disproportionate cost in increased hardship to students.
The SSAC concluded in paragraph 64 of its statement:
"While students paying the highest rents—and London-based students in particular—will sustain significant losses, up to 140,000 students will receive a windfall of £36 unrelated to their needs."
The SSAC goes on in paragraph 65:
"The proposal to switch some of the specifically targeted benefit savings to an indiscriminate increase in student grants does not, in our view, make sense, and would produce major inequity within the student population."
Our third major objection is that, even despite the concessions that the Government have made, the cuts that are retained, especially those on halls of residence and unoccupied property in the long vacation, remain unfair. I accept that the Government have adopted, in their statement on the SSAC report, a number of the protective measures suggested by the SSAC for the so-called "problem groups"—not a happy phrase. Examples are transitional protection for students without awards, head leasing—I did not know what that meant until I read that paragraph—of accommodation and short absences during the summer vacation. Nevertheless, there remains a core of inequity in the cuts on which the Government are still insisting.
The Government still intend to withdraw housing benefit for students in halls of residence, without compensation, as the Minister made clear today. The SSAC recommended that that was warrantable only on the basis of three conditions. I quote paragraph 41 of the SSAC's report:
"We recommend that the funds currently devoted to housing benefit for students in halls of residence should be transferred to the University Grants Committee and used to subsidise university accommodation; the Government should consider the problems of vacation occupancy; and steps should be taken to ensure that only halls of residence and similar accommodation and not other types of tenancy are
The Government's answer to those points, such as it is, is partial and unconvincing. The Minister hardly touched on it today. One feels when one reads the answer that the Government, having retreated a little, for which we are grateful, are still determined to have their pound of flesh, whatever the logic. That retained cut is one of the victims of that determination.
Another example is the retained housing benefit exclusion from unoccupied property in the long vacation. In paragraph 47 of its report, the SSAC said:
"we are seriously concerned about the possible short-term effects of the proposed change. Even if the student housing market responds in the desired manner students may suffer stress and hardship during the period of transition. We suggest that the results of the change should be monitored carefully so that if there is evidence of serious hardship appropriate steps can he taken."
The Government argue that by deferring the change for a year they are meeting the SSAC's objection. They are not. The same problems of uncertainty, confusion and loss will simply recur, but a year later.
More generally, the SSAC argues that students have little choice in their housing. The growth in student numbers has not been matched, in general, by the growth in the provision of university accommodation. Moreover, it is true that students are forced to compete at a considerable disadvantage in a shrinking private rented sector. They require only a short tenancy and they possess fairly low income, in general. Therefore, the effect of the regulations where there is a shortage of accommodation — I take the point made by the hon. Member for

1033
Liverpool, Mossley Hill Mr. Alton)—will be to force students to take a 12-months lease without housing benefit cover for the summer months. That is the only way in which they can protect their housing when there is a shortage. That is scarcely fair or right. Like the iniquitous 20 per cent. cut in housing benefit for supplementary benefit claimants in the Social Security Bill, which is now rightly being struck out in another place, that is a straightforward, downright cut in benefit for which the Government have provided no adequate justification. For that reason, it remains as objectionable today as it was when the Government first announced it in December.
The Minister seemed coy about his mathematics on the housing benefit cuts. He said that 400,000 students will be affected, of whom 140,000 will gain. My arithmetic suggests that about 260,000 will be either in the same position or will lose. If he wishes to clarify that, I should be grateful.
Mr. Newton: I offer only a modest qualification. There is the possibility — I cannot put numbers on it — that some people who receive less than £36 a year in social security benefits, which may include those small sums charged by some halls of residence, will also be net gainers.
Mr. Meacher: Are they included in the 140,000 who will gain or will they be in addition to that?
Mr. Newton: The 140,000 are those whom we estimate to be living away from home but not receiving any social security benefits. Therefore, they will gain overall by the full extent of the £36 grant increase
Mr. Meacher: I understand that point. However, it would be a reasonable generalisation to assume that from 200,000 to 250,000 will lose, albeit some by only fairly small amounts.
What makes the housing benefit cuts all the more objectionable in principle is that, contrary to the Government's protestations that they are simply transferring support from social security to the education system, they are cutting both. We have been told that, even after concessions, the housing benefit cuts for students will amount to about £16 million in a full year. On the other side of the coin, student grants have fallen in real value by 20 per cent. while the Government have been in office. In terms of the current grant, that is a cut of £360 in purchasing power today compared with seven years ago.
I repeat that, although we accept in principle a transfer to a single channel of support via the education system, that is not what is proposed in the orders. The orders will bring about major cuts in housing benefit on top of the major cuts in the real value of the grant that have already occurred. To make, as Ministers have, meretricious noises about the possible conclusion of a future review of educational support which reopens the prospect of student loans is scarcely reassuring and does not begin to compensate for the reality of financial losses for students across a wide spectrum.
The other issue in today's batch of orders is the unrelated issue — I am not sure why they were all thrown together — of board and lodging. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) will concentrate on that when she replies, but I wish to make a few general observations in the light of the new information available from the social security policy
1034
inspectorate surveys. I appreciate that they are voluminous, but they are also informative and I am glad that we have that information.
Perhaps the most significant finding from the inspectorate's interviews with 272 board and lodging claimants, in what it says is a representative sample of areas, is that one third of claimants pay a board and lodging charge which exceeds the financial limit laid down by the DHSS. The amount by which the supplementary benefit fell short of their accommodation costs varied from a few pence to no less than £45 a week. Leaving aside those two extremes, it is especially disturbing that one in eight of all board and lodging claimants was paid as much as £10 to £25 a week less than his accommodation cost. If the sample is representative, as we are told it is, that must reflect the experience of between 12,000 and 13,000 claimants today. That shows that in a significant minority of cases, the board and lodging regulations are still producing serious hardships.
Of the claimants whose supplementary benefit did not cover their accommodation costs, one third told the DHSS inspectorate that they could stay in the lodgings only by meeting the excess charge out of their meals allowance, personal expenses or, in a few cases, their savings. In addition, as many as one in eight said that they were in arrears with the payment of board and lodging payments to their landlords and that the arrears ranged from £10 to £400. Furthermore, others in the sample have already been forced to leave their accommodation because they were in arrears. That is a serious and worrying problem.
Another worrying finding which emerges from this material is that, contrary to the Government's complacent belief that landlords would rapidly adjust their board and lodging charges to the new financial limits, it appears that the opposite has happened in almost as many cases. The policy inspectorate found that, although 8 per cent had their board and lodging charges reduced by between £5 and £30 a week, 6 per cent.—nearly as many—had them increased by similar amounts.
There is evidence that Ministers' claims about the extent of available accommodation which is within the financial limits is either exaggerated or fanciful. I see from today's copy of The Guardian—I do not know whether the Minister will wish to deny that it is his favourite newspaper —that the Minister rejected a claim by
"the Central London Social Security Advisory Forum … that 90 per cent. of over 700 hotels in London charged more than the DHSS limit."
That point was made in another context by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway). The Minister claimed that his officials have located at least 20 cheap hotels that are within the limit. When the forum checked his list, it discovered that the Minister's claim was not substantiated in three quarters of the cases. I hope that the Minister will accept the validity of the serious comments made by the forum that almost all hotels in London now charge above the DHSS limit.
Mr. Newton: I intervene simply to say that, as a result of some discrepancies between the way in which the details were put in the CLSSAF's document and our report of this dipstick survey, there was an overlap of four or five cases. Nevertheless, our small survey—there was also a wider survey—showed 14 to 15 additional hotels. I emphasise that that was just the result of DHSS officials telephoning, on a one-off basis, in response to some advertisements that they found in the local newspapers. There is no attempt to

1035
suggest that the 20 hotels formed a great, comprehensive survey, simply that DHSS officials picked out 20 advertisements, telephoned and identified — we can haggle about the exact figures—14 or 15 of which were not within the limits. While we are on this track, I should say that one further address, which was said to be unobtainable despite continuous ringing, was contacted by my officials at 9 am today and it was confirmed that the accommodation was within the limit.
Mr. Meacher: The Minister is a little less genuinely contrite than he normally is. I accept his latter point as that reflects one case. The truth is that, of the other 14 or 15 hotels, six were already on the list. I accept that those 20 hotels were taken at random, but the randomness makes it significant. Two more hotels were unobtainable —although the Minister now says that one is obtainable—one would not take claimants and four would take people within the DHSS limits only at three to a room. To suggest that that is readily available accommodation for unemployed, homeless people is a disgrace. One hotel had no telephone number or full address, so it would be difficult for claimants to contact. That left five which were correct. I accept that perhaps there are six. Out of the Minister's random list, only six out of 20 were available. The forum admitted that 10 per cent. were available within the limits, but that means that roughly 90 per cent. are not.
Mr. Raynsford: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, compared with the random sample of 20 hotels from which the DHSS drew its conclusions, the survey of the Central London Social Security Advisers Forum and other voluntary organisations was based on a sample of 710 hotels and might therefore be expected to give a more representative picture of what is happening in London?
Mr. Meacher: I am getting in the way of a significant dialogue. Perhaps the Minister wishes to intervene, because my hon. Friend's question was directed more at him than at me.
Mr. Newton: I am prepared to be a little contrite if the CLSSAF or the housing advisory service feel that I have been unfair to them—I have considerable respect for the activities of both, and was not seeking to attack them—but I merely question whether their list is as comprehensive and up-to-date as they claim.
I make it clear that to call the smaller of the DHSS's samples a random survey is to over-dignify it. An adventurous DHSS official simply thought that he would see what would happen if he picked out 20 hotels and telephoned them.
We also conducted a more properly structured sample survey which showed that, in addition to those reported by pressure groups, more than 350 boarding establishments in London were within the limits. Unfortunately, we cannot pass the details of the hotels in our sample to the pressure groups because, in common with other such survey information, we do not have the permission of those included in the sample to do so. By definition, the information given in the smaller survey was publicly available as my Department simply responded to advertisements in newspapers.
Mr. Meacher: I am grateful to have regained my speech. I thought that the Minister was about to make a second speech.
1036
The key point is not the status of the 20 hotels that were telephoned; it is that an overwhelming number of hotels in London which provide bed and breakfast accommodation are charging significantly more for it than the DHSS financial limits provide. That fact is based on a detailed and comprehensive survey.
If the Minister wishes to challenge that fact he should produce detailed information and present it formally. Until that happens, the position in central London is as I have described and it is grossly unfair to subject homeless unemployed people to it. Simply providing sufficient money for their landlords will cut into the rest of their allowances. That is all that we are saying, but we are saying it strongly.
Another disturbing conclusion drawn by the policy inspectorate was that the overwhelming majority of boarders, including those in private households, have no alternative accommodation. One in seven of them could find some temporary accommodation, mostly with parents or relatives, but only one in 25 had access to alternative permanent accommodation.
That fact decisively rebuts one of the Minister's key arguments: that young people were leaving home unnecessarily to live in board and lodging accommodation. The main reasons revealed as to why those people became boarders were disputes with parents or relatives, the break-up of their marriages, or being forced to leave their previous accommodation. That shows clearly that they are simply people who have nowhere else to go.
That background calls into question the purpose of the board and lodging regulations. Are they designed simply to save money or to pressurise people into moving on to find jobs? If the latter, the board and lodging regulations have been a failure.
A DHSS document published last month, entitled "Monitoring the Impact of the 1985 Changes", stated:"
"There was no evidence to suggest significant moving between board and lodging areas."
More explicitly, the evidence shows that the number of people who cease to claim supplementary benefit because they have found work is tiny. To that extent, it has not been a job-finding exercise. The Opposition are not surprised because no jobs are available.
If the purpose of the board and lodging regulations is to save money, two other questions immediately arise. Is it reasonable to save money at the expense of people who have been forced by personal misfortune into board and lodging accommodation because they have nowhere else to go, and who are then forced to cut food or other essentials to pay the accommodation charge? Even more importantly, is it fair to penalise the homeless unemployed in general when they are hapless victims of policies beyond their control which have led to soaring youth unemployment and almost the collapse of the local authority house building programme?
Since we believe that the answer to both those questions is a resounding no, we continue to oppose the principle of the board and lodging regulations. At the same time we strongly oppose, and shall certainly vote against, the major cuts in housing benefit for students, which are matched by inadequate grant compensation and aggravated by the huge fall in the real value of student grants under this Government.
5.25 pm
Mr. Robert McCrindle: As a fairly frequent participant in debates on social security, I have listened to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) many times. I am always struck by the stridency that he seems to bring to debates on social security. I pay him the tribute of equating that with a deep-seated opposition to whatever may be before the House at that moment.
This afternoon I was struck by the low level of stridency in the hon. Gentleman's speech. On some occasions, he has been guilty of detaining the House overlong, but on this occasion he managed to make his point in no more than 24 minutes, which is probably a record for him. From that the hon. Gentleman's opposition to the regulations, against which he will vote, is somewhat less than he would have had the House believe. The Government can take some comfort from the knowledge that, although there will be opposition, they should not become over-excited about it.
The hon. Gentleman returned to form by quoting extensively from The Guardian. Sometimes I think that, if that were not his principal source of information, his speeches would be appreciably shorter, if not non-existent. Some Conservative Members treat what is said in The Guardian with considerable interest, if also with a touch of circumspection. We read it avidly to establish the extremity of the position from which we can work back to the true facts.
I extend a general welcome to the regulations. I appreciate the fact that the Minister is prepared to listen to reasonable objections, whether from the Government Benches, the Opposition or from outside interests. There is no doubt that the regulations are much more acceptable to many Conservative Members than would have been the case had the Minister proceeded with his original intention. While listening to the difficulties that may have been encountered had we proceeded as intended, he kept in mind the balance which any Minister in his position must keep before him—that is the balance between the taxpayer, who has to pay the bill, and the beneficiary, to whom one wishes to extend all possible consideration.
I have had the temerity to press the view upon my hon. Friend the Minister of State when we have discussed these matters that housing benefits—a relatively new system of social security — were never intended to prop up students in the way that has become familiar in the recent past. I welcomed the introduction of housing benefits and I continue to believe that they make a major contribution to our social security system. I do not believe, however, that they are structured in such a way as to be able to provide for students the type of assistance which they can reasonably be expected to provide for others in rented accommodation. Having taken that line, I have been pressing on my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for some time that it is correct to phase out the reliance on housing benefits which students have adopted over the past year or two.
I have drawn to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends that moving towards a phasing out of housing benefits for students in a year when the student grant increase is being restricted to 2 per cent. could be seen as moving too fast and an attempt to obtain advantage from each direction. There is a strong argument for more phasing and more understanding.
1038
The regulations show that we remain, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State has said, dedicated to moving away from student reliance on housing benefits, but we recognise that the only way in which to proceed is in a progressive fashion. I must welcome what I hope we are about to agree when the Question is put.
This is not the occasion to spend very much time on the wider issue of students' grants or loans. I hope that I shall be forgiven if I say in passing that I have long taken the view that student support — it is sometimes forgotten that it is at a higher level in this country than in most other countries of western Europe or the United States —should be seen as a partnership between the taxpayer, who shoulders a large part of the burden, the parent, who according to his means is asked to make a contribution to the education of his children — in my judgment, he should continue to be asked so to do—and the student himself. I welcome the fact that there is to be an inquiry into student support, no doubt taking account of the social security considerations that we are discussing and exploring.
What have we to fear from an exploration of students" loans? My view, for what it is worth, is to be chary of moving in that direction. There are quite sufficient thoughts in a student's mind without adding to them the matter of his creditworthiness. On the other hand, I do not have a closed mind. If we were able to take forward the partnership between the taxpayer, the parent and the student, that would be a good thing. In the meantime, we must take it that in whichever direction we move, and at whatever pace, housing benefits for students were never designed to achieve the purpose for which progressively they have been used. To that extent, I welcome the fact that the Government have moved in the direction that I prefer.
Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman will recall that the Government introduced with their housing benefits scheme an entitlement to students in halls of residence to claim the benefits, a right which previously did not exist. There was some logic and reason behind that. We know that housing benefits were designed to reflect the wide differences in housing costs which can apply in different circumstances, unlike other social security payments, that are designed to meet basic needs. If we are to treat students on a par with others, there should he a means of giving them assistance when, through no fault of their own, they have to meet exceptional housing costs. That circumstance continues and the removal of entitlement to claim will lead to hardship.
Mr. McCrindle: I understand that. The only reply which I wish to make immediately is that the housing benefits system is still, in my judgment, far from being effective. We have been taking stock of how the system is working out in practice and introducing such changes as become necessary. In working up to what the final shape of housing benefits should be, it is not surprising that student support should be included within their ambit. I am saying that it would make no sense to have permanently two parallel systems of support for one section of the community. Instead, each section of the community that needs support should rely on housing benefits per se or on a grant system such as the student grant system.
Mr. Raynsford rose—
Mr. McCrindle: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman again. There is a confusion between these systems of support. We have seen the creation of a dual system for students—on this ground they have stood almost alone—and this has flown in the face of the intention behind student grants and housing benefits.
I shall say something about housing benefits more generally before moving on to the issue of board and lodging. I was struck by an early-day motion in the name of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton). The motion is headed "Abuses of the Housing Benefit System". It draws attention to the serious concern that is being expressed in some quarters at the "extensive abuse" of the system. It expresses the belief that
"a number of private landlords are acting in an unscrupulous and profiteering manner".
It states:
"unemployed people are encouraged to apply for tenancies and … landlords subsequently charge extortionate rents well above the levels approved by the rent officer".
That goes somewhat beyond the discussion in which we are engaging this afternoon, but I draw attention to it in passing because it is a fact that that abuse of the housing system is known to have taken place. There is a suspicion that collusion takes place from time to time between beneficary and landlord. To that extent, it seems that we cannot consider board-and-lodging regulations without taking account of the wider operation of the housing benefits system.
We should pay attention to the early-day motion No.1031 which is supported by Liberal, SDP and Labour Members. At the end of the day, we are all taxpayers. I hope that we are all compassionate and that we all wish to direct social benefits to where they are needed. If there are examples that show that that is not happening, the conclusion of the motion — that there should be an inquiry established into these abuses — will have my support.
Mr. Alton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for referring to my early-day motion and for offering his support for the call for a inquiry. Will he support the principle that, wherever rent is being paid directly through the housing benefits system to a claimant, the rent should be registered with the rent officer?
Mr. McCrindle: I am not an expert in this area and I should need some opportunity to study whether that is the best or only way to achieve the objective that probably unites the hon. Gentleman and myself. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not give him an immediate answer off the top of my head. I do not exclude the possibility that his suggestion is the solution.
There is no question in my mind but that a good deal of heartache has been created as a result of the operation of the board-and-lodging regulations. There is equally no doubt that there were abuses of the system which led to the Government feeling that it was necessary to introduce the regulations. In introducing amendments to the regulations, we should be ensuring that genuine social security needs are effectively met, while taking every opportunity to curb the abuses, of which, I suspect, every hon. Member has some first-hand knowledge.
I welcome the Government's decision to increase by a further £5, to £125 a week, the payment to people in residential care homes. I note with approval that there has been an increase of £15 a week overall since April 1985.
1040
That underlines the fact that the Government have clearly listened to the representations made by some of us who felt that £110 a week was cutting it very fine indeed and that, while some homes could survive on that, it would be extremely difficult in some parts of the country.
Mentioning that geographical distinction leads me to make a mild criticism of the Government, and, in the process, to declare an interest. I am pleased to note that, in addition to the overall increase of £15 a week, there is to be a further increase in the London area of £17·50 a week. There can be no doubt that costs in the London area, be they transport or labour costs, are higher, and it is justifiable that the amount paid to residents in homes in the Greater London area should benefit in the way that the Government propose.
However, as the Member of Parliament for the first constituency over the Greater London boundary to the north-east of the city, I shall find it difficult to explain to those who run residential homes in my constituency that, whereas £142·50 is a reasonable figure to pay for a residential home in the London borough of Havering, it is reasonable to pay £17·50 less than that in my constituency. I should have preferred, and I urge the Minister to consider, some form of tapering. It will always be difficult to draw a boundary, but if this payment had been tapered it would have been seen as fairer. My constituents view this as the thin end of the wedge because their costs are not materially different from those of people in Greater London next door.
Having said all that, let me express my appreciation to the Government and to Ministers for having listened to the various representations that have been made. What we are being asked to support this evening is a considerable improvement on the earlier regulations. With the one or two minor qualifications that I have felt it necessary to express, the Government can rest assured that they will have my support in the Lobby tonight.
5.43 pm
Mr. David Alton: It is a pleasure to listen to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle), although I disagree with his ultimate conclusion. I would find it difficult to vote in favour of the regulations tonight because of the qualifications and caveats that I want to enter during my contribution to the debate. I was glad that the hon. Gentleman raised the question of abuses of housing benefits and I shall return to that later.
I endorse what the hon. Gentleman said about student loans. I, too, oppose the introduction of student loans. In reality they are already being introduced by the back door. With the fall in the value of the student grant, by about 20 per cent. in real terms in the past seven years, many students are being forced to go to their bank manager to borrow money. They then find themselves taking large overdrafts which put them into penury for long periods.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) also talked about the position of students and I concur with everything that he said. The clock is being turned back to before the Education Act 1944, with less and less opportunity, particularly for young people from underprivileged and poorer backgrounds, to enter higher education because of the financial penalties which are involved. Hall fees are one example of that. The Minister talked about that but he failed to mention that between 1979 and now hall fees have gone up by 77 per cent.
Mr. Martin Brandon-Bravo: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will clarify the remarks that he has just made. He seems to be saying that it is the people at the bottom of the income scale who are being denied access to higher education. But surely it is precisely that group who get the full grant. They are not adversely affected. It is the so-called middle-class students who are sometimes in trouble. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will clarify his position.
Mr. Alton: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that whether students come from the poorest background or from the middle hand, to which he has rightly referred, the costs involved in trying to sustain oneself through the vacations, in trying to buy the necessary books and in trying to cope with all the everyday living costs are so enormous that many students are finding it more and more difficult to cope. That has led many young people, for whom it may not be the normal course to go on to higher education, to simply opt out. I see plenty of evidence of that in my constituency.
The Minister said that the proposals that we are considering today are well targeted. I do not agree with that. They are a pot pourri of proposals which attempt to spatchcock together a wholly unsatisfactory package. The Minister mentioned several times during his speech how students will receive a £36 a week increase, but he did not mention what reduction there would be for students who would lose their benefit entitlement during vacations. When I challenged him on that, he was unable to give the House a figure. The National Union of Students estimates that as much as £16 million will he withdrawn from the benefits system. Supplementary benefit and employment benefit will disappear for short vacations. The Minister drew comfort from the fact that that did not apply to the long vacations but I regret that it is happening at all.
From student entitlement to welfare benefits, it is extraordinary that the Department is pre-empting the Department of Education and Science whose Secretary of State said only in the last few days that he wanted to have a longer-term look at student financing. It would have been far better to wait and see what conclusions he arrived at before bringing forward these proposals tonight.
The Government's proposal that students should give up their accommodation during vacations when they will be denied housing places them in an impossible position. They will have to start the search for new accommodation all over again at the end of a vacation. In cities such as my own, a property that is left vacant while a student is away will almost certainly be vandalised and that will cost dearly.
Mr. Nicholas Lyell: What the hon. Gentleman has just said about students having to start again to find new accommodation flies in the face of my experience when I was a student, and, I suspect, when he was a student, when we made arrangements with our landladies which lasted through to the end of the summer term, gave up the accommodation in the interim and then made fresh arrangements from the autumn.
But will the hon. Gentleman comment on a wider point? He says that the provisions will damage the opportunity of poorer students to take part in higher education. How is that consistent with the fact that today 13·8 per cent. of the available group — the highest proportion ever—are already taking part? That does not seem to support his contention.
Mr. Alton: I am not sure where the hon. and learned Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lyell) gets his figures. After 14 years representing people in the inner city of Liverpool, first as a councillor, now as a Member, my experience is that fewer people are availing themselves of the opportunity to go into higher education. More and more people are saying to me that they would find it increasingly difficult if they had around their necks the albatross of loans that they will have to pay back to the banks. They say that the burden of the repayment of those loans would prevent them from going into higher education. It is certainly a major disincentive.
Times are changing. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Mid-Bedfordshire that in the 1960s it was easy to leave a property that one might take for a brief period and then it could be let to someone else during the vacation. In my city of Liverpool there are currently 6,000 empty public sector properties and 3,000 private sector properties. That is a disgrace. Given that situation, it is unlikely that anyone would take those vacancies which, on the whole, are not in the houses of landladies but are in properties which students tend to rent in groups of two or three. Those properties will be left empty during vacations and I suspect that they will be subjected to vandalism.
These regulations also cover claimants in common lodging houses. The Government are trying to paint far too rosy a picture and to demonstrate that I should like to deal with part of the report by the social security inspectorate. The report shows that of those surveyed 34 per cent. were in bed and breakfast hostels and lodgings while 53 per cent. were in private or local authority accommodation. The most striking feature is that very few of those surveyed had alternative accommodation to which they could go.
Of the 228 claimants who were interviewed, only 12 had access to alternative permanent accommodation and only 43 to temporary accommodation. That bears out what the hon. Member for Oldham, West said in his speech, that there is no route home for many young homeless people who have the misfortune to find themselves in common lodging houses or in hostel accommodation.
I am a trustee of Crisis at Christmas. Several other hon. Members are also trustees of that organisation. It helps fund projects for homeless people, many of whom are young and single. We have found that the situation is getting worse. Many young people arrive in London believing that the streets are paved with jobs. When they arrive they are disappointed because they can find neither a job nor accommodation. 'Many of them have nowhere to which they can return.
Conditions in the common lodging houses and hostels are pretty awful. The House does not have to believe me, because recently in the Reading Evening Post a Government Whip, the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Durant), said:
"The main problem is the single persons who are homeless. They have very little hope and some of the bed and breakfast accommodation is appalling. The landlords in some cases treat them badly. In many areas claimants are being forced to pay sums well above the DHSS limit."
In Reading, for instance, it is about 82 per cent. above the limit. In Swansea it is 79 per cent. above the limit, and in Canterbury, Folkestone and Dover it is 75 per cent. above the limit.

1043
There is also the issue of inequitable treatment. It is scandalous that claimants who were caught in the post-November 1985 time warp of DHSS limits receive less than those who applied before the regulations were altered. That is grossly unfair. Despite the fact that the Government are hitting vulnerable people, they will not allow local authorities that have sold off council houses to reinvest that money.
I have no point to make about whether councils should sell houses because that should be a matter for local authorities, but having received money from such sales surely the authorities should have the right to invest that money to provide housing. To prevent councils from using capital receipts for the provision of decent bed and breakfast, hostel or sheltered accommodation for vulnerable people is deplorable.
Next I should like to deal with housing benefits. One aspect of these regulations particularly gives me cause for concern. It is the failure of the Government to insist that any tenant, student or otherwise who is in receipt of housing benefit should automatically have his rent registered with the rent officer. As I said in an intervention during the speech of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar, that is the only way in which widespread abuses involving the loss of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money can be ended.
The Government cannot pretend that the news of the abuses comes as a surprise to them. Ever since the time when housing benefits were introduced Opposition Members have warned that the system was unnecessarily complex, ill-conceived and a potential gold mine for a new generation of Rachman landlords. In July 1982, four years ago this month, I warned the House that housing benefit regulations were:
"Byzantine in their complexity and bewildering to the average person."
I said that the schemes were "cumbersome and confusing."
I also said that:
"The regulations serve to reinforce poverty, with the poor paying for the even poorer." — [Official Report, 26 July 1982; Vol. 28, c. 784.]
In March 1983 I complained again that the local authorities had not been properly consulted and that private tenants' rights were not being safeguarded. I said that the scheme was half-baked and not capable of being implemented.
Four years after its implementation the housing benefits system has become a nightmare. Government Ministers are being complacent and lethargic about tackling the mess that they have created. I was surprised when on 14 April, in answer to a parliamentary question that I tabled, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, who I am glad to see in the House, said that no information was available about the number of tenants in receipt of housing benefit whose rents were registered.
Last year some £4·2 billion was paid out in housing benefit and in the year ending 31 March 1986 £4·6 billion had been paid out. Given those figures, the Government's approach seems to be remarkably cavalier. In failing to act they are behaving quite irresponsibly. What happens is that an advertisement will appear in a local newspaper suggesting that bedsits are to let and that people who are unemployed or in receipt of DHSS benefits are welcome to apply. The landlord then gets the tenant to fill in an application for housing benefit. I highlighted in an
1044
example in the early-day motion about which the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar spoke the case of a Mr. Caulfield who owns nine properties in a place called Denman drive in Newsham Park, Liverpool.
In one property alone there are 16 different bedsits and from those bedsits the landlord receives some £524 a week in rent and rates. That is claimed back through housing benefit. Of the nine properties that he owns in that road, a total of £ 120,000 a year is being collected through money paid via housing benefit. If those rents had been registered with the rent officer the landlord's entitlement would have been closer to £50,000. That is a rip-off of taxpayers' money.
Mr. Major: I am aware of the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I have signed a letter that I hope he will shortly receive about this matter. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the administration of the housing benefits scheme is a matter for local authorities. If he feels that there is abuse, I hope that he will make the details of that abuse available to local authorities so that they may take appropriate action. The review team on housing benefit specifically examined the question whether local authorities should be required to seek registration of rents paid by tenants who receive housing benefit. It concluded, and we accepted its advice, that indiscriminate use of that provision would adversely affect the supply of privately rented accommodation. Neither the hon. Gentleman nor the Government would wish to see that.
Mr. Alton: The Minister is wrong to associate me with the Government's philosophy of trying to create more private rented property. The way that shorthold was introduced and the way that housing benefits have been used are simply devices to try to increase the number of properties in the private sector. I should like to see an increase of rented property through housing co-operatives and housing associations rather than a growth in the number of private landlords.
I disagree with the Minister's final point about the review team and its recommendations. We need to look again at this matter. In the same area of Liverpool that I spoke about a few moments ago there are properties owned by housing associations. They have registered rents of as little as £10 a week. That compares with £35 a week being paid out in housing benefit directly to the private landlord that I mentioned. That discrepancy deserves to be investigated.
The Minister also said that it was the responsibility of the local authority to act and not his. Three parties can ask for rents to be registered. First, there is the tenant, but he has no incentive to do so because, it makes no difference to him what rent is being paid as it is being paid directly over his head. Secondly, there is the landlord, but he obviously has no financial incentive to do that. Thirdly, there is the local authority, but it has neither the financial incentive nor the staff to do so. The Minister was right to say that a local authority could seek registrations, but local authorities throughout the land are not doing so.
Mr. Newton rose—
Mr. Major rose—
Mr. Alton: I am delighted to give way to the Ministers.
Mr. Newton: I am sorry about this excessive enthusiasm of Ministers to get at the hon. Gentleman. With the erudition that he is displaying, I must assume that he has

1045
read the social security White Paper and studied the proposals and the proceedings of the Social Security Bill. He will know that among the proposals which have proved somewhat controversial with the local authority associations are those designed precisely to create a greater incentive for local authorities to use their powers. I would welcome an assurance from the hon. Gentleman on behalf of the Liberal party, which has so far shown singularly little enthusiasm for any aspect of the Social Security Bill, that this is one proposal which it will support.
Mr. Alton: I was much impressed by the enthusiasm of the two Ministers, trying to jump to the Dispatch Box at once. It is a case of a two-headed monster, and I assume that their arguments are much the same. But I do not want to be unkind because I am grateful for their enthusiasm.
I cannot give the Minister that assurance because if local authorities are not given the resources required to do the policing job that we should like to see introduced, it would be absolutely impossible for them to ensure that the registrations go ahead. That cannot be done without personnel. If the Minister says that resources will be found for local councils to carry out that job, obviously I shall be happy to give him my support.
I can give the Minister an example from another part of the country because this is not an exclusively Liverpudlian problem. Earlier this week I spoke to Mr. Roy Murphy of Shelter in Manchester. He told me of a bedsit in a condemned property which has a compulsory purchase order on it, for which £65 a week is being charged. That rent is being paid through housing benefit direct to the landlord. On 14 April when I asked the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction whether he would introduce new regulations to require local authorities to register rents like this one he simply said no. I hope that the Government will take this issue seriously, study the terms of the early-day motion which I mentioned, and recognise that the problem is a nationwide one.
Another illustration came in a letter I received this morning from a lady in Bolton who said:
"Whilst unemployed I moved into a flat in October 1984 … This is a large detached house which has been made into 8 flats and bedsits: on the ground floor there were 3 flats, on the first floor there were 4 bedsits, and on the second floor there was one flat … Outside the kitchen back door was a dilapidated outside toilet. Upstairs on the first floor was the communal bathroom and toilet. The toilet was often in a very unhygienic condition, and the bath had no hot running water … For all this I was charged £30 per week, which the Housing Department was obliged to pay. The landlord's wife (who dealt with the collection of rent) had falsely assured me that the rent had been registered with the Fair Rent Officer."
That pattern is repeated throughout the United Kingdom and it is part of a multi-million pound rip-off.
Homelessness has become a boom industry and housing benefits a licence for landlords to print money. In the face of that, we in the Liberal party believe that the statutory instruments and regulations before us today fail to address themselves to those fundamental issues. Indeed, they make matters worse.
At present 340,000 multi-occupied properties exist in England and Wales, of which 53 per cent. fall below even minimum housing and fire safety standards; 38 per cent. have no proper means of escape from fire; 33 per cent. are in a serious state of disrepair with leaking roofs, severe damp and crumbling walls; 28 per cent. lack essential amenities such as toilets, bathrooms or cookers; and 23
1046
per cent. are wretchedly managed by landlords. Sixteen per cent. of tenants live and sleep in overcrowded conditions, often with no privacy. Some 2 million people live in multi-occupied bedsits, lodgings, hostels and bed and breakfast hotels in England and Wales. Tonight's debate takes little account of their needs. Nothing is being done to end the abuses of existing arrangements, or to tackle those fundamental problems, and for those reasons we shall vote against the Government tonight.
6.4 pm
Mr. Nicholas Lyell: None of the Opposition Members who have spoken in the debate has made clear the principles on which they would spend public money in any of these areas. The principles which our Government should follow are that we should set out to help people to help themselves, and to concentrate our state help where it is needed and where it will help people. In my short speech I shall try to apply those principles to three areas under discussion: board and lodgings, the care of the elderly, and student support and the benefits system.
We have seen a phenomenal increase in public expenditure on board and lodgings which is doing nobody any good because the expenditure is benefit-led. Young people move away from home, whether it be London, Bedford or wherever, into board and lodging accommodation in small hotels and hostels, and in rooms from landlords and landladies because they receive large benefits for doing so. Then they do not find a job. Over the past few years the sums spent on board and lodgings have increased from about £50 million a year to £500 million a year. Yet the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) said that only one in 28 of such young people find a job when they move from home into bed and breakfast accommodation. What earthly good does it do anybody to encourage young people to leave home and their roots and to go into bed and breakfast accommodation Only to be unemployed, and to waste about £500 million a year in doing so? My right hon. and hon. Friends were right to look at the matter, to call a halt and to ask whether we can direct the money more effectively so that it will assist the young unemployed.
Mr. Raynsford: If I am allowed to speak later, I shall tackle the principle of public expenditure in this area. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the Department's social security policy inspectorate's report on the reasons why people live in board and lodging accommodation? It reveals that only 2·8 per cent. live in such accommodation because they are financially better off, as opposed to 27 per cent. who are there following a dispute with parents or relatives, 14 per cent. on the breakup of a marriage, 11 per cent. because they are seeking a job and, perhaps, taking the advice to get on their bikes and look for one, and 11 per cent. because they have been evicted and have nowhere else to live.
Mr. Lyell: I can see that the hon. Gentleman has great knowledge in one sense in this area and will be misled by that report. It will be interesting to see how he develops his speech. Whatever answers one receives to that type of questionnaire, the fact is that a young person who comes to London and lives in board and lodging accommodation will be paid about £70 a week. If one is young and not well qualified, one is extremely unlikely to find a job which can possibly substitute or fund that £70 a week. Consequently,

1047
we are kidding our youth. We are giving them a benefit-led opportunity which leads them away from the real chances to better themselves. We ought to be spending this money on better training—I am glad to say that we are, and we all heard the statement today—on improvements and developments in the youth training scheme, on better opportunities for work through the community programme, on teaching people how to present themselves for work in their own areas and on enabling them to release their own energies.
I have seen this happening in Bedford, and we shall hear how it has happened in London. In Bedford, people are taking short-term or long-term bed and breakfast accommodation. If they are unable to find jobs, it is not that there are no jobs available, but that those jobs do not pay a sum that is equivalent to the amount that they formerly received from social security for that kind of board and lodging payment.
The way to tackle the problems of these young people is to help them to help themselves and to release the energies of the individual and the private sector by opening up the inner cities. In many Socialist-controlled areas—I hope that we shall never cease to concentrate on this, and I suspect that it is true of Liverpool, however small the opportunities may be in other respects—if people wish to buy their house or premises for business purposes, or if they wish to do anything in the private sector, they are not allowed to do so. That is true of Southwark. Those local authorities will do anything they possibly can to place difficulties in one's way.
As for long-term care for the elderly, we are seeing a phenomenon that is both encouraging and has warning signals. It is encouraging in that there is a lot of provision for the elderly—a growing section of our society—from the private sector, but we must be careful that it is not benefit-led, in the sense that the benefits made available are so high that people simply go into this as a business for its own sake rather than because there is a demand from elderly people for the particular services.
If we wish to care effectively for our own families and the families of others, we should design the system so that we encourage people to remain in their own homes. We should support those who care for them, and we should provide support, for example, to encourage people to be cared for short-term during holidays while home carers have the rest that they so badly need. We should also encourage the wonderful and new phenomenon that we have seen over the past five years in the hospice movement. That would mean that, having lived out one's life at home with support from the family and the state, properly directed, and having become so feeble and ill, a person could move to a hospice or be cared for at home as in a hospice, and he able to die in dignity.
Those are proper fulfilments of the principles in which we as Conservatives believe. We must be careful not to be led astray, as we undoubtedly have been, by the fact that we are paying people to live in unsuitable places. To some extent we are over-subsidising the development of residential homes, as the Ernst and Whinney report has suggested.
We must concentrate our public moneys on releasing private energies and other private moneys which will not only target themselves much more effectively but also produce far more for the state input involved.
1048
As for student support, I am convinced that the Government are right when they say that it is not proper that those in our higher education system should be encouraged to look either to social security or to housing benefit for their support. We well understand why they do so to some extent at present — because supplementary benefit and housing benefit are available. When we announced that they would not be available, much anxiety was caused, but in most cases that anxiety was quickly allayed when the parents and students realised that for this year at least we would not remove those benefits during the long vacation if the students in question could not obtain work. We made it clear that if they had to keep on such accommodation and live in it during the long vacation, they would continue to get housing benefit.
Once my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary had answered our letters with a number of long and complicated replies—for which I thank him very much indeed — my constituents who had been considerably alarmed had their alarms almost entirely allayed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) rightly said that much of the problem of student support comes not from those in the lowest income groups but from the middle income groups from those whose family income is £12,000, £15,000 or £20,000 a year. That income is usually heavily committed, be it on a mortgage, bringing up other children or maintaining a standard of living that cannot easily be adjusted. In those circumstances, an extra £400 or £500 a year can make as much difference as the extra sixpence made to Mr. Micawber. Consequently, the changes that we are bringing about are entirely right in principle, but they must not be brought forward too quickly or unthinkingly in practice. From the responses that we had earlier this year, I believe that the Government are sensitive to those views.
However, on all occasions we should remind ourselves to stick to our principles of helping people to help themselves and of concentrating state help where it is really needed and where it can do most good.
6.16 pm
Mr. Nick Raynsford: I regret that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) is no longer with us. He referred to the tone of the Opposition and the way in which our criticisms of the Minister were perhaps voiced less stridently than they might have been on previous occasions. The hon. Gentleman drew one conclusion from that, but I draw a different one.
This is the third time in as many weeks that we have debated social security issues. Those who read the Daily Telegraph — which I do not always read — will have noticed that the Minister has not altogether got a good press. Indeed, the sad, heart-wringing story of the poor treatment afforded to Brer Newton last week has undoubtedly influenced Opposition Members to be terribly nice today. However, in no way will that change the strident criticisms that we shall make about the content of these measures.
The first issue on which I wish to speak relates to students. All of us agree in principle that it cannot be sensible in the long term for students to depend on income support, but the House is making a mistake if it concludes that all forms of assistance, including assistance with housing costs, should be treated in the same way.

1049
The point that I tried to make earlier was that one of the reasons for having a housing benefits system is that there are wide variations in housing costs — far wider than in the costs of other things for which income support is designed to apply. The accommodation element contained in the student grant cannot possibly cover the wide variations in costs that students must meet in different circumstances. Those in certain areas or in different tenures or types of accommodation often have to meet housing costs that are two or three times the level that other students have to meet.
Therefore, short of having a very complex grants system that attempts to take these variations into account, it is sensible to allow housing costs—where they exceed the amount provided for in the grant—to qualify for some assistance through a housing benefits scheme. That was my understanding of the reasons for extending housing benefit to cover most students. That was a correct decision, and that is why I regard the Government U-turn on this issue as misconceived.
It is all the more misconceived because it comes, as everyone knows, at a time when students are trying to cope with a grant that has been reduced dramatically in real terms by this Government. The Government have cut away assistance towards housing costs, especially for those meeting high housing costs, while the grant is inadequate; that is grossly unfair to students.
We must consider the Government's justification for doing that. The argument was advanced by the Minister for Social Security that the costs of administering benefits to students were disproportionate to the benefit. Many Opposition Members were surprised to hear that argument advanced on this occasion when we did not hear the same argument advanced with respect to the 20 per cent. of rates contribution which the Government are still —if we believe reports in the press—eager to bring back despite the House of Lords' correct decision that that was an objectionable proposal which should be dropped. In that case, the cost of administering and collecting 20 per cent. of rates was thought by many authorities to exceed the value of the money that would be collected. That is clearly a nonsensical arrangement.
The Government are prepared to stomach that administrative nonsense, yet they are now using the same argument to say that it is not worth paying the benefits to students. The truth is that streamlining the procedure—I welcome the proposal to get away from the need to reassess benefit six times during the academic year by averaging income over the short term and short vacation period—will reduce administration costs and that will result in greater value for money. That is the right and sensible approach. The Government should not deny students benefit on spurious grounds.
We should also be very wary about the argument on the withdrawal of entitlement to benefit in respect of accommodation which students cannot occupy during the summer vacation. Students are often required to continue to pay rent for that accommodation if they want to return to it the following term.
It ill behoves the Government, who have denied students the opportunity to pay retainers, which are generally rather less than the full rent, to have housing benefit on that—which would have been the sensible way to cope with the problem— now to state that the benefit will be removed entirely on the rent elements which have had to be paid by students who want to keep their
1050
accommodation for the following term. That is unfair to students and the fact that the proposal is being postponed for a year does not make it any more justifiable.
The issue of non-householder addition has not attracted much comment so far. However, we must be aware that that represents a further cut. Once again the Minister for Social Security was rather coy about the figures. We have not had many figures from him. When the Under-Secretary of State replies, will he tell us how many claimants aged 21 to 24, who currently receive non-householder additions, will lose that benefit? To be fair in this matter, will he also tell us how many non-dependants in that age bracket, for whom a non-dependant deduction is currently made, will no longer be subject to that deduction? How many will lose benefit and in how many households will there be a compensatory offsetting of the non-dependant deduction?
We should remember that this is not the first time but the third time that there have been adjustments to non-householder additions designed to achieve cuts. The first removed non-householder additions for 16 to 17-year-olds in 1983. The second, two years ago, took them away from 18 to 21-year-olds. And the Government now propose to remove them from 21 to 24-year-olds. These are a series of measures designed to cut expenditure and that is not justifiable.
I would like to focus on the board and lodging issue which has aroused a great deal of anxiety throughout the country. The Government have placed a great deal of emphasis on the increasing cost of payments for board and lodging payments to justify the steps that they have taken. However, they have not looked behind the increase to see why costs have increased. That is where the nub of the problem lies.
The increase in costs simply reflects the fact that there has been a continuing and rapid increase in homelessness under this Government because insufficient homes are available for people to rent at reasonable prices. The problem is not simply an increase in payments to people receiving board and lodging payments from the DHSS. There is a parallel increase in terms of local authorities placing homeless families, to whom they have rehousing responsibilities under what used to be the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 but which is now covered in the Housing Act 1985, but they cannot provide homes because there are not sufficient homes. The authorities are forced to place people in bed and breakfast hotels.
The two phenomena go hand in hand and are witnesses to the terrible lack of accommodation for people who need rented accommodation at reasonable prices. They are the direct result of Government policies. To be fair, they are not policies originating from the Department of Health and Social Security. These problems are the consequence of decisions taken in the Treasury and the Department of the Environment. These decisions are having a knock-on effect, because increased homelessness and a lack of alternative housing mean that more and more people have to resort to unsatisfactory and grossly expensive bed and breakfast or board and lodging accommodation for lack of an alternative.
The fundamental problem is the growth in homelessness and the lack of alternative accommodation. It does us no service to attempt—as the Government do—to tackle that problem by attacking the symptom. The Government are attacking the cost rather than the cause, which is the shortage of housing. The Government would

1051
have been advised to have considered the advice of the Social Security Advisory Committee which commented succinctly and appropriately on the issue recently. In relation to the Government's first proposal to impose restrictions on board and lodging payments, the committee said:
"The assumption that some other form of accommodation is available for young claimants currently in board and lodging accommodation seems to us particularly questionable in the light of the known scarcity of public and private rented accommodation accessible to single people, especially those dependent on social security benefits."
The committee continued:
"To a very large extent, we believe a long-term solution has to lie in housing policy, not merely to develop a greater range of accommodation available to single people, whether individually or in shared housing, but also to improve the quality and value for money of existing lodging accommodation."
How true! The Government's advisory committee has hit the nail on the head, yet the Government have not accepted the recommendations.
Mr. Lyell: Would the hon. Gentleman accept or reject the idea—which I support—that the private sector has a real role to play in providing that accommodation?
Mr. Raynsford: I believe that all agencies capable of providing accommodation available to rent at a reasonable price should be encouraged. The experience of the past 80 years is that private landlords have been taking properties off the market because the rate of return from renting is less than they could receive by investing their money elsewhere. There is a fundamental problem. High capital costs are involved and house prices are high in areas such as London. The returns which a landlord would receive from renting to relatively poor people, without receiving massive subsidies, would be insufficient to justify investment of large sums of money in that property. That is why we should consider other sources of accommodation, such as the public sector, housing associations and bodies which have proved themselves able to provide rented housing for people in need.
The problem is therefore fundamentally a housing one. If the Government are looking for savings, they will find it easier to make them by providing new homes to rent through councils and housing associations rather than depending on board and lodging. Ministerial answers over the past six months have stated that it is cheaper for the state to pay for people to occupy new council housing than to pay the vast costs of keeping them in board and lodging. It makes social and economic sense to put people in council housing. Sadly, the Government do not appear to have learned that lesson.
The Government are desperately trying to make savings and they are penalising claimants as a result. I will not examine the Minister's arguments in detail as time is short. After a careful scrutiny of the detailed reports tom which the Minister referred—which are in the House of Commons Library—about the surveys carried out on people in board and lodging, it is abundantly clear that many people are not able to meet the costs of their board and lodging as a result of the Government limits.
According to the Government's own figures, some 47 per cent. of board and lodging charges are above the limit and 34 per cent. are more than £5 above the limit. Those are national figures. In London, to the south of London
1052
and in the south-west, the discrepancy is likely to be far greater. Details are not available in the report, but those are the areas with the largest number of claimants whose board and lodging costs are above the limit.
As a result of Government policies, grotesque overcrowding has developed. Young single people are sharing three or more to a room. Yet the Government have taken no action to attack and improve bad standards. I absolve DHSS Ministers in this regard as it is the responsibility of the Department of the Environment. People have been forced to leave their accommodation and become homeless. I very much regret the Government's failure to recognise that they have made a disastrous mistake. Ministers at the DHSS should withdraw the board and lodging regulations and discuss with their colleagues at the Department of the Environment ways to get a better housing programme going so that people can live in decent homes and have a choice in housing rather than being left in highly unsatisfactory and overcrowded board and lodging accommodation, trying desperately to stay there by sharing because the limits make it impossible for them to meet the costs or, worst of all, forced to become homeless and in some extreme cases driven to suicide by the despair engendered by this grossly unfair and inhumane policy.
6.30 pm
Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: As the House knows, I have a particular interest in student support as Nottingham university, which happily falls in the upper half of the current merit league, and the equally excellent Trent polytechnic mean that our city has many thousands of students. The case for reform in this regard has not been challenged by anyone, even the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Raynsford). A proper balance of grants, family contributions, vacation earnings and, I believe, student loans is clearly the right way forward. Our target is therefore to remove the social security element of that support in a reasonably phased manner because the social security system was not basically intended for student support.
In taking that view, I have substantial support within the student body although there is no doubt also much opposition. On the new register, the number of votes in my constituency has leapt upwards by 3,000 persons. I am told that this is due to the registration of students who had not previously bothered to register. Whether their motive is to compliment me in due time on my efforts on their behalf or the reverse, time alone will tell. Having a constituency with a large number of students, however, does not detract from the duty to do what is right. It is all too easy to make electorally convenient noises, but some of us like to be able to sleep with our consciences.
I am sure that no one really challenges the loss of short vacation benefit as there was never any real case for it. As I said in an earlier debate, students who go home for Christmas cannot claim that they are going home to look for work. They go home for Christmas and they have probably earned the break. With regard to the long vacation, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for allowing time to phase the problem out. Although we are taking something away from students, and there are many of them in my constituency, it seems wrong that they should claim housing benefit for one address while living and claiming supplementary benefit at another address. That simply cannot be right. The hon. Member for

1053
Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton)—sadly, he has left the Chamber—destroyed his own case when he spoke of people paying rent for only nine months and of the risks in the remaining three months. If there are so many empty properties in his city, I cannot believe that the annual rent paid by students is so very high.
As I have said, I believe that I have substantial support from within the student body. Members of the Trent Polytechnic Conservative Association have no reason to tell me what I want to hear just because they are Conservative students. They are perfectly entitled to say what they want as students and I am happy to support them. They firmly believe that Government spending must be kept under tight control, they recognise the link between high public spending and inflation and they are therefore quite content for their support to be discussed in that atmosphere. They recognise, too, that the grants and support for students in this country are better than in any other western nation. Moreover—my hon. Friend the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—I believe that the number of grant-aided students has quadrupled in the past 20 years. So not all students oppose the Government's approach.
I should like briefly to describe the situation of four students. One had no grant and lived on parental contributions, rent rebate, supplementary benefit and—a bloated capitalist! — £80 in building society interest, making a total income of £2,760. After listing all his outgoings, he refers to savings of £160 a year—probably to be generous to me as no doubt that sum is spent on leading the life of Riley. The second student has the £1,800 grant. I do not have time to go through all the expenses listed, but there is £600 left for travel and leisure.
I see my hon. Friend the Whip signalling that I have taken too much time, so I conclude with just one question about the board and lodging proposals which has recently been brought to my attention. I understand that residents in care homes at present receive no supplementary benefit if they leave the residential care home for a short period, for example, for a holiday, but I am told that under the new regulations that benefit will be paid. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm that. On that note, I bring my greatly truncated remarks to an end.
6.37 pm
Mrs. Margaret Beckett: This has been an interesting debate. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Raynsford), I was somewhat surprised at the tone adopted by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle), unusually for him, in his comments on the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). I understand the hon. Gentleman's wish to welcome the postponement of some of the major effects of the changes, but I was surprised at the extent of that welcome. The hon. Gentleman seemed to imagine that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West had taken most of his observations from The Guardian. Much as I admire that newspaper, I should point out gently to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar that the evidence adduced by my hon. Friend actually came from the large pile of documents accompanying the regulations.
There is no question but that the Minister glossed over the problems that will be caused for students. As so many hon. Members have pointed out, many students will lose substantially and will be forced into debt. Inevitably, this
1054
will be a further discouragement to students from poorer homes and perhaps especially to mature students. A constituent of mine has come to me over the years as the Government have steadily reduced her housing benefit. As a divorced lady with two small children, she has naturally faced increasing problems. She has now taken a great step for one in her circumstances and established herself as a mature student, only to find that the Government are still pursuing her and propose to reduce the benefit entitlement on which some of her financial calculations must have been based. Like so many others, she will no doubt find it hard to agree that the Government's position is justified.
It is especially difficult to justify the Government's refusal to allow students in halls of residence to claim benefit on the ground that the accommodation costs should not be so high in the first place. The National Union of Students would wholeheartedly concur with that view and has, indeed, been urging it on the Minister's colleagues at the Department of Education and Science for a considerable period—only to be told that keeping hall fees artificially low "would not be businesslike".
Perhaps, therefore, in view of the observations that have been made on the purpose of the regulations, the Minister would have a quiet word with his colleagues at the Department of Education and Science and tell them that if they cannot get on speedily with the third review of student grants in recent years they should examine again the charges that students are forced to meet. We hope that this time the review of student grants will be concluded, although presumably it will not be before the general election and certainly not before the regulations come into effect.
As to the board and lodging regulations, again we are dealing with a set of regulations which, as has been said many times in the House, have been from their inception completely discredited. The rationale of the changes is that under 26-year-olds could go home because most of them had left home frivolously anyway because they thought that it would be nice to live in seedy board and lodging accommodation. That seems to have been the argument for imposing the limits on the sums of money that they were allowed to draw. The hon. and learned Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lyell), who sadly is not with us at the moment, seemed not to be aware that students actually pay the money to the landlords in whose premises they live. They are not entitled to use that money to live on the fat of the land.
When the regulations were made, attention was drawn to the fact that they had been drawn up without evidence to support them. The Minister will recall that the Social Security Advisory Committee described such evidence as was quoted as anecdotal at best. The Minister has told us today that the evidence is now available. Certainly it is available in quantity although the quality may be questionable.
When we read the Government's own evidence and any independent evidence it is still not easy to see how it justifies the Government's claims. The Government have quoted some who, in the surveys that were done, indicated that they were satisfied with the accommodation that they were living in and thought that it was good value for money. What comes through clearly is that these people are in a different category from those with whom generally we are concerned when we debate the regulations. They are people who are living in reasonably satisfactory private accommodation. They are not the potentially homeless,

1055
the people who have quarrelled with their parents, the people who have no parents, the people who have been thrown out of their homes or the people who have nowhere else to go. The people who are vulnerable will remain vulnerable to the provisions of the regulations.
The Minister has tried to indicate that the reports that he has laid before the House show that the Government limits are adequate. The reports show that in 58 out of 134 offices where inquiries were made, the staff knew of at least one establishment where charges had, they believed, been reduced since the new reduced limits were introduced by the Government, something that the Government said would happen on a widespread basis. That is not the same as indicating that in the vast majority of cases charges would be reduced, as the Government appeared to imagine would happen.
It also remains a fact, again from the Government's own evidence, that in 76 out of 134 local offices surveyed not one establishment could be found where charges had been reduced. The Government's own evidence shows that about 60,000, or 47 per cent., of those involved have to pay sums that bring them above the Government's limits. Since these charges are and remain frozen, the number must steadily be rising, even though, as has already been quoted in the debate by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) among others, 70 to 80 per cent. of claimants in some areas are paying above the limits as they now stand.
If we consider the independent evidence that is coming forward and do not rely merely on the Government's evidence, the picture is even bleaker. Reference has been made in the debate to the fact that only 60 hotels could be found by an independent survey in London that were below the Government's limits, and that there were vacancies in only 22 of them. We are talking about a potential market of 10,000 claimants, so only a tiny percentage of the people who want accommodation can possibly find it at charges that are below the limit. To keep below the limit in that accommodation, on average four people have to share a room, and in some cases the number expected to share a room is as high as 12.
In Preston an independent survey has been carried out, first covering the bed and breakfast establishments and hotels listed in yellow pages. None of them was within the allowance and only one had ever taken people who were unemployed. The list provided by Preston housing advice centre gave a slightly better picture. All of its accommodation was within the maximum limit, but only one had vacancies. Again at all the establishments residents were expected to share rooms with strangers.
A similar picture emerges from an independent survey in Ipswich where no bed and breakfast accommodation within the cash limits was found and just one that purported to offer full board. Here again it is apparent that in order to meet their bills claimants have to use their meals allowance.
That brings me to the meals allowances themselves. The allowance is not over-generous, being £4·20 per day, and not having been increased for two years. Presumably that means that the Government now think that two years ago the sum of £4·20 was grossly over-generous since they have chosen not to increase it, although in that period not only have the costs of food risen by 12 per cent. but VAT has
1056
been imposed on take-away food, which must mean that the charges that people are expected to meet from the meals allowance have risen considerably.
Of course, we are glad that the Government have decided to allow couples to receive twice the rate of benefit for a single person since that is what landlords have always charged. There at least there is some recognition of reality, but is it still the case that no money is payable towards hotel charges that may be imposed for children under the age of 11 even though in London, for example, every hotel in which charges are below the limit makes a charge for such children?
In relation to under 26-year-olds, I want to draw attention to the implications of the non-householder addition which is being abolished by the regulations. The Government have argued in much of their evidence, and say that the supporting evidence is justification for their view, that people are being allowed to remain in accommodation at reduced payments on the basis that they may draw the non-householder addition. It is not clear from the evidence how justified the Government are in that claim. The surveys may have been carried out shortly after the limits were imposed. If the surveys had been done after a longer period, that might not have been a valid contention.
Even if the Government's contention that people are being allowed to retain the award of the non-householder addition is valid, what do the Government expect to happen when that addition is abolished, as will happen to under 25-year-olds under the regulations? In regard to the limits for board and lodging for bed and breakfast accommodation, the Government have relied on the argument that people can get the non-householder addition and that that will be sufficient. But when they do not get that addition, what do the Government expect them to do—to starve or to turn to crime?
In regard to residential homes, the Ernst and Whinney survey has been drawn on and emphasised by the Government even though it had only a 28 per cent. response rate. What did it cost the Department to obtain a survey of such unparalleled dimensions? Although the survey claimed that the limits that the Government had imposed were adequate, it collected costs at the start of 1985 and compared them with the limits that were established by the end of 1985, by which time the costs had probably risen. There is a rise for London but not for anywhere else because the Ernst and Whinney report says that the response rate was too low.
If limits are completely inadequate elsewhere, the Government do not know because the survey does not tell them. The table of average costs, on which it is claimed that the limits are adequate, is again based on shared rooms despite the fact that the Government's own code of practice advises that residents in such accommodation should preferably have single rooms. Yet when it comes to deciding whether the money is adequate, the Government make the decision on shared rooms rather than single rooms. Again, what the Government say conflicts with all the evidence.
The survey of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, which was published in February 1986, showed that average charges for voluntary homes were between £130 and £180, yet the Government are patting themselves on the back for having increased the limit to £125. In May, the Council for Care of the Elderly showed that even inexpensive, voluntary, non-profit making

1057
homes in London charged about £189, while many charged £220. Thus there is a deficit of at least £50 on the sum that the Government are allowing.
As people cannot meet those charges, about one third of the more than 50,000 people in geriatric wards, who would like to leave, are stuck there, even though it costs the taxpayer at least £300 to £320 to keep them in unsuitable accommodation, It is not clear from what has been said, although I thought that we had got things clear at Question Time yesterday, whether people who become blind or otherwise incapacitated and who are over pension age will continue to receive only the lower rate of benefit. I thought that we had clarified that point, but it seemed less clear from what the Minister said.
I shall repeat a point that he put when the statement was first made. If, as the Government argue, the general limits that they are imposing are adequate, why increase the transitional protection? What is the argument for that? The transitional protection applies only to limits that are already above the figure that the Government are giving. If it has to be increased, the limits must be inadequate. That seems to follow logically.
I am sorry to say that, once again, in these regulations the Government are attacking the victims rather than the problem. They have carried out research and surveys, not in order to establish what the problem is, or to find out how to solve it, but to justify what they did, and were overturned in the courts for doing three times during the past year. Once again this Government are flying in the face of all independent evidence, of much of their own evidence. Once again, unfortunately, it is the vulnerable, elderly, young and handicapped who are suffering.
6.51 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. John Major): We have had an interesting and wide-ranging debate, and in the few minutes left to me I shall endeavour to answer as many of the important matters raised as possible.
Throughout the debate I have been particularly struck by the fact that, with the possible exception of the reservations expressed by the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Raynsford), there seems to be general concurrence with the basic principle that benefits are an inappropriate way of supporting students. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lyell) made that point, as did other hon. Members, and the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) certainly conceded more than a general nod in that direction. I am delighted that on that point, at least, there seems to be an element of near consensus.
There can, of course, be very severe and legitimate conflict about the nature and extent of student support through the grants system. But the fact that there is a broad consensus about how the assistance can be delivered gives us a worthwhile and useful backcloth to the inquiries established by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. I shall, in particular, draw his attention to the blandishments of the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) about what may or may not be in his report. I am sure that he will give that due care and consideration.
The original package of measures that we put to the SSAC and the local authority associations was designed primarily to tackle those aspects of the present arrangements that we felt could not be justified either in
1058
principle—I have in mind the double provision of grants and unemployment benefit during the short vacations—or in administrative terms— I have in mind the need to reassess housing benefit by up to six times a year under the present system. The advisory committee and the local authority associations had little to quarrel with in principle. But they of course had some concerns about the practical effects.
In these regulations we have sought as far as we think proper to respond to those concerns. The result is the revised package before the House today, which still tackles the most wasteful aspects of the system, but which has been very considerably modified to reduce its impact on students, and I am grateful to those hon. Members who made that point today.
At the beginning of his speech, the hon. Member for Oldham, West asked what might be thought to be the fundamental question. He referred to the student changes and asked why we should cause this upheaval when there appeared to be only small savings. He correctly quoted the figures, and asked why we should cause what he saw as major inequities between students. There are several observations to make about that, as it is an important point.
I am not sure that I accept—and if the hon. Member for Oldham, West was standing at this Dispatch Box, I am not sure that he would accept it either—that a saving of £16 million in a full year is an insignificant sum, particularly bearing in mind, say, the double provision of grants and unemployment benefit during the short vacations. My hon. Friend the Minister has already pointed out the wholly disproportionate administrative costs of delivering very small amounts of benefit. It is absurd to have a £1 million administrative cost for delivering £3 million of unemployment benefit and to have a £3 million administrative cost for delivering £5 million of housing benefit for halls of residence. That is not a worthwhile use of the limited resources that any Secretary of State has to hand. I think that the hon. Gentleman would recognise that if he was in charge of these regulations—[Interruption.]
The hon. Members for Derby, South and for Oldham, West spoke about the failure, as they saw it, to control prices in the context of the social security policy inspectorate study. They clearly felt that the proposals had failed to control prices and that landlords had not dropped them. However, we have very firm indications from our local offices throughout the country that landlords have held, and in other places dropped, their prices significantly. More than 85 per cent. of our local offices are known to have experienced charges being maintained at the same levels when price rises would have been automatic if limits had been increased after November 1984.
In the south London and south-west regions—two regions with a high number of boarders and incidences of reported abuse — more than 90 per cent. of offices confirmed that charges had been pegged. That is an important point.
I should tell the hon. Member for Derby, South, that, if I remember correctly, the cost of Ernst and Whinney was approximately £110,000. However, if that is inaccurate I shall write to tell her.
I was asked about help for families with children. Children aged over 11, who would normally be expected to occupy a separate room, are eligible for the adult rate,

1059
whereas younger children receive one and a half times the normal scale rate, with an amount for personal expenses on top.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) felt that housing benefit should be withdrawn more gradually. The changes that we are making do not affect the greater part of housing benefit expenditure on students. Entitlement remains for those in private accommodation, and for any student who stays in his accommodation in the summer when he has no grant resource, even if he is in a hall of residence. We are therefore seeking to meet the point that concerns my hon. Friend, and, time permitting, I shall return to some of his other comments later.
The hon. Member for Fulham referred to the non-householder contribution, and asked how many non-householders currently receiving the non-householder contribution would cease to receive it. The answer is none. We have ensured in the regulations that all existing recipients of the contribution will not be affected by the changes. There will, therefore, be no cash losers. Similarly, where a non-dependant deduction is made in respect of a 21 to 24-year-old on supplementary benefit, it will continue to be made.
I was also asked how many students in halls of residence received housing benefit. Our estimate is that there are between 80,000 and 85,000 students in halls of residence who claim housing benefit currently, but that in many cases the weekly entitlement is very small indeed.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) spoke about the abuse of housing benefit by landlords. I responded substantially to his point in my intervention, as did my hon. Friend the Minister, but I have also written to him on that point and I hope that he will receive the letter within a day or so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) raised a specific point about another area requiring reform which was forcibly brought to my attention by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins). That was the need for retaining fees for temporary absence from care. That was a sensitive and acute problem. As the House will be aware, residential care and nursing homes are increasingly the permanent home for elderly and disabled people. I am glad that the changes we have made to retaining fees will enable many elderly people to take a holiday from such homes without an unfortunate effect on them or the home that is now their permanent home.
We have received a substantial amount of support for the regulations on housing benefit for students. I believe that the regulations are defendable in principle, defendable in logic, and defendable in equity. I commend them to the House.
It being Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to the Order [27 June].
Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Supplementary Benefit (Requirements and Resources) Miscellaneous Amendment Regulations 1986, which were laid before this House on 18th June, be approved.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [27 June], to put forthwith the Question on the remaining motion.

SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT
Resolved,
That the draft Supplementary Benefit (Requirements and Resources) Amendment Regulations 1986, which were laid before this House on 26th June, be approved.—[Mr. Newton.]

HOUSING BENEFIT
Motion made, and Question put,
That a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Housing Benefits Amendment (No. 3) Regulations 1986 (S.I., 1986, No. 1009), dated 13th June 1986, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th June, be annulled.—[Mr. Rooker.]
The House divided: Ayes 160, Noes 232.

Division No. 241]

[7 pm

AYES

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Foster, Derek

Alton, David

Foulkes, George

Anderson, Donald

Fraser, J. (Norwood)

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Garrett, W. E.

Ashdown, Paddy

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Ashton, Joe

Gourlay, Harry

Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

Hamilton, James (M'well N)

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Hancock, Michael

Barnett, Guy

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Beckett, Mrs Margaret

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Bell, Stuart

Heffer, Eric S.

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)

Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

Bermingham, Gerald

Home Robertson, John

Bidwell, Sydney

Howells, Geraint

Boyes, Roland

Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)

Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)

John, Brynmor

Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

Johnston, Sir Russell

Buchan, Norman

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Caborn, Richard

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

Kennedy, Charles

Canavan, Dennis

Kirkwood, Archy

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Leadbitter, Ted

Cartwright, John

Leighton, Ronald

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Clarke, Thomas

Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

Clay, Robert

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Clelland, David Gordon

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

McCartney, Hugh

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Cohen, Harry

McKelvey, William

Conlan, Bernard

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

Maclennan, Robert

Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

McTaggart, Robert

Corbett, Robin

Madden, Max

Corbyn, Jeremy

Marek, Dr John

Craigen, J. M.

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Crowther, Stan

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)

Maxton, John

Deakins, Eric

Maynard, Miss Joan

Dewar, Donald

Meacher, Michael

Dixon, Donald

Meadowcroft, Michael

Dormand, Jack

Michie, William

Douglas, Dick

Mikardo, Ian

Dubs, Alfred

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Duffy, A. E. P.

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

Nellist, David

Eastham, Ken

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Evans, John (St. Helens N)

O'Brien, William

Ewing, Harry

Park, George

Fatchett, Derek

Patchett, Terry

Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

Pavitt, Laurie

Fisher, Mark

Pendry, Tom

Flannery, Martin

Penhaligon, David

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Pike, Peter

Forrester, John

Prescott, John

1061

Radice, Giles

Soley, Clive

Randall, Stuart

Spearing, Nigel

Raynsford, Nick

Steel, Rt Hon David

Richardson, Ms Jo

Stott, Roger

Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

Straw, Jack

Rogers, Allan

Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

Rooker, J. W.

Thorne, Stan (Preston)

Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

Tinn, James

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Wainwright, R.

Rowlands, Ted

Wallace, James

Sedgemore, Brian

Wareing, Robert

Sheerman, Barry

Williams, Rt Hon A.

Shields, Mrs Elizabeth

Wilson, Gordon

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Winnick, David

Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

Woodall, Alec

Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Silkin, Rt Hon J.

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Skinner, Dennis

Smith, C.(lsl'ton S & F'bury)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)

Mr. Ray Powell and

Snape, Peter

Mr. Allen McKay.

NOES

Adley, Robert

Fookes, Miss Janet

Alexander, Richard

Forman, Nigel

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Amess, David

Forth, Eric

Ancram, Michael

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

Franks, Cecil

Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

Freeman, Roger

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Fry, Peter

Batiste, Spencer

Gale, Roger

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Galley, Roy

Bellingham, Henry

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Benyon, William

Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

Best, Keith

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Bevan, David Gilroy

Glyn, Dr Alan

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Bottomley, Peter

Gorst, John

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Gow, Ian

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Gower, Sir Raymond

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Greenway, Harry

Bright, Graham

Gregory, Conal

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

Griffiths, Sir Eldon

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Browne, John

Gummer, Rt Hon John S

Bruinvels, Peter

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

Hampson, Dr Keith

Burt, Alistair

Hanley, Jeremy

Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)

Hargreaves, Kenneth

Carttiss, Michael

Harris, David

Chapman, Sydney

Harvey, Robert

Chope, Christopher

Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

Churchill, W. S.

Hawksley, Warren

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Hayes, J.

Cockeram, Eric

Hayward, Robert

Colvin, Michael

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Conway, Derek

Heddle, John

Coombs, Simon

Henderson, Barry

Cope, John

Hickmet, Richard

Couchman, James

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Cranborne, Viscount

Hind, Kenneth

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Hirst, Michael

Dorrell, Stephen

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

Durant, Tony

Holt, Richard

Emery, Sir Peter

Hordern, Sir Peter

Fallon, Michael

Howard, Michael

Favell, Anthony

Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

Fletcher, Alexander

Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)

1062

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Proctor, K. Harvey

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Rathbone, Tim

Hunter, Andrew

Rhodes James, Robert

Jackson, Robert

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

Jones, Robert (Herts W)

Roe, Mrs Marion

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Rost, Peter

Key, Robert

Rowe, Andrew

King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

Ryder, Richard

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Lang, Ian

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Lawler, Geoffrey

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Lawrence, Ivan

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Lee, John (Pendle)

Shersby, Michael

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Sims, Roger

Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Lord, Michael

Speed, Keith

Lyell, Nicholas

Speller, Tony

McCrindle, Robert

Spencer, Derek

McCurley, Mrs Anna

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Macfarlane, Neil

Stanbrook, Ivor

MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

Steen, Anthony

MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

Stern, Michael

Maclean, David John

Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Major, John

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Malins, Humfrey

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Maples, John

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Marland, Paul

Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

Marlow, Antony

Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

Mates, Michael

Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

Mather, Carol

Thornton, Malcolm

Maude, Hon Francis

Thurnham, Peter

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Tracey, Richard

Mellor, David

van Straubenzee, Sir W.

Merchant, Piers

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Waddington, David

Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Miscampbell, Norman

Waldegrave, Hon William

Moate, Roger

Walden, George

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Walker, Bill (T'side N)

Moore, Rt Hon John

Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester

Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

Wall, Sir Patrick

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Waller, Gary

Moynihan, Hon C.

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Neale, Gerrard

Warren, Kenneth

Nelson, Anthony

Watson, John

Neubert, Michael

Watts, John

Newton, Tony

Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

Nicholls, Patrick

Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

Normanton, Tom

Wheeler, John

Norris, Steven

Whitfield, John

Onslow, Cranley

Wiggin, Jerry

Oppenheim, Phillip

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Ottaway, Richard

Winterton, Nicholas

Page, Richard (Herts SW)

Wolfson, Mark

Pawsey, James

Wood, Timothy

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Yeo, Tim

Pollock, Alexander

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Porter, Barry

Younger, Rt Hon George

Portillo, Michael

Powley, John

Tellers for the Noes:

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd and

Price, Sir David

Mr. Archie Hamilton.

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day
  Housing (Scotland) Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Housing (Scotland) Bill
    Clause 2

      INCREASED DISCOUNT WHERE DWELLING-HOUSE PURCHASED IS A FLAT
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 12, leave out "(2)" and insert "(3)".
      7.11 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 4.
      Mr. Ancram: Hon. Members may recall that when the Bill had its Report stage on 4 March concern was expressed that the provisions of clause 2, which provides for improved discount on flats, did not go far enough, and in particular were less generous than the corresponding provisions of the Housing and Planning Bill, as it had been amended in Standing Committee.
      On that occasion, I said that I recognised the strength of the views which had been expressed. I accepted also that it would not be right in principle for tenants who live in similar houses to have a different entitlement to discount in England and Scotland. I said, therefore, that the Government would look again at the discount which should be available on flats. The present amendments are the result.
      As introduced, the Bill proposed that discount on flats under the right to buy should be increased by 10 per cent. Under our original proposals, people buying a flat would have been entitled to a new minimum discount of 42 per cent. after two years, rising to 70 per cent. after 30 years.
      Amendments Nos. 1 to 3 provide a better deal for flat purchasers. We are now proposing that discount entitlement should rise by steps of 2 per cent. each year, instead of 1 per cent. as at present. A tenant with the minimum of two years standing will therefore be entitled to a discount of 44 per cent. on a flat, and the maximum of 70 per cent. will be reached after 15 years.
      The upper and lower limits of the discount scale on flats sold under the right to buy will therefore remain virtually the same as in the Bill as introduced. However, the time required in order to qualify for the maximum discount will be halved. This will benefit the tenants of all types of flats. It recognises that, because of the way in which local authority allocation systems operate, tenants of flats tend to be younger people, and I believe that the amendments will be particularly welcomed by younger purchasers taking their first steps into home ownership.
      These amendments fulfil the undertaking I gave to this House in March that we would again see whether we could improve our proposals for discounts on flats. They are consistent with amendments which have been carried to the Housing and Planning Bill, so that the rules on entitlement to discount will remain the same in Scotland
      1064
      as in England. I believe that the amendments will contribute to our aim of further promoting home ownership amongst tenants of council flats. I am confident that they will be particularly welcomed by younger purchasers.
      Mr. John Maxton: These amendments are horrendous. The more I look at them, the more horrendous they become. I should like first to deal with the reasons why the Government considered it necessary to introduce them at all. The reason which we have been given is that the majority of members of the Standing Committee on the Housing and Planning Bill decided that they wanted a change in the upper discount for those who lived in high-rise or deck-access flats—hard-to-let flats—in England and Wales.
      The Government said that the House believed that there should be an improved discount, but that was not the view of the majority on the Standing Committee on the Housing (Scotland) Bill. If the Under-Secretary of State is going to plead, as did the Secretary of State on Monday, how good it is that we have separate Scottish legislation and that things can be done differently in Scotland, it ill becomes him to say that, just because something has happened in England and Wales, he will immediately bring Scotland into line. It should not work that way.
      We shall see when we consider later Lords amendments that the Government are not prepared to go along with what happens in England and Wales; yet, in this measure, which is another attempt to give away housing, that is what the Under-Secretary of State is prepared to do.
      It must be continually pointed out that there is a difference between England and Wales in council housing stock and attitudes to housing. In England, the proportion of housing that is council controlled and the proportion of those council dwellings that are flats are considerably smaller than in Scotland. The attitude to renting in Scotland is based on a much stronger tradition than in England, and most people would happily accept that attitude. There is a difference of which the Government should take account when considering council house sales and tenants' rights. We must look at Scotland in a different way.
      The amendments go considerably wider than the original proposal in Committee on the Housing and Planning Bill, which was limited to what were considered to be hard-to-let flats in high-rise blocks and deck-access blocks. This group of amendments extends to every flat in council ownership. By the Government's definition, that includes attractive—certainly in Glasgow terms— four-in-a-block flats. Those flats can be found in the constituencies of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and of hon. Members from Glasgow and the west of Scotland as well as in my constituency. They are the most desirable form of housing in the Glasgow district council's stock. The provision to do something about hard-to-let property is now being extended to highly desirable property, giving those who are in housing in which they want to live anyway a massive and accelerated discount.
      I shall give an example of a person who lives in a Glasgow council flat in Moss Park, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan), or in Knightswood, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden. Both areas are sought after by council house tenants in Glasgow. At

      1065
      present—I have checked this with the Glasgow district council—a flat there would be valued at approximately £21,000. Someone who originally got a tenancy from the Glasgow district council or from any other district council at the age of 21 could, at the age of 35, purchase that house —he may not have lived in it for more than one day—for £6,300. Three years later he can sell the house for £21,000. I am not including any profit he may make, but I accept that he will probably get something for inflation, so he would probably sell it at £22,500 or £23,000. However, even if he sold it for £21,000 he is making £14,700 at the age of 37. I wish at the age of 37 someone had given me a lump sum of £14,700 to spend on my housing. Many people who have always lived in the private sector would have loved to have had that amount of money to invest in their housing at the age of 37 or 38.
      Let us look at exactly what that means. The people who sell their flats in that way have £14,700. What have they paid out for that flat over 15 years? At present the amount paid by council house tenants in somewhere such as Mosspark is about £100 a month in rent and rates. Therefore, they are paying approximately £1,200 a year. Fifteen years ago they were paying about £20 a month in rent and rates. If we average it out and say that over the 15 years they have paid an average of £500 a year in rent and rates, they are now taking away almost double what they have paid in for their housing. Therefore, they have had their house for 15 years rent and rates free. In fact, they have been paid to live in that council house for 15 years. That is what this amendment means.
      Mr. Ancram: It is a flat.
      Mr. Maxton: The Minister is obviously now very embarrassed and squirming because he has no answer other than to sit there and say "flat" every time I say "house". If Hansard would like to put in "flat" every time I say "house" that will suit me fine. I shall say "flat" because these are highly desirable flats.
      Mr. David Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that he should perhaps reinvestigate the value of the houses. I am astonished to hear him say that they are only £21,000. I have houses in my constituency —they are houses, not flats—with three bedrooms and a front door and a garden or, in many cases, a side door and a garden. They are in the most desirable parts of the city. In Sandyhills in my constituency they are valued at £26,000. They are very desirable houses. I think that my hon. Friend's figures slightly undervalue the houses. No one in Glasgow would describe them as flats.
      Mr. Maxton: My hon. Friend makes a good point. However, I phoned Glasgow district council this afternoon to check the figures and it said that the valuation for a three-bedroomed fiat in Mosspark is £21,000. That is the valuation for sale which is based on the fact that there is a sitting tenant. If one buys a property for investment and it has a sitting tenant, one buys it at a cheaper price than if it has vacant possession. The Minister always claims that that is what the discounts are about. But that is another matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston is right; the person may be able to sell it three years later for £28,000 or £29,000. I am being modest in saying it would be sold for £21,000. Therefore, the profit margin is bigger. What I am saying is that, even if it is sold at the price it was bought for, the person will have been paid roughly
      1066
      £500 a year for each of the 15 years he has lived in that house rent and rates free. That is an absolute rip-off of public property. It has nothing to do with the principle of whether one buys or sells. It is to do with whether we have a Government who have any regard for public expenditure and the public purse. They keep claiming that that is what the Government are about.
      Mr. Ancram: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman's argument. He suggests that these flats—I use the word advisedly because it is the word in the amendment—are attractive and that therefore any help to people to buy them is, in effect, a rip-off. If they are so attractive, can he tell me how many of the flats are at present being sold to their sitting tenants?
      Mr. David Marshall: Too many.
      Mr. Maxton: I would accept that in Glasgow there has not been any great rush to buy. Surely that might just say to the Minister that his policy is wrong and that the tenants in Glasgow do not particularly want to buy their houses. He is doing everything to get rid of them. He is giving them away now. He is telling people they can live rent and rates free for 15 years and the Government will then pay them a bonus of £500 for every year they have been in the house—sorry, I mean flat. I must get it right or the Minister will complain. As my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston said, many people consider those four-in-a-block flats as houses because many of them are on the ground floor and have a garden, a drive and a garage and all the things most people would consider to be highly desirable. Of course there are other flats. [Interruption.] The Minister says that they are selling increasingly. Yes, they are selling. [Interruption.] The Minister says "Good" because he wants to be rid of them. If the Minister or his right hon. and hon. Friends were to show the same disregard for the shares of the British Gas Corporation or British Telecom he would be rooted out of the Government by his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister so fast that his feet would not touch the ground because his action would be against every principle that the Government stand for — probity in terms of public finance, controlling public expenditure and trying to ensure that we have efficiency in the public sector. The Government are giving away money and giving away public property at knock-down prices not even for the sake of a principle because there is nothing principled about it. They have an antipathy and hatred of all that is in local authority control and they want to do something about it. They are trying to give away the flats.
      I can assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I shall be urging all my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against this amendment.
      Mr. Hugh Brown: I know we need to be brief but it would be wrong to let this pass without having another observation on it. I must say to the Minister in the kindest possible way that the Bill has been badly handled. I would describe it as a complete and utter shambles. It was not prepared properly and there have not been enough discussions. He knows that to be true. Then it had to suffer so many defeats in the Lords. Perhaps there is a badge to be awarded to Ministers who reverse unpopular decisions made in the other place by their own supporters.
      I am not sure what our view is on this. Perhaps somebody will put me right if I am wrong. I do not

      1067
      necessarily believe that it has to be on all fours with the discount in England and Wales. It is difficult because if there is something better or more generous in England and Wales we would be complaining if we did not have a right to it. Therefore, there is an element of doubt about the right way to proceed in this. I am not concerned about whether the aim is to be on all fours with England and Wales. I am looking at the matter purely on the basis of whether the change in the discount is a good thing. I believe that it is not.
      7.30 pm
      Obviously, I slipped up on this. When we discussed the Bill on Second Reading and in Committee, I confess that I did not realise that a flat was what we would call a four-in-a-block house. That is typical of technical descriptions not being in accordance with what things are popularly understood to be. I am sure that that was an omission on my part, and that there has been no change, as the Minister said.
      Most of the flats about which I am concerned are in good quality housing areas. To me, a flat is a tenement flat, and there are many of them in good housing areas. In Riddrie, for example, we would be giving a 70 per cent. discount in good quality property in a highly desirable area with one of the highest amenity groupings in Glasgow. Frankly, the lengths to which the Government are going to keep up their statistics for the number of houses being sold are absurd. That is what is behind it.
      I refuse to give the Government credit for having a housing policy.
      Mr. Ancram: What about the Green Paper?
      Mr. Brown: The Minister quotes the Green Paper to me with great regularity, but he is not getting away with it this time. It was never my intention to go along the road of flinging houses away at a 70 per cent. discount after 15 years' tenancy.
      The disadvantage is that these are good houses. I do not want to rehearse all the arguments. If they are not being sold now under the present discount, this little bonus will have little or no effect. That is my guess. It might look all right, but I do not think that there will be much effect. The present level of discount is so generous that if people have not bought their houses by now I doubt whether the extra discount will make a great difference. Therefore, I do not see the need for the amendment. On that general principle, I shall vote against it.
      The Bill is a shambles. This is the third attempt by the Government to change the discounts in fewer than five years. They will have to realise this sooner or later. There is a growing hope among many families in what are called difficult-to-let areas that they will move out of those areas. They cannot afford to take on a mortgage because they are on low income or supplementary benefit. If they cannot move out or have no hope of moving out, there is greater hopelessness. I warn the Minister that sooner or later, whether it is drug abuse, alcohol abuse or violence, the end result to the big housing estates will be social trouble of one sort or another. The Government, who do not care about those problems, much as they always say they do—
      Mr. Ancram: We do care.
      Mr. Brown: If the Government had any knowledge or feeling for those problems, they would be putting more resources into those areas than they are now. This is a trivial way in which to pursue an ideological objective. I know that we shall not win in the vote tonight, but I have no compunction about voting against the amendment. I hope that the public will realise that this Government are a poor substitute for a housing policy. The sooner we get a Government who know something about housing the better.
      Sir Russell Johnston: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) put a contradictory case. He said that this was a bad proposition and then he said that it would not make much difference and that it was essentially trivial. If it is essentially trivial, I am not sure why we are making such a tremendous fuss about it.
      Secondly, we are not making a judgment on the absence of a housing policy, which, I agree, is true in respect of the Government. Throughout the Committee I took the position that we in the alliance support the right to buy, and accept that the various incentives that the Government have introduced with a view to improving the possibility of people doing so and enabling those in some difficulty to do so more easily may be a crude form of redistribution, but it is a form of redistribution. I recognise it as such.
      The Government have failed in that, while being willing to reduce the available public stock by the amount that is sold, at the same time they have been unwilling to make available to the local authority the necessary finance to provide more general needs housing. Therefore, I do not see any particular contradiction in saying that I accept the system of discount, but that does not lead me to say that I think that the Government have a housing policy or that this is a central issue in housing policy, or, further, that they should not make available more money for general needs housing.
      Mr. Donald Dewar: I accept for the moment that the hon. Gentleman is in favour of a sales policy and sees a discount as a form of redistribution. Is he happy with the rather arbitrary way in which people who may be in the most attractive and desirable properties with the largest possibility of capital gains are being given an unnatural advantage in an accelerated discount buildup as against other tenants who might want to buy their council houses? Is not the hon. Gentleman slightly offended by the illogicality of the amendment?
      Sir Russell Johnston: It is not exactly illogicality; it is a fact that one cannot devise the perfect legislative way of doing it. Some people will benefit considerably. The hon. Gentleman is right about that. It is also a fact that people who are buying are the best off. They are the people who are best able to do it. The other side of the argument is that the Minister would reasonably say, "I am giving them, on an incremental basis, a considerable discount that will enable certain people who otherwise would not be able to contemplate purchase to do so." Although the system produces the unfairnesses and disparities that the hon. Gentleman properly puts his finger on, I am prepared to thole that in pursuit of the other general principle.
      Mr. Barry Henderson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Sir Russell Johnson: I am sure that you would be happier if I sat down, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Henderson: I had not intended to speak, but I should like to make a point arising out of the exchange between the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar).
      I am puzzled by the position of the alliance. To say that the alliance is in favour of sales is perhaps going too far. It is not against sales, which is the way in which the alliance tends to express its policy. It sounds as if it is not against sales in a few selective cases that it can imagine on occasions. It is not in favour of the right to buy. If I remember correctly, the Liberals have always voted against any extension of the discount system.
      In the exchange between the two hon. Members to whom I referred, it seemed to me that the hon. Member for Garscadden was implying that the people covered by this part of the Bill are particularly favoured, but surely we are talking about flats—large blocks of flats. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
      Mr. Maxton: That is the point. We are not necessarily talking about large blocks of flats. If the hon. Gentleman has been in Glasgow he will have seen what are called four-in-a-block houses, where there are only four flats in one building. Therefore, they are deemed by the Bill to be flats which could be sold with the discount.
      Mr. Henderson: The hon. Gentleman's point might have had a little more validity if the distinction which he makes had been made in amendments tabled by the Opposition during the passage of the Bill. I was not a member of the Committee that considered the Bill. The Opposition may have moved amendments in Committee, in which case I apologise, but I was not aware of amendments appearing on the Floor of the House. In general, flats are not the most popular types of council houses available. They are not the most popular types of houses for people in the housing associations sector. To suggest that a specially privileged group has been given some special deal is fallacious. The Government's policy is much more reasonable.
      The Labour party has consistently made it clear where it stands on the issue. I wish that we could obtain the same clarity from the Liberal party. It seems to be trying to find a position somewhere between the Labour party and the Tory party. There is no logical position on which it can rest its case.
      Mr. Ancram: With the leave of the House, may I sum up some points that have been made in the debate? Had my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) been on the Committee he would have had no difficulty with the position of the Liberal spokesman, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) who, like his colleague the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on a previous Bill, proved that the Liberal policy is simple. The Liberal party is for the principle of the right to buy but against the practice. It is a good position, and one which I am sure it will try to maintain for many years to come.
      The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) continues to accuse me of not having a housing policy. If he considers the policy that has been operated by the Government since 1979 he will discover that he, if not its
      1070
      direct father, at least has a close relationship with it in terms of the Green Paper for which he was responsible in 1977, and to which Conservative Members have always given more credence than his hon. Friends and colleagues gave it when it was published.
      Mr. Dewar: It is a splendid document.
      Mr. Ancram: I am delighted to hear from the Opposition Front Bench spokesman that that is incorrect and that he regards it as a splendid document. I look forward to the greatest support from him for our housing policy.
      The hon. Member for Provan made the valid point that we keep changing the discount. He is a man who believes in learning by experience. When the discounts were introduced in 1980, it was understood by all that, as we saw how it worked, we would review it. I do not wish to discuss in detail the figures which were given a great airing in Committee, but it is clear from the figures that flats, and that includes four-in-a-block houses, have not sold as well as ordinary council houses. The figure that I gave in Committee was somewhere between 4 and 5 per cent. That is the upper limit of the figure of flats, although there is a distinction between the types of flats. That compares with 14 per cent. for self-contained houses.
      The reason for that, as I tried to say earlier during the course of the legislation, is that there are extra obligations and undertakings when buying a flat which do not exist when buying a self-contained house. The most obvious of those are the common charges for which the owner might be liable. That was why we moved an amendment to increase the discount to 70 per cent. During Committee proceedings on the Housing and Planning Bill, Opposition Members moved an amendment to introduce a better discount scheme for flats—
      Mr. Maxton rose—
      Mr. Ancram: Allow me to finish. I never give way in the middle of a sentence. I shall give way when I have finished it. During the course of the legislation, we accepted that we should reconsider types of flats, and the people who live in them. I understood, perhaps wrongly, that the Labour party intended to encourage and help younger house purchasers. Here is an example, as I said in my earlier remarks, where that could be achieved by giving a better rate of discount to those who live in flats, accepting that most of them are young.
      On the basis of the experience of the right-to-buy policy, we accepted that further changes in the discount were required, and they have been made. When the Bill was in the other place, their Lordships — from all political parties—did not see fit to divide on this matter, so the principle was given credence in that House.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Maxton: The Minister should not distort that amendment. It did not refer to flats; it referred to a specific group of flats which are recognised as being hard to let and hard to sell. They are high-rise deck-access flats. That amendment did not extend to all flats as this amendment does.
      Mr. Ancram: I accept that the hon. Gentleman's colleagues made it clear in Committee that they were not averse to the principle of applying higher discounts to flats that are hard to let. They accepted that there were good reasons in some cases for applying discounts. That is not

      1071
      the line that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) has taken this evening. He has once again shown us—I shall not ask him again what the Labour party policy is, since I have asked him enough times—that the Labour party, whatever the fudge that came out of its conference last March, is still opposed to the right to buy. That is the basic objection. On that basis, the hon. Gentleman is asking his hon. Friends to vote against the amendment. On that basis, I call on my hon. Friends to support the amendment.
      Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 166, Noes 91.

      Division No. 242]

      [7.46 pm

      AYES

      Alton, David

      Holt, Richard

      Ancram, Michael

      Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)

      Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

      Howells, Geraint

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Hunter, Andrew

      Best, Keith

      Jackson, Robert

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Bright, Graham

      Jones, Robert (Herts W)

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

      Kennedy, Charles

      Browne, John

      King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

      Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Knox, David

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Lang, Ian

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Lawler, Geoffrey

      Colvin, Michael

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Coombs, Simon

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Cope, John

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

      Lord, Michael

      Dunn, Robert

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Durant, Tony

      MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

      Emery, Sir Peter

      MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

      Favell, Anthony

      Maclean, David John

      Fletcher, Alexander

      McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Major, John

      Forth, Eric

      Malins, Humfrey

      Franks, Cecil

      Marland, Paul

      Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

      Marlow, Antony

      Freeman, Roger

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Gale, Roger

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

      Meadowcroft, Michael

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Mellor, David

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Merchant, Piers

      Gorst, John

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

      Hancock, Michael

      Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Moynihan, Hon C.

      Harris, David

      Mudd, David

      Harvey, Robert

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

      Normanton, Tom

      Hawksley, Warren

      Norris, Steven

      Hayes, J.

      Onslow, Cranley

      Hayward, Robert

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Page, Richard (Herts SW)

      Heddle, John

      Pawsey, James

      Henderson, Barry

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hickmet, Richard

      Penhaligon, David

      Hicks, Robert

      Pollock, Alexander

      Hirst, Michael

      Portillo, Michael

      Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

      Powley, John

      1072

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Raffan, Keith

      Thurnham, Peter

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Tracey, Richard

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Rost, Peter

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Rowe, Andrew

      Waddington, David

      Ryder, Richard

      Walden, George

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Walker, Bill (T'side N)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Wallace, James

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Waller, Gary

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Speed, Keith

      Watson, John

      Speller, Tony

      Watts, John

      Spencer, Derek

      Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Wheeler, John

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Whitfield, John

      Steen, Anthony

      Wilson, Gordon

      Stern, Michael

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

      Yeo, Tim

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Mr. Archie Hamilton and

      Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

      Mr. Michael Newbert.

      NOES

      Anderson, Donald

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

      Home Robertson, John

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Janner, Hon Greville

      Barnett, Guy

      John, Brynmor

      Beckett, Mrs Margaret

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)

      Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Boyes, Roland

      McCartney, Hugh

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

      McKelvey, William

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Buchan, Norman

      Maxton, John

      Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Meacher, Michael

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Michie, William

      Clay, Robert

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Clelland, David Gordon

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Nellist, David

      Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

      Patchett, Terry

      Conlan, Bernard

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

      Prescott, John

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Randall, Stuart

      Craigen, J. M.

      Richardson, Ms Jo

      Deakins, Eric

      Rogers, Allan

      Dewar, Donald

      Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

      Dixon, Donald

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Dormand, Jack

      Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

      Douglas, Dick

      Skinner, Dennis

      Dubs, Alfred

      Smith, C.(lsl'ton S & F'bury)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Snape, Peter

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Spearing, Nigel

      Eastham, Ken

      Stott, Roger

      Evans, John (St. Helens N)

      Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

      Ewing, Harry

      Tinn, James

      Fatchett, Derek

      Wareing, Robert

      Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

      Winnick, David

      Fisher, Mark

      Woodall, Alec

      Flannery, Martin

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Foster, Derek

      Foulkes, George

      Tellers for the Noes:

      George, Bruce

      Mr. Allen Adams and

      Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

      Mr. James Hamilton.

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

    New Clause

      REMOVAL OF RESTRICTION ON SECURITY OF TENURE
      Lords amendment: No. 6, after clause 9, insert the following new clause:
      "A — In Schedule 1 to the 1980 Act, paragraph 1 (tenancy not to he secure tenancy if for period exceeding 20 years) shall cease to have effect."
      8 pm
      Mr. Ancram: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 13 and 14.
      Mr. Ancram: The purpose of amendments 6 and 14 is to repeal paragraph 1 of schedule 1 to the Tenants' Rights Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980. This paragraph provides that the tenancy shall not be a secure tenancy, and therefore the tenant shall not have the right to buy, if it is for a period of more than 20 years. The effect of the present amendments is that tenants who have such long leases will in future be secure tenants and will enjoy the right to buy, no matter whether they entered into the long lease before or after the date the Bill comes into effect.
      The amendment clears up the confusion which existed earlier for tenants in the Central region. Earlier in the year, we learnt that the Central regional council was seeking to persuade its tenants, who presently do not have security of tenure, to enter into 21-year leases or to buy their property at a 10 per cent. discount. It was clear that by this means the council hoped to prevent tenants being given security of tenure and the right to buy at full discount when the Bill came into force. That would not be acceptable and the amendment makes it clear that that cannot be done.
      Mr. Michael Forsyth: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for moving the amendment, which will affect a number of my constituents. I believe that the Central regional council, in seeking to persuade its tenants either to buy their properties at a 10 per cent. discount or to enter into a 21-year lease, was involved in a thoroughly cynical and reprehensible act, which caused considerable concern and upset to tenants. We hear from some sections of the Labour party that they are not opposed to the right to buy, but on this occasion the Central regional council did everything possible to remove that right from its tenants. This was thoroughly disgraceful and considerable distress was caused. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the speedy way in which he has acted. I am delighted to be able to convey to him considerable gratitude from my constituents who will benefit from the amendment.
      Mr. Maxton: We shall not oppose the amendment, but I do wish that the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) would stop parading his vindictive prejudices against the Central regional council.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to. [Special Entry.]

    New Clause

      FUNCTIONS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES WITH RESPECT TO PERSONS WHO ARE HOMELESS OR THREATENED WITH HOMELESSNESS
      Lords amendment: No. 8, after clause 19, page 18, line 15, at end insert new clause B—
      "B.—(1) The Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 shall be amended in accordance with the following provisions of this section.
      (2) In section 1(2) (homeless persons and persons threatened with homelessness) after paragraph (c) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
      "(d) it does not provide the ordinary facilities of a residence and it is inappropriate for his needs, or it is unreasonable for him to continue to live in it."
      (3) In section 4 (duties of housing authorities to homeless persons and persons threatened with homelessness) after subsection (6) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
      "(7) Where a local authority has a duty under subsections (4) and (5) above "accommodation" shall he defined as either—

      (a) a separate dwelling house that shall not be overcrowded as defined in section 89 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966 and shall meet the tolerable standard as defined in section 14 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1974, or

      (b) in exceptional circumstances where a separate dwelling house as defined in (a) above is not appropriate to the needs of an applicant accommodation that is appropriate and reasonable in all the circumstances.""

      Mr. Ancram: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      This is not the first time that the judgment of the Law Lords in what has come to be known as the Puhlhofer case has been debated during the consideration of the Bill.
      Hon. Members will recall that when this matter was first raised, when the Bill was discussed on report in March, I indicated that I would wish further time to take advice and to assess the implications of the Law Lords' judgment, but that I intended, along with my colleagues in the Department of the Environment, to give the matter careful consideration. In the following weeks, we looked very carefully into the implications of the judgment and in the light of the amendment passed in another place we have further reviewed this matter.
      We concluded that the judgment of the Law Lords accurately reflects the effect of the Act and what we understand to have been the intention of Parliament on two main points. These are, first, that a local authority has discretion to reach a view on whether an applicant is homeless, taking account of the accommodation available to him. Secondly, where an authority accepts that an applicant is homeless and that it has a duty to secure accommodation for him, the authority again has discretion to decide what sort of accommodation is appropriate, having regard to the code of guidance issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. That was the position before the Law Lords' judgment; and it is the position today.
      We have concluded, therefore, that the suggestion that the homeless persons Act needs to be amended is premature. We have, however, offered to keep the position under review, and if it can be demonstrated, over the coming months, that local, authorities are taking a substantially different approach to the discharge of their responsibilities to homeless people under the Act as a

      1075
      result of the judgment, we would be prepared to reconsider the matter. I have to emphasise that we have no evidence so far to support the claim that the decision in the Puhlhofer case is having an adverse effect on the prospects of homeless people who apply under the Act.
      Sir Russell Johnston: The Minister has said that if the behaviour of local authorities could be demonstrated to have changed, he would be prepared to reconsider the matter. Presumably that means that he would be prepared to reconsider legislation. The reality is that the opportunity of introducing the relevant legislation is with us now. I fear that the Minister has not explained to the House what disadvantage will stem from making a change now.
      Mr. Ancram: I shall turn in a moment to the amendment from another place that we are considering. When I last addressed the House on this issue on Report, I said that my view, which was based on advice that I was being given, was that in practice the judgment would not change the way in which local authorities operated in practice. I have given considerable further consideration to the matter. I have taken advice and I have consulted my colleagues in the Department of the Environment. It remains the Government's view that there is nothing to the contrary in what is happening, so far as we know, in Scotland or England to suggest that our view is wrong. We do not believe that the judgment has affected the way in which local authorities will act in practice. It does not have an effect upon the guidance given by the Secretary of State under the code of guidance and I have no intention of reconsidering the matter.
      The amendment is unnecessary for the reasons which I have set out and I believe that it is dangerous. In the first place, it would give rise to severe difficulties of interpretation. Secondly, in spite of the claims that the amendment seeks only to restore the position to that obtaining before the Puhlhofer judgment, it will in fact impose substantial new duties on local authorities, and for that reason the amendment cannot be allowed to stand.
      Sir Russell Johnston: New duties such as what?
      Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman asks, "New duties such as what?" from a sedentary position. Subsection (2) of the new clause provides that a person shall be homeless if he has accommodation which
      "does not provide the ordinary facilities of a residence".
      No definition is provided, however, of what is meant by that and the other phrases that are used. In my view, they are not capable of being so defined. It would be left to the local authority to interpret the phrase as it saw fit. One can imagine the scope that could arise for litigation as a result.
      Secondly, subsection (3) seeks to go beyond the present provisions of the Act by making mandatory what is at the moment advice contained in a code to which authorities must have regard. There are two points to consider, the first being what the amendment actually does, which is to define what accommodation will count as fulfilling an authority's duty. If an authority placed a homeless family in other accommodation — for example, bed and breakfast—it would not have fulfilled its duty and could be open to applications for judicial review.
      This is quite different from the present position, where an authority would be fulfilling its duty by placing the
      1076
      applicant in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, but must have regard to the code of guidance which says that that should be used only as a last resort, and even then as a temporary measure. There will inevitably be circumstances in which authorities have to provide temporary accommodation for an initial period.
      The amendment stresses the need to provide permanent accommodation and this is, I suspect, its main purpose. The code asks that permanent accommodation should be secured as soon as possible, but I believe that we should think carefully before extending local authorities' duties in the way that the amendment envisages. The implications for local authorities could be severe.
      I accept that in carrying the amendment the other House acted with the best of intentions, but the Law Lords' judgment is not having the dire consequences that it fears. To amend the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act in what I believe is a hasty and ill-thought-out way is not justified on the basis of the evidence that is available to us and could have unforeseen and damaging consequences. We are proposing a much more measured approach of monitoring the position to see what, if anything, happens, and then to bring forward carefully considered amendments both for England and Scotland if they prove to be necessary. I believe that that is a much more sensible way in which to proceed and on that basis I ask the House to reject the amendment.
      Mr. Dewar: It is always tempting streckly to accept any occasions when the Minister defends local authority discretion. That is not usually a virtue of which he approves. Therefore, I am sorry that I have to be a little sceptical and ungrateful on this occasion.
      This is an amendment of some importance. In a sense, it is another round in a running battle which has been, to use an appropriate adjective, nobly maintained, largely in another place, and has been hard fought at almost every stage.
      I should make it clear that, apart from the parliamentary activities, there has been some excellent briefing from outside the House, particularly from Shelter, which has a close interest in the matter. Some of the points I am about to make are based on information that that organisation has supplied. I think that it has the best of the argument and it is correct that this should be put before the House.
      I moved an amendment on Report on 4 March and the Minister has referred to that debate. I want briefly to rehearse the argument. It all goes back to Lord Brightman's judgment in February 1986 in the Puhlhofer case versus the London borough of Hillingdon. In that case there was judicial consideration of the meaning of the word "accommodation" in the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977.
      The facts were simple and I do not need to detain the House long on them. It was the case of a young couple who were applying for help under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act. They were put into bed-and-breakfast accommodation and the husband, his wife and two young children occupied one room which was inevitably cluttered with a double and a single bed, a dressing table and the various items of equipment that are needed for a small family. The council argued that that was adequate accommodation and that the couple were not homeless because they were being housed in those circumstances.

      1077
      The merits or otherwise of that particular argument were not decided by the court. Lord Brightman did not take the view that he had to decide whether the course taken by the authority had been reasonable or unreasonable. He came to the conclusion that it was entirely a matter for the authority. He made the point:
      "Parliament plainly and wisely placed no qualifying adjective before the word 'accommodation'."
      His Lordship said that the word "appropriate" or "reasonable" is not to be imported. Accommodation is not to be disregarded as accommodation merely because it is unfit for habitation in terms of the Housing Act.
      His lordship developed that argument, and his position was that there are no rules. He did not talk at great length about the code of guidance. His position was that there are no rules. The House will remember the rather picturesque phrase that he used. He said that it was a misuse of language to describe Diogenes as having occupied accommodation within the meaning of the Act, but, by implication, almost anything else would go. Therefore, however much one might sympathise with the young couple, at the end of the day, the word of the authority, however unreasonable it might seem to any outsider, could not effectively be challenged.
      It seemed to Labour Members and to a large number of people outside the House, as the Minister knows, that we should make some attempt to remedy that position and to write in a definition which would allow the homeless persons provision to operate in a way that Parliament would have wished when it put the Act on the statute book. The Minister referred to the fact that he was merely doing what Parliament always intended. I did not quite follow that argument, but, in any event, none of us wanted the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act to be operated unfairly. The vast majority of local authorities do not want to operate it in a way that is ungenerous or in such a way that the safety net is a particularly uncomfortable temporary resting place.
      Therefore, on Report we attempted to build in one or two definition phrases and to suggest that someone was homeless if their accommodation was inappropriate to their needs, it was unreasonable for them to continue to live there, or if the accommodation did not measure up to certain statutory minimum requirements.
      There was, as the Minister knows—I do not think that I am exaggerating—fairly widespread support and sympathy for that point of view. Indeed, the amendment that stood in my name was also signed by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Fletcher), who I am sorry is not here this evening. It is clear that there was all-party support. Certainly, we had the support of other parties on the Opposition Benches.
      8.15 pm
      The Minister himself was not unhelpful in his remarks. He made some caveats, of course. He said that he would have to look at the matter. At that stage I did not appreciate the somewhat sinister implications of his references to the need to consult the Department of the Environment. We did not force the amendment to the vote, I think wisely, and I left the debate fairly hopeful that we would see some action by the Minister. I was prepared to accept that my amendment was probably in many ways defective and might have substantial inherent difficulties that I had not thought of. But I hoped that we should see
      1078
      some attempt to meet the point of the amendment in a more professional manner with the help of the Minister's considerable departmental resources.
      Therefore, it was a disappointment when it became clear in subsequent proceedings in another place that the Minister's position had hardened and that he had retreated from the rather more open attitude which he had displayed on the first airing of the argument. When on 13 May the Lords debated the issue on an amendment moved by the noble Lord Mackie of Benshie, tremendous emphasis was placed on the technical difficulties of the amendment that had been put down. It is significant that in most of the debates technical difficulties have always been advanced. When, finally, it was debated on 11 June in another place, the Minister, the noble Lord Gray of Contin, although he accepted that the matter had aroused the conscience of the House, went on to advance a number of arguments, at which I want to look briefly, which have been largely repeated by the Minister today.
      The first and basic argument was that the whole matter was premature—the Minister used that word again a few minutes ago—and that there was no evidence of abuse of any kind. There are different degrees of enthusiasm for the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act. My local authority in Glasgow has an excellent record and has tried hard to give the cover envisaged in the Act. But there is some evidence that those variations can be worrying and that there are different approaches in different parts of the country.
      The very fact that the Puhlhofer case emerged and has re-written—or rather almost unwritten—the Act would be a case for action. Given the measure of latitude which has been introduced, it should at least sound off some warning bells, to which the Government should listen.
      Mr. Henderson: The hon. Gentleman has perfectly fairly made the point that local authorities have been trying to operate the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act. It has had slightly different effects in different parts of the country but he is right to say that there has been a genuine attempt to work the Act. None the less, he will also agree that local authorities have had difficulties in working that Act. That is why I would ask him to consider at this point whether this is a sensible time to make further difficulties and to change the ball game of the Act when local authorities are still feeling their way for dealing with the Act as it now is before we amend it. We should find positive reasons in Scotland for changing the Act at this stage rather than simply go along with something that has happened in England which may not be relevant.
      Mr. Dewar: I understand that argument. It is perfectly fairly put by the hon. Gentleman. I suspect that it would be a good argument for not having a 1977 Act at all. If I remember the history of the legislation, many people argued at the time that, however desirable it was, it was an unreasonable burden, given the problems of the housing stock and that therefore we should not legislate.
      The judgment of Lord Brightman means that a massive gap has opened up and it is only right that we should try to put in some minimum standards which will greatly bolster the statute and return us to something like the position that I imagine we were in in terms of the code of guidance. The code of guidance was helpful. It is still there, but is now in doubt because the House of Lords, which is

      1079
      persuasive in Scotland in any judicial proceedings, even if not binding, has taken this much more lax approach to the duties of local authorities.
      I shall ask the Minister a specific question that he can deal with when he is winding up. It is about the monitoring. The Minister and the noble Lord Gray of Contin have said that the Government will monitor using their regular quarterly statistical returns from the various housing authorities. I am not familiar with these forms but I think that form HL1 is relevant.
      My information is that it is extremely difficult to monitor on the basis of the information contained in the forms. In order to monitor, one might need to know the number of people who had been refused on the grounds that they were not properly homeless and the other reasons why they had been refused. At the other end of the process it would not be enough merely to record the number of people placed in accommodation under the Act. One would also need to have information about the nature of the accommodation and its standard. I am advised by people who work in housing that there is at least a lot of professional scepticism about whether the present forms cover such matters. I should like the Minister to deal with that point, to explain how the monitoring will work and to say whether it is sensible and directed in a way that will deal with the point about standards which is at risk here.
      The other arguments that the Minister used against the amendment were that it would be pushing us not back to the status quo, but into a different and undesirable position. I am not sure that that is true. He suggested that if, for example, a local authority put a family into bed and breakfast accommodation as a temporary measure, the authority would be failing in its statutory duty if the amendment were accepted in its present form and might be subject to judicial review and find itself in trouble in the courts.
      The Minister would prefer to leave the situation as it is and run the risk of Lord Brightman's interpretation of the present Act. A lot of the information and advice that I have received would dispute that concept, and the Minister is not on safe or sure ground. However, let us suppose for the moment that he is and that there are problems of the kind that he has described. That is a case for the Minister coming forward with his own amendment to meet the point that we are striking at but which avoids some of the dangers that he spies in the form of words that the other place has inserted in the Bill.
      Most of the arguments about the difficulties of definition are specious. The Lord Gray of Contin said that the phrase in the Tenants' Rights Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980
      "reasonably suitable for the needs of a tenant"
      had taken half a schedule to define . I have no doubt that there are a great many examples of cases where a good deal of work has gone into statutory definitions. If we read any piece of housing legislation or even the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 itself we will see many instances where terms like "reasonable" or "appropriate for needs" are used and yet do not seem to have resulted in the kind of difficulties spoken about by the Minister. My attention has been drawn to section 14 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1974 as an example of exactly the kind of phraseology that is well established in the statute book.
      I hope that Shelter will not mind me saying this, but I understand that it has taken legal advice in Scotland and in
      1080
      England. A number of the people consulted are familiar to me and I suspect that they would be even more familiar to the Minister. In England, Shelter consulted Mr. Robert Carnwarth, a silk who has written a standard book on the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act. He takes a different view from that of the Minister and said that the difficulties that had arisen from the failure to define accommodation in the Act were very considerable. I am not saying that we should stand or that we would have wanted to stand on this definition if the Minister had produced a better alternative. However, I am certainly not prepared to recommend to the House that we fall into line and abandon the whole enterprise as the Minister is inviting us to do.
      I am sure that the Minister has read the debates in another place. In the past, the noble Lord the Earl of Selkirk was not unconnected with the Conservative party, although he seems to plough a somewhat independent furrow nowadays. That is to his credit. I think he spoke for noble Lords in all parts of the other place when he said that there was an overwhelming feeling that if there were practical difficulties the Government had a duty to bring in their own version. He said that that was what the other place wanted and that it was an almost unanimous feeling.
      The Minister prayed in aid the noble Lord? Wilberforce as the only respectable prop to his attack on the amendment, but if one reads what the noble Lord said during the debate in the other place one will see that, although he had some caveats about the form of the amendment, he made it clear that he supported it. That would seem to suggest that the Minister was reading isolated parts of the debate.
      It is disappointing that the Minister has not come forward with something to satisfy the wish to remove the evident dangers arising from the judgment which we have been discussing and which has dominated this argument about housing policy. I am sorry to say that to some extent we can see in this matter the dead weight of the Department of the Environment. I suspect that the new Secretary of State is antipathetic to the spirit of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 and probably regards it as dangerous welfarism of some sort.
      In Scotland we have a different legal tradition and system and, if I may say so, a different housing system and tradition. There is no reason why we should stay in step with the Department of the Environment. There is a case for the Scottish Office showing a little bit of smeddum and going its own road on this occasion. We should not take, as we are being asked to do, the line of least resistance and wait for some substantial evidence of scandal or abuse before we act. That is the approach the Minister recommends.
      The legal consequences of the decision in the Puhlhofer case will be far-reaching. My attention has been drawn to one decision, admittedly English but interesting, involving the London borough of Wandsworth ex parte Lindsay in which the judge, Mr. Justice Simon Brown, made it clear that the law would have to change because of the Puhlhofer decision. He said:
      "Although hitherto it has been accepted, in particular following the Court of Appeal decision in Part v Wyre Borough Council, that in order to properly discharge the duty under section 4(5) the accommodation offered must be appropriate, Puhlhofer makes plain that this is not so. On the contrary accommodation within the meaning of the Act, whether for the purposes of section 1, section 4 or section 17

      1081
      —and there may well be other relevant sections—need only be premises properly so describable even if in certain respects they are unfit, inadequate or otherwise unsuitable."
      He felt that he had no option but to refuse to consider the facts which at least prima facie deserved consideration on the grounds that even if—I repeat the point—the accommodation was "unfit, inadequate or otherwise unsuitable" it was still accommodation under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 and that was the end of the argument. If that is the decision taken by the courts, admittedly in England, relying on a House of Lords judgment which will be persuasive in Scotland, the code of guidance that the Minister relies upon is likely to be only a thin protective screen against that kind of legal action.
      If the courts feel that they have to take that attitude, we should protect them from their own purism by trying to write into the Act the safeguards that the amendment represents. We are in difficulty because there may well be arguments against this form of words. However, we are in the unfortunate position that they are the only form of words we have because there is no way in which we can further amend, and the Government have declined to help us.
      We cannot allow this matter to rest here and accept the Minister's advice. He said that he was taking "the more measured approach." I suspect that will amount to a do-nothing approach; there is a good deal of simple cosmetic camouflage in all the talk of monitoring and further legislation if it proves necessary. If we do not do something now and keep the pressure on, I suspect that we will sell the pass on the matter of importance. On that basis, I invite the House to agree with the Lords in the amendment.
      Sir Russell Johnston: The House is greatly indebted to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) for the clarity with which he has put a strong case. We are all disappointed that the Government have not responded either here or in the other place to the arguments which have been rehearsed several times.
      As the hon. Gentleman said, the amendment in the other place which was carried was moved by my hon. Friend Lord Mackie of Benshie. That was particularly appropriate as the original Act was taken through the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross). It was a private Member's measure with all-party support, but, obviously, the Liberal party has always felt that it has a special responsibility for it.
      8.30 pm
      The hon. Gentleman has rehearsed the arguments thoroughly and I do not wish to be repetitious. However, I should like to re-emphasise one or two points. The hon. Gentleman said, correctly, and any objective observer would agree, that the argument has been won by those anxious to correct the position created by the Puhlhofer judgment which, to use the words of the hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) in a different context, has changed the ball game. The judgment, not the amendment, has changed the ball game.
      The arguments advanced by the Minister of State in the other place, Lord Gray of Contin, and repeated by the Minister tonight were characterised by Lord Mackie as inadequate. He described the idea of monitoring as a method of procrastination, and the hon. Member for Garscadden repeated that. One must admit that technical and legal arguments are perhaps the most difficult for hon.
      1082
      Members to deal with. Time and again we hear the Minister say, "The hon. Gentleman may intend such and such by the words, but the consequence will be different."
      However, we have the advantage that Shelter has given considerable, detailed legal and technical attention to the arguments advanced originally in another place and reiterated by the Minister this evening. It is not the case that the amendment is unworkable.
      That is the considered legal view, not only of Robert Carnwath, but of Jonathan Mitchell and Paul Watchman, a lecturer in law at Dundee university. Moreover, they are willing to be quoted as expressing that view. They are noted experts in their own right on the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977, and they all agree that the amendment is workable, and deny that the amendment uses terms which are ill-defined. It has already been said that the Housing (Scotland) Act 1974 uses the words "tolerable standards" acceptably. All three experts agree that it is not the case that bed and breakfast accommodation would be ruled out. The Minister touched on that argument. Nor does the amendment return the position to the status quo which was that accommodation should be "reasonable". That was the judgment of Brown, and a family such as the Puhlhofers would be considered homeless. The amendment passed in the Lords does not go beyond that.
      The amendment provides for homeless people to be housed by local authorities in accommodation which meets the tolerable standards and overcrowding standards laid down by law. It does not go beyond the code of guidance, and, perhaps, it does not provide very exacting standards. It does not stop local authorities providing a better than minimum standard. Indeed, if I may be permitted to come near to a quotation of my noble Friend, Lord Mackie, he made it clear in another place that even he would find the guidelines reasonably easy to follow.
      Mr. George Foulkes: Will the hon. Gentleman speak up?
      Sir Russell Johnston: Is the hon. Gentleman going deaf already? I do not wish to tire the patience of the House by repeating what I have said, so I invite the hon. Gentleman to read my speech as I know that the Hansard reporters have good hearing. I am interested to know that a reason why the hon. Gentleman frequently makes his speech in a loud manner is that he does not even hear himself well.
      Finally, it is alleged that the amendment does not define the exceptional circumstances effectively and properly, but the view is that the words are rightly used in social security law and that they do not represent an insuperable obstacle.
      It is rare for Governments to change their minds, and to do so at the last moment of the 11th hour is exceptional. I cannot even think of an example. However, I suggest most seriously to the Minister that the arguments expounded in the other place and here both on Report and tonight from the hon. Member for Garscadden make a good case. Even if the Minister is right that so far the consequences of the Puhlhofer judgment have had no marked effect, we now have the opportunity to ensure that they never will. Surely that is desirable, particularly if the Government's objections appear, in the view of experts and persons skilled in the law and the interpretation of the Act, not to have legal substance.
      Mr. Gordon Wilson: When one relies on common briefings there is a danger of repetition and that the same speech will be made repeatedly. As the lead

      1083
      speech given by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) was so clear, perhaps the best thing to do is, to use the legal vernacular, to say "I concur". However, I wish to add some points.
      By seeking to overturn the House of Lords decision, the Minister has put himself in a dangerously isolated position. If things go wrong and local authorities do not accept the spirit of the guidelines, people will remain homeless and the Government and the Minister personally will have to accept responsibility. It is a pity that the Minister has not adopted the advice given by the Earl of Selkirk who said that he supported the amendment so that the Government could think again. I am probably going beyond his argument, but I am sure that the noble Lord wanted a form of words which the Government could table with the confidence that there would be no observable legal loophole.
      Governments are not necessarily right about legislation and there are plenty of examples where Governments have been proved wrong, if anything, sometimes a long period after the event. In this instance, the legislation was passed in 1977 and now, nine years later, their Lordships, in their appellate capacity, have blasted a vast hole in the middle of the Act. It is discouraging and disappointing that in a sense the Government have gone back to the attitude adopted in the mid-1970s and before, that legislation was not necessary. The Housing (Homeless Persons) Act was carried through by a Back Bencher who was successful in the ballot. I recollect that at the time it was argued that it would be dangerous to legislate to deal with the problem of homelessness and that this would be far better left to guidelines to be issued by the Department of the Environment or the Scottish Office as those would be followed by local authorities.
      There is no doubt that where particular problems develop local authorities may seek to get around the guidelines, and if there is no legislative back-up they will be perfectly free to do so. If an abuse occurs, we shall probably find that months, if not a year or more, will elapse before the slow-moving juggernaut of Government grinds into action and produces legislation. It is not always the case that a legislative vehicle is handy at the given time. If such a vehicle does not exist, hardship could be caused by the failure to take account of the changes that have been made in the law.
      I cannot understand the Minister's reasoning. On the one hand, it seems that he is saying that there is no need to act because in effect the law has not changed—that Puhlhofer is the latest interpretation of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act and he does not think that the changes that have been made by Puhlhofer so upset the law in relation to homelessness as to require himself or his Department to intervene with the legislation. On the other hand, he is indicating that, should problems emerge over a period of time, his Government will act. That is his excuse for action in the future.
      I take the view that the Puhlhofer judgment in effect drives a huge gap in the homelessness legislation. In particular, one must look at the decision of Brown v. Hamilton district council, where Lord Wheatley said in the Court of Session:
      1084
      "I reject the argument that as long as accommodation was available it did not matter what the nature of the accommodation was. In my view it must be reasonable in all the circumstances".
      He went on to make the interesting and picturesque statement that:
      "A pigsty might be accommodation but not reasonable accommodation."
      No doubt he extended the argument as far as it would go, and while it would seem that Lord Mackie was conversant with very comfortable pigstys, he declared that he would not want to live in them.
      Mr. Foulkes: He is a black sheep.
      Mr. Wilson: I wish that the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) would not treat this serious subject with such levity. If the hon. Gentleman has come in late from dinner, perhaps he will be quiet and allow the House to deal with this matter. He may not be homeless, but other people are. He should address himself to the House by speaking if he so wishes, but in the meantime I would be grateful if he would haud his wheesht.
      8.45 pm
      I contract what was said in Brown v. Hamilton district council with the judgment by Lord Brightman, where the word "reasonable" is effectively taken out. Either accommodation is reasonable or it is not. Puhlhofer says that it does not have to be—an extremely persuasive judgment. Indeed, it is one that local authorities could legitimately follow. I take the view that the rights of people who are homeless have changed, whereas before the Puhlhofer judgment those who were in that unfortunate situation had a right to be rehoused. It now boils down to the fact that they will be rehoused at the discretion of the local authority. That is a very dangerous development.
      It is always the last resort of a Minister who is bankrupt of arguments to attack an amendment not on the basis of the argument but on its possible defects. I take this opportunity of congratulating Shelter on going to the exceptional trouble of taking legal advice. It had the arguments that were put to the other place on behalf of the Government by Lord Gray outlining the attack on the amendment. Shelter has given good, persuasive and sound reasons why the defects as seen by the Government do not exist. The Minister's attitude is completely unsupportable.
      If one looks at the advice that has been given, it seems perfectly clear that the amendment can serve the purposes for which it is designed. The Minister took objection to the fact that a piece of guidance at present in the guidelines was now being imported into statute. There is nothing reprehensible in such a practice. It has been proven that the guidelines will work if they have been observed and are backed up by statutory authority. Therefore, there is no reason why the guidelines should not be rephrased and set in statutory form.
      There are many cases in which advisory guidelines have subsequently been made law. The change made in this amendment is perfectly acceptable. At the end of the day, the problem is that the Government have been given a chance to make a perfectly reasonable change in legislation and to make it accord with the views of the Scottish public and the vast majority of Scottish Members of Parliament. But, as the hon. Member for Garscadden said, they have refused to take up that opportunity, largely as he suspected — and as I suspect—because they have been told not to

      1085
      do so by the lead Ministry, the Department of the Environment. Here was a chance for this Minister and the Scottish Office to show that they had some autonomy. By that standard they have failed the test.
      Mr. Hugh Brown: I shall be brief. I say that because I was interested when my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said that he would make a brief speech. It was such a speech in accordance with what he thinks is a brief speech. Nevertheless, I am on the same side.
      I have listened to the Minister, to my hon. Friend and to two contributions from the same stable. I suffer from the advantage of not having received the brief. Therefore, I am not confused. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, must be interested in this debate, because you and I were the perpetrators of all the difficulties that apparently are now to be corrected. Therefore, to some extent I cannot help having some sympathy with the Minister, although I shall not overdo it. I listened to the Secretary of State for Scotland's cheap comments in Edinburgh on Monday about poor attendance. I wonder what he would think about today's attendance. This is peak viewing time and also peak eating time. I will not make any apologies but it does not do us justice or credit to have such a poor attendance for Scottish business.
      No doubt we shall lose this amendment. I am not 100 per cent. convinced that the amendment is necessary. However, when a Minister gives an undertaking that he will conduct a thorough review, I believe that that is what he means. If legislation is necessary—and we will not win the vote on this amendment — I hope that the Minister will tell us when he replies how he intends to conduct the review.
      I am in favour of local authorities having discretion. I am not convinced that further legislation and definition is necessarily the right way to proceed. I must be cautious about this. I want an assurance from the Minister that the review will be thorough and that he will tell COSLA, Shelter and any other council for the single homeless that he will monitor what happens. He must disabuse us of any idea that there is a plot on the part of the DOE.
      As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the DOE is a very powerful Department. However, although there was much argument when the original Bill went through the House about cross-border problems, I do not believe that this is a major cross-border problem. I cannot believe that droves of people will flock to Scotland simply because there is a slightly different interpretation of the law in Scotland, which, according to the Minister, is not really a difference of interpretation. I hope that that is not a suspicion that would carry much weight.
      This is not an easy matter to resolve. The Minister said that this could impose substantial new duties on local authorities. If that is the case, new duties mean more money. Unfortunately the Government will not receive cooperation from the housing authorities, which are hard pressed. That is further evidence of a suspicion that the Minister is putting up the case because he is not willing to find the additional resources that would be required if that meant an imposition of substantial new duties.
      I hope we shall receive an assurance that the review will be thorough. I hope that we say with some confidence that if changes are needed in legislation the Opposition will cooperate to that end.
      Mr. Ancram: We have had a useful debate on this important subject. It has become clear, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) will have noticed, that there are two distinct and different views of the Puhlhofer judgment on both sides of the House. There is the view which I had expressed, that the judgment in practice will make no difference to the operation of the Act by local authorities in Scotland. The other view was expressed most forcibly by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) who stressed that his noble Friend Lord Mackie of Benshie was anxious to correct the new position created by the judgment. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber said that the judgment had changed the ball game and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said that the judgment had unwritten the Act. That is the point of difference.
      It is my view and the view of those who advise me—and I must tell the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) that I did listen to Lord Selkirk and I considered the matter after the House of Lords decision—that the Puhlhofer judgment has not unwritten the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977. I tried to make it clear earlier that the Law Lords judgment has not changed the statutory position nor Parliament's intention. I have dealt with that in some detail. Nor will the code of guidance which local authorities must have regard to within the statute be changed. I believe that the code is not in doubt.
      Different views may be expressed about the effects of the judgment. However, my view and the Government's view are based on careful consideration and advice. To that extent, I return to my earlier argument that there is no factual evidence for the Opposition's argument that the whole practice will be changed by the judgment. It is my experience as a Minister who has dealt with a number of such Bills — and as a constituency Member of Parliament — that where things are happening on, the ground—if I may use that expression—there is usually no lack of anecdotal evidence about it. There are always examples of something that has gone wrong, either from people coming to a constituency surgery to complain or from reports from certain agencies which, hearing about certain cases, report them to hon. Members or to the Government. From the Government's point of view—and no further evidence has been adduced tonight — there is no evidence to suggest that the fears expressed in another place and here tonight are real.
      Sir Russell Johnston: In making an assessment as to whether a legal view is correct before there is any practical effect, would the Minister accept that all one can do is consult people who judge themselves to be experts in that area? The alliance has quoted at least three people who have expressed it as their professional opinion that the Puhlhofer judgment changes the law. The Minister has said that there is no evidence for that. Surely that is evidence of some sort, is it not?
      Mr. Ancram: It is my view, which is based on advice, that that is not the case. I do not suggest that alliance Members have received had advice but in this instance my view, which I have taken on good advice, does not conform with theirs. Had it conformed, I would have had to examine the code of guidance. I do not wish to trouble the House again with the code of guidance but it is worthy of consideration. Hon. Members who consider the code

      1087
      will discover that their anxieties are covered there. Within section 12 of the 1977 Act, the local authorities must have regard to the code. I am satisfied that the code of guidance does not need altering in the light of the Puhlhofer judgment.
      Mr. Henderson: There have been several complaints about local authorities which have not been helpful and which have positively obstructed the right to buy. Has my hon. Friend had any complaints about local authorities refusing to pay attention to the guidance to which he has referred?
      Mr. Ancram: I do not want to mislead the House and give a categoric yes or no to that. However, in the light of the fears expressed since Puhlhofer, I have had no evidence that that judgment has altered the way in which local authorities are operating the 1977 Act.
      The hon. Member for Garscadden asked about monitoring. I repeat this point to the hon. Member for Provan, that I have offered to keep the situation under review. If it can be demonstrated over the coming months that local authorities are taking a substantially different approach to the discharge of their responsibilities, I would have to reconsider the matter. In other words, I wish to monitor the situation closely and if significant evidence suggests that my view is wrong I shall wish to reconsider it. I say that quite openly.
      To answer the hon. Member for Garscadden, we shall monitor the situation through the regular quarterly statistical returns submitted to the Scottish Development Department by district authorities. Those returns, known as the homeless household case returns, show the number of applications made to the authorities under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act and the number accepted as homeless or potentially homeless. If, as has been alleged, the Law Lords decision is likely to encourage authorities to conclude that a number of applicants are not homeless, that would be clear from those statistics. When an authority accepts a responsibility towards an applicant, the statistical returns also show the type of accommodation secured for the applicant. Again, therefore, if the Law Lords decision encourages authorities to place a larger number of applicants in short-stay accommodation and bed and breakfast lodgings, this will show up in the statistics.
      9 pm
      We shall, of course, consider any evidence that Shelter or other organisations wish to submit arising primarily from detailed knowledge of individual cases at local level obtained through their housing advice centres. We believe that in that way we can monitor the situation closely and reach a conclusion within a reasonable period as to whether our view is correct.
      Mr. Foulkes: In monitoring the quarterly statistics so far, has the Minister detected any trend for particular authorities to have especially large numbers of applicants, more than would be predicted or more than the Scottish average? In particular, has he had representations from Kyle and Carrick district council about the difficulties that it is facing in this and other matters? I refer to people coming from outwith the district, getting on to the waiting list and having to be given priority. Those problems occur not just in respect of homelessness but in other respects.
      1088
      Will the Minister take account of those representations and pay particular attention to that aspect in future monitoring?
      Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman will not expect an immediate answer on a specific constituency matter. I will check to see what representations have been made. I am sure that we receive representations as well as statistics in this area. At the moment, however, I am trying to identify for the hon. Members for Provan and for Garscadden the type of monitoring that takes place and to show that it will be sufficient to determine whether our view is correct.
      Mr. Hugh Brown: How will local authorities know about this judgment which is to make such a great difference to the lot of the homeless person? Will the Minister be sending out a circular? If not, how does he expect the change to arise that he intends to monitor?
      Mr. Ancram: I do not believe that there will be a change. It is the Opposition who take that view. My submission has been that there will not be a change in practice. Local authorities have discretion in operating under the Act, but the code of guidance is intended to be precisely that. I shall not bore the House with a description, but it is a detailed code and it states the Government's view as to how the Act should be interpreted.
      The hon. Members for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber and for Garscadden said that the amendment would be workable. As I have said, I believe that there are two good reasons for rejecting it. First, as I have just argued, it is unnecessary. Secondly, it is dangerous because of the difficulties of interpretation. Here I disagree with the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber. The words
      "ordinary facilities of a residence"
      or "inappropriate for his needs" or
      "unreasonable for him to continue to live in it"
      could all give rise to considerable difficulties of interpretation, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate. In the first instance, it would be for the local authority to interpret those words as it thought fit. I do not believe that the amendment is good legislation or that it is necessary. On that basis, I ask my hon. Friends to disagree with the Lords.
      Question put,That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 172, Noes 110.

      Division No. 243]

      [9.04 pm

      AYES

      Alexander, Richard

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Ancram, Michael

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

      Batiste, Spencer

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Favell, Anthony

      Bellingham, Henry

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Benyon, William

      Forth, Eric

      Best, Keith

      Franks, Cecil

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Freeman, Roger

      Bright, Graham

      Gale, Roger

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Galley, Roy

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Browne, John

      Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

      Burt, Alistair

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)

      Gow, Ian

      Carttiss, Michael

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Colvin, Michael

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

      Coombs, Simon

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Cope, John

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      1089

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Osborn, Sir John

      Hargreaves, Kenneth

      Page, Richard (Herts SW)

      Harris, David

      Pawsey, James

      Harvey, Robert

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

      Portillo, Michael

      Hawksley, Warren

      Powley, John

      Hayes, J.

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Hayward, Robert

      Price, Sir David

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Heddle, John

      Raffan, Keith

      Henderson, Barry

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Hickmet, Richard

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Hicks, Robert

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Hind, Kenneth

      Rost, Peter

      Hirst, Michael

      Rowe, Andrew

      Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

      Ryder, Richard

      Holt, Richard

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Jackson, Robert

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Speed, Keith

      Jones, Robert (Herts W)

      Speller, Tony

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Spencer, Derek

      King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Steen, Anthony

      Knox, David

      Stern, Michael

      Lang, Ian

      Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

      Lawler, Geoffrey

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Lord, Michael

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

      MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

      MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Maclean, David John

      Thurnham, Peter

      McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Madel, David

      Tracey, Richard

      Major, John

      Trotter, Neville

      Malins, Humfrey

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Marland, Paul

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Marlow, Antony

      Waddington, David

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Walden, George

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Walker, Bill (T'side N)

      Mellor, David

      Wall, Sir Patrick

      Merchant, Piers

      Waller, Gary

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Warren, Kenneth

      Moate, Roger

      Watson, John

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Watts, John

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

      Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

      Wheeler, John

      Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

      Whitfield, John

      Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Moynihan, Hon C.

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Mudd, David

      Wolfson, Mark

      Neubert, Michael

      Wood, Timothy

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Yeo, Tim

      Normanton, Tom

      Norris, Steven

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Onslow, Cranley

      Mr. Tony Durant and

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Mr. Peter Lloyd.

      NOES

      Alton, David

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Anderson, Donald

      Boyes, Roland

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

      Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Buchan, Norman

      Barnett, Guy

      Caborn, Richard

      Beckett, Mrs Margaret

      Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Carl Me, Alexander (Montg'y)

      Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      1090

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Clarke, Thomas

      Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

      Clay, Robert

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Clelland, David Gordon

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      McKelvey, William

      Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Conlan, Bernard

      Madden, Max

      Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

      Marek, Dr John

      Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Corbett, Robin

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Craigen, J. M.

      Maxton, John

      Deakins, Eric

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Dewar, Donald

      Meadowcroft, Michael

      Dixon, Donald

      Michie, William

      Dormand, Jack

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Douglas, Dick

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Dubs, Alfred

      Nellist, David

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Patchett, Terry

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Penhaligon, David

      Eastham, Ken

      Pike, Peter

      Evans, John (St. Helens N)

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Ewing, Harry

      Prescott, John

      Fatchett, Derek

      Randall, Stuart

      Faulds, Andrew

      Richardson, Ms Jo

      Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

      Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

      Fisher, Mark

      Rogers, Allan

      Flannery, Martin

      Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

      Forrester, John

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Foster, Derek

      Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

      Foulkes, George

      Skinner, Dennis

      Garrett, W. E.

      Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)

      George, Bruce

      Snape, Peter

      Gourlay, Harry

      Spearing, Nigel

      Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

      Stott, Roger

      Hancock, Michael

      Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Tinn, James

      Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

      Wainwright, R.

      Home Robertson, John

      Wallace, James

      Howells, Geraint

      Wareing, Robert

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Wilson, Gordon

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Woodall, Alec

      John, Brynmor

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Kennedy, Charles

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Mr. James Hamilton and

      Lamond, James

      Mr. Allen Adams.

      Question accordingly agreed to.

    Schedule 1

      AMENDMENT' OF 1980 ACT
      Lords amendment: No. 9: in page 21, line 37, at end insert—
      "() where a landlord so mentioned has at no time let (or had available for letting) more than 250 dwellings; or"
      Read a Second time.
      9.15 pm
      Mr. Ancram: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, to leave out "250" and insert "100".
      If the amendment were agreed to, it would be my intention to ask the House to agree with the Lords amendment as amended. I have to say that I move the acceptance of this amendment with my proposed modification with some reluctance. I believe that the problem that it is intended to deal with—that the right to buy would have some apparently harmful effect on small associations' viability—is overstated, and that its proposed rectification by straightforward exemption from the right to buy is wrong. But I recognise that there is strong feeling on the subject and I certainly do not wish to damage the prospects for new small associations.

      1091
      The viability of associations, whether large or small, is secured through a variety of allowances set, and grants paid, by my Department. The allowances which are of principal interest to us here are those for management and maintenance of the ordinary stock of an association. Those allowances are set at a fixed amount per house let by an association and are designed to cover all the ordinary expenses incurred by the association in running that house. If the association loses that house, whether by sale to a sitting tenant or to another association, it no longer has that day-to-day work to do and does not therefore require the accompanying allowance. Thus, in broad terms, the association's income matches its outgoings whatever size of stock it may have.
      Some evidence has reached my Department that, for associations with relatively small numbers of houses, the allowances do not meet the full costs of running the stock. The evidence requires further investigation by my Department, and more detailed discussions with the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, but if circumstances can be shown to warrant it, I am certainly prepared to modify the allowance system to help small associations. A revised allowance system would go a long way towards protecting small associations from a number of pressures which they may come under. The loss of a house under the right to buy is, to my mind, one of the smaller and probably less frequent events likely to disturb the finances of a small association.
      For that reason alone, I should prefer small associations to stay in the right to buy so that their tenants may have the same rights as other tenants of housing associations. However, I am prepared to accept that there may be some justification for an exemption for the smallest associations so that their first tentative steps are not brought to an end by the sale of one or two houses. I suggest that the size of an association above which the right to buy should apply, and always apply, should be 100 rather than 250 as at present.
      Mr. Bruce Millan: If the amendment is carried, how many associations will be excluded?
      Mr. Ancram: I shall come back to the right hon. Gentleman on that. I do not have the figure to hand.
      Mr. Millan: Why not?
      Mr. Ancram: Obviously, over the years, associations, especially newer ones, have grown. I should not wish to mislead the House by giving figures on which I was not certain. The number of 250 houses, which was put forward by way of amendment in the other place, may have been chosen because it was thought that at that point an association becomes financially stable and is able to employ its own full-time staff.
      Mr. Henderson: Is it not true that, since the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) left office as the Secretary of State for Scotland, the annual funding of housing associations in Scotland has increased tenfold? It is not surprising in those circumstances that individual housing associations may have grown considerably in that time.
      Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He has made the good point that, despite the Opposition's
      1092
      protestations, this Government have considerably supported the housing association movement, compared with our predecessors. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) is aware of the growth and diversification of housing associations. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) is equally aware of the growth in housing associations—initially small ones—in rural areas. We welcome that. That is one of the elements which we have considered in tabling the amendment.
      If the discussions on allowances bear fruit and smaller associations make sensible provision — perhaps for sharing staff—I see no reason to exempt associations from the right to buy unless their size is below 100. The amendment would extend the right to buy to a further approximately 1,700 people. I am sure that they will welcome this as much as the tenants of larger associations. I am informed that the 1,700 difference would effectively leave 22 associations which have fewer than 100 houses. There are 33 associations which have fewer than 250 houses. Obviously, the figure of 1,700 is the difference between those two in terms of the people who will be affected.
      We cannot make available to small associations the transferable discount which we know as HOTCHA. HOTCHA applies only to a tenant who is the tenant of a charitable housing association to which the right to buy does not apply. Small associations are not necessarily charitable, and thus the tenants of these associations cannot he given the transferable discount which we hoped would be some small recompense for being denied the right to buy.
      I cannot amend the Bill to include such a scheme because we can now amend only those parts that have been amended in another place and certainly we cannot introduce new subjects. Therefore, the amendment I propose to reduce the size of an association to 100 has, to some extent, the effect of damage limitation. It would confine the absence of a right to buy and the absence of the second-best alternative, the transferable discount, to tenants of very small associations. To make the exemption any wider would be unjust to tenants and unnecessary for associations. I hope that the House will consider, in the light of the amendment in another place, and the present circumstances, that my proposal is a reasonable compromise and will support it.
      Mr. Maxton: I suppose that with this Government any small concession of principle is worth taking, even if, as is typical of the few occasions on which I have seen the Government accept the principle, they ruin it by being mean-spirited in the way they do so. The Government accept the principle that there are small housing associations that require protection. That is what the other place said. The amendment was not the result of a figure being plucked out of the head. It was tabled with a certain amount of rationality. People thought it out.
      Along come the Government who say, "Yes, we accept that some small housing associations might be affected, but we do not want a figure of 250. We shall make it 100." As far as I can see, that is a figure plucked out of the air. It is not based on any great rationality. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will tell us exactly what is the rationale of 100 as opposed to 250.
      I accept that in the past two weeks there has been a change of mind, certainly in the Department if not in the

      1093
      Government. Two weeks ago, it appeared from a letter by Mrs. Gunn to the director of the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations that the Department was not going to accept the principle. The letter stated:
      "If you set an arbitrary limit, there is the immediately obvious distinction between associations with 249 houses"—
      which is to become 99 houses—
      "and those with 251"—
      which is to become 101. There is a whole argument put forward in the letter from the Minister's Department of less than a fortnight ago. I am pleased that the Minister has at least accepted some of the arguments. Why could the Minister not just accept the amendment of 250 put forward? It would have been so much better. The Minister says it is too big. It is not too big. Two hundred and fifty houses is a small number to control, organise and manage. However, one requires a full-time staff and a lot of effort but if one starts diminishing the number, one is in some difficulty. That is true of 250 and it may be even truer of 100.
      I hope that the Minister will clarify what he said. I was not clear on the numbers that he gave. He said that there were 33 housing associations with fewer than 250 houses. Was that the total?
      Mr. Millan: That was the total.
      Mr. Maxton: My hon. Friend may be more percipient than I am. I was not sure whether it was the total or a number between 100 and 250. The Minister said that 22 housing associations had fewer than 100 houses. Therefore, we are talking about some 11 housing associations covering 1,700 people. The Minister may care to tell us how many people are involved in the 22. Presumably it is roughly 2,200 who will be in the smaller housing associations.
      For that number of people and housing associations it is not worth the Government's while. It would have been so much better if they had just left it as it was. The other place was right. It put in the correct amendment and it would have been better if the Government had left well alone. Having said that, I do not intend to divide the House because at least the Government have conceded the principle that there are small housing associations and the basis will be there for us to improve on when we come back into office.
      Amendment to the Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 10, in page 21, line 51, leave out from beginning to end of line 12 on page 22 and insert
      "is, by virtue of section 360(1) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 (special exemptions for charities), exempt from tax; or"
      Mr. Ancram: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: With this we may take the Government amendment in lieu thereof.
      Mr. Ancram: The Government do not feel that all charitable housing associations of whatever size, age or purpose should, just because they are charitable, be able to deny their tenants the right to buy. I and my colleagues in the Scottish Office have been urging housing associations for some years to operate practical voluntary sales policies, including the offering of discount on terms
      1094
      similar to those available to public sector tenants and, as I have said on a number of occasions during the course of this legislation, our requests have been largely ignored.
      I announced our intention to legislate on this subject June last year and, very soon thereafter, one of the largest associations in Scotland, which had been operating for many years very successfully as an ordinary housing association, decided that it should change its status to that of a charitable association. The change was done properly, and I have no doubts that the alteration in its objects is entirely consistent with its new programme of work. Indeed, I commend any association which works assiduously for those in special need. However, that association, and, for all I know, others, has substantial stocks of houses which under any ordinary definition would be regarded as for general needs. Their tenants are ordinary families who perhaps, at one time, found that a house rented from the housing association was the only housing option open to them. But now they no longer require the assistance the association gives and are ready and able to take over ownership themselves.
      As I have said, we believe that it is right that they should have the opportunity to buy the house in which they have spent so long and that they should have available to them a discount reflecting those long years of paying rent. But their landlord associations have now acquired charitable status and unless the amendments I am are accepted both here and in another place, these tenants will not be able to buy the house in which they live. Opposition Members may say that those people should move elsewhere. I have heard that argument before. However, it seems very hard that people should have to give up the house they have occupied for so long and start again on the housing ladder simply because their landlord association has adopted a new constitutional model.
      For those reasons, I do not accept that the exemption of existing charitable housing associations should extend to all such bodies. Unfortunately, the criteria by which we determine those associations which shall be exempt as against those which shall not cannot be as precise as we would wish and there are, inevitably, one or two associations caught on the wrong side of the line. In order to minimise that, we propose in the amendment in lieu that the date by which an association should have achieved charitable tax status should be amended to 14 November 1985, the date of introduction of the Bill, and we believe that a further four associations, over and above those exempt when the Bill left this House, will be exempted.
      On the other arm of the exemption, the requirement to have had charitable rules since inception, we see no room for alteration. Associations set up for charitable purposes will, in almost every case, have started out with such rules. I know that there is at least one association, which I think I can name—Edinvar—which, possibly through no fault of its own, falls foul of that requirement, but I doubt that the impact of the right to buy on Edinvar will be at all serious.
      9.30 pm
      There remains the question of new housing associations. Earlier in our debates and in the debates in another place, the relationship between the right to buy and the Inland Revenue view of its impact on charitable tax status was much discussed. That was because the Inland Revenue had for a long time taken the view that sales by a housing association with discount, whether under a statutory

      1095
      provision or otherwise, would prejudice the ability of a charitable housing association to be granted or retain its charitable exemption from tax. However, that is no longer the view of the Inland Revenue. Following representations that we made at an early stage, it has reconsidered its long-held interpretation of the law. It explained its altered view in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) on 10 June. My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said that, contrary to the view the Inland Revenue had previously taken, the charitable status of a housing association for the purpose of the tax exemption section 360 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 would not be prejudiced by sales which the association would be required to make at less than market value to sitting tenants who exercise their right to buy under an Act of Parliament. That means that the right to buy and the exemption from tax may co-exist in a charitable housing association. Thus, one of the main obstacles as seen by both sides of the other place and, indeed, by hon. Members in this House at an earlier stage of the legislation has gone. That was one of the main obstacles to imposing the right to buy on new charitable housing associations.
      It is my view that if that information had been available earlier to members of the other place and if there had been time for my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State to draw attention to it on Third Reading there, we would not today be debating the amendment. The change in view by the Inland Revenue seems to be a significant change, which provides a powerful argument for exempting only the small group of charitable housing associations which we had originally intended to exempt.
      I should say something of the discussions that my Department has had in recent weeks with the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations. One newspaper headline said that we were trying to gag the SFHA. Nothing could be further from the truth. We were asking it to look at factors that we believed had been overlooked, and to say whether their effects were acceptable.
      Two major points arise. First, the transferable discount scheme is expensive. Already a number of associations are exempt by reason of their charitable status and some of their tenants may wish to have access to the transferable discount, but of the associations brought into the exemption in the other place, a much greater proportion have said that they wish to buy—perhaps as much as three quarters in one. Debarred from buying, many of them will want their transferable discount. The money for that would have to come from the overall allocation to the Housing Corporation, for there is no other source. Although I drew attention to that in Committee in this House on 4 February 1986, I fear that it has been lost sight of by those who oppose the right to buy. But I thought that it was necessary and right that the SFHA should be reminded of that necessary consequence arising from the wide exemption from the right to buy for charitable associations. We have to make the scheme available on grounds of equity and to place tenants in a position comparable to their counterparts in England and Wales. At the higher level that the Lords amendment would imply, the sums involved might seriously restrict the scope for development by associations generally.
      1096
      Secondly, a general exemption of this kind opens all kinds of avenues to avoid the right to buy. My Department would have had to impose controls on the registration of new charitable associations so as to ensure that their proposed activities were such as to be easily recognised as charitable. Thirdly, there would have to be close scrutiny of the activities and funding of existing charitable associations so as to ensure that they do not provide further general needs houses in situations where a non-charitable association could do the job equally well. These would have been the inevitable and undesirable consequences of the amendment passed in another place.
      I am sorry to have spoken at such length, but this is a subject on which people feel deeply. I hope that I have shown that the Government have had a proper concern for both housing associations and the aspirations of their tenants. We believe that, for too long, the argument has been seen only through the sometimes over-paternalistic eyes of the housing associations. Tenants wish to be free from such attitudes and the right to buy, for those who are able to take advantage of it, is the way forward.
      I ask my hon. Friends to disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Maxton: Perhaps you were fortunate. Mr. Speaker, not to be in the Chamber for the first of our debates on the Bill, when the Minister made great play of the way in which the period leading to the maximum discounts on flats could be accelerated. He argued that the relevant provisions had to be inserted in the Bill because that had been done when the House was considering the equivalent English Bill. He contended that this Bill could not be out of line with English legislation. The amendment that has been tabled by another place brings the Bill into line with legislation in England and Wales, yet the Minister is now saying that that cannot be done. He is not prepared to allow that charitable status in England, Wales and Scotland should be the same.
      The Minister has been pleading and arguing since the Bill first came before the House that he is introducing the right to buy to Scottish housing associations—this is almost the only major argument that he has advanced—because housing association tenants in England and Wales have the right. He forgets to mention that nearly 70 per cent. of associations in England and Wales are so registered charities whereas only a small percentage of the Scottish associations are so registered.
      Initially, the Minister did not intend to allow any of the Scottish associations to be recognised as charities and for their tenants not to have the right to buy. He has made a concession but he has been mean in the way in which he has done it. He should have accepted the amendment which would mean that all associations would be recognised by the Inland Revenue. That would be the only way forward because in Scotland there is not a register of charities as there is in England and Wales. The amendment suggests that all the associations should be recognised as charities and that the rules that apply in England and Wales should apply also in Scotland. That would allow housing associations to become charities in future if they could convince the Inland Revenue that they had charitable status. That would mean that their tenants would not have the right to buy as in England and Wales.
      The Minister recognised from the beginning that there were anomalies. There are housing associations in England and Wales that operate in Scotland and their

      1097
      tenants would not have the right to buy while others would. A housing association may go to Berwick-upon-Tweed, establish an office and set up a small housing association there, then move to Edinburgh. It might be registered as a charity in Berwick-upon-Tweed, which arguably the Minister may recognise in future, while the Minister may not recognise the one in Edinburgh as a charity in future. He is creating further anomalies by the way in which he is acting.
      Let us examine what the Minister is doing. Essentially, he has taken four existing housing associations out of the charitable status which the Lords put in. What are they? There is the Grassmarket in Edinburgh. That is below 100, so he has exempted that. There is the Gowrie in Dundee. That is almost entirely special needs housing. The Minister mentioned Edinvar. That is larger. It is over 100. But, again, it is almost entirely special needs housing, so again most of it is exempt.
      We come down to one housing association that the Minister is concerned about — the Link housing association. From the beginning, I have always labelled the Bill as the "Lord James Douglas-Hamilton Benefit Bill". The Link housing association is largely in the constituency of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton). That is about saving a Member of Parliament who has a majority below 100. It may be just above 100 but it is certainly not many.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Four hundred and ninety eight.
      Mr. Maxton: Nearly five hundred.
      Many of the tenants of the Link housing association live in pleasant houses in an attractive part of Edinburgh and they are worth a great deal of money. Because the Link housing association is now recognised by the Inland Revenue as a charity, the tenants will be denied the right to buy.
      The Minister may put up an argument to exclude all housing associations that are recognised as charities. Or he can put up an argument recognising that all housing associations recognised by the Inland Revenue as charities should be exempt. In this place we should not be spending our time debating the exclusion of one housing association which is recognised as a charity, because that is all it really is, because of the constituents of one hon. Member, who happens to have a small majority. They will now have the right to buy as a result of what the Minister is doing.
      I do not want to be too personal, but one of the ironies is that the amendment in the other place was moved by the uncle of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) is going to find out whether it was his uncle.
      Mr. Maxton: I can assure my hon. Friend that it was the uncle of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West who moved the amendment. It may be that we should not get too involved in what is obviously a family squabble on this matter.
      It really is rather strange that hon. Members are debating one housing association out of all the housing associations in Scotland. It is all down, as was the Western relief road, to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West. I am sure that the Dunfermline college of education will be saved as well. The hon. Gentleman is a powerful Member
      1098
      of Parliament. He manages to get the House to spend a lot of time debating issues which are designed to save his seat. I congratulate him on that, but it is not worthy of the Minister that he should do this in this particular way.
      Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman is coming to that traditional tailing off, for which his speeches are so well known, but before he sits down, can he explain why on this occasion, when he is resisting the line being taken by the Government, he fails to make all the arguments which were so powerfully made last time, that without exemption these charitable associations would lose all the advantages of being charities? Is it possibly because the income tax law has now been reinterpreted and the hon. Gentleman has to make a specious attack on my hon. Friend in order to get anywhere with his argument?
      9.45 pm
      Mr. Maxton: The Minister knows my speeches better than I know them myself, but if he thought that I was tailing off he had better think again. I shall come to the point about the Inland Revenue, in a moment. The Minister makes great play about the Inland Revenue, but he should be consistent. If he is to be consistent, the only housing associations that he should exempt are those which were set up and by which many houses were bought and modernised through public subscription.
      The Minister was one of the sponsors of Shelter in the 1960s. Such organisations are genuine, in the sense that they are not financed by public money. If the Minister wishes to be consistent in his argument about the In land Revenue, that is the sort of organisation that he should exempt, but that is not what he has done. Large numbers of housing associations that were recognised as charities in the past few years will still be recognised as charities, but the Minister is excluding one, the Link housing association.
      Is it strange that the Inland Revenue is now giving advice different from that which it gave a few months ago? The Inland Revenue believed one thing six months ago and now says something different. That is reasonable, because it is not written into statute: it is advice from the Inland Revenue and is contrary to advice that it gave some time ago. What is to stop the Inland Revenue six months from now again giving contrary advice? If the Minister had gone to his Treasury colleagues when the Finance Bill was going through the House and said that he wanted an amendment in the Bill to deal with this, he would have been on better ground.
      The Minister is basing his decision on advice that I have not seen written down. Perhaps the Minister has written advice from the Inland Revenue but advice can change and I am not prepared to trust the Inland Revenue not to change its mind in the future. The generous and right thing for the Minister to do is to agree that housing associations should continue to be recognised as charities. That is what the other place wants to do and the Minister is being mean-minded in the way that he is treating this amendment.
      Mr. Henderson: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) has been uncharacteristically mean-minded in his speech. I would not be surprised if there were some Link housing association houses in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Minister in addition to those in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton). I

      1099
      have housing associations in my constituency and I am also interested in this question of charity. Many hon. Members will have had representations and will have been involved in discussions during the course of the Bill.
      Mr. Ancram: My hon. Friend said that there were Link houses in my constituency. I can confirm that and tell the House that there are 159 such houses in Grangemouth. I am sure that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) will suggest that we are trying to help the hon. Member who represents that area as well.
      Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to the Minister for that additional information. This is a difficult subject and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for the way in which he has worked assiduously to get the right answer to extremely complicated questions. If I have time, I shall return to that later.
      This might be an appropriate point to take up a comment which the hon. Member for Cathcart made about my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West, whom we know must remain silent during the debate. He has been present for the entire debate and it is fair to recognise that his persistence and persuasiveness have most consistently argued for the right to buy for the tenants of housing associations. That arises directly from his constituency experience.
      This is also a moment to reflect that we do not seek to extend the right to buy to tenants of housing associations because we are suddenly seized of some new concept of the right to buy. We have had years of it working in the remainder of the public sector, and it has worked extremely successfully for everyone involved. Local authorities have had about £750 million worth of new resources available to meet today's needs in housing as a result of the sale of council houses. The policy has been good for tenants who have bought their houses, and it has improved the balance of housing in Scotland substantially. Indeed, balance is exactly the right word. We have reached the point where 50 per cent. of the Scottish people live in a home which belongs to the family. In other words, they are owner-occupiers. Perhaps fractionally under 50 per cent. are tenanted. That is a considerable achievement and a balanced one. Tens of thousands of tenants have benefited from the right to buy, so it is not a novel policy but an extension of a policy which has worked well in other sectors and which is now to apply to housing associations.
      Mr. Maxton: Would the hon. Gentleman wish to see his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) introduce a Bill next year extending the right to buy to tenants in the private sector, as it works so well?
      Mr. Henderson: The hon. Gentleman drew a similar distinction in relation to charities. I think he was trying to
      1100
      draw a distinction between one sort of genuine charity and another. He was making a distinction between charitable housing associations operating with their own money and those which operate with public money. The fact is that most housing associations operate substantially with public funds.
      Earlier the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) sounded surprised when I said that the Government had been infinitely more generous to housing associations than the Labour Government when the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State for Scotland. He will find the figures given to me by my hon. Friend the Minister in a written reply. I asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much public money had been paid to housing associations in Scotland since May 1979, and how it compared with the preceding five years. My hon. Friend answered:
      "Total payments from public funds amounted to £524·3 million in the six years from 1 April 1979 to 31 March 1985; this compares with £41·91 million for the five years from 1 April 1974 to 31 March 1979." — [Official Report, 11 December 1985; Vol. 88, c. 688.]
      That supports my remark that there has been a tenfold increase in housing association funds under this Government.
      I wish to give full credit to the part that housing associations have played in meeting the needs of Scotland's housing, especially in the case of special needs housing. They have been far ahead of local authorities in providing houses for people with special needs. Special needs were referred to specifically in the Green Paper published by the right hon. Member for Govan in 1976 as pressing needs, yet there were more met by housing associations, as he will agree, than by many local authorities.
      Finally, my hon. Friend the Minister has been patient in meeting the representations from both sides of the House. In my case I have even given him contradictory representations from constituents and, curiously enough, he has been able to meet both because of the change in the Inland Revenue's advice. I am extremely grateful to him for the way in which he has met the needs of housing in Scotland and the interests of hon. Members.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 10 disagreed to.
      Amendment made to the Bill in lieu thereof: in page 22, line 1, leave out '3 October 1980' and insert '14 November 1985'.—[Mr. Ancram.]
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.
      Committee appointed to draw up a reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendment No. 8 to the Bill: Mr. Ancram, Mr. Dewar, Mr. Durant, Mr. John MacKay and Mr. Maxton; Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Ancram.]
      To withdraw immediately.
      Reason for disagreeing to Lords amendment No. 8 reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

    AIRPORTS BILL (MONEY] (NO. 2)
    Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
    Resolved,
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Airports Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required by the Secretary of State for making grants to airport operators in connection with directions given under the provisions of that Act relating to the provision of special accommodation at airports.—[Mr. Neubert.]

Airports Bill
Lords amendments considered.
Airports Bill
  New Clause

    STATEMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH FLOTATION
    Lords amendment: No.1, after clause 9 insert the following new clause:
    ".—(1) This section shall apply where

    (a) an offer for sale to the public of any securities of the successor company is made by or on behalf of the Crown;

    (b) any invitation or advertisement is issued (whether or not in documentary form) by or on behalf of the Crown in connection with the offer; and

    (c) that invitation or advertisement does not contain all the listing particulars.

    None of the persons mentioned in subsection (3) shall incur any civil liability by reason of the invitation or advertisement, or any omission from it, if—

    (a) the contents of the invitation or advertisement were submitted to the Council of The Stock Exchange;

    (b) the Council did not object to the contents of the invitation or advertisement; and

    (c) the invitation or advertisement and the listing particulars, taken together, would not be likely to mislead persons of the kind likely to consider the offer.

    (3) The persons referred to in subsection (2) are—

    (a) the Crown;

    (b) any person acting on behalf of the Crown in connection with the offer;

    (c) the maker of any statement contained in the invitation or advertisement;

    (d) any person responsible for the preparation of, or of any part of, the listing particulars.

    (4) The reference in subsection (2) to a person mentioned in subsection (3) incurring civil liability shall include a reference to any other person being entitled as against the person so mentioned to be granted any civil remedy or to rescind or repudiate any agreement.
    (5) In this section "the listing particulars", in relation to the offer, means such particulars as, by virtue of any provision of any enactment other than this section or of any subordinate legislation, have been approved by the Council of The Stock Exchange for the purposes of the admission of the securities to which the offer relates to the Official List of The Stock Exchange."
    9.57 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Michael Spicer): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 78 and 83.
    Mr. Spicer: The new clause contained in Lords amendment No. 1 relates to the use of a mini-prospectus in relation to the flotation of the BAA's successor company. Although it is not certain that we will wish to issue such a document, we may decide that it would be valuable as part of our compaign to widen the ownership of shares. The new clause provides exemption from civil liability resulting from a mini-prospectus where the document, when read together with the full prospectus, would not be misleading for potential investors.
    This is a very limited exemption that ensures that liability does not arise simply as a result of abridging the prospectus. A similar provision has been included in the Gas Bill, and hon. Members will note that the Financial Services Bill will confer a similar exemption in respect of flotations in general. The principle is a sound one, and I hope that the House will approve it.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: The Minister said that this deals with a mini-prospectus, and I have no doubt that that is so. But it is clear from the way in which the amendment is drafted that it is an all-purpose escape clause that absolves from civil liability anyone connected with the issuing of this prospectus if someone challenges the facts during flotation.
    We know that we cannot hold the new Secretary of State responsible for that, although I am sorry that he has taken on the bad habits of his predecessor with these catch-all clauses that are widely drawn and include belts and braces, buttons and every other kind of safety device that one could think of.
    The Minister said that the amendment is necessary, although I am not quite sure why. He has not explained the need for this all-embracing escape clause. Why was it not on the face of the Bill when it was first published? Has he simply decided that the Government might use a mini-prospectus, or does the reason go wider than that? The Minister confirned that there is a provision similar to this in the Gas Bill, and it would appear that it will be a feature of all privatisation bills.
    I am especially worried about the blanket immunity for omission from the invitations or advertisements. I am primarily worried about staff conditions and the possible position with regard to the undertakings given over pensions for existing staff. As I understand it, the position is—as the chairman of the British Airports Authority has stated clearly and specifically in writing—that the pensions of those people already in employment will not be changed.
    It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, consideration of Lords Amendments to the Airports Bill, and the Drug Trafficking Offences Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Neubert.]

Airports Bill
Question again proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Mr. Robert Hughes: The chairman said quite clearly that pension rights will be protected for those already in employment, although that may not and probably will not be so for new employees.
I am rather concerned that if the information issued at the time of flotation does not contain such an undertaking, there is a possibility that the new owner or owners might claim that the provision was not in the flotation documents and therefore does not apply. The Noble Lord the Earl of Caithness has written to my noble Friend the Lord Underhill on this issue, and he has repeated and confirmed the specific assurances about pension rights.
Unfortunately, the original correspondence from the Department to Sir Norman Payne is not to be generally made available. I should like a twofold assurance on this matter. First, I should like an undertaking that pension rights will continue and that that will be put in the record. Secondly, and more importantly, I should like the Minister to make it clear that in any flotation documents, the undertakings on pensions or any other undertakings given to the employees and staff in relation to conditions of employment, are clear, so that the new owners, whoever
1104
they may be, will be well aware of the assurances and that, when buying shares in the flotation, they are aware of their responsibilities which have been sent to them by the Department of Transport.
Mr. Stephen Ross: When the Minister replies, will he confirm that he intends that the articles dealing with flotation should include the golden share condition? That is not written in the Bill, but the Government said in another place and in Committee here that they intended to make that point clear. May we have an undertaking tonight that it will appear in the statements related to the flotation of shares?
Mr. Michael Spicer: I can give the assurances requested by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) in respect of pension rights. They will appear in the documentation which we shall produce on flotation and there will be an assurance that existing pension rights to which the hon. Gentleman referred will be safeguarded. I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he was seeking.
I can similarly assure the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), that a special share will be retained by the Government for the purpose of limiting the shares held by any one person or institution to a maximum of 15 per cent. of the shareholding.
Question put and agreed to.
Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Airports Bill
  New Clause

    CAPITAL CONTROLS RELATING TO INVESTMENT IN PUBLIC AIRPORT COMPANIES BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES IN ENGLAND AND WALES
    Lords amendment: No. 2, after clause 19 insert the following new clause:
    —(1) Where a local authority dispose of any securities of a public airport company (whether it continues to be such a company after the disposal or not)—

    (a) any amount received by the authority in respect of the disposal shall be treated for the purposes of section 72 of the 1980 Act (expenditure which authorities may make) as a receipt of the authority which, by virtue of section 75(1) of that Act, is a capital receipt of the authority for the purposes of Part VIII of that Act (capital expenditure of local authorities etc.), but

    (b) only the relevant sum shall be taken into account under section 72(3)(d) of that Act.

    (2) In subsection (1) "the relevant sum", in relation to an amount falling within paragraphs (a) of that subsection, means—

    (a) three-tenths of that amount, or

    (b) if regulations are made for the purposes of section 72(3)(d) of the 1980 Act which prescribe a proportion other than three-tenths in relation to disposals falling within subsection (1), the proportion of that amount so prescribed.

    (3) Where a local authority incur any expenditure in respect of the acquisition of any securities—

    (a) of a public airport company, or

    (b) of any company which, as a result of the acquisition by the authority of those securities, becomes a public airport company,

    the amount of that expenditure shall, in so far as it is not prescribed expenditure of the authority for the purposes of Part VIII of the 1980 Act by virtue of Schedule 12 to this Act, be treated as prescribed expenditure of the authority for those purposes.
    (4) In this section and section 20 "the 1980 Act" means the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980; and this section and section 20 apply to England and Wales only."
    Mr. Michael Spicer: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 3 to 7 and No. 60.
    Mr. Spicer: I believe that the new clause introduced by Lords amendment No. 2 will commend itself to the House. It creates a new incentive for local authorities to introduce private capital into their airports by enabling them to use the proceeds from the sale of shares to justify extra capital expenditure. This is achieved by classing the proceeds as capital receipts which the authorities may add to their capital expenditure allocation. The only constraint is that the use of these receipts to justify extra spending will be limited by the prescribed proportion of three tenths which already applies to other non-housing receipts. The additional spending power may be used for any services.
    I believe that the House will also welcome Lords amendments Nos. 3 to 7, which create a further incentive to introduce private capital. Clause 20 applies to private capital raised by public airport companies the same controls as apply to capital finance provided by the controlling authority because both add to the public sector borrowing requirement. The amendments deal with the situation in which the airport company issues securities which transfer control of the company to the private sector. Because the private sector would then bear the risk of the investment, the amounts raised from those shares would not add to the public sector borrowing requirement. The amendments therefore provide that amounts raised by public airport company share issues which transfer control to the private sector will not count against the former controlling authorities' capital expenditure allocation.
    Lords amendment No. 60 is purely technical.
    I commend the Lords amendments to the House.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: It looks as though there has been some shift by the Government in relation to the use to which money raised by the privatisation of local authority airports can be put for spending on other purposes. Nevertheless, I am somewhat concerned about the three tenths qualification in subsection (2)(a) of the new clause. How far does that limit apply? Is it three tenths in any one year? Does it mean that the authority can eventually spend all the money for other purposes? If so, that is certainly some move.
    In my view, it is quite wrong that there should be any constraint whatever on the use of the money raised. As the Minister knows, I totally oppose the selling-off of local authority airports and I am not at all pleased at the way in which the Bill compels authorities to do this against their wishes. The Bill does not actually say that they must sell the airports but the financial conditions laid down about the way in which local authorities can develop their airports in terms of capital spending mean that they will be forced to sell them off. In those circumstances, it is grossly unfair to refuse authorities the freedom to use the money as they think best. Incidentally, it is also entirely against the Tory philosophy about which we have heard so much of freedom for local authorities from intervention by the dead hand of Whitehall, although the Government have been intervening far more vigorously in local authority affairs than any Government for many years.
    If there is indeed a relaxation of the public sector borrowing requirement rules by the Treasury I hope that
    1106
    that is the influence of the new Secretary of State for Transport, perhaps initiated in his former position at the Treasury. Many of us have been utterly bemused at the illogicality of Treasury rules. This move is at least some recognition of reality.
    I have one small question about subsection (3)(b) of the new clause, which says:
    "that expenditure shall, in so far as it is not prescribed expenditure of the authority for the purposes of Part VIII of the 1980 Act by virtue of Schedule 12 to this Act, he treated as prescribed expenditure of the authority for those purposes."
    I am not sure that I understand all that gobbledegook. When a local authority decides that it has to form a private company and there are costs involved, will any extra cash be available to assist it? From the way the clause is drafted, I presume that it will be prescribed expenditure. I hope that no difficulty has arisen about that.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: I wish to deal with a point that was raised by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). It seems odd that the provision about three tenths is written into the Bill. Can it be changed by order, or will there have to be and amendment to the Bill? Surely that is considered annually. We hope that the Government may relax the provision in relation to housing receipts. They have relaxed the provision slightly already for county councils. I wonder why the provision has been written into the Bill at this stage.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: The hon. Members for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) and Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) asked about the three tenths and wondered whether the additional elements will be applicable over the years ahead. The answer is, yes. I hope that answers that point.
    I do not want to paraphrase too liberally the remarks of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North, but he said that there was implicit in this part of the Bill an element of compulsion. That is not so. Indeed, he will know that since we met in Committee we have said that in determining the debt equity ratio and in taking out any debt element and leaving it with the local authority, the interest on that debt can be taken into consideration for rate support grant. Concern was expressed about that in Committee. Some hon. Members felt that there was an implicit element of compulsion in respect of some airports, so we have dealt with that issue.
    Despite pressures from various quarters, there is no compulsion, although I do not think that either hon. Gentleman would accuse me of disguising the fact that we are enthusiastic about the involvement of private capital in the development of regional airports.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

  Clause 22

    PROVISION OF SERVICE FOR PUBLIC AIRPORT COMPANIES
    Lords amendment: No. 8, in page 18, line 21, at end insert—
    "(3) Where a principal council have entered into an agreement under this section, the accounts of that council shall include a separate account in respect of that agreement and

    (a) in England and Wales, section 24 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 (rights of inspection) shall apply in relation to any such separate account

    1107
    as it applies in relation to any statement of accounts prepared by the council pursuant to regulations under section 23 of that Act; and

    (b) in Scotland, sections 101 and 105 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (rights of inspection and regulations as to accounts) shall have effect as if any reference to an abstract of the accounts of an authority included a reference to any such separate account."

    Mr. Michael Spicer: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Clause 22 makes provision for a principal council to provide a very limited range of services to an associated public airport company at proper commercial charges. In Committee several hon. Members, in particular my hon. Friends the Members for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst), asked me to see what more could be done to stimulate competition in the provision of such services by local authorities. The amendment before us requires that where any agreement has been entered into under the provisions of clause 22, the accounts of the principal council concerned shall include a separate account in respect of that agreement. It also provides for public rights of inspection of such accounts.
    It will be open then for other potential suppliers of those services to tender, if they so wish, as suppliers to the airport company when the particular contract next comes up for renewal. The amendment meets some of the concerns expressed, in particular, by some of my hon. Friends when we discussed the issue in Committee.
    I hope that the amendment commends itself to the House.
    Question put and agreed to.

  New Clause

    AVOIDANCE OF RESTRICTIONS ON TRANSFER OF SECURITIES OF PUBLIC AIRPORT COMPANY
    Lords amendment: No. 9, after clause 23 insert the following new clause —
    ".—(1) Any provision to which this section applies shall be void in so far as it operates—

    (a) to preclude the holder of any securities of a public airport company from disposing of those securities, or

    (b) to require the holder of any such securities to dispose, or offer to dispose, of those securities to particular persons or to particular classes of persons, or

    (c) to preclude the holder of any such securities from disposing of those securities except—

    (i) at a particular time or at particular times, or

    (ii) on the fulfilment of particular conditions or in other particular circumstances.

    (2) This section applies to any provision relating to any securities of a public airport company and contained in—

    (a) the memorandum or articles of association of the company or any other instrument purporting to regulate to any extent the respective rights and liabilities of the members of the company,

    (b) any resolution of the company, or

    (c) any instrument issued by the company and embodying terms and conditions on which any such securities are to be held by persons for the time being holding them."

    10.15 pm
    Mr. Michael Spicer: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 10.
    Mr. Spicer: The Bill provides that any restriction on the disposal of securities in a public airport company, however or wherever that restriction is expressed, should be void. That is how the Bill now stands. This provision is to ensure that the Government's policy of encouraging the sale of airport company shares to the private sector is not in any way frustrated by the imposition by councils of conditions making the disposal of shares difficult or impossible.
    However, some restrictions or conditions on sales of shares might, we recognise, be necessary. In particular—this point was raised by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) — we have agreed that there will be a restriction on the maximum holding of British Airports Authority shares by any one person or body. We believe that it would be wrong to deny local authorities the chance of incorporating a corresponding restriction in the articles of association of the new public airport companies.
    It is also important not to invalidate restrictions or conditions arising in a normal contract for the sale of securities. I think, for example, of an agreement binding the seller to transfer securities to the buyer at a certain date in return for a consideration. The amendment has, therefore, been designed specifically to define the restrictions that are to be prohibited, and the instruments or circumstances in which restrictions are to be invalid.
    Clause 24, which the new clause replaces, will be withdrawn. However the Opposition may feel about the general thrust of this part of the Bill, I think that the amendment, which gives greater precision and which allows the flexibility that I have outlined, will commend itself to them.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: The Minister has been very reasonable, just as he always has been in our debates on this part of the policy which deals with local authority airports. But, as I understand clause 23, it is trying to stop what has happened in Manchester dead in its tracks. I am sorry that the Minister did not understand from the Committee and Report stages, just how strongly people feel about this issue. Manchester has met all the conditions that the Government sought to impose about the running of local authority airports.
    The Minister says that he has never hidden his enthusiasm for introducing private capital into local authority airports. However, it goes slightly further than that. He has never hidden his enthusiasm for selling off the airports so that they are no longer in local authority hands. He has also found it necessary to dress that up slightly, so that it is not presented as sheer naked political dogma. He said that it was necessary to introduce the disciplines of a plc into the running of local authority airports. During our discussions, he did not give us any examples of local authorities being profligate with the public purse when it comes to running airports. But that is neither here nor there.
    The fact remains that the sole purpose of clause 23 would appear to be to bring Manchester back into line. Manchester produced a private company that would have done everything that the Minister wanted, yet he still would not permit it. Also that strikes clearly at the freedom of local authorities to decide how they shall run their airport business. I am sorry that the Minister has not found it possible to meet our wishes that Manchester in

    1109
    particular, having gone so far, should be left alone. However, we must accept that the Minister has the majority and that he will drive the measure through, whatever anyone thinks.
    Mr. Richard Page: I support the amendment because it introduces an equality of treatment with the British Airports Authority. I take this opportunity to echo the words of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) in thanking my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for accepting the spirit behind new clause 11. Back on 9 April, at Report stage, some hon. Members introduced protections for the British Airports Authority. Obviously, they sought to protect it through a golden share to ensure that it is not taken over by a series of foreign airlines. I should like my appreciation recorded in that respect. I believe it is only right that local authorities running airports should be placed on an equal basis. Hopefully, they will go down that route in the fullness of time.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) for his remarks. The advice and encouragement that he and others have given have been well heeded. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) is absolutely right; there has never been any intention to disguise the fact that we should like either an element of private capital or the sale of the companies to the private sector. If that occurred, they would cease to be within the public sector borrowing requirement. There is nothing between the hon. Gentleman and myself on that issue. I feel strongly that there are enormous benefits for companies. I also believe, having got to know some airports quite well, that a number will eventually decide to go that way for various reasons.
    Manchester has not met the condition that allows local authorities to sell shares freely. That matter will cause some concern. We shall consider the Manchester scheme with as little dogma as the hon. Gentleman has encouraged us to do. Our objective, as always, is to ensure that Manchester airport has every kind of assistance placed before it so it can quickly become a great international airport. I am quite certain that, as a result of the encouragement of the Government and the traffic rights which the Government have earned for it, that will be the case.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

  Clause 28

    DIRECTIONS TO AIRPORT OPERATORS IN THE INTERESTS OF NATIONAL SECURITY ETC.
    Lords amendment: No. 11, in page 22, line 11, leave out from "security" to end of line 13 and insert—
    "(2A) The Secretary of State may give to the appropriate person in relation to any airport a direction requiring that person (according to the circumstances of the case)—

    (a) to do, or not to do, in connection with any operational activities relating to the airport a particular thing specified in the direction, or

    (b) to secure that a particular thing specified in the direction is done or not done in connection with any such activities,

    if the Secretary of State considers it necessary or expedient to give such a direction in order to discharge or facilitate the discharge of any international obligation of the United Kingdom.
    1110
    (2B) In subsection (2A)—
    "the appropriate person", in relation to an airport, means—

    (a) the airport operator; or

    (b) an associated company of the airport operator; and

    "operational activities", in relation to an airport, means any activities—

    (a) which are carried out on wholly or mainly for the benefit of users of the airport, or

    (b) the revenues from which are wholly or mainly attributable to payments by such users;

    but the Secretary of State may by order make such modifications of the definition of "operational activities" as he thinks necessary or expedient having regard To any international obligation of the United Kingdom."
    Mr. Michael Spicer: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 12 to 14, 18, 19, 22, 23, 27 to 38, 48, 72, 82, 84, 86, 87 and 92.
    Mr. Spicer: There is a long list of amendments. I shall not go through them all in detail. However, there are one or two points which I think that the House would want me to make. I shall do so as briefly as I can. This apparently complex set of amendments deals with two related circumstances where an airport operator might not carry out airport-related activities himself—for instance, if an associated company carried on commercial activities, or if an intermediary company granted concessions for airport-related activities.
    Amendments 11 to 14 deal with the first strand of the associated company problem — how to secure the discharge of the United Kingdom's international obligations in circumstances where an operator does not control the whole of an airport's business. If, for good commercial reasons, a decision were taken in future that the airport operator should manage only the aeronautical side of the business while a separate associated company managed the commercial side, a power of direction over just the airport operator could be insufficient to secure the discharge of the United Kingdom's international obligations. It would clearly be wrong for an airport group to receive all the benefits of those commercial activities without also being bound by the obligations that go with the business of running an international office. It would be equally wrong for the power of direction to be deficient. Amendment No. 11, therefore, extends the power of direction to an airport operator's associated company.
    Amendment No. 11 also defines power with respect to "operational activities". They are defined to encompass the whole of the airport-related business, since there is no justification for allowing the power of direction to extend to activities which may be totally unconnected with the business of running an airport. Because our international obligations might change in the future, the definition is amenable by order, subject to negative resolution of both Houses of Parliament. This means that the power of direction will be extendable as far as our international obligations require, whatever may happen in the future.
    The second strand of associated company problems relates to economic regulation. Since regulation is targeted on the airport operator, the same problem could arise in that an associated company could not be regulated under the terms of the Bill. It is clearly not right that an airport group could enjoy the financial benefits of commercial activities from a monopoly position without also being

    1111
    subject to the regulatory safeguards provided for in part IV. Amendment No. 92 closes that loophole by allowing the CAA to impose conditions direct on an associated company.
    Amendments Nos. 18, 22, 23 and 32 to 35 introduce the more clear and precise phrase "operational activities" to all the clauses in part IV which refer to the whole airport-related business. Amendments Nos. 72, 84 and 86 allow clauses 28 and 38 to be extended to the Channel Islands and overseas territories by Order in Council.
    Amendments Nos. 19, 27 to 31 and 36 are designed to deal with circumstances where the airport operator does not himself grant franchises or concessions to others to carry out operational activities but interposes an intermediary — for instance, a company specialising in franchising to do so on his behalf. In such a case, it would not be possible, under the Bill as it stands, to impose conditions on an airport operator to remedy the adverse effects of any monopoly abuse at the end of a chain of franchises. These amendments close that loophole.
    I draw the attention of the House in particular to amendments Nos. 37 and 38 which fulfil a commitment made by the Government on Report in this House to meet the concerns of several hon. Members—in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) — about the protection against monopoly abuse offered by the Bill to concessionaires at airports. The amendments provide that, where the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is investigating a matter which relates to the granting of concessions, then, in addition to the objectives in clause 31—which include furthering the reasonable interests of airport users — it should have regard also to the furtherance of the reasonable interests of concessionnaires. We believe that this provides the right degree of guidance to the MMC at the point it needs it without keeping the balance on its objectivity in one direction. We made that commitment and we have now honoured it.
    I commend all these rather technical amendments to the House.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: As the Under-Secretary of State said in his peroration, a series of technical amendments are included in this group. I must admit that I was slightly confused when we jumped from national security and relations with a territory outside the United Kingdom to franchise holders at airports, all under one group of amendments. That is not, of course, any criticism of the choice of amendments.
    I was slightly worried by the introduction of the Under-Secretary of State when he said that there might be two separate companies—one operating the commercial side of the business and the other operating the aeronautical side. We have always been worried, with the proposed privatisation of the British Airports Authority, that something like this would happen. It is clear that the most lucrative part of the BAA's business is not the aeronautical side but the franchises and commercial activities. It has always been our concern that the commercial activities might be milked off in some sort of asset-stripping arrangements but that is a fairly general point.
    I want specifically to raise the issue of security with the Minister because I certainly do not object to anything the Secretary of State might do to try to protect national
    1112
    security in time of war. I do not think that there is any quarrel on either side of the House about that. However, I think that the clause is a rather cumbersome way of going about it. I would have thought that in time of war in the interest of national security there was probably adequate existing legislation without this great long cumbersome clause now amended in the Bill.
    10.30 pm
    I wonder what representations the Minister has had recently from, for example, the airports or the airlines, about the cost of security at our airports, which is growing as each week and month goes by. I do not think that we object to the fact that security is increasing in cost. Clearly modern technological changes will require better security equipment and certainly, so long as there is a security threat, we must have the necessary equipment and training. We do know that the new equipment will be extremely expensive. I hope that the Minister will look at that and discuss fully with the British Airports Authority and the relevant airlines how security might be improved and paid for. I am not asking him this evening for a commitment about who pays for security or anything like that. However, I hope that he will give an undertaking that he will discuss, or perhaps continue discussions, on what is a growing problem in terms of security and cost.
    I wonder whether the Minister saw "Panorama" on Monday night. I did not see it myself but I know that it was a very worrying programme. I know that in a written answer the Minister has said that he is stepping up training and I am glad to hear that. However, basically I am concerned at the fact that the programme put a security man through a series of tests and he managed to pick out from a number of items of baggage all the things that had been planted for him to find except three. It so happened that the three he missed were suitcases containing plastic explosive. Clearly, it must be a matter of serious concern to see that we have the equipment to find that out.
    My concern, in addition to security, is that if any part of that programme is shown in the United States it will do nothing to help the tourist trade and airline traffic, which as we know, is severely down from the United States. If people feel that there might be deficiencies in our security arrangements it will certainly not help to persuade people that there is no danger in coming to this country. I wonder whether the Minister might say something about that.
    Mr. Anthony Steen: It is right that security is tremendously important and we must ensure that our security is the best we can manage. However, would the hon. Member agree that the new arrangements that the British Airports Authority has introduced in terminal I are discouraging tourists from travelling on domestic services because of the delays that are taking place? They are causing such disruption to the airlines that planes are going without the passengers? Would he agree that the British Airports Authority must find a better way of speeding passengers through? There are four machines in terminal 1, but only one or two are ever working? Surely something should be done there.
    Mr. Hughes: I was not going to mention that, but I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised it. I have made my own representations to the British Airports Authority because the new arrangements are appalling for the passengers. There is now a nice little notice up saying that the authority is sorry it is taking a long time but it is

    1113
    recruiting more staff, please bear with it. I object to the change in the security arrangements. Previously, if one was flying the shuttle the security was done at the shuttle. If one was on British Midland, there were separate security arrangements. If one was on an internal domestic flight, there was a hank of two machines that one used to go through. That seemed to work quite well.
    I have no doubt that the British Airports Authority has its reasons for having shifted the security system up front so that everybody goes through the same system. But on several occasions when I have been to Heathrow, I have found only two machines working at peak hours. One Friday evening, the queue was not just two deep, but eight or 10 deep, from the security point right back through the whole of terminal 1 to where people go for the European services. It was absolutely appalling. There was no warning.
    Luckily, I did not have any baggage with me that evening. Perhaps I should not admit it, but I queue-jumped. I walked right past the queue, and through the individual machine. Heathrow has had its problems. They have not yet been satisfactorily resolved, but I hope that they soon will be. I do not blame the people there for trying to make the best security arrangements. Part of the problem is that they have started to do much more individual bag-searching. That is right.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does not the hon. Gentleman feel, as a regular traveller like myself, because we have to go up and down every week, that the people at Heathrow have put the machines in the wrong place? Passengers do not know which aircraft is taking off from which gate at what time. That information is shown on the board before one reaches the security system, and the passengers have to wait to reach it before they go through security. That causes part of the bottleneck. That has been my experience—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not in order to have a long discussion about the arrangements at Heathrow on this group of amendments. I hope that we shall direct our attention more narrowly to them.
    Mr. Hughes: I do not want to go further down the road of discussing where the information is, and so on. That is going into far too much detail than the amendments warrant.
    Under the amendment, the Secretary of State takes the power to direct the airport authorities to make various arrangements for national security. I agree that national security covers the security of all passengers who fly out. It is right that there should be some discussion of it.
    I hope that the Minister will have something to say which is not of a palliative nature, to the effect that everything is all right. One of the things that may have provoked some of the queries about airport security is that the hon. Gentleman has sometimes put on too bland a profile about how good security was. We have to get the balance right. I hope that if the Minister saw "Panorama", he will say whether there is anything in that programme that might be of assistance to him, and whether he will do something about it under the clause.
    Mr. Robert McCrindle: I am at least as confused as the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) as to the impact of this group of
    1114
    amendments. I am not even sure that this is the correct place in which to make the single point upon which I would welcome a reply from my hon. Friend the Minister.
    My hon. Friend will recall that in Committee and on Report, amendments were moved to try to make it a requirement on the part of the privatised British Airports Authority to discuss with the airlines, as the principal users of the airports, the basis upon which the facilities that the BAA will continue to have to provide will be provided. In another place, Lord Kinnoull moved an amendment to require such consultation to be provided. In response to Lord Caithness's suggestion that the amendment be withdrawn to allow discussions to take place to see whether a reasonable compromise could be achieved outside the Bill, I understand that the amendment was withdrawn.
    Have such discussions taken place? If so, is it likely that the Bill will require those consultations to proceed, as all the British airlines would prefer? Or as we reach the end of the parliamentary passage of the Bill, are we forced to hope that the British Airports Authority will, out of the goodness of its heart, decide that it is in its interests to have such discussions before providing, or failing to provide, facilities which the airlines consider to be essential?
    Like the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North, I was unable to see the "Panorama" programme, but I have no doubt from reading press reports that it raised serious matters to which we are duty bound to pay attention. However, does my hon. Friend agree that, although it might have made splendid television, it might have been in the interests of many passengers, who might become nervous in the extreme at the prospect of travelling as we enter the peak of the summer season, if "Panorama" and the BBC had made further inquiries as to whether other activities were taking place to which they could not be made privy? That might have presented a more balanced programme. I am not in favour of censorship on such matters, but I get the impression from what I hear of the programme that much concern has been caused. Does my hon. Friend agree that, in all the circumstances, the BBC might have done a better service to the travelling public and to the tourism and aviation industries if it had presented the position in a more balanced way?
    Mr. Stephen Ross: As a member of the Select Committee on Transport, I welcome amendment No. 11. The Minister is worried about: security at airports, and he will know that a report from the Select Committee on security at airports, especially at Heathrow is either on his desk or about to reach him. I assure the House that we have considered the matter in great detail and that our report will be worth while. For the moment, we are reporting only to the Minister. The report will be published later.
    I welcome the line that the Minister has taken on the amendment. I hope that the Select Committee's recommendations will find a niche in his views about the current position, which is not as satisfactory as it should be. There is no point in hiding the fact from the general public. I did not see the "Panorama" programme, but I have no doubt that it was overdone. I feel sorry for the BAA and the airlines, which must try to resolve problems that are almost unbearable. They cannot be dealt with to everyone's satisfaction. I have just returned from Istanbul, and I can report that the security at Istanbul airport is magnificent.
    Mr. Steen: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the British Airports Authority does everything that it can to ensure safety at its airports. Does he agree that there is no limit to the amount of money that could be spent? But it is not the BAA's money, it is the airlines' money. Does he agree that if there must be increased security, its cost should not fall only on the airlines that fly from that terminal and that the Government should take some responsibility for that expenditure?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This has nothing to do with the amendments that are before the House.
    Mr. Ross: If the hon. Gentleman is patient, he might discover that that is one recommendation of the Select Committee.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: Before I deal with the points made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) may I tell my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) that two points were implied in what he said. First, on the specific point of consultation, we shall issue an order when the relevant part of the Act comes into effect. If the thrust of my hon. Friend's questions was directed to mechanisms, capacity and consultation, these are matters that we shall discuss when we come to Lords amendments Nos. 58 and 88. I appreciate the difficulty of wading through this group of amendments while considering what it is all about.
    10.45 pm
    I say to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) that I respect the work that the Select Committee on Transport is doing on this subject. Its very existence and the thoroughness with which it has gone about its work have had beneficial effects. The Select Committee is acting in the best interests of all concerned. Much of its work has been unsung and has been done in privacy. That is in contrast to the way in which the Panorama programme approached the matter. To take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North, I suspect that that programme has made life more difficult for the British tourist industry and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to respond to his comments. I remind the House that the powers of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State over security in this context come under 1982 legislation and will not come under the parts of the Bill that deal with national security and security in exceptional circumstances.
    It is right that a balance has to be struck. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) said, the security record of our airports is fantastic. It appears that Americans have been put off from coming to Britain from time to time, and over the past five years there have been 32 hijacks of aircraft originating from United States airports and four bomb attacks. In Britain, the comparable figure is zero.
    Mr. Steen: I think that the House will want to pay tribute to the remarkable dedication of the staff at Heathrow and other airports in Britain who concern themselves with safety. As my hon. Friend the Minister has said, they have done a remarkable job. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should involve the airlines as well as the British Airports Authority in trying to find solutions to problems? When privatised, the authority should bring in the consumer in finding solutions. We should pay tribute to the sterling work that has been done.
    Mr. Spicer rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister is leading the debate into a wide general discussion of airport security, which is out of order and unhelpful. I hope that he will set an example and address himself specifically to the amendments that are before the House.
    Mr. Spicer: I hope that you will allow me to respond briefly to the debate which has taken place, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I tell my hon. Friend that responsibility lies with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. A committee that is comprised of the airlines advises on security.
    British airports have a superb security record, but it is right that we should not be complacent. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North is right to press us on these matters and I think that I have responded satisfactorily to his remarks. The Government have taken a number of actions and if I were to refer to them in detail, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would rightly call me to order. We are with the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North in recognising the need for training and the provision of the best equipment and the necessary resources.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

  Clause 29

    PUBLIC AIRPORT COMPANIES AND THEIR CONTROLLING AUTHORITIES
    Lords amendment: No. 15, in page 23, line 41, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
    "(5) Where—

    (a) the subject-matter of any particular rules made by the Secretary of State under this section is a matter in relation to which the CAA has given advice to the Secretary of State (whether before or after the passing of this Act), and

    (b) those rules are so made not later than five years after the giving of that advice,

    the requirements of subsection (4) shall be taken to have been satisfied with respect to those rules."
    Mr. Spicer: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    The amendment avoids the Secretary of State having unnecessarily to request fresh advice on traffic distribution rules from the Civil Aviation Authority where such advice has been given within five years.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: I cannot let the Minister get away quite as easily as that. It looks on the face of it as though amendment No. 15 is a purely technical matter laying down a limit of five years in which the rules have to be changed if the CAA is given advice. But how does that fit in with clause 29, which it amends?
    Here we have clearly set out the steps to be taken, first, by the Secretary of State, and, secondly, by the CAA. It makes it clear that where the CAA has been consulted by the Secretary of State, the CAA has to proceed with the consultation process in which it discusses with airport operators likely to be affected by the rules, the operators of aircraft and organisations representing airport operators or operators of aircraft, and so forth.
    I have difficulty in seeing how that works and how amendment No. 15 fits in because, in a recent exercise in which the CAA has apparently undertaken a round of consultations, not a blind bit of notice has been taken of them. I wonder whether that will happen with the traffic distribution rules.

    1117
    There have been discussions — CAP 510 — about feeding into Heathrow airport in particular, although Gatwick is also part of the system of airports serving the same area of the United Kingdom. The CAA has suggested that flights from Inverness should be shifted out of Heathrow and it has also suggested that the same might happen with Dundee and Plymouth, along with a whole range of other things in the first stage. There is also a second stage where various other flights from other British airports might be altered. The consultation process took place but I do not know anyone, apart from the CAA, who said that they agreed with CAP 510. Inverness, Dundee and everyone else are outraged that despite the consultations the CAA has confirmed what it said in the first place.
    There is no point putting into legislation a whole set of rules which have to be followed about consultation with operators and everyone else and then at the end of the day simply saying, "That's it. We have had the consultation but we are going ahead anyway." If the changes proposed by the CAA take place all hell will break loose, even more than has happened in the past.
    I do not know how amendment No. 15 fits in, but to say that the rules are so made not later than five years after the giving of that advice means five years of uncertainty.
    Either the changes will be made or they will not be made, and we must know. The Minister must tell us a bit more about how clause 29 will work. How does it fit in with his general traffic management rules in other parts of the Bill?
    This is a serious matter and those of us who represent or have interests in airports outside London will not have them dominated by the needs of Heathrow, the needs of particular operators or the needs as perceived by the CAA in a completely misconceived way.
    Mr. Bill Walker: My hon. Friend the Minister knows that we spent a long time on this matter in Committee and on Report and he knows that I have been in consultation with noble Lords in the other place.
    I do not wish to spend a lot of time on this, but when the Minister is replying could he tell the House how this amendment relates to the capacity and demand amendments Nos. 58 and 88? There is a demand from airlines to land at Heathrow. Amendment No. 15 (b) says:
    "those rules are so made not later than five years after the giving of that advice".
    We know about the advice given recently by the CAA on the problems likely to be faced at Heathrow. It suggested that certain services should be removed from Heathrow, but we know that under the regulations the carriers cannot be told where to go. They can be told where they cannot go, to Heathrow. How does that marry up with the problems of capacity and demand? There is an opportunity to develop further at Heathrow and at Gatwick. How does that square with the amendment? If we accept amendments Nos. 15, 58 and 99, which will have priority? Nos. 58 and 88 say that there is a requirement for the capacity to meet the demand. How is that marvellous balancing act to be achieved?
    Mr. Steen: Does my hon. Friend agree that this clause and the amendment are important? They give far-reaching powers to the Secretary of State, and while we are well content that the present Secretary of State will exercise his responsibilities in a proper way, we may well be anxious about how that would be done by any future Government.
    1118
    Does my hon. Friend further agree that whereas Heathrow airport is currently under-utilised, Gatwick airport is almost at capacity? There is a great danger that some unwise and badly advised future Secretary of State could get it hopelessly wrong.
    Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) has put his finger on the matter of how the official side, whether it is the CAA or the officials advising the Secretary of State, would view these things. In relation to amendment No. 15, the scheduling committee is the body which at the end of the day will determine the allocation of the available slots. That committee, certainly in respect of Heathrow, has clearly said that it is not yet unable to meet the demand.
    Mr. Steen: Nowhere near it.
    Mr. Walker: It says that on a daily and hourly basis there is still scope for aircraft and aircraft movements—if there is a demand for more. My hon. Friend the Minister will know that we spent a long time in Committee trying to find answers to these difficult and thorny problems. I compliment my hon. Friend the Minister on the way that he and his colleagues responded to the requests made in the House and in another place. We need some clarification from my hon. Friend the Minister on the exact relationship between amendment No. 15—if it is accepted—and amendments Nos. 58 and 88 which we will discuss later. Those two amendments are linked and cannot be separated.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: I assure the House that as soon as the responsibility for transport is in the capable hands of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) operators, airports and the travelling public will be well served and well looked after. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North, I should like to know what amendment No. 15 adds to the Bill. All it appears to do is extend from 12 months to five years the period of uncertainty. As my hon. Friend said, CAP 522 is merely a restatement of CAP 157. No one agrees with it. It will have a tremendously damaging effect on the development of regional air services in the United Kingdom.
    11 pm
    On 10 July a deputation from Carlisle will come to see the Minister. They share the Dundee-Carlisle-Heathrow link with my constituents. We are greatly concerned that the Minister has a document in which the information is out-dated. The new operator on this service took over officially only in January 1986 and cannot provide that information from such a short experience of the route. Indeed, it is doubtful whether the CAA could provide it. It is nonsense when one arm of the Government, the Secretary of State for Scotland, is rightly concerned about the economic regeneration of Tayside and pumping a considerable part of his budget into regenerating the area economically and building up its attractiveness, while another arm, the CAA, threatens the viability and economic well being of the area.
    The service is vital. Indeed, I travelled to London on it today. The CAA has said that it is concerned that the small companies using the slots into Heathrow should develop the interlining service. Of the 23 passengers on the flight this afternoon, three were travelling on such a service. One was going to Hamburg, one to Dusseldorf and one to

    1119
    Houston. That is not a bad proportion. If the uncertainty over the route were lifted, I am sure that the present operator of Euro-Air could develop the service and make nonsense of CAP 522. At present it is carrying out a passenger survey to find out the final destination of the travelling public when they hit London. Early signs are that those travelling to London, especially British people, would prefer to come to London via Heathrow as they come in to what are termed the business areas in the M4 corridor. Gatwick would not be suitable.
    I should certainly like to hear from the Minister that he does not accept CAP 522, but he will not say that tonight. I should like to hear how he thinks that amendment No. 15 will help him to ensure that the advice given to him by the CAA prior to the enactment of the legislation will permit him to make the right decision.
    Mr. Steen: It is not just the scheduled services from Aberdeen, important as they are, which are worried about this clause, but all the charter traffic. The hon. Gentleman may know that some Conservative Members are taking a delegation to see the Minister. Every airline involved in charter traffic. Every airline involved in charter traffic is opposed to the powers of the Secretary of State and how they may operate against their interests. Does he agree that it would be a dreadful mistake if we did anything to damage our successful charter traffic?
    Mr. Ross: I would not claim to be an expert on charter traffic, but I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. Obviously, these points have been made in Committee.
    We need to hear from the Minister tonight why he thinks that amendment No. 15 will strengthen clause 29, and more particularly, how he intends to deal with the information he is given by the CAA prior to the clause standing part of the Bill.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: I wholly understand this uncertainty point which has been raised by the hon. Members for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) and for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen). However, it is only one of two schools of thought on the matter. Others, who also represent regional routes in relation to the advice produced by the CAA, say, "Let's wait and see." As my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) said, it is not fully predictable whether the peak hour period at Heathrow could be extended by the scheduling committee in such a way as to allow in more flights than was the case when the CAA considered the information.
    A school of thought which is represented by some of the other routes affected by this decision is that we should wait and see. My right hon. Friend and myself must first decide whether we make a speedy response. However, I also recognise the point made by the hon. Member for Dundee, West about uncertainty. He and my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams have made representations about how uncertainty would affect their own regions. In the case of the hon. Member for Dundee, West it is a route that is thin and developing, and in the case of my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams it is a route in respect of which uncertainty causes great worries.
    I entirely accept that there are two sets of decisions. I must quickly produce a decision recognising these factors. We are listening intently to what the hon. Member for
    1120
    Dundee, West and others are saying about the routes that have been threatened. However, I cannot give a decision tonight.
    This is a simple amendment. Everything stays—there is no problem about that, except that we say that there is no point in going through the elaborate, time-consuming and expensive procedures implied in the clause more than once every five years.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: The amendment states:
    "those rules are so made not later than five years after the giving of that advice".
    If, say, in 18 months' time, the Minister decides not to change the rules, presumably that is the end of the matter and it is not open to the CAA to ask him to change his mind without at least a further examination.
    Mr. Spicer: As I understood the question, that is right. It will still be open to the Secretary of State to come up with new rules within that period if the circumstances have changed, but as long as he is within the five-year period he will not necessarily consult the CAA.
    It is difficult to give the precise relationships that will exist between the gathering of advice in which the CAA will be involved in relation to traffic distribution rules, the advice it gives to the Secretary of State, and the advice that it will give on capacity. But clearly there is a relationship, and I entirely accept that it will be very much part of any total advice that the CAA gives, particularly on capacity.
    Mr. Steen: It would be helpful if the Minister told the House that when looking at the powers under this clause—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not discussing the clause. We are discussing Lords amendments to it. The clause has already been debated and decided upon by the House.
    Mr. Steen: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for reminding me of that point. That is what I meant, but I did not put it very clearly. Does the Minister agree that with regard to these Lords amendments it is important for the Secretary of State to consider carefully—each time he looks at them—that private enterprise should be taken into account and that nothing should be done to destroy any airline that is operating in the private sector—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not see how that arises from these amendments.
    Mr. Steen: I can explain exactly how it does arise—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Apparently the hon. Gentleman is seeking to intervene in his already overlong intervention, which seems to be totally irrelevant to the amendments.
    Mr. Steen: I am willing not to pursue this, as I am sure the Minister has noted my point.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am glad.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

  Clause 37

    IMPOSITION OF CONDITIONS BY CAA
    Lords amendment: No. 21, in page 33, line 3, leave out "and 47" and insert "to (Breach of accounts conditions: criminal penalties etc.)"
    Mr. Michael Spicer: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: Lords amendments Nos. 43 and 44.
    Mr. Spicer: These amendments put in place a separate enforcement procedure for accounts conditions. The provisions relating to transparency of accounts in clause 38 have quite rightly been regarded as a disincentive to unfair cross-subsidy and other monopoly abuses. It is important, therefore, that any breach of the condition can be remedied swiftly to ensure that there are no gaps in the information that the clauses requires.
    The existing enforcement procedures in clauses 46 and 47 work well for the conditions on prices and trading practices but are less effective in relation to accounts conditions. For example, it would be impossible to assess what loss or damage had been sustained by others as a result of a breach of an accounting condition and it is doubtful whether a compliance order could require separate publication of any information on an airport operator who had failed to disclose. That is clearly unacceptable.
    The new procedure, which is modelled on equivalent enforcement provisions in the Companies Acts relating to accounts generally, will put that right. Because it allows for an airport operator to be liable for a fine and to daily default fines, there will be a strong incentive to comply with any accounts conditions enforced. If there should be a breach, the CAA will be able to take swift and effective action to ensure that all information required by the condition, but not provided, is published. I commend the amendment to the House.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

  New Clause

    ORDERS UNDER THE 1973 ACT OR 1980 ACT MODIFYING OR REVOKING CONDITIONS
    Lords amendment: No. 47, after Clause 50 insert—
    ". — (1) Where, in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (3), the Secretary of State by order exercises any of the powers specified in Parts I and II of Schedule 8 to the 1973 Act or section 10(2)(a) of the 1980 Act, the order may also provide for the revocation or modification of any relevant conditions to such extent as may be requisite to give effect to or to take account of any provision made by the order.
    (2) In subsection (1) "relevant conditions" means any conditions for the time being in force under this Part other than any conditions imposed or modified in pursuance of section 38(3) or (4).
    (3) Subsection (1) shall have effect where—

    (a) the circumstances are as mentioned in section 56(1) of the 1973 Act (order on report on monopoly reference) and the monopoly situation exists in relation to the carrying on of any operational activities relating to one or more airports;

    (b) the circumstances are as mentioned in section 73(1) of that Act (order on report on merger reference)
    1122
    and at least one of the two or more enterprises which ceased to be distinct enterprises was an airport operator; or

    (c) the circumstances are as mentioned in section 10(1) of the 1980 Act (order on report on competition reference) and the anti-competitive practice relates to the carrying on of any operational activities relating to one or more airports.

    (4) Expressions used in this section which are also used in the 1973 Act or the 1980 Act have the same meanings as in that
    Mr. Michael Spicer: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    The amendment ensures that nothing done by the CAA under part IV of the Bill can prevent the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry from using his powers under the normal competition law.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

  Clause 52

    SCOPE OF PART V
    Lords amendment: No. 50, in page 53, line 4, after "(1)" insert "Subject to subsection (2A),".
    Mr. Michael Spicer: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 51.
    Mr. Spicer: These amendments are technical and ensure continuity with respect to the statutory undertaker, status of airports between the present regime established under the Airports Act 1975 and the new arrangements set out in part V of the Bill. I beg to move.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

  New Clause

    DISPOSAL OF COMPULSORILY ACQUIRED LAND
    Lords amendment: No. 53, after Clause 54 insert—
    " .—(1) This section applies to the disposal of any land—

    (a) which was acquired compulsorily by a relevant airport operator or any predecessor in title of his under section 54(1) or any other enactment; and

    (b) which, at the time of the disposal, forms part of art airport or is attached to an airport and administered with it as a single unit or has, at any time since the date of its acquisition, formed part of an airport or been so attached and administered.

    (2) A relevant airport operator shall not dispose of any land to which this section applies, or any interest or right in or over such land, with the period of 25 years beginning with the date of its acquisition as mentioned in subsection (1), unless—

    (a) the disposal is for the purposes of the provision of any of the services and facilities associated with the operation of an airport; or

    (b) the disposal is of a leasehold interest in the land for a term of less than 7 years; or

    (c) the Secretary of State consents to the disposal.

    (3) Any consent of the Secretary of State under this section may be given subject to such conditions as he thinks fit."
    11.15 pm
    Mr. Michael Spicer: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

    1123
    I think that the House will agree that this is a sensible amendment. The new clause enables the Secretary of State to apply Crichel Down rules to the disposal of land that has been compulsorily purchased.
    Question put and agreed to.

  Clause 61

    PROVISION OF SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION AT AIRPORTS
    Lords amendment: No. 54, in page 62, line 32, at end insert—
    "() give the airport operator a direction requiring him to take such steps as may be specified in the direction for the purposes of, or in connection with, the use of such accommodation and facilities by such persons;"
    Mr. Michael Spicer: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 55, 56, 74 and 75.
    I inform the House that Lords amendments Nos. 56, 74 and 75 involve privilege.
    Mr. Spicer: These amendments clarify the Secretary of State's powers of direction over airport operators to provide and/or operate special facilities at airports. They also add a power for the Secretary of State, with the consent of the Treasury, to make grants to compensate airport operators for costs that they might incur complying with such directions. The amendments provide for any sums paid in compensation to come from money provided by Parliament. The Government's intention continues to be to pay airport operators additional operating costs in running special facilities. The amendments make the power behind that intention explicit in the Bill. I commend the amendments to the House.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I will cause the appropriate entry to be made in the Journal.

  New Clause

    MONITORING OF AIRCRAFT MOVEMENTS
    Lords amendment: No. 57, after Clause 61, insert:
    " ,—(1) Where an airport is designated for the purposes of section 78 of the 1982 Act (regulation of noise and vibration from aircraft), the Secretary of State may, after consultation with the airport operator, by order require him—

    (a) to provide, maintain and operate such equipment as is specified in the order (in accordance with any instructions so specified) for the purpose of monitoring the movements, within an area so specified, of aircraft on flights to and from the airport, and

    (b) to make to the Secretary of State such reports as are so specified with respect to the movements monitored by the equipment in pursuance of paragraph (a), and to permit any person authorised by the Secretary of State for the purpose to inspect the equipment on demand at any time;

    and it shall be the duty of the airport operator to comply with the requirements of the order.
    (2) Any reference in subsection (1) to the movements of aircraft shall be read as a reference to the routes taken by them measured by reference to both direction and height.
    (3) Subsection (9) and (10) of the said section 78 (enforcement) shall apply for the purposes of this section as
    1124
    if, in subsection (9) of that section, any reference to subsection (8) of that section were a reference to subsection (1) of this section."
    Mr. Michael Spicer: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 85 and 91.
    Mr. Spicer: The new clause enables the Secretary of State, after consultation with the airport operator, to impose on him a requirement to monitor the movement of aircraft—that is, their direction and height—on flights to and from the airport and to make reports. This will be done at the airport operator's expense, but it is a matter for the airport operator whether he chooses to cover the costs of installing and operating the monitoring system through airport user charges.
    The new clause will enable compliance with the noise preferential routes to be more effectively monitored. That information will enable us to assist airlines in making greater efforts to keep to noise preferential routes. That, in turn, will make for the more effective limitation of aircraft noise and disturbance around designated airports. The enforcement of compliance will, of course, remain with the Government.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: I welcome the new clause as one of great importance. Those of us with constituency interests in and around airports or the flight paths of aircraft continually receive complaints about aircraft noise and there has been a feeling that proper checking has not been taking place.
    I hope that the Minister will confirm that helicopters, in particular, and not just fixed wing aircraft, will be covered by the provisions. Certainly in my constituency the biggest problem is the large number of complaints about helicopters not following the agreed preferred routes and not complying with the rules, but when we take the complaints up we are often told that the constituent is wrong abut where the helicopter was flying.
    Provided that helicopters are covered, I believe that they must be, I welcome the help provided by the new clause in relation to monitoring, and so on, and I give it a warm welcome.
    Mr. Steen: First, I must declare an interest in British Island Airways, which flies noisy planes that have been quietened by hush kits. I must also declare an interest in British Midland and in its subsidiary companies, Loganair and Manxair. There is considerable concern about the new clause. Noise is rather like security in that there is no limit to the amount of money that could be spent on abatement and safety.
    Can the Minister give an undertaking that the clause will not be used to drive the smaller airlines, which often use older planes, out of business by insisting upon noise abatement equipment which is so expensive to install? I remind the Minister that British Island Airways was asked to install hush kits on its BAC 111 jets at a price of about £100,000 a plane, which added up to over £1 million for its fleet. According to the monitoring equipment, the actual noise on take-off is the same. The Secretary of State must not be persuaded to exercise the powers in this clause in such a way that he insists on more and more equipment being added to aircraft which will in theory make them quieter but which means that beyond the perimeter of the airport the sound to the public is exactly the same.

    1125
    The clause gives the Secretary of State too much power which, in the wrong hands, could be exercised in the wrong way. Can the Minister give some reassurance to the smaller airlines, which cannot afford the mammoth expenditure that the state airlines can afford on new, hush-kitted planes, that they will get help from him if he insists on them increasing noise prevention?
    The point must be made in the House that whereas the penalties on our airlines are considerable if they fly planes which go beyond certain noise levels, planes from Africa, for example, can continue to fly into Heathrow and into Gatwick even though they are noisier than the planes that our airlines are allowed to fly. I think particularly of the 707s, which our airlines are no longer allowed to fly but which Nigerian and Cyprus airlines will be allowed to fly for another two years. That is discrimination against our airlines.
    Perhaps in his reply the Minister can say something about his wish not to discriminate against our smaller airlines or in favour of Third world countries which are today flying noisy planes into Heathrow and Gatwick.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: I shall be happy to discuss that matter in detail with my hon. Friend. We have had an Adjournment debate on the subject initiated by him or perhaps by my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Sir Edward du Cann). It would be out of order to deal with the matter now because the new clause deals specifically with compliance with noise preferential routes.
    I am grateful for what the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) has said. I have felt strongly about the matter for some time. It seems nonsensical to have noise preferential routes and to have no means of ensuring that they are adhered to. Although costs will be involved, I am grateful for the support of the hon. Gentleman on this important new clause. I can give the assurance the hon. Gentleman sought that helicopters are included.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

  New Clause

    DUTY OF CAA WITH RESPECT TO IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING AIRPORT CAPACITY
    Lords amendment: No.58, after clause 61 insert—
    ".—(1) If, after considering any recommendations made to him by the CAA in pursuance of section 16(2) of the 1982 Act (recommmendations concerning airport capacity), the Secretary of State so directs, the CAA shall take such steps as it considers appropriate for the purpose of encouraging or facilitating the provision (whether by an airport operator or any other person) of any facilities or services that are necessary for the implementation of those recommendations.
    (2) The steps taken by the CAA in pursuance of subsection (1)—

    (a) may, without prejudice to the generality of that subsection, include the furnishing of information, the provision of assistance to persons requesting it and the provision of advice (whether or not requested); but

    (b) shall not include the carrying out of any works of construction or alteration or the defraying of, or the making of any contribution towards, expenses incurred by any other person in carrying out any such works.

    (3) Before embarking on the performance of its duty under subsection (1) with respect to any recommendations the CAA shall consult the airport operator in the case of any relevant airport as to the manner in which that duty is to be performed by the CAA.
    1126
    (4) Without prejudice to the generality of section 11 of the 1982 Act, a scheme or regulations under that section may make provision for charges to be paid in respect or the performance by the CAA of its duty under subsection (1) above with respect to any recommendations, and for such charges to be paid by—

    (a) the airport operator in the case of any relevant airport, and

    (b) any person for whom assistance or advice has, at his request, been provided by the CAA in pursuance of that duty;

    but if such provision is not by any such scheme or regulations the CAA shall be entitled to recover an amount or amounts in respect of any expenses reasonably incurred by it in performing that duty from such one or more persons falling within paragraphs (a) and (b) above as the CAA considers appropriate.
    (5) An airport is a relevant airport for the purposes of subsection (3) or (4) if—

    (a) the recommendations referred to in that subsection relate to the airport, or

    (b) the airport is subject to economic regulation under Part IV, and it and any new airport to which those recommendations relate would be airports serving the same area in the United Kingdom;

    and the reference in paragraph (b) above to airports serving the same area in the United Kingdom shall be construed in accordance with section 29(6).
    (6) Section 4 of the 1982 Act applies in relation to the performance by the CAA of its functions under this section."
    Mr. Michael Spicer: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendment No. 88.
    Mr. Spicer: Under section 16 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, the CAA already has a duty to consider the need for airport capacity and to make recommendations to the Secretary of State. Under the new clause which amendment 58 puts into the Airports Bill, The Secretary of State in receipt of such a recommendation is able to direct the CAA to take appropriate steps to encourage or facilitate the provision of such facilities and services as are necessary to give effect to its recommendations.
    The Government regard this additional provision in the Bill as a useful extra stimulus to the clear economic incentive that airport operators already will have to provide adequate capacity. The matter was debated by several of my hon. Friends and was also raised by the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) in Committee. Thus, we have found a way of accommodating the thrust of the argument put to us.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: I have one question to ask in order to get things clear in my mind. Are we talking about not only runway facilities but terminal capacity? That is as important, as, and sometimes more important than, runway, capacity. Yesterday, I went to Gatwick and although I would not like to say that there was chaos and confusion, the terminal was jam-packed with people. I understand that it has been decided not to proceed with the second terminal at Gatwick in the meantime.
    Mr. Spicer: The position is that there is no approval for a second runway but the BAA has almost completed a second terminal at Gatwick.
    Mr. Hughes: In that case, I have my facts slightly mixed up. But on Tuesday, people certainly complained to me about the inadequacy of the terminal facilities at Gatwick. There is certainly a need for an extension. I have obviously got the second runway mixed up with the second terminal. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee,

    1127
    West (Mr. Ross) has gone, as otherwise he would not make flattering comments about how I would perform as Secretary of State for Transport.
    Mr. Bill Walker: I welcome the amendments. They are encouraging after our long uphill struggle to find a form of words that would meet the wishes to those concerned about the problem of demand and capacity. I have read the words carefully, and I compliment my hon. Friend the Minister and his staff on what they have achieved. He will realise that coming from me, that is saying quite a lot after all our battles in Committee.
    The new clause refers to
    "an airport operator or any other person".
    An airport operator may have a sound reason, such as wishing to maximise profits, for not putting forward the necessary plans and proposals to meet the demand in relation to terminals. Indeed, runways could fall into the same category. If that need was not met and the airlines, or anyone else, came forward with proposals to that end, I hope that the Department, the CAA and the Secretary of State would view that favourably. That is the assurance that all the airlines, and the passengers want.
    Earlier we spoke about the problems of the airlines that had been working under a threat. But that threat would be substantially diminished if someone could say, "Of course we are prepared to invest in a new terminal wherever it is, or whatever facility is required." If that is what the new clause means, it will be very well received throughout the aviation industry. It was the uncertainty about no one being required to do that that worried people. However, the amendment represents a big improvement to the Bill. Of all the improvements and changes made, it is probably the one that the airline industry wanted most. I thank my hon. Friend for that.
    11.30 pm
    Mr. Steen: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your tolerance, indulgence and good nature, which I shall not test further. I recognise the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) in getting the clause in. He and I, along with Members of the House of Lords, battled to see the clause in the Bill. I pay tribute on the Floor of the House to my hon. Friend for his perserverance. Perhaps it is appropriate that he dresses as he does tonight to show what a fighter he has been for that clause. The House pays tribute both to him and to the Secretary of State for the fine job they have done in draftng the clause and getting it absolutely right. The airline industry has a great debt to pay.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: In response to the question by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr. Hughes), terminals will be included in the definition of capacity. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) said, my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) fought the issue strongly. We resisted making the concept "or anyone other than the operator" compulsorily in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North was quite right to say that the phrase "or any other person" introduces a new concept—a concept which he espoused during the Committee stage. I thank him for the kind remarks he made. I think that we have seen the
    1128
    efficacy of the revising powers of the other place, because the other place has come up with a form of words which improves the Bill considerably.
    Question put and agreed to.

  New Clause

    EXTENSION OF SHOPS (AIRPORTS) ACT 1962
    Lords amendment: No. 59, after clause 61 insert—
    " . Section 1 of the Shops (Airports) Act 1962 (exemption of traders at certain airports from restrictions under Part I of the Shops Act 1950 on hours of closing) shall have effect in relation to the provisions of Part IV of the Shops Act 1950 (Sunday trading) as well as in relation to the provisions of Part I of that Act; and accordingly, in subsection (1) of that section, after "hours of closing)" there shall be inserted "and of Part IV of that Act (which relates to Sunday trading)"."
    Mr. Michael Spicer: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 103.
    Mr. Spicer: Shops at designated airports are already exempt from the restrictions on weekday opening hours imposed by the Shops Act 1950. This clause and the consequential amendment extend that exemption to cover the Sunday trading restrictions.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: I wonder what the new clause means—
    Mr. Spicer: They can carry on business at any time.
    Mr. Hughes: It is said, from a sedentary position, that they can carry on business at any time. Is it a further extension of an exemption, or does it put right something which has been wrong for some time? If that is so, I would not accept it without question. I do not want to detain the House, but I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the new clause has been inserted because the Government had such a disastrous defeat on Sunday trading generally. Why has it been necessary to introduce the new clause? Is it a major extension? Why do we need it?
    Mr. Michael Spicer: It simply confirms, in statute, the existing practice at the airports.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

  Clause 64

    FURNISHING OF INFORMATION ETC. TO CAA
    Lords amendment: No. 61, in page 64, line 10, leave out "an airport operator" and insert "any person".
    Mr. Michael Spicer: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 62 to 67 and 97 to 99.
    Mr. Spicer: The amendments are of a technical nature. Amendments Nos. 61 and 62 are consequential on the group of amendments which the House accepted starting with amendment No. 11.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

  Clause 66

    SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISION RELATING TO TRANSFER SCHEMES
    Lords amendment: No. 68, in page 66, line 6, at end insert—
    "(1A) A scheme under section 1 or 14 may—

    (a) provide that any functions of the transferor under any statutory provision not contained in this Act shall, to the extent to which that provision relates—

    (i) to property transferred by the scheme, or

    (ii) to any undertaking of the transferor, or part of such an undertaking, so transferred,

    be transferred to the transferee under the scheme; and

    (b) define any such functions—

    (i) by specifying the statutory provisions in question,

    (ii) by referring to all the statutory provisions (not contained in this Act) which relates to the property, or to the undertaking or part of the undertakings, to be transferred by the scheme, or

    (iii) by referring to all statutory provisions within sub-paragraph (ii), but specifying certain excepted provisions".

    Mr. Michael Spicer: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 69 to 71.
    Mr. Spicer: Amendment No. 70 is principally a clarificatory amendment. When property is to be transferred under the provisions of clause 14, it is the Government's expectation that the freehold will be transferred where the freehold is owned. That is what we, on the whole, expect. There may, however, be exceptional cases where it would be appropriate to create and transfer the leasehold interest leaving the freehold interest with the parent authority. The amendment is designed to put it beyond doubt that in such exceptional cases the transfer of property might include the transfer of a leasehold interest.
    Amendments Nos. 68, 69 and 71 are technical and ensure continuity in respect of the byelaws that apply at airports.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to, some with special entry.

Drug Trafficking Offences Bill
Lords amendments considered.
Drug Trafficking Offences Bill

  Title
  Lords amendment: No. 1, in line 3, after "trafficking" insert
  "to make provision about the supply of articles which may be used or adapted for use in the administration of controlled drugs or used to prepare a controlled drug for administration".
  11.36 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this Et will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 154 and 184.
  Mr. Mellor: In introducing this stage of the Bill, I should like to express my appreciation to the other place for its careful consideration of this measure and the all-party spirit it showed, because very few Scotsmen were involved in consideration of the Bill.
  It might be for the convenience of the House if I say that the opportunity was taken during consideration of the Bill in the other place to make certain technical changes to clarify some of its points and to improve its drafting. It might also be convenient if I move those amendments formally. Obviously, if an hon. Member wants to raise points, they could be dealt with. Some substantive changes are worthy of a sentence or two, and I know that some of my colleagues might want to comment on them. This group of amendments is certainly one of those.
  The amendment makes it an offence to supply or to offer to supply articles which may be used in the administration of a controlled drug or to prepare a controlled drug for administration. The prosecution will, however, have to prove that the supplier believed that the article he sold would be used in connection with the unlawful administration of a controlled drug, and that will ensure that shopkeepers who innocently sell everyday items which are then used for drug taking have nothing to fear from the new offence. It is on that basis that, I am glad to say, the Retail Consortium supports this measure.
  I should point out also, because of the legitimate concern about this aspect, that this new offence specifically excludes the sale of hypodermic syringes or needles because of the increased risks of AIDS and hepatitis, which would result from the re-use of those items.
  The new offence will apply to Scotland—the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), can prick up what he pleases to call his ears—and Northern Ireland as well as to England and Wales.
  Mr. Robin Corbett: I reaffirm and remind the Under-Secretary of State—I am sure that I do not have to—that this is one of these rare occasions on which the Bill has gone through not simply with all-party support but with enthusiastic all-party support, because we are wholly with the Government on the need to deal heavily wth the drug traffickers.
  We specifically welcome these amendments which are in a narrow sense designed to deal with the problem of cocaine kits. The Under-Secretary of State needs no

  1131
  reminding from me that probably one of the most important aspects of the campaign which we must wage against drug traffic abuse is that we must try to stop young people starting. These amendments are part of that process. There is no need for us to hound shopkeepers who innocently sell the individual items which go together to make up the kits but, at the same time, it does no harm, in fact it is probably good, to try to recruit them to our side in our national effort to try to get on top of this menace which literally threatens a generation of our young people.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: I congratulate the Minister on the way in which he has ensured that the Bill has had a fair passage through the other place. Not only has it had a fair passage but it has come through the other place much improved, particularly by the groups of amendments we are considering now. The problem which can sometimes arise in dealing with drugs is that as we tackle the issues, even though we sometimes tackle them very quickly, as has happened here, we still find ourselves one step behind those wicked people who are determined to peddle dangerous drugs to the young.
  I hope that the Minister will assure the House—I am sure that he will, because I know that his interest in this problem is deep and genuine—that the Government will lose no opportunity to tighten up the law to catch drug peddlers. I hope that he will confirm that these provisions are capable of dealing with people who might try to sell kits which would enable people to use crack, a heroin substitute, as I understand it, which has become rife in the United States and has now reached these shores and that he will continue to keep under review any further substitutes which become known to be prevalent in the streets of our towns and cities.
  I share the view of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) that the Bill has been improved in the other place and that there will be no need for any controversy tonight in dealing with these or any other amendments.
  Mr. Mellor: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), who speak for the official Opposition and the Liberal party, for what they have said and the consistent help they have given. The hon. Member for Erdington, in his work on the Select Committee and now as Front Bench spokesman for the Opposition, has been a tower of strength on this and other aspects of the drug problem and at several stages I have appreciated the legal expertise and prowess of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery.
  I can say to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery that crack is a form of cocaine which is stronger than normal cocaine and is heated up and abused in that way. Any kit that facilitated that would be caught because we decided not to restrict the amendment to cocaine kits as such but to include any means of facilitating the unlawful use of controlled drugs. We thought that that was better and would help to avoid the point that the hon. and learned Gentleman rightly made, that we always seem to be one step behind. Perhaps in this case we are putting ourselves one step ahead.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

  Title
    Clause 2

      ASSESSING THE PROCEEDS OF DRUG TRAFFICKING
      Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 3, leave out lines 14 to 16 and insert
      "the values of the payments or other rewards"
      Mr. Mellor: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 8, 14, 19, 20, 22, 25, 27 to 37, 39, 45, 49, 52, 55 to 57, 59, 60, 63, 66 to 72, 77, 79, 84, 86, 87, 96 and 143.
      Mr. Mellor: When earlier considered by the House the Bill provided for a confiscation order to be satisfied from property available in respect of the defendant. That included property transferred to third parties for significantly less than full value, provided that the transfer had taken place during the previous six years or the property could be shown to represent the proceeds of drug trafficking. Where the third party has subsequently transformed that property into something else, however, we want to ensure that the courts will be able to order the confiscation of the substitute property or assets of equivalent value; that is why the change has been made and I think that it is substantial.
      The second major change in the amendments is to meet a point raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), who was anxious that increases in value should be fully reflected in the confiscation order. We now provide that in assessing the value of any payment, reward or gift, the court will be able to take either its value at the time of receipt, adjusted for inflation, or, where the person concerned still holds the property or assets directly or indirectly acquired with it, its current value, whichever is the greater. That meets the hon. Gentleman's point.
      11.45 pm
      Mr. Corbett: I thank the Minister for responding to the points that we raised in earlier debates. Perhaps I can put it more colloquially. I have been heard to state that, when we catch and convict drug traffickers and then go into the business of trying to get hold of their assets, I want to strip them down to their underpants. If they then try to transfer their underpants to a third party, I want those as well.
      Questions put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

    Clause 5

      CONFIRMATION ORDERS: DEFINITION OF TERMS
      Lords amendments: No. 23, in page 6, line 15, leave out "or".
      Mr. Mellor: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 24, 41, 44, 53, 82, 93, 97 to 102, 119 to 125, 127 to 130, 138, 139, 162, 163, 180, 182, and 185.
      Mr. Mellor: In deference to our friends from the north—
      Mr. Corbett: Not just from the north, but from Scotland
      Mr. Mellor: Indeed, even Scotland.
      I should like to make a few points in commendation of the amendments. Their main effect is to provide that restraint and confiscation orders made by courts in England and Wales can be registered in the Court of Session and he enforced by the court against assets held in Scotland. Receivers appointed under the Bill will be able to exercise their powers in Scotland. Scottish police and customs officers will have the same powers in relation to the investigation of drug trafficking as their colleagues in England and Wales. The amendments also regulate the relationship between drug trafficking proceedings and Scottish sequestrations in the same way as the amendments that we shall consider shortly, which deal with insolvency in England and Wales.
      The provisions ensure that Scotland does not become a haven for the assets of drug traffickers operating south of the border in the period before its own separate legislation is introduced. That legislation, in its turn, will contain similar provisions for the enforcement of orders made by Scottish courts against assets held in England and Wales.
      Mr. Keith Raffan: As the hon. Member for Glasgow. Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) will remember, we entered into an exchange during the Queen's Speech debate, when he said that Scots law was ahead of English law. He will be as concerned as I am now to ensure, particularly as he once represented part of the city in which I was born and was once my Member of Parliament, that Scots law does not lag behind English law. That is basically the point that I want to raise with the Minister.
      Although, by the amendment, we are preventing Scotland from becoming a refuge for people trafficking in drugs in England, I am concerned that the other way round does not still apply and that effective cross-border co-operation is still only one way. I want my hon. Friend the Minister to confirm that cross-border co-operation will be both ways. I am sure that the hon. Member for Garscadden will endorse my second point wholeheartedly. It is also important that the separate legislation to be brought into Scots law is brought in as soon as possible in the next Session.
      Mr. Donald Dewar: I do not know whether the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) is an asset that we have exported from Scotland, but, if so, I am prepared to put up with the prospect of permanent alienation.
      I regret to say that I have not given much attention to the Bill, because it is largely English. The Minister has just confirmed that the clauses that affect Scotland, although they are formidably long and there are many references to them in the Lords amendments, cover the enforcement of English confiscation orders by the Scottish courts. It will ensure that there is no escape clause or refuge which would allow someone to shift into Scotland assets produced by this unfortunate and wicked trade and to escape orders that may be made against him south of the border. I presume that this thicket of amendments merely achieves that, and at this time of night — especially in the presence of the Deputy Chief Whip, who is looking distinctly tired at the sight of me at the Dispatch Box— I shall not discuss the Scots law of sequestration.
      Perhaps the Minister can help us with the point made by the hon. Member for Delyn. As he no doubt knows, we
      1134
      are in a curious position in Scotland. He will have followed the debates on the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1985, which introduced punitive fines based upon putative profits in drug trading, which was put on the statute book only a year or 18 months ago. In the long and difficult debate about the criteria which the courts should apply in deciding how to compute those fines, Scottish Ministers made it clear that confiscation orders would not be possible in Scots law for some time. They gave us many plausible explanations, including the long digestion period and the amount of research that would have to be done, for proceeding down the fines route.
      Will the Minister give us an assurance that the Scottish Office has changed its mind on that point? If so, we can expect legislation parallel to this in Scotland. But it is a complete change of course, because we were told during proceedings on that Act that it would be impractical and impossible. It is important that the Minister clears up that point, so that we know where we stand.
      Mr. Mellor: I am delighted that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) should have intervened, in a brief cameo role, in our proceedings. It is as though Lord Olivier had wandered into a dog food commercial. His presence tonight is touching.
      I must express momentary satisfaction, after three and a half years as a Home Office Minister always being told how perfect Scots law is, that for one brief flicker of time we are ahead of the Scots. That is at least something. But I understand that Scottish legislation will be introduced next Session. The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to put myself forward as an authority on precisely what it will contain, but I am given to understand that it will mirror the proposals contained in this Bill, and I shall draw the attention of my colleagues in the Scottish Office to the hon. Gentleman's points. They will wish to curb his loquacity next Session, and the best way to do that is for me to agree with him now.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

    Clause 7

      CASES IN WHICH RESTRAINT ORDERS AND CHARGING ORDERS MAY BE MADE
      Lords amendment: No. 42, in page 10, line 2, leave out
      "by virtue only of subsection (2) above"
      and insert
      "before proceedings have been instituted"
      Mr. Mellor: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 48, 61, 62, 64, 73 and 179.
      Mr. Mellor: The amendments allow the prosecution as well as the holder of the property to seek a variation in a restraint or charging order. We think that this additional flexibility will be welcome to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

    Clause 17

      ASSISTING ANOTHER TO RETAIN THE BENEFIT OF DRUG TRAFFICKING
      Lords amendment: No. 103, in page 17, line 37, at beginning insert
      "Subject to subsection (2A) below".
      Mr. Mellor: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 106, 107, 109, 111 to 115 and 151.
      Mr. Mellor: The amendments implement the recommendations of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. The new provisions will be of considerable assistance to the investigating authorities. I take the opportunity to thank the Select Committee for its detailed and useful reports, which have been invaluable in the development of the Bill.
      The amendments provide also that the financial institution will be exempted from the laundering offence if it continues to handle the suspect's account after informing the police or Customs of its suspicions. Otherwise, the bank would have little option but to close the account, thus forewarning the client that he was under suspicion.
      Another amendment arises out of a useful discussion in Committee about the constitution of the new offence. It was said that clause 17 as originally drafted could have had the effect of catching honest bank staff who might inadvertently handle the proceeds of drug trafficking. An amendment that was agreed in another place removes the objective test of having reasonable grounds to suspect. The prosecution will have to prove actual knowledge or suspicion on the part of the defendant that the person with whom he was dealing had been engaged in drug trafficking. I hope the amendments commend themselves to the House.
      Mr. Corbett: May I join the Minister in half thanking myself for the advice of the Select Committee on Home Affairs?
      The Minister referred to protecting bank staff who might inadvertently be caught up. The changes that have been proposed give the protection needed to those who work in banks and other financial institutions, although in no way debarring them from assisting us in the general purposes of the Bill.
      12 midnight
      Mr. Geoff Lawler: Amendment No. 111 took up a lot of debate in the other place. It is an innovative amendment and a great improvement on what was before the purely reactive role of financial institutions. Two points can be made. First, rightly, the Government have sought to reject any idea of compulsion along the lines that appertain in America. I hope that the Minister will assure us that that will continue to be the case. Certainly, it would prove to be unworkable.
      Secondly, one of the noble Lords in the other place said that the amendment would have little effect because bank managers or managers of other financial institutions would not know what to look for. He asked how their suspicions would be aroused that money that was being laundered which originated from drug trafficking. We cannot expect all bank managers suddenly to be budding
      1136
      Maigrets, but even a budding Clouseau would know what to look for if properly alerted. Therefore, to make the amendment effective, may we have the assurance of my hon. Friend the Minister that bank managers will have some proper brief and traning in order that their suspicions might be aroused where appropriate?
      Mr. Raffan: I welcome the amendment. We are bound to welcome any way in which the controls in the Bill on the laundering of money are strengthened and that lies at the core of it. I am not sure that I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Lawler) with regard to further powers. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to assure the House that he will keep a close eye on the effectiveness of this amendment and the way in which it is implemented to make sure that it works. If it does not we must consider taking further powers to require banks to disclose deposits and transactions above a certain amount. I am well aware of the burden that that would impose on British banks, compared with American banks, given the larger amount of cash transactions that take place in Britain compared with the United States, but, as I said on Second Reading and subsequently in Committee, anything that we can do to dramatically slow down this evil trade should be done.
      Mr. Mellor: I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, North (Mr. Lawler) and for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington, (Mr. Corbett). Yes, of course, as my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn says, we think that what we have done at the moment is adequate, but the matter will be kept under review, and, if necessary, further steps will certainly be taken. We are not attracted to the American disclosure arrangement which has been more honoured in the breach than anything else, and has caused enormous difficulties in the attempt to bring about compliance.
      I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North that there is certainly no question of compelling a bank to disclose. Training must be a matter for the banks. Given the enthusiasm with which they have sought to facilitate the introduction of the legislation — I pay tribute to them for that — I should have thought that they would want to include in their staff training the clearest warnings to staff as to how to behave when confronted with the kind of situation that is envisaged in these arrangements.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

    New Clause

      AUTHORISATION OF DELAY IN NOTIFYING ARREST
      Lords amendment: No. 152, after clause 24 insert—
      ". — (1) In section 56 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (right to have someone informed when arrested), at the beginning of subsection (5) there is inserted "Subject to subsection (5A) below" and after that subsection there is inserted—
      "(5A) An officer may also authorise delay where the serious arrestable offence is a drug trafficking offence and the officer has reasonable grounds for believing—

      (a) that the detained person has benefited from drug trafficking, and

      (b) that the recovery of the value of that person's proceeds of drug trafficking will be hindered by telling the named person of the arrest".

      1137
      (2) In section 58 of that Act (access to legal advice) at the beginning of subsection (8) there is inserted "Subject to subsection (8A) below" and after that subsection there is inserted—
      "(8A) An officer may also authorise delay where the serious arrestable offence is a drug trafficking offence and the officer has reasonable grounds for believing—

      (a) that the detained person has benefited from drug trafficking, and

      (b) that the recovery of the value of that person's proceeds of drug trafficking will be hindered by the exercise of the right conferred by subsection (1) above."

      (3) In section 65 of that Act (interpretation)—

      (a) after the definition of "appropriate consent" there is inserted—

      ""drug trafficking" and "drug trafficking offence" have the same meaning as in the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986", and

      (b) at the end of that section there is inserted "and references in this Part to any person's proceeds of drug trafficking are to be construed in accordance with the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986".

      (4) Without prejudice to section 20(2) of the Interpretation Act 1978, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Application to Customs and Excise) Order 1985 applies to sections 56 and 58 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 as those sections have effect by virtue of this section".
      Mr. Mellor: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Corbett: I have no wish to detain the House on amendment No. 152, but I wish to place on record the attitude of the Labour party to these and related provisions in The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The powers proposed by this amendment are, in terms of civil liberties, quite draconian. The Bill gives the police power to delay notification of the arrest and detention of somebody for up to 36 hours for reasons which, I quickly add, are wholly justified in the circumstances.
      When saying that in some circumstances this kind of intrusion into civil liberties is justified, we have to be careful. I know that the Minister understands that we are not looking for bouquets or roses, but I want to remind him again that the reason why we have gone along with this is that we are determined, as are the Government, to use every weapon in our armoury to deal effectively with people who not only make vast fortunes out of drug trafficking, which is had enough, but do it by ruining young lives. Every hon. Member wants to try to protect and save those young lives.
      Mr. Alex Carlile: Is the Minister satisfied that the powers contained in the new clause will make it virtually impossible for friends, relatives, dishonest professional advisors and others to dispose successfully of assets in the short period after arrest? I addressed that matter on Second Reading and it has been of considerable concern throughout the proceedings on the Bill. It seemed to be a lacuna in the original Bill and I hope that the Minister will give an undertaking that if the new clause does not work, new measures will be brought before the House.
      Mr. Mellor: I admired the courage of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) in stopping you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in full flow. You demonstrated to my satisfaction tonight once again that Phyllosan really works.
      I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for recognising that this measure is necessary. It was equally proper for him to point out that this is a limited incursion into what
      1138
      was otherwise a major step forward in The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, allowing much wider access to professional advice. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) put his finger on it when he said that if we are to be successful in dealing with the problem of the large assets of drug traffickers we must be able to act peremptorily to prevent them from being shifted out of our jurisdiction. We cannot expect to make watertight arrangements with every country to which assets could be moved, so that they will be in reach of our courts. I am as satisfied as I can be that these arrangements make it possible to prevent leakage of information. Although ways can always be found, we make it difficult for traffickers and that is what we all want to do.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

    Clause 28

      INTERPRETATION
      Lords amendment: No. 155, in page 26, leave out lines 29 to 32.
      Mr. Mellor: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 156, 157, 161, 164, 165, 166, 169, 170 to 174, 176 to 178 and 183.
      Mr. Mellor: The amendments relate to the interpretation clause and I shall not speak at great length on their merits. Suffice it to say that this is the final moment of consideration of the Bill. As it moves on to the statute book, I am aware that it does so with the warm support of all who participated in debates in both Houses. I wish to express my gratitude for all the help and support I have received from many colleagues in all parties in trying to get the legislation right. We have not been afraid to make changes even at the last moment and to incorporate in the Bill new concepts as they appeared to be appropriate.
      I hope that we can all take some pleasure in that we have joined together to bring on to the statute book legislation which has a tremendous amount of hope pinned on it. As we have discovered, it is not enough of a deterrent to drug traffickers merely to lock them up. It is absolutely crucial to find an effective way of depriving them of the massive profits they can make. While I do not make the claim for any piece of legislation that it can succeed in every case, we have taken a major step forward tonight and I am glad to have played my part in seeing the Bill on to the statute book.
      Mr. Corbett: I thank the Minister for what he has just said. I wish to make clear the complete commitment of all sides of the House and millions beyond it to waging war as effectively as we can against the menace of drug abuse. No words can in any way exaggerate the extremely dangerous threat which drug abuse poses to a generation of our young people. Regrettably, sections of them seem at war with themselves, and others with society generally. We must try in whatever ways we can to deal with that. One way is the Bill, which makes it clear to those before our courts and those convicted of these vile offences that we shall do our best through this democratically elected assembly and through our courts to ensure that they will not enjoy the fruits of this vile, destructive trade.

      1139
      In many ways this is a historic Bill, and it is regrettable in the sense that there is a need for it. It signals to those who are engaged in those activities that we are collectively and nationally serious about tackling this problem in this way.
      My final point is something that I have told the Minister before, and I now repeat it on behalf of the Opposition. We stand ready to co-operate in any ways open to us with the Minister and his colleagues to give any help that we can towards what should be a national campaign. This should not be a party political matter. We should be joining together— the parties represented in this House, parents, the majority of young people, who do not use drugs, community groups, trade unions, business, commerce and everyone. We all have a vested interest in getting on top of the problem and beating back this vile tide of drugs.
      12.15 am
      Mr. Lawler: I wish to make a brief point, without being churlish after such endorsements. It relates to Lords amendment No. 178. Perhaps some convicted traffickers would prefer to serve a further term of imprisonment and when they are released, enjoy the proceeds on which the courts have not been able to lay their hands. For example, someone could do another five years and have a nice bounty of just under £1 million to enjoy when he came out of retirement, but according to the clause no further action could be taken. In view of that, and the fact that some people might like to take that option—especially if their initial sentences were not that long—can the Minister give an undertaking that the Government will continue to review the deterrent effect of the clause?
      Mr. Mellor: My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Lawler) has got it slightly wrong in the sense that the defendant has no option in this matter. If his assets lie within the jurisdiction, they can be seized and he cannot say that he would prefer to do the five years. The five years, and indeed, the maximum of 10 years applies to a situation where the assets are out of the jurisdiction and the defendant needs some incentive to be invited to bring them back within the jurisdiction. I look forward to the time when we are able to have the kind of agreements with other countries for mutual enforcement of court orders. After all, if we can do it in relation to maintenance matters in family cases, we ought to be able to do it in this regard. But until that time, people need an incentive. If the property lies in the jurisdiction, or if it is in the hands of third parties or others within the jurisdiction, the option is not available to the defendant. It will be enforced with the full machinery of the High Court masters and so on.
      On that positive note, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that we can let you get back to your Oxo.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 79(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c.

  REHABILITATION OF OFFENDERS
  That the draft Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 13th June, be approved.—[Mr. Neubert.]
  Question agreed to.

Disasters (Charitable Funds)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neubert.]
12.17 am
Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful for the opportunity to debate on the Adjournment the subject of Government policy towards support of charitable funds established following disasters. I am particularly grateful for that selection as in one way or another I have sought to have this matter debated since at least the autumn of last year.
I am also grateful that in his place is the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction, because the Government know that one of the most recent and important examples of this issue has been manifested in connection with the Abbeystead water pumping station disaster that happened just over two years ago and for which the Minister's predecessor was in some respects the accountable Minister. I also welcome the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman), whose constituency was the most severely affected by that disaster.
When there is a disaster in Britain, or if it affects British citizens, what should the Government do by way of compensating them in an ex gratia way from taxpayers' money from the contingency fund when their only other remedy, if at all, may lie clown a long and tortuous legal road involving much cost, risk and hardship, with no certainty of satisfaction? In that context, there have, tragically, been four recent occasions when this issue has come to the public's attention. I will mention these incidents and then consider in greater detail the particular incident which has caused me to ask when the Government will recognise that it is appropriate, in cases where they have not yet done so, that they, on behalf of the nation, should make a contribution? When will they pay some money to support and compensate the victims, the bereaved or injured, following a disaster?
On 23 May 1984 there was a horrendous methane gas explosion in the valve house of the Abbeystead pumping station in Lancashire, which was opened only four years before. As a result of that explosion, 16 people were killed, three of whom were employees of the North-West water authority, and 28 people were severely injured. Most of the people who were killed or injured came from the village of Saint Michael's on Wyre in Lancashire. They had been visiting the pumping station that evening.
Since then there have been three other occasions when there has been a comparable national tragedy to which the Government have been asked to respond. On I I May 1985 in Bradford there was—as hon. Members will recall—a horrifying fire which enveloped the stadium causing death, destruction and injury. Only a fortnight later in Brussels on 29 May 1985 in the Heysel stadium, on the occasion of the Juventus versus Liverpool football match, there was a savage set of events dramatically witnessed also by people on television from afar, which resulted in death and many injuries.
On the two occasions to which I have just referred, the Government made contributions to the charitable funds that were set up. In Bradford, a sum of £250,000 was paid from the Contingency Reserve Fund. A sum of £230,000 was contributed in response to the Brussels disaster via the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the victims. It appears that a response was also contemplated on a third
1142
occasion on 27 August 1985 when there was an air disaster at Manchester airport. In the event, that was resolved in a legal manner in a matter of weeks by way of a "mid-Atlantic" settlement and there was therefore no need for a Government response. A substantial sum in the order of millions of pounds was paid in compensation.
However, as of tonight, nearly two years and two months after the Abbeystead disaster, there has been no public recognition on behalf of the nation to compensate those who feel that they have been forgotten. Why have these people been treated differently? What is it about policy that prevents those people from benefiting from a donation from the Government? Will the Government now, by virtue of the Minister's response, consider whether it is possible for these people to receive some compensation?
A charitable fund was set up and £85,000 of public money was raised including a contribution which was received from the North-West water authority. That money has been spent almost entirely on helping with hospital visits and immediate concerns. It has effectively been exhausted and it has not covered any of the legal costs of those seeking legal remedies and has not compensated them for the personal suffering and experience that they have had since then. There has been no Government contribution.
Why has there been no Government contribution? The Government's reason for that—certainly since early last year—is that there is a court case in progress. However, I believe that there is no principle of law or equity which should, as a direct consequence, mean that once a court has begun there can be no Government contribution to these matters. It is wrong in law to say that that is not possible. As I understand both law and practice, any ex gratia contribution, in the hands of the recipient, whether it is later taken into account for other purposes, does not preclude or interfere with the issue of liability, which is the matter being litigated.
When the response to the disaster was made on 24 May 1984, the then Minister of State, Department of Employment, said that an inquiry would commence under the Health and Safety Executive, as indeed it did. He then indicated, as he and his colleagues did by their visits to Lancashire, that the Government would respond in as sympathetic a way as possible. Only a week later, on 30 May, the Minister responsible went to Abbeystead to look at the pumping station, then to a meeting with villagers at St. Michael's on Wyre and then to visit the victims in hospital.
It is true that the verdict of the inquest in October 1984 was accidental death, but in February 1985 the Health and Safety Executive report made it clear that there were severe criticisms of what had happened at Abbeystead and that several factors had contributed to the fatal explosion. The most severe was the design of the ventilation system which, for environmental reasons, had no direct outlet but an outlet back into the valve house. That was, in effect, the cause of the explosion. There were also unauthorised decisions—for example, to leave a valve partly open so that the tunnel was not kept full of water as intended, and not to follow the code of practice in the manual, in any event inadequate, which meant that there had been no inspection of the tunnel at all since it had been built.
The following comment was made at the end of the report on behalf of the Health and Safety Executive:

1143
"We have decided not to press charges of criminal negligence against the water authority. It is for the authority to consider the extent of its responsibility morally, humanly and civilly."
Since then, a court action was begun in June 1985 against the water authority, Binnie and Partners the consulting engineers and Edmund Nuttall the civil engineering contractors. In July 1985 a defence was put in. In the same month, the then Minister for Housing and Construction said that the Government could take no further steps. As the Minister knows, I have always accepted that the Government quite properly cannot interfere in the litigation. There have been articles in the New Scientist and the New Statesman and the hon. Member for Lancaster sought to pursue matters in the autumn of 1985. Again, the Leader of the House told her that no steps could be taken. There was then correspondence between my right hon. Friend the leader of the Liberal party and the water authority and between me and the Minister who is replying to today's debate, the Government again saying ultimately that they felt unable to intervene.
I especially ask the Government to reconsider their decision, not only because I believe that the principle is wrong, but in the light of two other factors that make this a special case. First, whatever the exact words used, when in May 1984 the then Minister went on behalf of the Government to meet people in St. Michael's on Wyre, some of whom I have now met, the local people came away with the distinct impression—the words used led them to this conclusion—that they had been assured that the Government would do all that they could. That was a specific and additional commitment.
It is also clear from the Health and Safety Executive report that, although the events did not lead the HSE to the conclusion that it should proceed legally to prosecute, none the less there were things that had gone badly wrong. Even if there were no formal requirement for a response on behalf of the Government, it was implied that somebody should take responsibility for compensating the people concerned. I do not suggest that any particular Minister is responsible—it is a matter for the nation and for the Government of the day — but the Minister charged said that he could give no specific undertaking that the Government would be able to find specific funds, although I believe that it was accepted that funds exist for payment of compensation of this kind if the Government choose to use them.
The people of Abbeystead and St. Michael's on Wyre have come to feel especially aggrieved when they read this year, for example, that £100,000 was paid to a horse injured by the North-Eastern electricity board, while they had still received nothing. They have had no help through legal aid. They are pursuing together their legal remedies. But all the time they are doing without the money that they need to make their lives more tolerable. Many of the people who were bereaved are coping with children and relatives in a difficult position. Many people were very badly injured and were lucky to survive.
I hope the Government will accept that there is an enormous feeling which goes well beyond the village of St. Michael's and across the boundaries of the county of Lancashire that it would be appropriate now for the
1144
Government to consider making a payment on behalf of the nation that in no way would preclude other rights that the individuals might be able to enforce.
I do not wish to end by paying any tribute to individuals who were affected. It would be invidious to name one or some but not others. Many people have, however, sought to take up the case of these tragically affected families and individuals. I pay tribute in general to the members of the press in Lancashire who have campaigned consistently and honourably on behalf of the people in the area that they represent in their profession. The local newspapers—the Lancaster Guardian, the Garstang Courier, the Lancashire Evening Post and the Blackpool Gazette — have done consistently good work in arguing the case.
I want to end with a quote from one of those newspapers because it puts the case far more cogently than perhaps any words from a parliamentarian can do. The editorial in the Lancashire Evening Post of 29 October last year, which was headed:
"Time to end this cruel waiting game"
said:
"The Abbeystead case seems more unfair because there could soon be settlements of both the Manchester air disaster and Bradford football fire claims.
There has been tremendous pressure to settle these because they happened in very public places rather than a waterworks in the middle of nowhere.
But surely the principle is the same. The injuries were the same; the burns the same … the agony is the same. They should all have their compensation without having to engage in legal chess."
I hope that the Government can say that they will respond in a similar way to alleviate the misery of these poor individuals who have suffered enough already.
12.32 am
Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I should like to make one or two points as my constituents were so tragically involved. One cannot visit any event in the villages around St. Michael', as I was doing last weekend and shall be doing again this weekend — and as I do most weekends—without seeing people who have been tragically scarred physically by the awful event at Abbeystead at 7.30 pm on the evening of Wednesday 23 May 1984. Indeed, had it not been a Wednesday it is likely that I should have been there myself.
But those physical scars are, if anything, the least important. It is the mental and psychological scars that are harder to bear and to heal, and to see in those one loves, and the loss of loved ones the terrifying memories that do not go away. Those scars cannot begin to heal until the question of compensation for the victims has been settled. It is now over two years since the accident, and the end is not yet in sight.
Eager though my constituents are to have an end to this agonising waiting, they know that they have a just and cast iron case for compensation, and they will pursue it to a successful conclusion. Anything that the Government can do to expedite that successful conclusion would be gratefully welcomed by my constituents.
12.33 am
The Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction (Mr. John Patten): Mr. Deputy Speaker, it must be a twelve month or more since I stood under your stern eye at the Dispatch Box during an Adjournment debate. I do it tonight for two reasons. The first is to give the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the

1145
Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), a well-deserved night off from replying to Adjournment debates. In any event, he is so far ahead of the field that his place in the "Guinness Book of Records" as the all-time speaker in Adjournment debates is completely safe and sound. The second reason is that I have taken a particular interest in the tragic event at Abbeystead since it was first drawn to my attention by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman). It is clear that all of us share a deep concern for the victims of the explosion, and their dependants. They have our deepest sympathy. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster has been particularly active in bringing to my attention their problems and in striving to find ways of easing them, and of speeding up the difficult processes that they must go through in pursuit of their claims in the courts of law. She has used her regional contacts with the chairman and chief executive of the water authority with equal vigour to ensure that they do not forget the urgent need for as quick a settlement as possible. She has corresponded with me regularly, as well as with the Lord Chancellor and with some of my other colleagues. This is one of those issues that cuts across Governments and Departments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster also led a delegation of some of those injured at Abbeystead to see me around last Christmas time. That gave me the opportunity to hear at first hand about their feelings and frustrations, and to see the injuries that they have suffered. Thus, I have a slight knowledge of what they have gone through. But all of us are constrained by the current proceedings in the High court, and none of us can or should seek to do or say anything that might affect their natural outcome.
I turn to the tragic accident. The Abbeystead valve chamber is part of the major water supply project by which water can be transferred by tunnel at times of need from the river Lune to the river Wyre. The works were commissioned in 1980 when the chamber was inspected by the Health and Safety Executive—it is important to put this on the record again—which rated it as a low risk installation. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has already recounted that on the night of 23 May 1984, when 36 local residents from St. Michael's on Wyre were on a visit of inspection, together with eight employees of the North-West water authority, there was an explosion which all but demolished the valve chamber. Sixteen of the 44 persons present lost their lives and all the others were injured, some very seriously. Indeed, I have met one or two of them.
As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey said, the circumstances of the accident were thoroughly investigated by the Health and Safety Executive, whose report was published in February 1985 after consideration by the Health and Safety Commission. The report concluded that the explosion had been caused by the ignition of a mixture of methane gas and air carried into the valve chamber by the flow of water from the tunnel when the pumps were switched on after a period of inaction during which the tunnel had partly emptied.
In effect, the methane gas had entered the tunnel in solution in water from the surrounding rock and had been released in gaseous form into the air spaces in the tunnel. But I must stress in response to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey that the executive did not attribute any blame for the accident, although with hindsight — I stress that — it considered that the
1146
explosion could have been avoided. Of course, no criminal proceedings have been instituted or are, I understand, presently being considered.
In June 1985, actions in the civil courts for damages were started by those bereaved or injured by the explosion. There are three separate defendants: the water authority, the consulting engineers who designed the scheme, and the construction company which built it. The water authority, its insurers, solicitors and counsel have, I understand, made every effort to ensure that there has been no delay on their part in this case. I have stressed to the chairman of the water authority that there should be no delay on the part of the water authority. I believe that it has moved as swiftly as may be on all occasions in order to ensure that there has been no delay. I should be surprised and appalled to be told that there was any evidence to the contrary. There is some news, in that I understand that an application will be made by solicitors for the water authority to Mr. Justice Christopher Rose in the High Court on Wednesday 9 July for an order that the case be set down for hearing on Monday 6 October.
For the benefit of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster, I repeat that an application will be made by solicitors for the water authority to Mr. Justice Christopher Rose in the High Court on Wednesday 9 July so that the case may be set down for hearing on Monday 6 October 1986. In the circumstances, we can say nothing more about the legal proceedings. Certainly, I could not make any comment as to blame.
Having given that piece of news to the House, I turn to more general principles. I am pleased to note that there has been positive action by neighbours and others in the region to give some solace to those bereaved or injured by the accident by means of contributions to the disaster fund organised by the Lancashire Evening Post immediately after the accident. I understand that the fund collected about £100,000, of which one fifth— £20,000 — was donated by the water authority. About one fifth of the money has come from public funds. I have been advised that all the moneys have been distributed equally to the 44 families affected by the tragedy. That is a small consolation in the circumstances, but it is an indication of the traditional response of the British public in times of tragedy, especially those who live in Lancashire.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, understandably, compared the position of the victims of Abbeystead with that of the victims of the equally tragic Bradford football fire—I visited the scene shortly after the fire, when I was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security—and the Heysel stadium disaster. The Government made donations to relief funds on both those occasions. It was stressed at the time that the contributions were not just significant but were exceptional.
The Government felt — I know that the hon. Gentleman will not agree—that the tragedies were so exceptional in their public impact as to warrant such an unusual departure from the general rule that the Government do not contribute to relief funds. Generally speaking, Governments of all political colours have followed that course.
It would be painful for me and for those who may read the debate in Hansard to begin to say where scale should be taken into account when we consider the pain suffered by individuals and when we try to make some recompense from public funds. Governments would always be in a

1147
difficult position if they were faced with demands for compensation on every occasion a disaster occurred, however few people were affected. Where does one draw the line? The hon. Gentleman is well known in the House for being fair-minded in his approach to issues. It is a question which I cannot answer. All I know is that one could turn to an individual person harmed in a disaster. The position of that one person is just as bad as the terrible deaths of the 16 people in Abbeystead, and the pain caused to their relatives as well as those involved in the Bradford fire and the Heysel stadium disaster.
I do not think that it would be appropriate for the Government to make donations at taxpayers' expense to the legal costs of a plaintiff pursuing an action for damages in the courts. A plaintiff would not commence proceedings in the courts unless he had been professionally advised that there was a reasonable chance of success. For such a plaintiff, the net result of any successful action would be the damages which he secures, less the legal fees that he has had to pay, assuming that they are not recovered in whole or part from his opponent. The legal aid scheme is to assist the plaintiff of more modest means. If such a plaintiff recovers any money or property as a result of legally aided proceedings, the legal aid fund will be recouped from his winnings to that extent.
1148
Where one of a number of plaintiffs is legally aided and wishes to bring a test case—this is important in the context of those who suffered so much in these sad circumstances—contributions can be obtained under the scheme for all the interested joint plaintiffs. All those interested joint plaintiffs can obtain legal aid under the scheme. That may have a considerable bearing in this case.
The debate highlights the difficulties — I would be foolish to try to hide them—of any Government who seek to meet the public response to disasters which are brought before us on our television screens or in our newspapers, regionally and nationally. It highlights the difficulties of deciding where and when Government could and should contribute to a disaster fund. It highlights how important it is for those people who have been or who feel that they have been harmed to pursue their cases as vigorously as possible, helped by all the normal means available. It is important to everyone involved in cases such as this—I speak generally, not about Abbeystead itself—that we ensure that those cases are expedited.
I thank the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey for raising this matter. I thank also my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster for her presence and her unstinting efforts on her constituents' behalf in their present difficult position.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to One o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER
  Dr. Kurt Waldheim
  Dr. Kurt Waldheim
  European Court
  European Court
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Ships and Ship and Engine Repairs (Orders)
  Ships and Ship and Engine Repairs (Orders)
  Asbestos
  Asbestos
  National Accreditation Council
  National Accreditation Council
  British Standards
  British Standards
  Nationalised Industries
  Nationalised Industries
ENVIRONMENT
  River Severn (Radioactive Emissions)
  River Severn (Radioactive Emissions)
  Water Abstraction
  Water Abstraction
  Polar Bears
  Polar Bears
  Home Improvements
  Home Improvements
  Wildlife Inspectors
  Wildlife Inspectors
  Urban Programme
  Urban Programme
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Broadwater Farm Estate, Tottenham
  Broadwater Farm Estate, Tottenham
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Radioactive Substances
  Radioactive Substances
  Young Offenders
  Young Offenders
  KG Smoke Dispersals
  KG Smoke Dispersals
  Mr. Norman William Davis
  Mr. Norman William Davis
  Plastic Bullets
  Plastic Bullets
  Drink-Driving
  Drink-Driving
  Metropolitan Police
  Metropolitan Police
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Young Persons (Full-time Education)
  Young Persons (Full-time Education)
  PhDs (Part-time Study)
  PhDs (Part-time Study)
  Science and Engineering Teachers
  Science and Engineering Teachers
  Teachers (Pay and Conditions)
  Teachers (Pay and Conditions)
  Universities (Funding)
  Universities (Funding)
  University and Polytechnic Departments
  University and Polytechnic Departments
  School Closures
  School Closures
  Teachers of the Deaf
  Teachers of the Deaf
  Royal Greenwich Observatory
  Royal Greenwich Observatory
  Technical and Vocational Education Initiative
  Technical and Vocational Education Initiative
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Higher Education
  Higher Education
WALES
  Radiation
  Radiation
  Sheep
  Sheep
  Welsh Language
  Welsh Language
  Speech Therapists
  Speech Therapists
  Translation Unit
  Translation Unit
  Housing
  Housing
TRANSPORT
  Trunk Road Programme
  Trunk Road Programme
  Motorway Services
  Motorway Services
  London Midland Region (Performance Management Team)
  London Midland Region (Performance Management Team)
  A65 Addingham Bypass
  A65 Addingham Bypass
  Roads (Lighting)
  Roads (Lighting)
  M42
  M42
  Road Accident Statistics
  Road Accident Statistics
  Boeing 737 Fire (Manchester)
  Boeing 737 Fire (Manchester)
  Investment Grants (Shipping)
  Investment Grants (Shipping)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Welsh Language
  Welsh Language
  Merthyr Tydfil County Court
  Merthyr Tydfil County Court
ENERGY
  Nuclear Industry
  Nuclear Industry
  Goods and Services
  Goods and Services
  National Coal Board
  National Coal Board
EMPLOYMENT
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Uranium Workers (Health)
  Uranium Workers (Health)
  Career Development Loans
  Career Development Loans
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  Jobcentres
  Jobcentres
  Closures and Redundancies
  Closures and Redundancies
  "Action for Jobs—Opening More Doors"
  "Action for Jobs—Opening More Doors"
  Radioactive Substances (Incidents)
  Radioactive Substances (Incidents)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  South Africa
  South Africa
  Kyshtyu (Nuclear Accident)
  Kyshtyu (Nuclear Accident)
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND
  Departmental Accommodation
  Departmental Accommodation
  Procurators Fiscal (Warnings)
  Procurators Fiscal (Warnings)
  Diligence (Crown Preference)
  Diligence (Crown Preference)
  Crown Office Staff
  Crown Office Staff
  Traders (Licences)
  Traders (Licences)
  Violent Crime (Prosecutions)
  Violent Crime (Prosecutions)
  Mr. Alan J. Pocock
  Mr. Alan J. Pocock
SCOTLAND
  Birdlife Habitat
  Birdlife Habitat
  Leith (SDA Plans)
  Leith (SDA Plans)
  South of Scotland Electricity Board
  South of Scotland Electricity Board
  Colleges of Education
  Colleges of Education
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
  National Health Service (STUC Meeting)
  National Health Service (STUC Meeting)
  Secondary Schools
  Secondary Schools
  Dundee Airport
  Dundee Airport
  Housing
  Housing
  Local Government Finance
  Local Government Finance
  Health Services
  Health Services
  Electricity Supplies
  Electricity Supplies
  Roads (Highland Region)
  Roads (Highland Region)
  Owner-occupied Houses
  Owner-occupied Houses
  Tourism
  Tourism
  Commission for Local Administration
  Commission for Local Administration
  Students (Community Charge)
  Students (Community Charge)
  SHARE Formula
  SHARE Formula
  Geriatric Patients
  Geriatric Patients
  Greater Glasgow Health Board
  Greater Glasgow Health Board
  Unemployment (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)
  Unemployment (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)
  Macaulay Institute
  Macaulay Institute
  Motorways (Lighting)
  Motorways (Lighting)
  Greenock and Port Glasgow (Ministerial Visit)
  Greenock and Port Glasgow (Ministerial Visit)
  Forestry Commission
  Forestry Commission
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  School Buildings (Lothian)
  School Buildings (Lothian)
  Vocational Education and Training
  Vocational Education and Training
  British Steel Corporation
  British Steel Corporation
  Incontinence Aids
  Incontinence Aids
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Research and Development
  Research and Development
  River Pollution
  River Pollution
  Butter
  Butter
  Food Additives
  Food Additives
  Radioactivity
  Radioactivity
  Sheep (Caesium Levels)
  Sheep (Caesium Levels)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  In-patients (Post-operative Infection)
  In-patients (Post-operative Infection)
  Overseas Visitors (Treatment)
  Overseas Visitors (Treatment)
  Baby Milk (Cartons)
  Baby Milk (Cartons)
  Cervical Cancer
  Cervical Cancer
  Local Office Staffing
  Local Office Staffing
  NHS (Property Sales)
  NHS (Property Sales)
  NHS (Pay)
  NHS (Pay)
  NHS (Private Patients)
  NHS (Private Patients)
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Doctors (West Midlands)
  Doctors (West Midlands)
  Community Health Councils
  Community Health Councils
  Health Authorities
  Health Authorities
  Broadmoor Patients (Day Trips)
  Broadmoor Patients (Day Trips)
  NHS (Resources)
  NHS (Resources)
  Single Payments
  Single Payments
  Suicides
  Suicides
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Tax Increases
  Tax Increases
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Fair Employment Act (Northern Ireland) 1976
  Fair Employment Act (Northern Ireland) 1976
  Discrimination
  Discrimination
  Divis Flats (Rehousing)
  Divis Flats (Rehousing)
DEFENCE
  Fylingdales (Early Warning System)
  Fylingdales (Early Warning System)
  Richard Dix (Letter)
  Richard Dix (Letter)
  Test Ban Treaty
  Test Ban Treaty
  Armed Forces (Purchases)
  Armed Forces (Purchases)
  Trident
  Trident
  Arms Trade
  Arms Trade
  Arms Control
  Arms Control

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chichester.

Air Traffic Distribution: London Area
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have considered CAP522 Air Traffic Distribution in the London Area—Advice to the Secretary of State, and what action they propose to take in the light of this to increase runway capacity in the London area.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, my right honourable friend is currently considering the CAA's advice on air traffic distribution in the London area and will make an announcement in due course.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that moderately encouraging reply. May I ask him whether his right honourable friend is aware of the urgency of the matter in view not only of the expert advice tendered by the Civil Aviation Authority but also of the anxieties expressed by the Heathrow Scheduling Committee? Is he aware, as I am sure he is, that if the situation which is likely to arise in the absence of action by the end of the century is not dealt with very quickly it will be too late?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that my right honourable friend is fully aware of that. It was because we were so concerned about it that we moved an amendment to the Airports Bill at Report stage on 23rd June.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether it is likely that the announce-ment will be made during the Summer Recess when neither House is sitting? If that is the case, as often occurs, shall we have a chance of discussing the matter when we come back? Lastly, does he realise that those of us who think very highly of the Civil Aviation Authority wonder how much support the Government will give to its views?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I cannot tell the House at the moment when a decision will be taken on the document, because it is long and complicated, but we are considering it urgently. It is, I believe, a matter for the usual channels as to whether it is discussed or debated in any way.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, is it not the case that the letter from the Secretary of State to the CAA which
874
invited this review and which was dated 31st July 1985, said that account had to be taken of the Government's general policy objective, which of course had a national dimension, and that there were complaints that the report confines itself solely to distribution in the London area? Does this not conflict with the amendment to the Airports Bill which the Government accepted that there should be consideration by the CAA in carrying out its functions of sound development of aviation throughout the United Kingdom?
The Earl of Caithness: No, my Lords. On the last point, I do not believe there is a conflict between government policy and the Bill, which indeed reflects government policy. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is absolutely right: it was at the end of July 1985 that my right honourable friend the then Secretary of State invited the CAA to review the existing rules for traffic distribution between the London airports.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, in view of the enormous importance of tourism to the Highlands, will the Minister be able to assure us that special consideration will be given to the need for the Highlands to maintain a connection with Heathrow, which is the terminus for trans-Atlantic as well as Air France flights?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we have received much information about the importance of the Inverness-Heathrow flight, and that will be taken into account by my right honourable friend when he comes to make a decision on this matter.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, speaking as one who had some responsibility for drawing up proposals for a sensible London airport at Gatwick 35 years ago, I agree with the noble Earl that there is a matter of urgency confronting us. In connection with Gatwick, may I ask him whether any progress has been made in providing emergency landing facilities in the event of the one runway being closed?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with respect, I believe that to be slightly wide of the Question on the Order Paper. But, if the noble Lord would like to put down a Question on that matter, I shall do my best to answer it.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, does the noble Earl mean to say that it is not in order to consider, in relation to traffic facilities, the provision of emergency facilities when a runway is closed?
The Earl of Caithness: No, my Lords. I believe that is not what I said.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the noble Earl's right honourable friend take into consideration the interests of the majority in considering this matter—and by "majority" I mean the people of London who are overflown by the aircraft landing at Heathrow and at other London airports? Will he consider the possibility of a redistribution so that aircraft might conceivably fly direct to Scotland instead of coming via Heathrow?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord knows, but aircraft do fly direct to Scotland at the moment. My right honourable friend will of course take into account any representations.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, in considering air traffic distribution in the London area, will the noble Earl bear in mind that the vast majority of aircraft on the British register are in general aviation? Will he for once try to avoid yet further incursions into uncontrolled air space?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I take note of the noble Lord's points.

Road Improvements: Petitioners' Costs
2.42 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why there are no powers for interest to be paid on overdue accounts by the Ministry of Transport to those who successfully petition against a road improvement; and whether, in order to encourage the ministry to settle their accounts swiftly, they have any plans to alter this.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, payment of awards for costs to successful objectors are made on a discretionary, not a statutory, basis. Successive administrations have concluded that it would be inappropriate to pay interest, and we have no plans to change this.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the House will sympathise with him for having to give such a negative reply? How does he reconcile that reply with the code of practice recently issued by the Department of Employment, which says that private firms should pay interest and should pay their accounts on time? Do I understand my noble friend to say that there is one law for the Government and another for me?
The Earl of Caithness: No, my Lords. I am afraid that on this occasion my noble friend has got it wrong. I remember, as a surveyor, how difficult it was getting accounts settled by clients. The Department of Employment booklet Payment on Time would do well to remind my noble friend about his payment to his surveyors.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, is it the case that this payment is six months overdue? If it were the other way round and someone owed the Government money for six months, would not the noble Earl today be making a lot of noise at the Dispatch Box complaining about it? Since we all nowadays have to pay for any delays in settling our income tax—I was recently asked for a payment while my accountant was
876
arguing about it—is that not an idea that should spread to the rest of the Government, in fairness to us all?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it would be wrong for me to comment on a case of my noble friend without his approval. But with regard to payment, we pay awards for costs where they are justified as soon as practicable.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, will the noble Lord say whether his answer means that once the discretionary payment has been agreed by the department there is no delay?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is absolutely right. It is the time from the receipt of the claim to getting that justified by the department that takes a little longer than we should like, but we are pursuing this matter.
Lord Underhill: Will the noble Earl confirm that there has been this six months' delay? He has not said whether or not that is the position. If it is, does he regard it as inefficient and will something be done about it?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the normal time for payment of an award of costs is much less than six months. If there is a delay of six months, it probably means that a matter of policy has been at stake and therefore it has taken a little longer to take the appropriate Minister's advice on that point.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, why should not the Government pay interest on money they are withholding on a discretionary grant?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am afraid I missed the first part of the noble Lord's question.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, what I mean is this. Why, simply because the payment is discretionary, should the Government withhold interest from someone they are keeping waiting for money?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, this has been the practice of all governments since the recommen-dations of the Council on Tribunals in 1964.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, how is the discretionary power exercised? Does the successful petitioner occasionally get his costs? Is there any picture of how often he fails and how often he succeeds, even though he wins in the petition?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the qualified objectors, who are the ones who have an interest in the land, will get an award for costs if they can substantiate their claim.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Earl kindly tell the House what plans his ministry has, in the words of the original Question,
"to encourage the ministry to settle their accounts swiftly"?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there is always an onus on Government to settle any outstanding accounts quickly. Indeed, the fact that the matter can be raised on the Floor of the House on an occasion such as this encourages us to do so.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, may I finally ask, as this is an administrative matter, whether it is not possible for the Government to pay costs adminis-tratively? If my noble friend does not want to answer this question now, will he take it away and think about it?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I hope that I have not misunderstood my noble friend. We pay an award for costs—which is the answer to the question he asked me.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I am sorry, but I mean the interest as well as the costs.
The Earl of Caithness: No, my Lords; I think I have already answered the question as to why we do not pay interest; previous governments have not done so, either.

The Arts: Business Sponsorship
2.47 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what effect the Business Sponsorship Incentive Scheme has had on the financing of the arts.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Business Sponsorship Incentive Scheme has brought an additional £7.7 million into the arts since it started in October 1984. This is a most encouraging sign of growing business commitment to the arts. Indeed, only last week the Digital Equipment Company announced a major new sponsorship programme, matched under the Government's Business Sponsorship Incentive Scheme, which will inject £500,000 new funding into dance. This is one of the largest ever first-time sponsorships, and I understand that the existence of the Government's Business Sponsorship Incentive Scheme was a major influence in that company's decision.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that excellent news. May I ask whether there has been a little agitation among some people that the new Budget financial arrangements in regard to charities might have a rather less favourable effect on donors? I should like to be assured that this will not happen under the new Finance Bill.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, certainly there has been concern expressed among charitable bodies about various proposals in the Finance Bill which my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has responded to by not proposing to
878
proceed, in this year's Finance Bill, with two particular features of the original proposals which caused nearly all of the concern—the distinction between private, indirect and other charities and the possible restriction of tax relief where the charity accumulates income. However, I should point out to my noble friend that the BSIS, to which the Question refers, is not being affected in the slightest way by the Budget.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I appreciate the Business Sponsorship Incentive Scheme's aid to the arts. But is it not the case that its very success has meant that in spite of the announcement of £1.76 million for 1986–87 Government money to match business contributions is now running out? Will the Minister give assurances that money will not be taken out of the direct public arts budget and that his right honourable friend will ask the Treasury for additional money for this particular scheme?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in response to that question I can tell the noble Baroness that the Government are committed to matching the money raised by the arts charities themselves from business in one of two ways: either one-to-one for new sponsorship or one-to-three for renewed sponsorship. The Government fully intend to continue this commitment.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, is it not true however that, as I said, the success of the scheme has meant that funds are running out and by October the present amount will probably be exhausted? Therefore, will not his right honourable friend then be in a dilemma? He can either boost this scheme by taking money from directs arts funding, about which we should all be very upset, or he can go to the Treasury to ask for a special addition for this scheme. I should like an answer to that question.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I do not think the noble Baroness will receive an answer because she is asking me a hypothetical question. What I have said is that up to this moment the Government have fully honoured their commitment and intend so to do.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, may I put it to my noble friend that business sponsorship of the arts is much greater than £7.7 million? If I may cite our own rather small-scale example of the Petworth Festival, for instance, we get £2,000 from Southern Arts but we manage to raise three times that amount, £6,000, from business. None of that is recorded anywhere or has anything to do with ABSA (the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts). If one extrapolates that ratio across the nation, one comes up with the figures of £150 million from the Arts Council and £450 million from business. I should like to ask my noble friend, am I a realist or an optimist?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I think I should describe my noble friend as both a realist and an optimist. I do not have the statistics worked out in the form that he has just given to the House, but it is perfectly true that much more money is raised straight from business than under the Business Sponsorship Incentive Scheme and of course the

879
changes to charitable giving by business which were announced by my right honourable friend in his Budget Statement will increase this sum even beyond the figure given by my noble friend.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I should like to question the noble Lord a little further on the point that was raised by my noble friend Lady Birk. I think that what she is seeking to establish is that this scheme will not be financed at the cost of the Government's general subsidy towards the arts. Can the Minister give us some assurance on this point? Though this is highly desirable, it would be highly undesirable if the consequences of this scheme were to be such that the Government's general support of the arts had to suffer as a result.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I really do not think that I can add anything more to the two answers that I have given to the noble Baroness.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, perhaps I may try to persuade the noble Lord to do so. Does his reply mean—and it seems to me very reassuring, which I am sure will delight your Lordships—that the contributions that the Government make under this scheme are not cash limited?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, what it means is that the commitment has been honoured up to now and I have no reason to suppose that it will not be honoured in the future.

Armed Forces and Ethnic Minorities
2.54 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the present level of recruitment and promotion of members of ethnic minorities within the armed forces.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne)The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne) My Lords, I have nothing to add to my full reply to the noble Lord's amendment on this subject which he moved to the Armed Forces Bill on 19th June.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, will the Minister accept from me that it would be sensible to have within our armed forces a representation from the ethnic minorities in the country that is broadly in line with the population? Is he aware that there is merit in trying to achieve these proportions, not least to demonstrate that all those who live in this country enjoy the protection of the armed forces, and minorities are entitled to have their numbers reflected proportionately in the ranks?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think that the best people to join the armed forces are, first of all, those
880
who want to join the armed forces and, secondly, those who are most suited to do so.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, does the noble Lord's reply mean that he will not proceed with the survey of the ethnic composition of the armed forces which he outlined at the Committee stage of the Bill?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I did not use the words which the noble Lord suggests. I said that we were considering the matter, and that remains the position.
Lord Forbes: My Lords, would the Minister agree that when it comes to promotion or recruitment it is standards that count, and not colour?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I believe that the tenor of my earlier answers indicated agreement with my noble friend.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, does the Minister not understand the frustration of many people at the inability of the Minister to give any statistics at all? Surely what we need in order to be satisfied on many counts is for the Minister to be able to tell the House and the country what proportion of our armed forces comes from the ethnic minorities. For instance, his right honourable friend the Home Secretary says that he is very worried at the absence of black faces in the police force, and is doing something about it. Ought we not also to have the basic facts in respect of the armed forces so that we can discover whether there are any problems and do something about them?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I really do not think I can add to what I have said already. I do not believe that there is any purpose in dragooning people from one section or another of the community into the armed forces, or in dragooning them out. We want people who want to go into the armed forces and who are best suited to do so.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, that is complacency.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that, when he said that we want the best people for the armed forces, the record of the ethnic minorities in the wars that they have fought with us suggests that people of considerable suitability for the armed forces are to be found among members of the ethnic minorities in this country?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is indeed the case that many people from the ethnic minorities, for example the Gurkhas, have made a signal contribution to our armed forces.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, is it not true that this Government are committed to the notion of affirmative action, and could they not give a very good example to other employers in an area which is under their own direct control?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I explained on an earlier occasion, we are considering this matter further. I am not in a position to make any announcement today, but an announcement will be made in due course.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, surely the noble Lord is begging the question. It is not a question of whether those who wish to join the armed forces can do so. The noble Lord has entirely missed that part of the question put by my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton concerning promotion. Are the Government not getting themselves into a catch-22 situation—indeed, creating a catch-22 situation—in which they say that because there is no problem they do not need to give statistics, and because there are no statistics there is therefore no problem?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I fear that the noble Lord is simply mimicking the words of one of his honourable friends in another place. Those were almost the precise words used by one of his honourable friends yesterday, or perhaps the day before. As I have reminded your Lordships on many occasions, the armed forces are an equal opportunities employer. Entry to the armed forces is open to everyone, and promotion is on merit.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, may I ask the Minister how many Englishmen there are in the Scots Guards?
A Noble Lord: Too many, my Lords!
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, about as many Welshmen as there are in the Welsh Guards.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, who himself is mimicking the answer given by his honourable friend in another place, whether he can say how many black faces there are in the Guards and how many black faces were visible in the Trooping of the Colour ceremony?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I regret to say I did not count them.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House served during the war in the Scots Guards with a full-blown Chinese officer?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if my noble friend will allow me, I shall reflect upon the implications of that question.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I think that we cannot leave it exactly as it is. Everyone is uncomfortable about the position except the noble Lord who is answering, and I wish to make him show a little more interest in the subject; it is a very tricky one. Undoubtedly prejudices exist which should not exist; we all have prejudices. But can he not give some encouragement to the hope that within the next 12 months this House will be informed that a policy of absolute lack of discrimination is being fully carried
882
out in the armed forces from top to bottom? That is what we want.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I said on an earlier occasion that we were considering the possibility of introducing some form of ethnic monitoring in the armed forces and that an announcement would be made in due course. But let me say again that I have no reason to doubt that the position is not exactly as 1 have described it.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Report stage of the Agriculture Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) (No. 2) Order 1986 will betaken.

Vocational Education and Training
3.1 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Employment (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a Statement about major Government decisions on vocational education and training announced in the White Paper, Working Together: Education and Training published this afternoon. They are about the National Extension of the technical and vocational education initiative and the reform of vocational qualifications.
TVEI was launched on a pilot basis by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in November 1982. In chosen schools the Government have, through the Manpower Services Commission, made additional funds available to local education authorities to develop new ways of increasing the vocational content of the curriculum and offer pupils of all abilities between the ages of 14 and 18 more work-related learning.
By the end of this year there are likely to be almost 100 education authorities in England, Wales and Scotland taking advantage of the initiative, which will be covering over 600 schools and colleges and helping nearly 50,000 pupils.
As the pilots have developed, so too has appreciation of the way in which TVEI has been able to enrich the curriculum. It has opened up new opportunities for more young people of all abilities to see how school can be made more relevant to adult and working life.
We want to keep up the momentum to extend the benefit to many more pupils. We have decided that the MSC should be asked to administer the extension of TVEI from a pilot to a national scheme beginning in the autumn of 1987.
The Government are making a substantial financial commitment to this improvement in our schools. We are setting aside sums which build up from £ 12 million in 1987–88 to £41 million in 1988–89 and to £84 million in 1989–90. The average annual expenditure

883
over the next 10 years or so will be about £90 million. These amounts will be found from the provision we have planned for young people within the MSC's budget.
Each authority's TVEI proposals must be consistent with our overall policy of improving the school curriculum. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is publishing separately today a statement of the curricular criteria which extension proposals must meet.
The extension of the technical and vocational education initiative to be a national scheme is a major advance. But reforming and developing the curricu-lum in schools is not enough. We need to improve the vocational qualifications system to encourage more people, both young and old, to improve their skills when they have left school. For that reason, we are also announcing a new system of qualifications for skilled work at all levels in England and Wales.
Last year we set up a working group under the chairmanship of Mr. Oscar de Ville to review the pattern of vocational qualifications in England and Wales. The group's report was published in May.
It concluded that the present system was complex and incomplete, and recommended that a new system of qualifications should be set up within a framework to be called the National Vocational Qualification. It urged that a national council for vocational qualifications should also be established to work with the existing bodies to set up that framework. The Government accept these recommendations.
The council will be set up in the autumn of this year and will be asked to have the new system of qualifications in England and Wales and Northern Ireland in place by 1991. I am glad to say that Mr. de Ville has accepted our invitation to act as chairman of the council during its all-important formative period.
We will provide pump-priming funding, but the aim will be that after three years the council will become self-sufficient, from income received from bodies whose qualifications it accredits.
The recommendations of the report have been generally welcomed and we believe that they will lead to a much better system of vocational qualifications, which will be widely understood and respected by individuals and by employers. We hope they will be encouraged to invest more time and money in training.
For young people moving from school to adult working life it is vitally important that we have a good system of vocational education and training. All young people must be given the opportunity to leave full-time education or training with relevant qualifications and build on them throughout their working life. The extension of the technical and vocational education initiative and the setting up of the new framework of national vocational qualifications are major advances towards that objective.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for making the Statement, which we
884
generally welcome. Unemployment is a blight on our society, and that blight will not only continue but will be exacerbated by the lack of opportunities for young people. As he knows, the rate of unemployment among 16-to- 19-year-olds is about 25 per cent. Furthermore, the number of young people in part-time work has increased since 1979 by 250 per cent., and so another 25 per cent. are making do with something less than full-time work; a quarter are unemployed and a quarter are in part-time work. I am sure that he will agree that that is not good enough.
The noble Lord referred to the funds that will be available for TVEI. He said that the money was coming from planned provision for young people. Does that mean that there will be no new money available? If it is coming from planned provision, does that mean that YTS will in any way be adversely affected?
We welcome attempts to integrate education and vocational training as a means to ensure that future generations are well trained and attractive to employers. But is the noble Lord confident that the integration will take place under his new scheme, bearing in mind that the new council will be reporting to the Secretary of State for Employment? Have the Government thought out properly the relationship between education and training? Is he prepared to say a few more words about that at a later stage?
The Minister said that by the end of the year the technical and vocational initiative will have been extended to over 600 schools and colleges. Can he say what that is as a proportion of all schools and colleges and when we can expect the initiative to be available in all schools and colleges? Does he agree that if it is to be available in a few institutions, there is a danger of perpetrating the divide between vocational and academic institutions—a divide recognised and criticised by the review group on vocational qualifications.
We welcome the attempt to improve the quality of the YTS. We all know that it has been subject to much criticism for failing to live up to what is required of it. Can the noble Lord assure the House that the Training Standards Advisory Service will be adequately staffed to fulfil its functions of ensuring quality? I have been led to believe that there are fewer than 20 staff. Will the noble Lord tell us whether that is the case and, if so, whether he considers that number sufficient to provide effective inspection of the training programmes? Will he also tell us what relationship exists between TSAS and the MSC, which is responsible for the YTS? Is it independent of the MSC? If not, how can its independence be protected, as claimed in the White Paper?
The Statement announces a review of the structure of vocational qualifications. That is all to the good, in my view. I was shocked recently to read that according to the 1984 Labour Force Survey, more than 40 per cent. of the workforce has no qualifications. What opportunities have there been for industry to participate in this review? What involvement will it have in the future? Will the noble Lord assure the House that skills such as managerial skills are included within the meaning of the vocational qualifications? That is most important at present because industry is short of managerial skills. The MSC, in conjunction

885
with the British Institute of Management, noted that there was a notable absence of such qualifications in British industry. We must put that right.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we on these Benches wish to thank the Secretary of State for giving us this report this afternoon. We welcome the content of the report. I am glad that there is to be a further extension of the TVEI scheme. I have had the opportunity to see the scheme in operation. In many ways it is a model for the way in which changes of this sort can be brought about. The essential change is the development of much better collaboration among educationists and industrialists in the bringing together of education and training to make for good education and to make it vocationally relevant.
The scheme has been successful because it was initially voluntary. It was not imposed on educationists in any way. That tends to remove anxieties which undoubtedly exist in the education field, which fears that its expertise is being challenged and its territory unduly invaded. The success of that voluntary approach has been demonstrated by the fact that the scheme started in a small way and is now being extended because there is genuine demand for it.
With regard to the developments which have been taking place in TVEI, will the Secretary of State tell us how many girls are taking part in the programme? I know that the Secretary of State recognises that girls and women are grossly underrepresented in the more technical types of employment. This seems to be one of the best ways of attracting young women into jobs. It will be done through the school programme and will therefore be easier for them to assimilate. It will attract them into those jobs that we badly want them to do. I should be grateful if the Minister would tell us something about that.
I am glad that the programme for the rationalisation of qualifications is going ahead. Anybody who has worked in that area well knows that there has been a motley of qualifications. It is extremely difficult for people who are not in the trade, so to speak, to know what qualifications there are or what is the route to acquire those qualifications. It is a long-overdue rationalisation and we very much welcome it. We also welcome the fact that the new council is being set up.
The national qualifications, which are based on courses such as City and Guilds, RSA and so on, are at a level which will not be appropriate for some youngsters going on the YTS. It is vital—and I am sure the Secretary of State will agree—that all youngsters going into the improved YTS with the high standard which I know it is the aim of the MSC to achieve, should feel that there is some recognition of their achievement when they leave at the end of two years. They want something which employers will see as evidence of competence.
They may not be able to reach the level which the new national qualifications will require. When setting national qualifications, there is always a danger of the standard becoming higher and higher. That is fine, but it is not so fine if it leaves behind too high a proportion of people who cannot reach that level. What is being done about the people who will not meet the scheme's requirements?
3.15 p.m.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, for his comments and for his general welcome for our White Paper. This is a moment when I can stand back with some feeling of satisfaction. That is not a good feeling to have in this job in the present circumstances of employment in the world. I look back over the past four years to 15th April 1982 when I first went to the Manpower Services Commission as chairman. At that time, the only scheme for young people was the Youth Opportunities Programme. On 21st June of that year, my right honourable friend Norman Tebbit, who then held my position, announced the YTS. Today we have a two-year YTS and a new successor scheme—the New Worker Scheme—which is a follow-on from the YTS. We have seen unemployment for the under-20s fall from 26 per cent. to 19 per cent. It will fall considerably as the two-year YTS comes into full force.
I can safely say, without any fear of contradiction, that no government in the industrialised world have done as much and acted as quickly as we have in respect of the severe youth unemployment problem. It is not just that. When I went to the MSC there was nothing in the school system which gave any education or training to young people to prepare them for the world of work. There was great desire within the school system to have such education and training. When we went comprehensive, in local education authority after local education authority we somehow lost all the technical schools and most of the secondary modern schools. Education became less and less relevant to the real world. I am afraid that we saw increased truancy and young people less motivated. Far from causing a divide, this proposal will heal the divide that exists today among those who benefit from the school system and those who do not.
The relationship between education and training can be shown in no more fitting way than in the White Paper published today. Its title is Working Together; Education and Training. On the front inside cover, it has the objectives of the Department of Employment, and on the back inside cover it has the objectives of the Department of Education and Science. Rarely with any government have we seen two departments co-operating in overlapping fields to drive forward something which is of benefit to the nation.
I recall that when I first came to the Manpower Services Commission we had no YTS and no TVEI, which was introduced in November 1982. The Prime Minister made the announcement. We managed to get 14 projects going by the following September. Just over four years later, we have TVEI operating in just over 10 per cent. of our schools. We shall see it going to all the schools on a voluntary basis, a basis which I hope local education authorities will rush to take up.
We are offering money and training and the possibility of making education more relevant. We are putting more resources into education. We are doing all those things, and I hope that the education world will welcome them. I suspect that our principal constraint will be the speed at which we can give teachers the skills that they will need to bring the new technologies into the schools.

887
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, referred to the YTS. There has been too much criticism of the YTS. A fact of British public life is that we are long on criticism and short on credit. This is one of those instances where I wish that we would look at our achievements and not our failures. We have introduced a national scheme for hundreds of thousands of young people in a short space of time. The vast majority in the programme are up to or above standard. A few, of course, will be below standard, and that number must be reduced. What does not do our young any good is the constant complaint that somehow society owes them a job and that somehow society must pay them more money. What society owes them is the opportunity of training and the opportunity of standing on their own two feet. And society has a duty to look after the less fortunate. It is that balance that we must get right.
Also, in looking back to 1982 one sees that the whole area of vocational qualifications was a minefield. This is not some obtuse, obscure problem. It goes to the heart of the educational divide in this country. It is one of the fundamental reasons why this nation's economic performance has failed signally over the decades of this century. We are almost alone in having an education system and a training system that rarely meet. We are almost alone in having little progression as we go through life from school into vocational qualifications. We cannot allow this to continue any longer.
I appreciate the welcome given by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. The noble Baroness, if I may be allowed to say so, has performed sterling work for the Manpower Services Commission. This shows the collaboration that is coming through between education and business. Those who have welcomed the review of vocational qualifications and the institu-tion of a new council include the Institute of Personnel Management, the British Institute of Management, the Institute of Administrative Management, the Institu-tion of Industrial Managers, the Institute of Marketing, the Institute of Purchasing and Supply, the Institute of Sales Marketing and Management and the Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators. There is hardly one body in the field of management and administration that has not welcomed the rationalisation that we are carrying out.
It is important to appreciate what we are doing in setting up this council. The memories of all noble Lords, I am sure, go back to kitemarks. Now we are to have a method whereby one can equate one qualification with another. The national vocational qualification will initially operate in four grades. A fifth grade that will go to professional qualifications is one for which I am qualified as a one-time solicitor. The first grade will start with YTS. Young people at school who go into YTS will be able to earn the first credits and the first qualifications in a system that will take them not only through school and through YTS but also through adult life as they progress. This is where we really must make progress.
Within the White Paper we deal with links not only between national vocational qualifications and YTS but also between national vocational qualifications and secondary examinations. For too long we have had a divide. This is the first step back towards getting
888
a unified field theory, if you like—a way in which we can bring together the vocational and the academic so that all can be one nation.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, I greatly welcome the noble Lord's council for the accreditation or validation of qualifications. That is excellent. What I do not welcome and what I regard as retrograde and taking us back to the 19th century is the injection of a large amount of vocational training into schools for children under 16. They will be doing the same job or series of jobs from 16 to 65. Surely, up to that age we can allow them to browse more widely in literature and the arts as well as science and mathematics and so on. We do not want our schools full of vocational training. That is how we started off in the middle of the 19th century. This is, I believe, retrograde.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, will perhaps remember that education can be vocationally relevant without being vocational. Mathematics, science, literature and languages are all vocationally relevant without being vocational. I hope that the noble Lord will not imagine that all of us welcome that part of his revolution. I should like to repeat, finally, what I told the noble Lord a few weeks ago. The whole edifice that he has erected over the last four years does not add one single job for young people.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, it would be as well, I believe, if all in your Lordships' House, on occasion, open their eyes to the world as it exists outside—the world with which I have to deal, as do those who have to deal with young people as they are. It is fine to have concepts of educating for life. It is fine to have concepts of saying to our young people, "We will give you music, we will give you culture, we will give you literature". It is possible to say to them, "Think of higher things. Whatever you do, do not think of work, industry or commerce". The world in which I live is a world where all too many young people emerge illiterate, non-numerate and demotivated. They have majored in truancy. They come out of primary school bright eyed and bushy tailed and then spend the next few years bored out of their minds because they do not see the relevance of the work they are doing. The simple truth is that one in four of our young people is perhaps naturally academic. Most of our young people in order to learn at all have to see the relevance of what they learn in school. If we look at what has happened to education in the last 25 years, we see that it is pursuing a dead end, alone in the Western world.
Lord Glenamara: Absolute rubbish, my Lords.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, it is a dead end of trying to make education somehow divorced from life. As your Lordships may have noticed, I am wearing a badge. That is out of character for me. I went to a school in Croydon this morning in connection with TVEI, where 15-year-olds, as part of their curriculum, were setting up model businesses. They were taking orders for making badges. These 15-year-olds were learning all aspects of the world of commerce. They were getting a better education than I did. I left school without having the faintest idea of how anything operated outside in the world of

889
business. What we are talking about is broadening the curriculum, enriching education and motivating young people.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that it is excellent news that the TVEI is being extended. I have seen it on the ground. I believe that it is doing what my noble friend the Secretary of State has described. My noble friend tells us that there are 100 local authorities where TVEI is operating. Can he say how many local authorities who want it have not yet got it, as is the case in my own local authority of Tayside? It is held up by the biggest teaching union, the Educational Institute of Scotland. Does he know how many local authorities have no TVEI because of teachers' union problems? Has he any remedies for that?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, welcomed this as a voluntary scheme. It is a voluntary scheme. The overwhelming majority of local education authorities have now embraced TVEI. Some have not. This is sometimes for political reasons. They suspect that there is no spoon long enough for them still to sup with this Government. Others have difficulties with unions. I regret this. They are depriving young people of education that is sorely needed and also of opportunities and resources that are sorely needed. I hope that we shall see a change of attitude, and that now that this has gone national all local authorities will come in and do more towards preparing young people for life.
There is one serious charge that I did not address in responding to the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara. It related to the number of jobs. If we look at the under-20s, we find that during the last four years, youth unemployment has been dropping. I venture to prophesy that it will continue to drop. One reason why it continues to drop is that young people are better prepared for the life that they will face and that they come out of school motivated.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, will the noble Lord address himself to the position in Scotland? How has the matter been approached in Scotland? I am one of those who believe that the improvement and extension of vocational education is much to be desired. Indeed, we lost an opportunity a long time ago when the party opposite extended the school year without investigating properly how that school year should be used.
What is proposed will require a lot of co-operation. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, is right. Does the noble Lord have the co-operation of the teachers? The noble Lord should appreciate that we have come through a very sticky time in Scotland as regards education. Apart from the difficulties of strikes, we already have a new examination system which very few people understand. The noble Lord is now adding something else to it in respect of this national vocational qualification. Was I right in thinking that he said it was going to apply in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, but not in Scotland? When are we going to get some statement about what is happening
890
in Scotland? We need the improvements, the money, the co-operation, the teachers, the equipment and all these factors that we do not have. Words arc not enough.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, TVEI will apply to Scotland. It goes through with local education authorities on a voluntary basis. Initially the Scottish education authorities felt, their education system being so much better than those south of the Border—and there I would not venture to disagree too much with that—that they did not require TVEI. They subsequently changed their minds. We welcome them in. TVEI is now progressing except in some authorities where there is some difficulty with the unions because without the agreement of the teachers it is impossible to introduce it.
The review of vocational qualifications starts perhaps only marginally with the school system but applies—if I may mention the Scottish institutions—to SCOTBEC and SCOTVEC and all the others. It is the decision of Scotland alone, and not ours, that they should initially stand back and be observers for the first year or two, although I am happy to say that the Principality of Wales, Northern Ireland and England are joining in. I greatly regret that decision. I look forward to the day when we have vocational qualifications which are sufficient to move people from Land's End to John o' Groats, and we do not have to build new walls or to continue to keep old ones going.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the Secretary of State did not reply to my question as to what extent girls were taking part in TVEI. May I say to the noble Lord Lord Glenamara that in my view and the view of a great many people—I remember it was the view of Sir Fred Clarke of the Institute of Education—so-called educational subjects can be vocational and so-called vocational subjects can be educational. It is a question of how they are taught and whether the youngsters can be excited by what one is teaching them.
Lord Young of Graffham: I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for those comments. TVEI is an equal opportunities educator. It is a specific condition of TVEI that it is open to the full ability range on one aspect and to equal sexes on the other. All the TVEI programmes have had equal recruitment as far as possible.
It is difficult to legislate for parents. One of the great problems we find is that it is the parent who condition the kind of courses that their children take. It has been quite difficult to see young girls, in particular, deviate from the traditional courses. Quite often when we look at the reasons why we find that it is parental influence. I suspect that we shall have to produce some kind of TVEI for parents before we solve that problem.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I wonder whether I may ask the Minister a further question on this point which he has just raised. While I welcome his statement and I shall look forward to reading the White Paper, I think he would agree that there have been varying degrees of success in the TVEI schemes both across the range of ability and in the involvement of girls. One of the disappointing aspects has been that

891
those girls who have been involved in TVEI schemes have tended towards the traditional activities and subjects.
Can the noble Lord tell us whether there has been any monitoring of the schemes that have now been operating for two or three years? If so, have any lessons been learned? Are there any ways in which it is hoped to overcome the difficulties of involving both boys and girls across the range? If no monitoring has been undertaken, can we be assured that as the scheme is being extended an element of monitoring will be included?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, for her comments. As well as the White Paper, we have a popular version—designed for Ministers, let me hasten to say first—as a way of building a bridge between learning and earning which is here to explain what TVEI is about and also the review of vocational qualifications.
When we first set up TVEI we set up a national steering commission body which looks at and agrees not only the projects which get funded but sets up yearly monitoring. I am happy to put in the Library the report that we have had so far from the monitoring. If the noble Baroness would care to put down a question I am sure that we can deal in more detail with the precise answer.
I would not stand here today and say that TVEI is perfect: it is but in its third year. We have had compulsory education in this country for 110 years and not all of us are totally satisfied with that. However, the state of vocational education and training is transformed compared with where it was half a dozen years ago.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, in answering my noble friend Lady Carnegy, the Minister said that certain local authorities, for anti-this-Government reasons, were not taking up the advantages and that it was to the detriment of the pupils. Since he is responsible for the pupils and not for the local authorities, what is he doing to try to get local opinion in those areas to put the matter right in the interests of the children?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I have many responsibilities and I am fully aware of them. But my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has responsibility for the school system. The whole purpose, and the way in which we have proceeded on TVEI, is on a voluntary basis. I regret that there are some authorities that would not accept it. I hope that now it has become a national scheme—and that is why I do not want to say too much about it—they will reconsider their position and will embrace it wholeheartedly for the benefit of all their young.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Blease, wishes to rise but we have spent 35 minutes on this matter. If the noble Lord, Lord Blease, asks his question and my noble friend answers it, the House may feel that we can move on to the next business.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I should like to ask two questions. I listened with interest to the Secretary of State's announcement and I particularly welcomed his reference to Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland the aims and objects of this Statement will I think be readily accepted. I believe that there is a foundation built there already of co-operation among teachers, management, industry and trade unions.
The Minister in his Statement said that the two departments were working together harmoniously to bring about the aims and objects of the White Paper. The two departments working together is only the beginning of it. What methods are being employed by the department to promote it at the level of the nuts and bolts of industry, and at the blackboard and books level of education? It has to be promoted, and cannot just spring to life or develop unless it is engineered by the two departments.
The second question is on this important aspect. While the ideals and principles—that this will lay the foundation for the development of young people to take a part in the new developments of competition with skills and adaptability—ought be readily accepted by all, in the long run, unless the jobs materialise, I feel that we are still in a Catch-22 situation where we have the training but not the outlook and inspiration to go on to higher things unless the jobs are there.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord. I would confess that it is no good having any good scheme unless it be promoted properly. I have given a great deal of attention to the difficulties of promoting it. We are responsible for the careers service. I shall ensure that the popular version of the White Paper is circulated as widely as possible. We shall be finding ways in which we shall go into the school system. We shall be working very closely with the Deparment of Education and Science and the territorial departments as well, to ensure that it is brought out as well as we can. That is of crucial importance, as is this whole programme.
With regard to Northern Ireland, the TVEI does not apply as such but the review of vocational qualifications does. I hope that review will be done. I hope very much that we shall see that work together.

Building Societies Bill
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Building Societies Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 2 to 5,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 6 to 13,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 14 to 24,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 25 to 27,

893

Schedule 6,

Clauses 28 to 32,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 33 to 34,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 35 to 44,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 45 to 68,

Schedule 9,

Clause 69,

Schedule 10,

Clauses 70 to 77,

Schedule 11,

Clauses 78 to 83,

Schedules 12 and 13,

Clauses 84 and 85,

Schedule 14,

Clauses 86 to 90,

Schedule 15,

Clauses 91 to 93,

Schedule 16,

Clauses 94 to 96,

Schedule 17,

Clauses 97 to 118,

Schedules 18 to 20,

Clauses 119 to 121,

Schedule 21,

Clauses 122 and 123.

—(Lord Brabazon of Tara. )
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Agriculture Bill
3.40 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Provision of services and goods connected with agriculture and countryside]:
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 6, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) The Minister shall make provision free of charge for the supply of—

(a) advice to persons carrying on agricultural businesses on the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside; and

(b) advice to such persons on diversification into other enterprises of benefit to the rural economy.

(1A) The Minister may make provision for the supply to any person of any services or goods relating to—

(a) the production and marketing of agricultural produce and other food;

(b) the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty and amenity of the countryside; or

(c) any other agricultural activity or other enterprise of benefit to the rural economy;

that are not covered by subsection (1) above.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment I think that it would be convenient to speak to Amendments Nos. 3 and 6, both of which are consequential.
Amendment No. 1 reinstates into the statute law part of the provision in Section 41 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 which at present is repealed by the Agriculture Bill. Section 41 was put into the
894
Wildlife and Countryside Act as a result of amendments passed in your Lordships' House, and originally moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. Section 41 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act makes it a requirement on the Minister of Agriculture to make provision for ADAS to give advice free of charge to farmers who carry on agricultural businesses on conservation and on diversification. That is the first part of the amendment, subsection (1)(a) and (b).
I have omitted from the amendment a third part of Section 41 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act about giving advice to other government departments. This is one of the matters to which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, objected particularly when we discussed it in Committee. Therefore in tabling the amendment I narrowed the statutory duty on the Minister of Agriculture that applies in the Wildlife and Countryside Act, which was put into that Act by your Lordships' House, accepted by the Government as recently as 1981. This would be a narrower statutory duty, but would nevertheless contain the essential elements that I think people on both sides of the House agree ADAS should continue to have to do; that is, to give advice to farmers free of charge on conservation, on enhancement of the countryside and on diversification of farm businesses.
The second part of the amendment, subsection (1A) (a), (b) and (c), simply repeats the provisions already in the Bill and allows the discretionary power that the Government are keen they should have to give advice or supply goods or services to a wide range of people, farmers and others involved in production, marketing and so on. Some of those things will, of course, be commercial services sold by ADAS.
The only change that the amendment makes to the Bill is to reinstate parts of the provisions of the Government's Wildlife and Countryside Act about free advice on conservation and diversification. It is a narrow statutory duty, but nevertheless one to which a great many interests attach considerable importance, I think for a number of reasons. First, as all of us involved in the agriculture industry are aware, major changes are taking place and will continue to take place. Conservation is increasingly important, as is diversification from a business point of view.
It is generally agreed, I think, that ADAS has a vital role to play in giving farmers advice on diversifying their business opportunities and helping them to conserve the countryside and wildlife and enhance the beauty of the country. The amendment would ensure that ADAS had a statutory remit to give that free advice.
The Government have said in your Lordships' House and in another place that this will happen anyhow and that ADAS will do this. So far they have set their face against this remaining as it is at present in law, passed in 1981, a statutory duty. They have done so, so far as I can see from studying the debates carefully, on the grounds that previous amendments put too wide a statutory duty and would have obliged ADAS to give advice outside agriculture to other government departments or statutory bodies free of charge. The amendment does not do that, but is restricted to advice to farmers.
The final reason that I think it is particularly important to write this into the Bill is that all of us

895
know that in practice what one Government Minister says as an undertaking when a Bill is going through Parliament binds no one else. It does not bind successive Government Ministers in the same administration, and it certainly does not bind successive governments.
We all know that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, is committed to this and that he intends to see it happen, and I have no doubt that it will happen while the noble Lord occupies his current position. However a number of us on this side of the House in different parties do not believe that that will continue for very long. In any event, changes in governments will take place during the time that the legislation remains on the statute book.
The fact that this is a discretionary power to give advice is already causing uncertainty. For example, in last week's issue of Farmers Weekly, in discussing the free advice for diversification to which the Government are committed, there is a report of a farmer who is being given initial advice by ADAS free of charge on how to diversify but who will be charged if more detailed advice is sought. Despite the strong commitments that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has given on behalf of the Government and that were given in another place, already doubts are being raised about whether this free service really will be free and will continue to be free for a matter of days after the measure is passed, let alone many years into the future.
I hope that the amendment will be acceptable to the Government. I have tried to meet all the objections that the noble Lord had to it in Committee, and I have drawn it very narrowly. It would simply ensure that ADAS had a statutory duty to continue to give free advice, as it does now under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, on these limited topics of conservation and diversification.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I wish to support the amendment. If I had been able to attend the Committee stage of the Agriculture Bill when your Lordships debated it on 12th June, I should have argued with others—I noted particularly the speeches of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie—that it is impracticable and, more important perhaps, undesirable to separate the matter of advice by ADAS on agricultural matters on the one hand and environmental matters on the other. I support the amendment now because I am sure that unless advice on agricultural matters is provided free by ADAS, fewer farmers will seek advice on agricultural matters and consequentially fewer farmers will recieve the all-important advice on environmental matters that the noble Lord, I know, is so keen they should have.
I support the amendment because, if the Government are serious in their intention to attempt to achieve a true balance between the various interests contained in Clause 14, they must surely have a duty to do everything possible commensurate with the voluntary principle to persuade as many farmers as possible by expert advice how best to achieve that balance, and in particular having regard to the environmental interests, for which hitherto MAFF has
896
not had a formal responsibility and which have not been truly weighed in the balance in the past.
I see no justification for making a difference in principle between this amendment and Section 41 of the 1981 Act, in which the duty is laid upon Ministers. As the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has said, without the amendment the duties contained in the 1981 Act would be cancelled out. I see the retention of those duties as a test of the Government's good faith in respect of Clause 14 of the Bill.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for the tremendous help that he has been since Committee in keeping us up to date with his thinking and for the amendments that he has tabled. This has been a great help to us. I do not suggest that we agree with all the amendments, but he has been a great help in every way, for which I thank him.
I do not think I need add to what has already been said by the two noble Lords who have spoken to the amendment. I agree very much with the amendment. Subsection (1)(b) says:
"advice to such persons on diversification into other enterprises of benefit to the rural economy".
In my view that is most important in this year and, indeed, in this age, when we are asked to do so much diversification. Therefore, I and my noble friends support the amendment.
However, I want to make it clear that although I have put my name to my noble friend's Amendment No. 1 I did not mean to do so as regards Amendment No. 2. It is not that I disagree with the idea behind Amendment No. 2, but I feel that to refer to "promotion" is rather like saying that we have created a nice countryside for people and we are trying to chivvy them into it and make them enjoy it. I know that my noble friend does not mean that, but I should make it clear that I do not support that amendment although I do support the other three.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead)My Lords, I should like to say a few words by way of background before dealing with the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, whose words I appreciated about the way in which we have exchanged information since the Committee stage of the Bill.
Up until now all ADAS advice has been placed on the same statutory footing. In other words, the Minister of Agriculture has relied upon the same basic powers to provide advice on agricultural production or on conservation or on rural diversification. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, himself said in his introductory speech, we are certain now that in future the advisory service will need to be able to give its advice on a much wider canvas than it has hitherto. That is the reason why Clause 1 of the Bill provides for ADAS to give its services to the very wide range of people and on the wide range of subjects which are included in the clause. However, because the net of ADAS will now be spread much wider than it has been statutorily before, we have made Clause 1 a power and not a duty.

897
It is fair to say that your Lordships were somewhat suspicious during the Committee stage that this may be a licence to turn the coin on to its face: that ADAS, instead of spreading its net wider, could withdraw from the scene. Therefore, in order to give an undertaking to your Lordships' House on the face of the Bill that our advisory services will continue, the Government have tabled Amendment No. 4, which I hope we shall be discussing shortly. Indeed, if your Lordships agree to Amendment No. 4 we shall have an absolute guarantee in the Bill, which would be put on the face of the Bill by your Lordships' House, of the existence of an advisory service in the future, and also the general powers in Clause 1 would be spread much wider than hitherto. I suggest to your Lordships that that is really the only fair way in which to provide for the much wider role that ADAS is expected to play in the future.
With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, who put forward a very persuasive case, I think that our proposal is a much fairer way of going about the matter than the proposals put forward in the first three amendments. The noble Lord's present amendments (if your Lordships agree to them) would make a very unacceptable distinction. They would provide for conservation advice free of charge and so they would establish sub-categories of ADAS advice on a different statutory footing from the rest of ADAS's advice. That would therefore, by law, require distinguishing lines to be drawn where lines had not been drawn previously. A statutory obligation to provide advice on conservation or rural diversification free of charge would, I suggest, be bound to lead to arguments in the courts about what constituted conservation and what did not.
The noble Lord said in Committee that he thought that such court action could be an advantage to farmers and the countryside as a whole. With respect, I do not agree with that suggestion. I think that it would lead to great pressures on the Ministry's advisers and, indeed, from the industry to segregate off advice on conservtion and rural diversification so clearly and definitely from other advice that there would be a significant reduction in the effectiveness with which ADAS provided the balanced mix of advice that it does at present and that it will be required to provide in future, and upon which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, quite rightly puts such enormous importance.
Incidentally, as a side-effect, these amendments would also prevent ADAS from entering into more detailed environmental planning and development work—in other words, the giving of environmental services—which at present it cannot undertake because of the enormously expensive resource demands that work of that kind would entail. But where customers are able and indeed willing to pay for expensive services, such as the drawing up of major management plans for monitoring, improving or enhancing the wildlife or other environmental interests of particular features of a farm or an estate, I do not see why such a service should not be provided. However, these amendments would forbid that happening.
898
Therefore, I am endeavouring to say to your Lordships that it was thought in Committee that in reality Clause 1 would be some kind of a licence for the Government to begin withdrawing ADAS from the role that it fulfils so well. Nothing could be further from the truth. I very much hope that the tabling of Amendment No. 4, when we come to it, will prove that that is so.
In addition, I assure your Lordships that the Government stand by their undertaking not to charge for the kinds of advice on conservation, animal welfare and rural diversification currently provided free of charge to farmers. I endeavoured to describe in Committee how ADAS and the industry can have practicable, workable arrangements for the future provision of advice on conservation and other issues free of charge. However, the difference between that and these amendments is that that can best be done with common sense and some give and take.
If these amendments were to be made, they would make agricultural advisers so wary of breaking the law that they would simply segregate off their conservation advice and the balanced mixture of advice that we all want to achieve would be lost. That would be an absolute disaster. However, I believe that it would be the inevitable consequence of these amendments. It is on that simple ground that I have to resist these three amendments.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, the debates which we have had on these amendments at this stage and the debates which we had on their predecessors at Committee stage, as well as those which we have had on other similar amendments to the clause, have served a useful purpose because they have dealt conclusively with the suspicions and doubts widely held that the Ministry of Agriculture have been less than wholehearted in their commitment to conservation.
The Ministry disliked Clause 41 to the Wildlife and Countryside Bill when it was introduced, and they have by no means exerted themselves as whole-heartedly as they have always claimed in its execution ever since. However, that is not to say that there are not a considerable number of farmers who understand and practise conservation well; it is not to say that the farming and wildlife advisory groups have not done sterling work in this field; and it is not to say that there are not a considerable number of officials both within the Ministry and within ADAS who have the cause of conservation at their hearts. However, there is a considerable number of hardliners in the Ministry whose will to keep clear of conservation has yet to be broken. Now, at the first opportunity to make an amendment in the field of conservation, the Ministry divest themselves of a statutory duty and leave themselves with a power. If that is not a reduction in their concern for conservation, I do not know what is! Nevertheless, we are now clear about how we stand, and that is a gain.
Lord Craigton: My Lords, I may be wrong but 1 did not understand what the Minister meant when he said that his Amendment No. 4 answered the question which we are now discussing.
4 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, may I reply to my noble friend Lord Craigton? By way of background, I just wanted to set the scene to make it clear to the House that any suggestion that Clause 1 is in some way a licence for ADAS to be withdrawn and to disappear from the scene is not the case. In order to prove that it is not the case, the Government have put down Amendment No. 4. It remains the case with Amendment No. 4, if your Lordships agree to that amendment, that Clause 1 will be a power and not a duty. This is what this amendment is all about.
The reason why the Ministry have put forward a power in Clause 1 and not a duty is, as I think my noble friend Lord Craigton is well aware, that we have drawn Clause 1 infinitely wider than the law stands at the moment; indeed, so wide that Clause l(l)(c) says that the advisory services in the future shall provide their goods and services to,
"any other agricultural activity"—
other than production and marketing, and conservation and enhancement of the countryside—
"or other enterprise of benefit to the rural economy."
It is a complete catch-all.
The difficulty we should be in if your Lordships had insisted that there should be a duty to provide all services at all times is that we would find ourselves overstretched, because otherwise we would be breaking the law in that we would have to meet all the particular bits of Clause 1 at one and the same time. It is for that reason that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is being selective in this amendment and saying that he wants a duty to provide free services for conservation and rural diversification only.
I admire the noble Lord (because he is consistent in this matter) for bringing forward this amendment, but I disagree with his view that it can work. If you lay a statutory duty on agricultural advisers to provide free advice—I honestly say this, my Lords—I think that the ADAS advisers will be so wary of breaking the law that they will not provide integrated advice when they go to visit a farm. What they will say is, "We are going to play safe and make absolutely certain that we either give husbandry advice or we give environmental advice, but we are jolly well not going to give integrated advice, becuse before we know where we are, if we do that we may find that we are up before the courts for having broken the law". It is on that simple ground that I have to resist the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, at the start of our debate.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I have listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, who was responsible for these provisions appearing in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. But they have a long and honourable pedigree. They were first recommended by Sir Nigel Strutt in the Strutt report many years before that. It has been endorsed by everybody from the agricultural industry who has looked at the future for agriculture and conservation that ADAS should play a major part in giving advice to farmers on conservation matters. As the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said, the provisions have not been wholeheartedly endorsed by the
900
Ministry, and I find it bitterly disappointing that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, should be as pessimistic as he is (and said he was this afternoon) about the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, raised the red herring about Clause 1 being a licence for ADAS to disappear. Amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 6, with which we are dealing, do not address that point. They are not looking at whether this Bill is a licence for ADAS to disappear but at whether this Bill provides a licence for ADAS free advice on conservation and diversification to disappear.
It provides that licence. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has not suggested otherwise. He has given a personal undertaking that he will not allow it to end. But, as I said in introducing the amendment, that only carries us forward as long as the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, holds his present job, and no further. The fact is that Clause 1 provides a licence for ADAS's involvement in conservation and diversification to end. It could end tomorrow if a Minister wished to end it tomorrow. That is what this Bill provides a licence for.
The noble Lord then said, "Even if that is not a good argument, Amendments 1, 3 and 6 would mean ADAS segregating off advice on conservation and diversification from the rest". The Government have already done that. They have said, "We will charge for some advice and give some advice free". That is segregating. ADAS officials, as we discussed at length at Committee stage, again have to know whether they are giving advice which is chargeable or free. The segregation has taken place. All I say is that we want to make sure in the Bill that at least the free advice continues into the future and does not disappear down the plughole. That is what this amendment would ensure.
I was disappointed at how pessimistic the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, was about this. He has just cause, because Sir Nigel Strutt's advice many years ago was not acted on; and even when this duty was put in the Wildlife and Countryside Act, accepted by Parliament, it was not forcefully taken up nationally. But I think it is fair to say that locally a great many ADAS officers, regional staff and local advisory officers have eagerly seized on this and have done an effective job, have trained themselves in conservation, made contacts, and given a lot of excellent advice to farmers. That is what I do not want to see ended by this Government or any future government. This amendment will ensure that it continues, and I think the House should insist that it does continue. I want to press the amendment to a Division.
Baroness White: My Lords, before we take a Division on this amendment, can the Minister not deal with the differentiation made in Lord Melchett's amendment between the goods and services which are included both in this amendment and in the Bill as it now stands, and advice? The noble Lord mentioned the difficulty of an ADAS officer being asked to draw up a scheme, or maybe to undertake some kind of survey, or something of that sort. Surely that is caught under "services or goods". Advice is different.
I should have thought that it is necessary that we make certain that advice will remain available,

901
whatever happens to the goods and services. The goods and services may be charged for, and that is provided for both in the Bill and in the amendment. I cannot see why the noble Lord resists the desirability of providing advice. As the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said—and as we discussed endlessly at Committee stage—the ADAS officers must be able to decide what it is they are going to charge for, and therefore they ought to be able to differentiate between that and what they are not obliged to charge for.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, before the noble Lord answers again—and to stop him having to speak three times on Report stage—presumably I am right in assuming that when my noble friend gives an undertaking from the Government Front Bench that certain things are going to happen, he is speaking for the Government. He is not speaking, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, implied, solely in his own personal capacity.
The Government have given an undertaking that these services will be provided. I accept that. I do not presume that if, by misfortune, noble Lords on Benches in another part of this House change places with ourselves, those people will then withdraw from that undertaking. Therefore I should have thought that the pledge is perfectly all right, and that it would be a mistake to go to a Division. Even though I believe that what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, seeks is a good thing to do, I certainly shall vote for the Government.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I do not know that I have the permission of the House to speak a third time, and it would be unfair if I made debating points and the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, could not speak again. Therefore may I, in one sentence, simply say to the noble Baroness, Lady White, that of course advice is a service under the Bill. I think that really answers the point she was putting to me.
4.9 p.m.
On Question, whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided; Contents, 85; Not-Contents, 139.

DIVISION NO.1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Diamond, L.

Amherst, E.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Ardwick, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Attlee, E.

Ennals, L.

Banks, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Barnett, L.

Ezra, L.

Birk, B.

Falkender, B.

Blease, L.

Foot, L.

Blyton, L.

Gallacher, L.

Brockway, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Glenamara, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Grey, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hampton, L.

Crawshaw of Aintree, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

David, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Hunt, L.

Dean of Beswick, L. [Teller.]

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

902

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Rugby. L.

John-Mackie, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Sandford, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Seear, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Shackleton, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Shepherd, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Lockwood, B.

Simon, V.

Longford, E.

Stallard, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

McNair, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Mayhew, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Melchett, L. [Teller.]

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Mishcon, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Tordoff, L.

Mulley, L.

Underhill, L.

Nicol, B.

Vernon, L.

Oram, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Phillips, B.

Walston, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Whaddon, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

White, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Rochester, L.

Winstanley, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Gainford, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Gisborough, L.

Annan, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Arran, E.

Granville of Eye, L.

Auckland, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Bauer, L.

Gridley, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Beloff, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Belstead, L.

Marylebone, L.

Bessborough, E.

Halsbury, E.

Blake, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Bolton, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hives, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hood, V.

Brentford, V.

Hooper, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Broxbourne, L.

Inglewood, L.

Burton, L.

Ingrow, L.

Butterworth, L.

Kimball, L.

Caccia, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Caithness, E.

Lane-Fox, B.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Layton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Carnock, L.

Long, V.

Cathcart, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Cayzer, L.

Lurgan, L.

Chelmer, L.

Lyell, L.

Clitheroe, L.

McFadzean, L.

Coleraine, L.

Mancroft, L.

Craigavon, V.

Manton, L.

Craigton, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-

Cranbrook, E.

Avon, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cross, V.

Mersey, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Middleton, L.

Davidson, V.

Milverton, L.

De Freyne, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

De La Warr, E.

Mountgarret, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Denning, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Derwent, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Norfolk, D.

Eccles, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Onslow, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Peel, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Pender, L.

Elton, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Faithfull, B.

Plummer of St Marylebone,

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

L.

Ferrers, E.

Portland, D.

Forbes, L.

Quinton, L.

Fortescue, E.

Radnor, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Rankeillour, L.

903

Reigate, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Renton, L.

Terrington, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Teviot, L.

St. Davids, V.

Tranmire, L.

Savile, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Selkirk, E.

Trenchard, V.

Sempill, Ly.

Trumpington, B.

Shannon, E.

Ullswater, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Slim, V.

Vickers, B.

Somers, L.

Vivian, L.

Somerset, D.

Waldegrave, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Westbury, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Strathcona and Mount Royal,

Wise, L.

L.

Young, B.

Sudeley. L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Swansea, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 11, at end insert—
("( ) the promotion of public enjoyment of the countryside; or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in this amendment we return again to something we discussed at Committee stage of the Bill; namely the importance, as I see it, of ADAS having a remit to promote the public enjoyment of the countryside. Noble Lords who were present at the Committee stage will remember that this was something which the Government have now given to the Minister of Agriculture as part of his remit. In a later clause in the Bill the Minister has a duty to balance a number of things—agricultural production, conservation and so on; and one of them is enjoyment of the countryside.
When we debated this at the Committee stage it seemed to me—though I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, would agree—that the Minister had one major argument against the amendment. It was that the promotion of the enjoyment of the countryside was already in the remit of another statutory body, the Countryside Commission, and that the commission would not welcome this remit being given to ADAS. I said at the time that I did not think that that was the Countryside Commission's view. I have now been able to confirm that, because the commission tells me that when it saw the amendment prior to the Committee stage,
"our feeling was that it would be quite reasonable for ADAS to help us [that is, the Countryside Commission] in this way, in the same way that they will be offering advice on conservation. There certainly seems to have been a misconception of our likely attitude on this point, but I believe that this has now been cleared up with the ministry".
I hope that the point has been cleared up and that the noble Lord will be able to accept the amendment.
A number of other noble Lords took part in the debate and some of them seemed to be under the impression that this would in some way be a new remit for ADAS or would be widening its scope or taking it into all sorts of dangerous and unacceptable territory. Again, since the Committee stage debate I have been able to study some of the excellent documents which ADAS has recently produced. I have here one called The Living Farm. It is sub-titled Advice on
904
conservation from ADAS. On the first page there is a list of the kinds of advice which ADAS is currently able to give. It says:
"What kinds of advice?
"ADAS can advise on",
and then it lists a number of things: ponds and wetlands, farm woodlands, hedgerows, appearance of farm buildings, landscape, farm wastes, wildlife, use of pesticides and fertilisers, and finally sporting or recreation.
So ADAS is already giving advice on recreation in the countryside, and it does not seem to me therefore that my amendment does more than recognise, first, that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has now a new remit in this field, a balancing remit, but a remit nevertheless, introduced in this Bill by the Government; and, secondly, that that remit is likely to be carried out first and foremost by ADAS which already sees itself in this field with strong support from the Countryside Commission. My amendment simply recognises what is happening already and I hope therefore that it will be acceptable. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, there is always a danger in coming in at Report stage when one has missed the actual discussions and debates which took place in Committee; and this is my slightly handicapped position. But I rise to support this amendment on the simple premise, rather on the same lines that we have just been discussing, that it is quite unrealistic and pointless to separate the matter of the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty and amenities of the countryside if you do not at the same time promote public enjoyment of it. That seems to me to be a perfectly good reason for including the words that are not at present on the face of the Bill.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I understand the philosophy behind the noble Lord's amendment and I go along with it quite a long way, but there are certain snags as I see it. One is in making it a statutory duty on the poor, unfortunate ADAS officer who comes to see me to advise me on this particular matter.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but this would not make it a statutory duty; it would make it a statutory power. This is now a discretionary clause, as the noble Lord will remember.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: All right, my Lords; I will take that back; but it will make it a duty on him to give advice on this matter.
Lord Melchett: No.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: All right, my Lords, a power. But my objection to it is that he will be put in an invidious position because enjoyment of the countryside is subjective; what is beauty and what is not? You may find the unfortunate ADAS officer saying, "I think that really you ought to make hay rather than silage because it is rather more beautiful". In fact, he may even think that I ought to make it in the way that Constable showed us how to make it 100 years ago. That is the first point.

905
The second point concerns access. I am surprised at what the noble Lord said about the Countryside Commission, for what he said about the commission did not mean that it supported his amendment. It just saw it, as it said. Perhaps he will comment on that later.
I turn to another pont about access. I really do not think the Minister is the right person to advise on this matter. I have had some experience in that my son had the privilege of winning the South-East Midland Area access competition, which was run by the Countryside Commission. The people who were of help to us were the Countryside Commission and the local authority. ADAS really was not of great help.
My final objection is that I think we are making the unfortunate ADAS officer, who is going to enter a very competitive world in the future, a jack of all trades, and I do not feel that that is right. So I do not like this amendment.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, may I just say that when you give someone a power it is not long before he thinks that it is his duty.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I do not think the amendment is necessary. We live in the country. We all want people to enjoy it. We do not want them to spoil it in any way. I cannot see the need to put this into the Bill, for it seems to be quite unnecessary. Also, in the area where I live the Forestry Commission has picnic places to which people go and which are very agreeable. The local authority also has areas where people may park cars and have picnics by the side of the river. Nobody told the local authority to do it. There is no need to put this in the Bill. The authorities want to do it; they want people to enjoy the countryside. Why not? I think it is unnecessary to put it into the Bill because in fact it is being done now and, as far as I know, is being done rather well.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I think that the suspicious thing about this amendment is what is meant by "enjoyment of the countryside". Those of us who enjoy it in the way that many of us do enjoy it for what it is and we want to keep it as it is. I have a strong suspicion that there are a great many people who should like to enjoy it entirely for the kind of amusement which they consider gives them pleasure—dropping litter all over the place, having "pop" camps or caravan sites and that sort of thing. I cannot think it is quite fair on a fanner to ask him to put up with all that.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to those noble Lords who have taken part in this brief discussion, and not least to my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood, speaking from the Benches on this side, and the noble Lord, Lord Somers, speaking from the Cross-Benches, for saying, in their slightly different ways, that they are concerned about this amendment. I must say that I too am concerned because I think it will put the agriculture advisory services into a very difficult position if they are put into the Bill in this particular way.
906
As I think all noble Lords have said, for many observers a well-ordered, well-tilled landscape is enjoyable and is something that we all look for. But do not let us forget that there are other people who do not want to see that. They want moorland and heath land and would prefer not to see the landscape looked after too minutely. Some naturalists delight in the spectacle of a field returning to nature with a succession of wild flowers, trees and shrubs and all sorts of other things abounding, while other people say that that is a bit like rural dereliction.
I think that we put ADAS into a difficult position if we start to try to interpret what is an individual's "enjoyment of the countryside". What we are doing is putting into Clause 14 of the Bill a promise that we in the Ministry of Agriculture will endeavour to balance the interests of agricultural production, conservation and rural economy. I am absolutely sure that Clause 14 is right. But if the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that we are now discussing is agreed, I think that the worries of my noble friend Lord Stanley will be justified and we will find a bewildering variety of conflicting views about what "enjoyment of the countryside" means, with it being claimed that the ministery's advisory services either are or are not promoting enjoyment of the countryside.
Having said that, I have to meet head on the point put to me by the noble Lords, Lord Hunt, and Lord Melchett, which in essence is this. If "public enjoyment of the countryside" is to be found in Clause 14, why is it not to be found in Clause 1? I think that probably this House is wise enough to know that there are dangers in harmonising for harmonisation's sake.
Clause 1(1), which is where this amendment would go if it were passed, has been drafted in response to the specific needs of ADAS for the future. But Clause 14 has been drafted for a different purpose altogether, which is to ensure that the whole range of the Ministry of Agriculture's policies relating to land, including ADAS advice, should take account of wider social and economic objectives relevant to present-day concerns.
Those two things are not entirely the same. Clause 14 contains an umbrella power, and I am very glad that we are proposing to put it in, but if you put this direct power into Clause 1 I really would feel sorry for the advisory service and I think all noble Lords who have spoken, except for the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Melchett, would feel there was a danger that the advisory service would be drawn into interminable wrangles about what does or does not constitute enjoyment of the countryside.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I assume that this glossy and attractive booklet entitled The Living Farm from ADAS is going to have to be amended in the light of what the noble Lord has said—and withdrawn and re-issued—because so far as ADAS are concerned they are currently giving advice on sporting and recreational matters. If recreation does not enable people to enjoy the countryside, goodness knows what it does. As the noble Lord said, these words appear in Clause 14 because the Government have put them there. If they are difficult to interpret when the Minister balances interests, they are going to be difficult for ADAS, but no more difficult. I know the

907
Minister is very wise and wonderful, but I do not think he is that much wiser or that much more wonderful than the ADAS staff who are giving advice on the ground. If the Minister can manage to interpret what these words mean—and presumably he must, because he put them into the Bill—surely in his great wisdom he can pass on his interpretation to the staff in the field.
The fact of the matter is, if I may say so to the noble Lord and others who have taken part in this debate, that they are quite happy for meaningless words to go into a general clause applied to the Minister so long as nothing happens in practice. That is the real objection to this amendment: they are afraid that it might encourage more of the population of this country to enjoy the countryside; and they do not want to see that happen. I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Peel, was not listening when the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, described moorland as the sort of countryside, or one of the sorts, which people want to see in (as it were) the waste or the not-properly-managed category by comparison with well-tilled fields, because there are many more people than the general public who want to see moorland in the countryside. The game conservancy and grouse shooting interests, conservationists and many others want to see moorland in the countryside, and I do not think it was very wise of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, if I may say so, to suggest that that was one of the nonsensical things wanted to be seen in the countryside by people who do not really know what is going on there.
I bitterly regret the fact that the Government, while giving a general clause to apply to the Minister in Clause 14, are not prepared for it to apply to ADAS when they are on a farm giving advice to farmers on enjoyment of the countryside and on recreation. It seems to me that that makes Clause 14 largely meaningless. It clearly demonstrates, as did the reaction of the Government and the noble Lord to the first amendment, that their real commitment to conservation and to changes in the countryside is skin-deep and meaningless. I am afraid that is the message people outside this House will have gained from our debates, not just on this amendment but on many others. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Peel: My Lords, may I just reply to what the noble Lord has said about open moorland? I take his point, but I think it is fair to say that, as things stand at the moment with regard to moor-owners and the general public, the relationship is extremely good. What concerns me and many other moorland owners is that if the pressure is to increase—and, of course, we have at the moment the common land forum which many noble Lords will know about—and if we were to get access to common land, I think the problems would intensify greatly. Of course that is a different matter, but as things stand at the moment they work well.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 4, at end insert—
("(2A) The provision which may be made under this section includes provision for the supply of such services and goods as are
908
mentioned in subsection (1) above through any organisation; and the Minister shall establish an organisation through which such a supply may be made.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, during the debate at Committee stage concern was expressed by your Lordships that if the powers in Clause 1 are permissive rather than mandatory it will somehow weaken the status of ADAS. That is emphatically not true. This may come as a surprise to some of your Lordships, but the present law does not in fact impose any obligation on the Government of the day to maintain an advisory organisation. Indeed, that has been the position since 1970, when the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1944 was amended by the Agriculture Act, and yet ADAS is still here and flourishing.
Nevertheless, I considered carefully the concerns that were expressed by your Lordships in Committee, and we have looked very carefully to see what could be done to meet those concerns. As I explaind at the Committee stage, we simply could not accept a duty to provide advice across the whole range of matters covered by Clause 1. I have been over that ground already this afternoon. What this amendment does is to impose a duty on the Government to maintain an advisory organisation while leaving the Government the discretion that is essential, I believe, about precisely what services or goods the organisation will supply. The amendment would also permit goods and services to be supplied in other ways as well, if that seemed more sensible in particular circumstances. But that would be in addition to, and not instead of, an advisory service, which is the concern of this amendment. I hope your Lordships will feel that this really is a step forward inasmuch as it puts what is in fact a guarantee into the Bill for the continuation of the Ministry's advisory service, which I believe does such good work. I beg to move.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I thank the Minister for at least giving some thought in putting down this amendment. In speaking to it, I should like also to speak to Amendment No. 5, if I may, because the two are complementary in some ways.
First, I should like to say that what is worrying me about ADAS is the morale in the service—a service which we all know has served the industry and the farmers so extraordinarily well for many years. There is no question about it: it seems to me that if in the last few years one-sixth of the staff has gone, that is not something that raises morale. During our debate at the Committee stage the Minister said that he had visited some demonstration which ADAS were running and had found that morale was very high. I visited the ADAS stand at the Royal Show on Monday and I was not surprised but, again, was delighted by the quality of the displays they had there. I liked particularly the way they had laid out what they had done and what they were doing in respect of all the different sections of agriculture, the advice they were giving and everything else.
I thought I should talk to some of them, and I did so; but I am certain that they did not know who I was. I talked to three members and found that the one thing they are not happy about are the cuts in staff. They are not happy either about the cuts in research and development, because that is where they get their

909
knowledge and experience so that they can give advice to farmers. They are very unhappy also about charges, and particularly about the complexity of the charges and the problems that will arise—the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, mentioned this earlier—in connection with exactly what they will have to charge and how the amount will be decided.
There is also the difficulty in approaching a farmer about staying longer if more time is needed. I forget the figure, but I believe the noble Lord gave us a figure of around £35 an hour. One can quite see how difficulty could arise when a farmer might be in doubt about asking them to stay for another hour and look at another field, and so on.
I explained that so far as I could see the Government were determined to raise some money in this way. The ADAS people were quite adamant that they should have preferred the levy system that I proposed at the Committee stage, which would have given them a free hand and the farmers a free hand on advice. I was quite struck by the fact that they were quite worried about all these items, and certainly in my opinion their morale is not as high as it should be.
When I look at the Minister's amendment it strikes me as a model of ambiguity. I am not lawyer; nor is my grammar very good; but am I right in thinking that the "may" in,
"the provision which may be made"
governs whether the Minister "shall establish"? I should like the Minister to make that quite clear because I think it is ambiguous in that respect. Then there is another question. Why not use the term "ADAS"? Why use the word "organisation"? It seems to me that the Government are trying to avoid something in the amendment to give them a loophole. I hope I am wrong; and if I am not wrong, why not take a look at our Amendment No. 5?
This amendment is straightforward. If the Minister says that ADAS is going to continue, why not just say so, as we say in our amendment? It would give tremendous assurance to the staff of ADAS if they would come straight out and accept the amendment, or, if they like, amend the amendment if it is not as well worded as they would like. But I think it is; I checked it fairly carefully. That would be of tremendous assurance to the staff.
I do not want to see the relationship with ADAS go, or ADAS itself go. It has been a tremendous help to me. We should not forget that nearly 75 per cent. of ADAS members are members of the Institute of Professional Civil Servants. I do not think we should forget that the union has collected a good deal of information from its members. It is quite adamant that there is considerable worry and that an amendment such as mine would be of assurance to its members.
The agricultural press was mentioned earlier. We all know the press in many ways. Nevertheless, nearly every agricultural paper has had articles about the difficulties in ADAS over the past few weeks which cannot be ignored. One should think very carefully about giving this assurance which we want to give in our amendment. I appeal to the Government to
910
amend their amendment to make it an absolute assurance, and not what I consider to be a very ambiguous one.
Lord Walston: My Lords, I endorse entirely what the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, has said about ADAS and about both its value and its morale. There can be no doubt at all among those who are close to it or are involved in any way in farming that the morale in ADAS at present is low and is in danger of going still lower. That does not in any way mean that the work it is doing is not just as valuable as ever. In some ways it is even more valuable. All the more credit is due to a group for carrying on in this way, although numbers, as the noble Lord will know, have declined severely.
The provisions in the Bill for payment, into which I shall not go again, undoubtedly put an even greater strain on ADAS and make things harder for it. All these things have been thrashed out both at Second Reading and in Committee, and I shall not elaborate any more. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has tried his best to produce an amendment which will overcome those difficulties. Quite frankly, I do not think he has succeeded. It is no fault of his. I am not blaming him in any way. It may be a mercy, but it is a very small mercy indeed. I suppose we should accept it for what it is worth, but there can be no confidence in our minds that it will go in any significant way towards overcoming those difficulties which have been mentioned on many occasions.
My noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie will be talking about Amendment No. 5. If I were given a straight choice between the two amendments, I should go every time for Amendment No. 5 rather than Amendment No. 4. Amendment No. 5 does something; Amendment No. 4 does no more than provide rather emollient words.
4.45 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I think we are in danger of being a little ungracious to my noble friend. To expect governments to write clear legislation is surely asking for the moon. The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, has written an amendment which to most of us makes complete sense. The letter which my noble friend Lord Belstead has sent to my noble friend Lord Buxton—several of us have had a copy—basically says that that is exactly what he is going to do, but he has to write it in gobbledegook. For heaven's sake, let us accept the gobbledegook and know that we can never get anything better.
Baroness White: My Lords, we should be able to get something better. I ask noble Lords in all parts of the House to consider what their feelings would be if they were ADAS officers, who have been proud to belong to an existing organisation which receives warm praise from all quarters, and had to read, if they have had the pleasure of seeing this list of amendments,
"and the Minister shall establish an organisation".
If it said "should maintain an organisation", that might be a little less insulting; but if you belong to a proud organisation which is there and if you are assured that it is the intention at least of the present Government that that organisation shall be maintained, how would you feel about an amendment in this form—that they shall establish an

911
organisation—when they already have an organisation? Why cannot they refer to it straight-forwardly and indicate that they propose to maintain this organisation?
The statute would not oblige them to maintain it at any particular strength—that is true—so their main concern about the large cuts which are still apparently in prospect will not be removed. But at least they could feel that they were being treated with the kind of respect which they deserve instead of being told that they are not really an organisation in being because an organisation has to be established. It seems to me that it is utterly lacking in sensitivity, whatever the good intentions may be.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, for once I agree with my noble friend rather than my noble kinsman Lord Onslow, for a change. I think we are being ungrateful to the Minister for the trouble he has taken in bringing forward this amendment. I have no reason to know but I suspect he had quite a job getting this past his colleagues.
I should like to ask him two questions. Can he expand at all on what sort of jobs and services are going to be provided by ADAS? The other question concerns the difficult matter of the services with regard to statutory duties. Noble Lords will remember that we discussed statutory duties last time, when my noble friend said that the Government were determined to charge for them. As I understand it—and perhaps the Minister will let me know—the charges will be in the regulations. When he comes down to making the regulations will he look kindly on the amount that farmers will have to pay when the Ministry performs its statutory duty?
Perhaps I may bring up a point that is sensitive for me personally. I should feel very aggrieved if at the moment I had to pay for the services which are being given by the Ministry with regard to my radioactive lamb. I may say that the Ministry has done a superb job in North Wales—it is its usual polite, long-suffering self. I am sure it has brought in a large number of people. However, it would be rubbing salt into my wound if I had to pay for that sort of service. I hope that my noble friend will say that in the circumstances where a statutory duty is being carried out he will perhaps charge the minimum rather than the maximum amount. Otherwise, I thank my noble friend for his amendment.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I rise to make the same apology that I made earlier about not having followed the discussion that took place in Committee leading to the noble Lord's amendment, although I have read Hansard. I rise only to seek clarification. It is not clear to me what relationship this new organisation which the noble Lord would establish through his amendment, which I understand to be separate and different from ADAS, will have with ADAS. Is there confusion in any other noble Lord's mind about this? If I am correct that a separate organisation for the supply of goods, following the advice of ADAS on whatever matters, is to be set up to handle the business of supply, then we should be informed what relationship that new organisation will have with ADAS.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, as we are speaking to both amendments I rise to support Amendment No. 5, but that is no disrespect to the Minister and his amendment. We are speaking about ADAS in England, but the position is illustrated by the Scottish colleges. I should like to say with all the seriousness I can muster that any assurance is probably too late.
In my area the local college staff who are quite excellent, are slipping away very fast. There were six of them. The senior man has gone to a commercial job. The second man, also a good man, is going to a commercial job. The third is negotiating to do so. My understanding is that this organisation, in an important agricultural and scenic area of Scotland, will be absolutely decimated long before this Bill becomes law. I should have thought that in the interests of morale in the service, in both Scotland and England, the strongest possible expression of intention to maintain the service is necessary.
For many people it will be too late. The senior man to whom I refer has gone to a commercial firm, where he is of immense use to me because I am a good customer of the firm. These good men who understand agriculture and the countryside are needed for the broad picture of keeping the countryside together and giving all the advice we have been speaking about today. They are slipping away like snow off a dyke.
Earl De La Warr: My Lords, I sympathise very much with my noble friend in this. Like the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, I should like to give assurances to members of ADAS who I know from my own experience are feeling most insecure. I am about to make a great deal more use of ADAS than I have in the past, knowing that it is going to cost me money. I have a large number of cows and I know exactly what I want ADAS to do for me, and it is bound to be worth my while.
However, the fact is that there must be uncertainty as to whether a large number of farmers who use ADAS now will go on doing so. One may have uncertainty about the whole philosophy of the Government that ADAS is required to charge, but it must follow from what the Government are doing that if ADAS cannot get farmers to pay for the work, the business will, in part, fold up. Under those circumstances I do not see how I can expect my noble friend to give the firm undertaking which the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, is expecting.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, my noble friend Lord De La Warr is kindly endeavouring to assist me. If your Lordships want a cast-iron undertaking that an advisory service of the Ministry is to continue, covering England and Wales—this clause does not extend to Scotland—please support Amendment No. 4. I shall come to Amendment No. 5 in a moment. Amendment No. 4 provides an absolutely cast-iron undertaking that whatever goods and services—in other words, advice and so on—may be provided, the Minister "shall establish an organisation." That is an absolutely cast-iron undertaking.
Perhaps I may reveal to your Lordships that when I read the way in which the amendment had been

913
drafted by parliamentary counsel I and my advisers went back to them to get this absolutely underlined. It is a cast-iron assurance that whatever goods and services are being provided, the organisation is to be there for the future.
The noble Baroness, Lady White, quite under-standably asked why we refer to "an organisation". Why not, she asked, refer to ADAS? The reason is that we are putting an obligation into legislation, if your Lordships agree to Amendment No. 4, which has not been in legislation since 1970. We therefore feel that it is logical to refer to "an organisation" because statutorily ADAS does not exist and has not existed for the past 16 years. It is extraordinary, but it was taken out of the law in 1970. If your Lordships agree, we shall be putting it back in, and I shall find that very cheering.
May I now say to the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, why I feel it is not possible for the Government to support Amendment No. 5. It is true that as regards Amendment No. 5 one could say that great minds think alike—in other words, the Government and the noble Lord are trying to reach exactly the same objective. However, we have not referred to a named organisation because, in addition to the reason 1 gave to the noble Baroness, names can change. If in, say, 25 years' time someone thought of a different name, they would find that ADAS has been cast in stone. That was another reason. Incidentally, to refer to an advisory service without naming it has a respectable precedent. In the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1944, under which ADAS was established, there was not specific mention by name of the advisory service.
The other difficulty with Amendment No. 5, if I may say this to the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, is that it refers to economy and efficiency. I admit that we do not do so in our amendment; first, because these concepts are central to the ability of ADAS to provide chargeable advisory services on a competitive basis and, secondly, because there could be considerable legal problems, I am advised, arising from concepts such as these which cannot clearly be defined.
May I therefore lead your Lordships back to Amendment No. 4. It is an absolutely cast-iron guarantee that an advisory service—ADAS—will continue for the future. It is a service which has well over 4,000 officers in England and Wales and which continues to run 19 experimental husbandry farms and horticultural stations. My noble friend Lord Stanley, who obviously takes the closest of interest in this, almost prompted the Government to bring forward their amendment, perhaps more than any other of your Lordships. He tabled an amendment in Committee about consultation if one changes ADAS. I felt that the way to do this was to make a clean breast of it and to come back to your Lordships, not going on about consultation but saying, "Come on, let us put into the Bill that there shall be an advisory service for the future".
The sort of jobs and services that ADAS will provide for the future were detailed in leaflets which I believe the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, saw at the Royal Show on Monday. Those leaflets have been deposited in the Library of your Lordships' House.
914
My noble friend Lord Stanley said to me, "When ADAS moves to charging be careful and be sensitive if you find that there is a difficulty—for instance, such as the problem of radioactivity at the moment when maybe farmers are needing special advice". Well, we are not into a charging situation at the moment. However, as an earnest of our good intentions in the Ministry of Agriculture perhaps I may remind my noble friend that last winter, when things were very difficult, we went out of our way to provide ADAS advice to farmers in the hills to do special tests on hay and silage in order to find out the quality of the forage. We made it quite clear that those particular services for farmers who were facing a very bleak winter would be absolutely free and would be provided as quickly as possible.
So, yes, we shall try to be as careful as we can in the future, even though—and we must not go over this ground again—we are going to introduce a charging regime. If the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, will forgive me, from the Government's point of view we have great difficulty in supporting Amendment No. 5. I think that it has aspects that do not make it an amendment that we could put on the face of the Bill. In view of the fact that I am saying that in Amendment No. 4 there is a cast-iron assurance that an advisory service will continue for the future perhaps the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, will feel that we are substan-tially meeting the point that he is making in his own amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie Lord John-Mackie moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 4. at end insert—
(" ( ) In furtherance of the provisions of this section the Minister shall ensure that the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service is maintained as an efficent and effective organisation.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment. I should just like to say that I put it down in good faith, believing that it was legally possible. However, the noble Lord says that there are difficulties. He mentioned the word "economy" I did not use the word "economy", but I used the words "efficient and effective", which of course may not be easy to define. However, I think that the assurance that the Minister has given will allow me with a fairly clear conscience to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 7 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 8:
After Clause 8 insert the following new clause—
("Food Consumers Committee.

.— (1) The Ministers shall appoint a Food Consumers' Committee consisting of nine members each of whom will serve for a period not exceeding four years and renewable thereafter at the discretion of the Ministers. A chairman will be appointed by the Ministers to serve for such period as the Ministers may decide.

(2) The Food Consumers' Committee shall replace the existing Consumers' Committee and shall discharge the current functions of the Consumers' Committee and in addition shall give views to the Ministers on food policy matters either on request by the Ministers or on the Committee's own initiative.

915

(3) Secretarial and information services to the Food Consumers' Committee will be provided by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and that Ministry shall also reimburse the cost of travel to meetings incurred by members of the Food Consumers' Committee as well as paying claims for subsistence by members attending meetings of the Committee on a scale approved by the Ministers and the Treasury.

(4) The Food Consumers' Committee will meet at least quarterly and will report bi-annually to the Ministers who will publish their reports.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, no one who has read the Bill that is before your Lordships' House or who heard the Second Reading debate or sat through the Committee stage can be in any doubt that the interests of primary producers and those whose major concern is the environment are fully catered for in this measure; and if there are any lingering doubts, then our postbag in recent days will have fully dispelled any notion that farmers and environmentalists are slow on the draw so far as concerns their legitimate interests.
The purpose of the amendment that is before your Lordships today is to try on the face of this Bill to do something modest for consumers by way of appointing a Food Consumers' Committee to report periodically to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on matters of common concern to consumers. I think it is legitimate to say that there are in existence bodies funded by the taxpayer which do a very useful job on behalf of consumers in general. I refer specifically to the National Consumer Council, which was establisshed in 1975, and to a more modest organisation called Consumers in the European Community Group, with which the Members of your Lordships' Select Committee on the European Community will be very familiar.
The National Consumer Council is a fully funded body, but of course it comes under the wing of the Department of Trade and Industry, which is specifically a non-food ministry. Consequently, in recent years, the activities of the National Consumer Council have been concerned with interests other than food, and the assignments that it has been asked to undertake by the Department of Trade and Industry have naturally had no food connection whatsoever. The smaller organisation is only modestly funded by the taxpayer, to the extent that its secretariat receives an annual grant to cover its outgoings. Specifically it looks at legislation promoted by Brussels which could have an impact on the consumer, whether that legislation relates to food or non-food matters. The members of the Consumers in the European Community Group are not ministry-appointed as are members of the National Consumer Council. They are in fact volunteers from representative national bodies which have an interest in consumer affairs.
Finally, in this connection I should perhaps mention the body which is specifically charged by the Ministry of Agriculture to look after the affairs of consumers under the Agricultural Marketing Act. I refer to the Consumers' Committee for Great Britain to which reference is made in the amendment. That, too, is a very modest committee whose existence is perhaps not particularly well known in your Lordships' House. In fact it performs a useful job in looking at the activities of the marketing boards, and in recent years it has said
916
some useful things on behalf of consumers about potatoes and about the milk scheme which has been in existence for so many years.
The Consumers' Committee for Great Britain recently undertook a review of its activities and naturally found that to some extent the way in which Community law impinges on the marketing boards has had the effect of reducing their volume of activity and the scope which they have for giving opinions to the Ministry of Agriculture on food matters affecting consumers. In a report to the Minister it suggested that the Consumers' Committee in its present form might be wound up and its activities subsumed in a new committee entitled the Food Consumers' Committee. I saw that proposal and thought that peaceful persuasion might be the answer, and so I put down a Question for Written Answer, asking the Minister to give sympathetic consideration to the request which the Consumers' Committee for Great Britain had made. Unfortunately, the Minister decided otherwise and said that although its recommendation had been given full consideration, his right honourable friend the Minister was not convinced that the existing extensive arrangements for consulting consumers would be materially improved by the addition of a body of the sort proposed.
I think it is common ground—and indeed much of the discussion surrounding the Bill that we have presently before us acknowledges that it is common ground—that farming and the environment are major questions, and that as a result of changes in the common agricultural policy—changes which are more easily talked about then legislated for—we shall see major changes in the farming structure of Great Britain which will perhaps involve new methods whereby farmers may farm less intensively. In my view the impact of these changes on the consumer is perhaps the one area which has not adequately been discussed, nor looks like being adequately discussed. Yet at the end of the day it is the consumer who will have to pay the price for it all, regardless of the form that farming and conservation of the environment may take in the future.
So, modestly we ask in Amendment No. 8 for the Government to agree in effect to what the Consumers' Committee for Great Britain asked for and to transform that committee into a Food Consumers' Committee consisting of nine members to be appointed by the Minister of Agriculture for a term not exceeding four years—it may be less—renewable at the Ministers' discretion, with a chairman separately appointed. We envisage the secretariat of the committee being provided by the Ministry of Agriculture and such information as the committee may need to discharge its functions similarly being provided by MAFF. We are suggesting that in addition to the work that it does presently under the Agricul-tural Marketing Act, the Food Consumers' Committee should also from time to time undertake assignments given to it by the Minister and at the same time it should have the power of own initiative so that it can look at problems which it considers are necessarily of importance to consumers and worthy of investigation.
We are not proposing a paid committee but simply a committee whose members will serve in an honorary

917
capacity and simply have their travel and subsistence expenses reimbursed by the Minister. We suggest that in order to ensure continuity the committee should meet at least quarterly. We suggest that its reports to Ministers should be published—the amendment says "bi-annually", though I had rather hoped that this would come out in draft as "biennially". I have had a handwriting problem since my childhood which does not get any better with the passage of time. I envisaged not six-monthly but rather two-yearly reports.
This is a most modest proposition. It represents a matter which is not sufficiently discussed at present. The Minister's response to the consumers' committee suggestion was somewhat disappointing. This is an attempt to get him to reconsider his response and to put on the face of the Bill a proposition which would be of importance to the person who is after all predominant in all our deliberations, the food consumer. I beg to move.
Lord Walston: My Lords, it is many years since the Ministry of Agriculture enlarged its sphere to become the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Despite the passage of time, we must admit that most of us—not just those of us who are farmers—look at it as the Ministry of Agriculture. We may occasionally call it MAFF, but usually we call it the Ministry of Agriculture. Whatever it is called, it is regarded by the public as the department of state which looks after food production and farmers' interests. Some farmers may disagree with that, but that is the general opinion.
This amendment, which is a modest one, as the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, said, will not make any significant difference to the representations made to the Government by the consumer. It is a valuable and useful amendment. It would establish in the public's eyes that this is the Ministry of Food as well as Agriculture. The expense and time involved would be minimal. I hope that the Minister will consider the amendment favourably.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I find this an interesting amendment. I am sorry that more noble Lords are not present in the House at the moment. As a farmer, I am desperately interested in the consumer. Without him or her I should not be in business. It is important to know what he or she wants, as opposed to what I think he or she wants or the conservationists or the animal welfarists think he or she wants. I want to know what the consumer wants, and then I may be able to produce what he or she wants.
I am not sure whether the amendment would achieve that. Some years in the future I may well take some sort of bait in some sort of way. I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising the matter.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley that this is an interesting amendment. It casts a new angle upon the Bill. The effect of the amendment is to oblige the Government to set up a Food Consumers' Committee to replace the consumers' committees established under the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958 and to advise on food policy matters generally.
918
The amendment is interesting for three reasons. The first is that the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, has great expertise on this matter. It was right that he moved the amendment. I am grateful to him for doing so. Secondly, I am most interested to hear that my noble friend Lord Stanley, as a primary producer, is a farmer whose mind dwells on marketing. That is something which my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood never allows us to forget for long when we are talking about agriculture. These days we must always think about where our produce is going.
The third reason I find the amendment interesting is that the noble Lord, Lord Walston, reminded us that the ministry in which I work is the Ministry of Agricul-ture, Fisheries and Food. My mind goes back to the war when I was at school. We ate what was called the Lord Woolton surprise. Your Lordships may remember that that was a baked potato in the middle of which was minced meat. As the war went on, one had to dig that bit deeper into the potato to find the surprise in the middle. I think that I am right in saying that it was from those great days of Lord Woolton that the food part of the ministry was taken on. I see the noble Lord, Lord Walston, nodding. As he reminded us, food is very much part of the ministry's responsibilities.
In that context, what is the Government's response to the amendment? It is that we rightly, I think, receive a great deal of advice at present. For instance, there are the annual price fixing negotiations which now largely determine the level of support given to most agricul-tural commodities. They are always preceded by the ministry consulting the consumer interests. Another area of considerable interest to consumers is the composition and safety of food. Parliament has already recognised the need for Ministers to have expert and independent advice on such matters and has established the food advisory committee, whose membership includes consumers, for this purpose.
The consumer's view is also safeguarded through the statutory requirement for Ministers to consult a wide range of interests, including consumer representatives, before making regulations under the Food Act. There are also the consumers' committees set up under the Agricultural Marketing Act to report on the effect upon consumers of agricultural marketing schemes.
I am worried that if we accede to the amendment, we should be duplicating a great deal of the good work which is done through those consultative arrange-ments. I believe that the way of making progress would be via increased co-operation among consumer organisations, possibly on an European basis. I also agree with what I think is the thinking behind the amendment—that the consumer interest should always be taken fully into account, not least in Government appointments to marketing boards and advisory committees. Although I resist the amendment because I feel that there would be duplication with valuable existing organisations and our present consultative arrangements, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, will feel as I do that it was well worthwhile moving it.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his remarks. I thank other noble Lords who have

919
either spoken in support of the amendment or expressed interest in it. Nevertheless, I feel that on balance the Minister has not been helpful to us. In particular, I think that the suggestion that a new committee is being created in addition to those which currently exist is not strictly correct, as we envisage the new committee taking over the functions of the existing Consumers' Committee of Great Britain established under the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958. It would be the same committee with a rather wider remit. To that extent it would not duplicate but merely replicate an existing committee.
I am aware of course of the consultation with consumers that takes place in a variety of ways. I am also aware that from time to time consumers' representatives are appointed as independent members of marketing boards. In my youth I once believed that if one could get enough people of one's persuasion on to marketing boards and the like, they stood a good chance of capturing the boards. Salutary experience has led me to think that the reverse happens, and in fact the board captures those good people because they assume responsibility for the policies of the board as such. To that extent, they are inhibited in the discharge of their initial loyalty to the concept of the supremacy of the consumer.
Nevertheless, I am grateful to the Minister for his assurance that such consultation that exists will continue. In the wider context this is a problem which will not go away. Ironically, there is reference in the Treaty of Rome in the articles establishing the common agricultural policy to fair prices for the consumer. Whether the consumer thinks that the Treaty of Rome gives him or her fair prices is a moot point. What is not in doubt is that the Treaty of Rome gives the consumer substantial surpluses. The great argument as to how we shall farm, grow food and distribute will go on and on. The voice of the consumer must be heard in that argument to an increasing extent.
I am grateful, as I said, for the support I received and the words of encouragement that the Minister gave me. Although we shall not see the amendment in the Bill at this time, it is reasonable to assume that from time to time we may legitimately return to the matter to press the Minister for further consideration of this vital issue by what he admits is the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 9:
After Clause 11, insert the following new clause:
(" Validation of Apple and Pear Development Council Orders. S.I. 1980/623 S.I. 1980/2001.
. The Apple and Pear Development Council Order 1980 and the Apple and Pear Development Council (Amendment) Order 1980 shall be deemed to have been validly made notwithstanding that they were made by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food acting alone rather than by that Minister and the Secretary of State acting jointly.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment concerns the Apple and Pear Development Council, which many of your Lordships will know to be a body which does an excellent job in promoting British top fruit. The council is funded entirely by a levy which it
920
raises from apple and pear growers, and it then uses the money to fund a number of advertising and promotional activities aimed at increasing the consumption of our excellent native varieties of these fruit. But a problem has arisen.
The council was first set up in 1966 under a statutory instrument which covered both England and Wales, and it was continued in being by a new instrument in 1980 which consolidated the 1966 order with a number of amendments. However, there had been an order passed in 1978 which transferred a number of functions to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales. Prior to that order all powers relating to the council in England and Wales—it does not cover Scotland or Northern Ireland—lay with the Minister of Agriculture. Moreover, the Transfer of Functions Order, which transferred a number of responsibilities to the Secretary of State for Wales, specifically excluded,
"any function exercisable in relation to the Apple and Pear Development Council by virtue of any Order made under the Act of 1947"."
That is, these powers were to stay with the Minister of Agriculture.
But while the Minister retained his functions under the order, the power under the parent Act to make a new order, such as the one intended to continue the council in being, had in fact been transferred to the Minister and the Secretary of State for Wales acting jointly. Unfortunately, this was overlooked in preparing the Apple and Pear Development Council Order of 1980 and the amendment order later in the year, and these orders purported to be made by the Minister of Agriculture alone. My right honourable friend has been advised that this defect renders these orders invalid not just in Wales, where, in fact, the number of apple and pear growers is extremely small, but in the whole of England and Wales. If this defect were not corrected, it would mean that many of the council's actions between 1980 and 1986, including its levies from growers, could be open to legal challenge.
I apologise for going into this at a little length, but if your Lordships agree to this and an associated amendment, it will, in fact, be retrospective legislation. It is, however, in a good cause. I beg to move Amendment No. 9 and speak at the same time to Amendment No. 63.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I do not believe that any of us could disagree with the Minister in taking this opportunity to put a wrong right. He has done so very well. I recognise that retrospective legislation is frowned upon by most people, but, as the noble Lord says, in this case it is in a good cause. We shall therefore allow it to slip through.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sandford Lord Sandford moved Amendment No. 10:
After Clause 11, insert the following new Clause:
("Entry to food premises of trainees.

.— (1) The Minister may make regulations empowering an authorised officer entering premises under the right of entry conferred by section 87 (1) of the Food Act 1984 to take with him a person who is receiving instruction in the performance of enforcement functions under that Act.

921

(2) The power to make regulations under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(3) Regulations under this section may relate to a particular class or particular classes of premises.

(4) "The Minister" means—

(a) in relation to England, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; and

(b) in relation to Wales, the Secretary of State.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment. In doing so I shift the scene from the problems of pears to the problems of poultry. This amendment, like the previous amendment I moved on this subject at Committee stage, is not so much to change the statute book but to secure a debate on a rather intractable problem. Since the Committee stage my noble friend on the Front Bench and I have met and discussed how we might move forward. As a result I issued an invitation to the British Poultry Federation to send me a letter from which I could set out the background of the problem to your Lordships. The federation has provided that letter. I shall read it out in a moment. It is necessary, I believe, to read it at length as, on the previous occasion, we were dealing with the last amendment on a late-night sitting and I thought it more prudent at the time to spare the Committee the detail that is really necessary.
I also invited the British Poultry Federation, the Association of District Councils whose job it is to provide poultry meat inspectors, and a representative from my noble friend's ministry to meet. This they did today. I shall be relaying the outcome of that meeting to the House as well. First of all, however, I should deal with the background. I shall now read from the letter of the British Poultry Federation. It states:
"Dear Lord Sandford,
"With reference to your proposed amendment to the Agriculture Bill, which would allow rights of entry inter alia by trainee poultry meat inspectors into poultry meat processing plants, you might find it helpful to have the views of the British Poultry Federation on this vexed issue.
"The crux of the matter is the failure of the EEC Commission, over many years, to prescribe realistic standards of poultry meat inspection which would apply uniformly throughout the Community. The same European hygiene directive can legitimately be interpreted to require higher numbers of inspectors (a 'policing' system) or a lower number of inspectors (a 'sample' system). British poultry meat processors have been at a cost disadvantage in comparison with many of their EEC competitors because our numbers of inspectors (and the number of birds rejected in consequence), have been higher; further, other EEC governments have subsidised their poultry meat processors to a greater or lesser extent.
"Our objective has always been, therefore, to press the British Government and the EEC to grasp this discriminatory nettle, by agreeing and enforcing uniform standards, to be applied equally in the Common Market. It is consequently difficult for us actively to promote (as we did in the past) an inspection regime which is flawed and discriminatory as is currently the case. However, we have always recognised the difficulties in which this might place local authorities where numbers of inspectors fall below realistic levels. In such cases, with the agreement of the processing plants concerned, we have co-operated to ensure that the poultry meat inspectors are recruited and trained.
"This is an open-door policy to the local authorities, but as a matter of record we have received no such request for a considerable time. If a request is received it will be sympathetically and speedily progressed. You may also wish to know that the British Poultry Federation is trying to launch a new initiative to bring the local authorities, the Ministry of Agriculture, and the industry together to
922
resolve outstanding problems once and for all. At the moment this initiative is informal but, if successful, we hope it will lead to formal agreement and co-operation for the future between all concerned".
That needs to be understood in conjunction with what I had to say on behalf of the Association of District Councils at Committee stage. My noble friend, who has a copy of the letter, will no doubt comment if he wishes to add to or subtract in any way from what is written there by the federation's director-general.
Against that background, a meeting took place this morning between the Association of District Councils who train the inspectors, the Ministry of Agriculture, and the British Poultry Federation. They have agreed the following addition to the letter:
"This morning representatives of the ADC, MAFF and BPF have met. As a result we have all agreed to an early meeting to deal with the short-term difficulties facing the local authorities. As to the longer term, the BPF and ADC will get together shortly to review current poultry meat inspection practices, to try to identify problem areas and to prepare possible solutions for discussion with MAFF thereafter".
In view of that, and subject to anything that my noble friend might care to say in addition or subtraction, or by way of comment, I propose to withdraw my amendment because of the degree of progress that has been made. I propose to ask a parliamentary Question during the overspill period some time in October to ascertain how matters are going. However, before I withdraw the amendment my noble friend on the Front Bench may care to comment. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Sandford for explaining the problem to your Lordships. I am also exceedingly grateful to my noble friend for suggesting that this amendment should be used as a vehicle for getting agreement for further meetings and not for a Division.
I would add only two points, if I may. The first is that we cannot get away from the fact that the European Community legislation which created the poultry meat inspection system is not being equivalently enforced in all member states of the European Community. It is not surprising that poultry producers are aggrieved at this unsatisfactory situation. The Government have made strenuous efforts to achieve an even standard of enforcement across the Community and it is a matter of regret that success has so far eluded us. However, it has eluded us, and therefore my noble friend, in his capacity as president of the Association of District Councils, and I, working for the Ministry of Agriculture, are drawn into this matter.
As I said, in responding to my noble friend. I am exceedingly glad that the tabling of the amendment at Committee stage and again at Report stage has now led to correspondence which shows that there will be discussions, that the first steps have been taken, and that all concerned have agreed that further meetings should be arranged. I hope these contacts have helped to reassure my noble friend that there are prospects for constructive progress to resolving the difficulties that there are. I am sure that this is the best way to proceed.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. For the record, perhaps I may say that I was president of the ADC until last Friday, and am now vice-president; but I am ready to see this matter through. I beg to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Cullen of Ashbourne): My Lords, if Amendment No. 11 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 12 and 13.
Clause 12 [Compensation to outgoing tenants for milk quota]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 10, line 21, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 11. I should like to take with it Amendments Nos. 12, 13, 14, 43 and 64, if noble Lords will agree with that grouping.
If I may speak to the government amendments—and indeed to the group—I think it would be helpful to take with Amendment No. 11 the other amendments I have mentioned. This stems from efforts which have been made by my noble friend Lord Kinnoull who, together with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, came to see me in order to try to ensure fairness to tenants on a particular point. The first of these amendments deletes subsection (2) of Clause 12, but I can assure your Lordships that the effect of that subsection is not lost. It is covered, albeit in a different way, in the Government's new clause which is Amendment No. 43.
The existing provisions in Clause 12(2) were intended to ensure that the prospect of compensation for a tenant in respect of milk quota should not affect the rent of the holding. Without this provision it is possible that, at a rent review, an arbitrator might take the view that if part of the value of the quota has been attributed to the tenant, then that element should be treated in a similar way to a tenant's improvement. This would reduce the rent payable by the tenant.
The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors—who I understand are supported by the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers—have suggested in conjunction with my noble friend that whereas this provision is right so far as quota allocated by the Minister is concerned it is inequitable to apply it to quota which the tenant has effectively acquired through a land transaction and transferred on to the holding covered by the tenancy. This is what is called "transferred quota" in the Bill's terminology.
The Government recognise that this is a point for which we should legislate. If a tenant has literally paid for a quota to get it transferred on to his holding, it is surely reasonable that it should be treated similarly to a tenant's improvement and, in the terminology, disregarded in assessing the rent.
Amendment No. 43 is much longer than the amendments proposed by the noble Earl, by my noble friend Lord Stanley, and by other noble Lords. I feel embarrassed that the government amendments are so long and your Lordships' amendments are so short. But this is a complex issue and I am advised that the
924
drafting of appropriate provisions is full of pitfalls. This is why, in Amendment No. 43, we feel that we have had to draw up fairly detailed provisions to cover a basically very simple point. The heart of the matter is contained in subsection (1) of the new clause, Amendment No. 43. This makes it clear that transferred quota acquired by the tenant is to be disregarded at a rent review; that is to say, it is to be treated in a similar way to a tenant's improvement. The tenant will not be charged rent on it.
Subsection (1) achieves what the old Clause 12(2) was designed to do, though in a different way. By saying that transferred quota is to be disregarded, subsection (1) makes it clear that allocated quota— that is, quota allocated by the Minister—is not to be disregarded. Thus the fact that a tenant may be eligible for compensation in respect of allocated quota when eventually he gives up the holding will not affect the rent payable in the meantime. This preserves the original intention of Clause 12(2).
Subsection (2) of the new clause in Amendment No. 43 makes it clear in paragraph (a) that if an incoming tenant has made a payment to the landlord on taking over a holding to which quota is attached, this does not count as the acquisition of transferred quota. This is a quite different type of transaction which the two parties enter into freely. We must assume that they cover themselves adequately in the agreement they reach. I am advised that it would not be appropriate for this legislation to intervene in these private agreements.
Subsection (2) of the new clause, Amendment No. 43, also makes it clear that the statutory successor or assignee of the original tenant—the tenant who was there when quotas were brought in—and the head tenant of an original subtenant are to be treated in the same way as the original tenant. If the original tenant paid for quota in connection with a land transfer then, just as his entitlement to compensation passes to his successor, so his entitlement not to be rented on the transferred quota will also pass to his successor.
I apologise for that rather lengthy explanation of Amendment No. 43. I should be very grateful if noble Lords who have amendments down on the same point would care to speak to them at the same time in this discussion. I beg to move Amendment No. 11.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I think that I am being asked to comment on the series of amendments that I have on this point. I am glad to say to my noble friend that I am happy with his arrange-ment, albeit it is a little more lengthy than mine.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, is unable to be in his place because he is in some remote outpost of the world; I am not sure where. He has therefore asked me to do my best to speak to this amendment. Having looked at the amendment tabled by the Government, I feel that it very amply covers the point that we were trying to make and I should therefore be very happy to withdraw the amendment.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, quotas having been introduced in the early days, they have not been followed through. Some difficulties may appear when

925
they begin to be examined a little more closely. We may hear a little more about this later in the debate.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, Amendment No. 15 relates to Schedule 1 and has been put in the wrong order.
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie moved Amendment No. 16:
Leave out Clause 12 and insert the following new clause:
("Compensation to outgoing tenants for milk quota.

.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section the tenant shall be entitled on the termination of the tenancy, on quitting the holding, to obtain from his landlord compensation for that portion of the value of the quota on the holding which:—

(a) the parties agree is attributable to the tenant; or

(b) in the absence of agreement between the parties is determined by an arbitrator under subsection (4) below to be attributable to the tenant.

(2) In determining what compensation the tenant is entitled to under subsection (1) above on the termination of the tenancy the landlord or tenant of an agricultural holding may by notice in writing served on his tenant or landlord at any time during the continuance of the tenancy or before the expiration of two months from the termination of the tenancy demand a reference to arbitration under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 of the question of what proportion of the value of the quota on the holding is attributable to the landlord and tenant respectively.

(3) No such reference as is referred to in subsection (2) above shall be possible unless the landlord or the tenant of the holding has requested his tenant or landlord to enter into an agreement as to their respective proportions of the value of the quota on the holding but no such agreement has been concluded.

(4) On a reference under subsection (2) above the arbitrator shall determine what proportion of the value of the quota available on the holding at the date of arbitration is attributable to each party according to his respective contribution to the establishment of quota allocated by the Minister.

(5) In making his determination under sub-paragraph (4) above the arbitrator shall have regard only to the period prior to the allocation of quota by the Minister.

(6) For the purposes of subsection (4) above the value of any quota brought on to the holding by whatever means other than quota allocated by the Minister shall be attributed to the party who acquired it and shall not be apportioned by the arbitrator.

(7) (a) For the purposes of subsection (4) above and subject to paragraph (b) below, in determining the respective contributions of the landlord and tenant to the establishment of quota on the holding the arbitrator shall take into account the quality of land used for dairying, if relevant, and the contributions of each party to any land improvements specific to dairying, the dairy buildings, their appurtenances and plant, the dairying equipment and machinery, and the provision of the dairy herd, feed, labour and management.

(b) In any case where the landlord has provided all the dairy buildings and their appurtenances and plant, land and land improvements specific to dairying, and the tenant has provided all the dairying equipment and machinery, the dairy herd and management of it, the quota value shall be apportioned equally between the landlord and the tenant and the arbitrator shall have regard to this principle in making his determination under sub-section (4) above.

(8) The value of quota to be taken into account for the purposes of subsection (1) above is the value of the quota at the time of the termination of the tenancy in question and in determining that value there shall be taken into account such evidence as is available, including evidence as to sums being paid for freehold and leasehold interests in land and in respect of grazing licences for periods of less than one year:—

(a) in cases where quota is registered in relation to the land; and

(b) in cases where no quota is so registered.

926

(9) Where the parties fail to agree the value of the quota to be taken into account under subsection (8) above such value shall be determined by arbitration under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986.

(10) In this section "dairy buildings, their appurtenances and plant" shall include any buildings used for cow housing and other dairying purposes and includes parlours, dairies, silage pits, feed stores, slurry stores, collecting yards and any associated yards, and other relevant constructions of whatsoever nature; "dairying equipment and machinery" shall include the milking equipment and parlour fittings, bulk milk tanks and associated equipment, cubicle divisions, equipment used in connection with the dairy herd for forage harvesting, feeding and the disposal of slurry, and other relevant equipment of whatsoever nature; "Minister" means—

(a) in the case of land in England, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and

(b)in the case of land in Wales, The Secretary of State; "quota means direct sales quota or wholesale quota as defined in the Dairy Produce Quotas Regulations 1986; and "Quota allocated by the Minister" means any quota allocated by the Minister under the Dairy Produce Quotas Regulations 1984, the Dairy Produce Quotas (Amendment) Regulations 1985 and the Dairy Produce Quotas Regulations 1986".

(11) For the purposes of subsection (7)(b) above "management" means the level of management which a competent tenant would be expected to achieve.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 16. It is typical of our dealings with this Bill that, because it is so complex, we do not quite know where we are between the schedules one way and the clauses the other. Amendment No. 16 is one of the attempts by myself and my co-signatories from all parties to solve the problem which is the main one bedevilling the imposition of quotas by the EC and the troubles that arise continually one after the other when an artificial state is forced upon any section of an industry.
There have been so many negotiations which have failed that it is time we put all the facts to the House as we see them. No doubt many people have different facts to put. However, we must look at the quota system as it has affected the industry, and we must look at who it has affected most.
There is little doubt that the person who has been most affected is the milk producer, whether he be an owner-occupier or whether he be a tenant. He is the fellow who has been hit. In some cases he has been hit enormously hard if he has laid out a great deal of money on expanding his production and has done so at the wrong time as regards the assessment of quota. However, the landlords of milk-producing tenants have not been hit in the same way at all because, although the quota is tied to the land, the rent has not suffered. The position is that, in view of the state of the industry, where land values are falling very fast, those which have held up best or even appreciated a little—but certainly those which have held up best—have been milk-producing farms with a substantial quota.
Therefore, whatever we may think of the perversion of the economic system, the fact is that a value has been created. People have agreed that it should be split between the landlord and the tenant. What we are fighting about is the self-interest of the landlords and tenants. We should try to deal with that not on the basis purely of self-interest but on the basis of what we consider to be a fair and reasonable split, and that is what we are endeavouring to do.
Everyone has been involved in the negotiations— the CLA, the NFU, the Government, the Tenant Farmers' Association—and they have been extremely complex. Therefore, although my amendment is much longer than the other one, it takes in everything and the simplicity is the same. We say that we should start from the simple basis of a 50–50 split where there is a traditional split between landlord and tenant as regards the work involved in producing the quota. That means that where a landlord has provided the land, the buildings and their appurtenances— whatever that may mean—and the tenant has provided the equipment, such as the milking machine and so on, and his management has been competent (in other words, the quota is the quota which one might expect for a district which we are leaving to the valuator) it should be split 50–50. That seems to us to be a reasonable start.
However, we have not left it there. It is up to the valuator—the arbiter—then to say how it must be varied. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, told us about a friend of his in the Isle of Wight, a personal case, where the tenant had put up all the buildings on a green field site, and obviously great injustice would be done to him. In that case the arbiter has a perfectly clear run to arbitrate in favour of the tenant.
We have many cases in Scotland—and although the Bill will apply to Scotland the amendment which I am moving does not apply to Scotland—in traditional dairying areas where landlords have erected excellent buildings and where there may be a tenant who is not very competent and the quota is below what it should be. In such a case the arbiter would have the right and the duty to award a bigger share of the value to the landlord. What we are doing is giving the arbiter a fair basis from which to start, and to that end we have defined "management" in the amendment.
As far as I can see, the main cause of the objection of the Scottish Landlords' Federation and the CLA is that landlords will have to pay out large amounts of money amounting to tens of thousands of pounds if a tenant goes out. That money must be found from somewhere, and it is obviously a cause of great worry to those people who let land and another nail in the coffin of the landlord-tenant system that we all want to perpetuate. It is a snag. However, I think I can show that it will not apply.
The arbiter will set the value. If he sets the value, he will only set the value that someone is willing to pay. If there is a value, there is no question at all that the incoming tenant must be able to pay the money, or, if the landlord is rich—which traditionally they are supposed to be—he may want to take on the capital sum and receive interest on it. I understand that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said that he would consider (and that is as far as he went) whether the purchase of the tenant's portion (and the tenant's portion only) of a quota value would be an allowable expense to set against tax.
Therefore, the point which I am making is that if the arbiter puts a value on the quota, it must be borne in mind that he knows the district, he knows what the size of the quota should be and he also must know whether there are people willing, as incoming tenants,
928
to come in and take it over; otherwise, he obviously cannot put that value on it. There is only a value if you can get the money. Therefore, the landlord can properly feel that he will not be pinned down, that his resources will not be stretched, and it will be the old business of taking over the asset when you come in.
People say that it would be very hard on a young tenant. Of course it will be hard on a young tenant. It is very hard on a young tenant to get into farming anyway. If the quota has a particular value, we simply cannot interfere any more with the economic system by doing anything special about it. He may be able to borrow the money at a reasonable rate; it is up to him to make an economic assessment.
This amendment is an attempt to solve the quarrel—and quarrel it is— that has broken out in the industry. We have tried to be as fair as we can. We make the point that the milk producer is the person who has been hit. We appreciate the position of the landlord and we think that, starting from the basis of power to the arbitrator to ensure that justice is done, we have a solution. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Walston: My Lords, I should like very strongly to support the amendment. Those of your Lordships who have allowed your eyes to wander ahead will see that there is another amendment—Amendment No. 25—in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stodart, my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie and myself. The two amendments are in their effect identical and in their intention identical. It is purely a question of which one is the more effective, but the principle is the same; and it is to the principle that I shall confine myself.
I am a very strong supporter of the landlord-tenant system. I think that it is one of the greatest assets of farming and it is to me always a cause of unhappiness that over the years it has been eroded and continues to be eroded. I hope that that trend may be reversed. Nothing that I say is in any way antagonistic either to the landlord or to the tenant.
As my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie has said in rather politer terms, what this is all about in effect is a confrontation between the landlords and their organisation on the one hand and the tenants on the other. Both, quite naturally and understandably, wish, to get the largest amount of this rather unexpected bonus for their own members. There is a bonus; there is no point denying it. It is rather peculiar, perhaps paradoxical, that a method that restricts the amount of milk that can be produced in fact adds a special value to dairy farms depending on the quota, but that is a fact. It is one of the main arguments against the individual quota system, but we have it with us. It is quite understandable, therefore, that landlords and tenants wish to get the largest amount of this unexpected bonus that they can.
As my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie has said—I do not want to repeat it at too great length, but it is of vital importance to both amendments and the intention of those who support them—in default of any evidence to the contrary, that bonus should be

929
divided equally between the landlord and tenant since neither of them has done anything to justify or earn it. It is, as was said in Committee, manna from heaven.
There are many occasions when one side or the other, landlord or tenant, will be able to bring forward evidence to show that they have in fact done quite a lot to increase the quota beyond what it would otherwise have been. In such cases it is manifestly fair that they should receive a larger amount. No Act of Parliament can possibly lay down how much that amount should be. It depends on an almost infinite variety of circumstances, ranging from my noble friend Lord Mottistone on the one hand to the type of tenant who neglects his farm and has not made full use of the great amount of money and expertise that the landlord may put into it.
This amendment deals with that in a very simple manner, as does the other amendment. In default of any evidence to the contrary, the manna should be divided 50/50. The valuers of each side should consult to see whether they can reach agreement for some different form of allocation and, failing that, it should go in the usual—the well-tried—way to arbitration.
There is one matter that my noble friend raised concerning the capital sum that the landlord might have to find. If the incoming tenant did not have the capital himself but the landlord agreed, because he was a good young man, to take him on and recoup it over the years by rent, it seems to me that it is reasonable—I believe that it is already enshrined in practice—that the amount that the outgoing tenant receives need not be paid by the landlord in a capital sum if he had not received a capital sum but could be spread over four or five years to ease the burden that undoubtedly might be a very real one on the landlord.
We are discussing solely milk quotas, but there is much talk in the air about quotas being extended to other commodities. I have no idea whether they will be. I have my own ideas on the desirability, but I will not go into that at this stage. I think that we must bear in mind that whatever system we evolve in the Agriculture Bill for the allocation of the value of the quota will undoubtedly be taken as a precedent if further quotas are imposed for the allocation of those quotas. Therefore, the simpler we can have it the more applicable it will be to other commodities and the more effective it will be for the future. I support the amendment.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, my noble kinsman made the remark that this was a complex Bill in every way. The amendments are an attempt to do something to simplify that. I think that it was summed up in a letter that I received from the National Farmers' Union, Scotland, which said that, to be acceptable and practicable, the procedure adopted must be fair, simple and easy to understand and operate. Whatever one can say about the Government's plan, it certainly does not stand up to those criteria by any manner of means; hence the amendments.
The noble Lord, Lord Walston, has spoken on Amendment No. 25, which was an effort to comply with this aim. It is straightforward in every way and is short, but, as he pointed out and as I understand, it will
930
not stand up legally. Of course, that is the trouble with simplicity—it never does. Therefore, we have to take a look at Amendment No. 16, proposed by my noble kinsmen, which I think may get over some of the difficulties that Amendment No. 25 might run into.
Amendment No. 16 has the virtue of cutting out the old clause and the 10-page schedule, and I understand that it stands up legally. I should mention that the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, has an amendment later which is an effort to alter the formula to give a better share of the quota to the tenants, especially in the case of small producers. I shall be discussing that later. On some calculations it seemed to me that it went a bit too far. We look forward to hearing what the noble Lord has to say about the amendment.
The Minister cannot simply ignore the amendments, especially as they are backed up by many figures and calculations, particularly those of the Milk Marketing Board. I think that the noble Lord would agree that the Milk Marketing Board probably has more knowledge of the situation than many of the other interested bodies that my noble kinsman mentioned. One major point that it makes is that much of this is based on the rental value of tenants' improvements. The Milk Marketing Board is convinced from surveys that this is likely to average about 16 per cent. to 17 per cent., rather than the figure of 33 per cent. that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, used in his example. That is 50 per cent. less, and it makes a very big difference indeed.
We had a letter from the noble Lord pointing out that the valuation of improvements by a tenant, which might have been carried out quite a time ago, would not be at the written down value but at market value. It is difficult to decide the market value of a tenant's improvement. It might be a building which is 20 or 30 years old. The tenant cannot sell it; the landlord can only take it over. There are advertisements galore in the press for milking parlours which say "Buyer to remove" and other things like that. The market value of a tenant's improvements would be very low indeed and they might be much less than the Milk Marketing Board's figure of 17 per cent.
The MMB also made the point that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, took a farm with a quota of 800,000 litres. It points out that only about 8 per cent. of milk producers in the country achieve that figure and the average is much less. In fact the average size of a herd in the country is just under 60, I understand.
I do not want to go into all the points that the MMB makes. Various calculations have been made, not only by the MMB but by other bodies, which show that the Government's plan will create a series of variations in the percentage figure for very small variations in circumstances. We have to watch that carefully.
In a communication that came about a fortnight ago the RICS also makes two important points. It says:
"Until the basis of the calculation of the production levels is known in detail it is impossible to comment fully on the proposals".
On the next page it makes the point that I have just made:
"In particular we believe that the definitions should be expanded to eliminate variations in interpretations".

931
Almost every body is worried. One can be adamant that the government proposals will not be fair. They say that the NFU, the CLA and for that matter the MMB could not come to an agreement, and so what could they do? I do not think that that is an excuse for producing a system that will not be fair to everybody.
The amendment works on a 50/50 basis. I thought that we might get agreement on the basis of 60 per cent. to the landlord and 40 per cent. to the tenant as a starting point, but we could not. The case for dropping the Government's plan and accepting the amendment is a strong one. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, the argument is about whether one adopts the methods in Amendments No. 16 or 25 or goes along with the Government's schedule. Undoubtedly Amendment No. 25 suffers from the sheer simplicity with which it was drafted. On the other hand, there may be certain significance in the fact that those who produced the Marshalled List must think extremely well of it. They have printed it twice—once at the bottom of page 8 and again at the top of page 9.
With all respect to my noble friend on the Front Bench, the schedule has been criticised from the moment anybody set eyes upon it. On Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Walston, described it as enormously complicated. My noble friend Lord Middleton said that it had unbelievable complexity. My noble friend Lord Radnor said that it horrified him to read it.
Everyone must be agreed that, with all the flak that has been flying around about it, the patience that my noble friend on the Front Bench has shown throughout has won the highest appreciation of everybody. From the start I think that he has had misgivings about attaching milk quotas to the agricultural holdings legislation and, as he rightly said on Second Reading, the legislation was never intended for that.
But the irony of the situation now is that the bodies which are most concerned—namely, both the NFUs in England and Scotland and the CLA—believe that that is the way we should go. At least the amendment of my noble friend Lord Middleton in Committee pointed that way. One hardly meets anyone in the agricultural world who does not say "Surely this is a job for an umpire".
I think that the amendment of my noble friend Lord Middleton was immensely attractive. It fulfilled two of the three conditions which I consider are required for a successful outcome for what I believe is developing into an unhappy wrangle. The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, quoted the three points made by the NFU of Scotland. The amendment was easy to understand and it would have been easy to operate. But it fell down on the third test, and that was of fairness, equity or justice—call it what you will—through too narrowly restricting the activities of the arbitrators. I believe that this amendment fulfils all three of those objectives and therefore I support it.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, this amendment is getting a great deal of encouragement. As I read
932
through the new clause I found myself in sympathy with it. It seemed to me to be consistent with what the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, was asking for during earlier stages of the Bill. It has brevity and it gives arbiters more responsibility and more flexibility than is provided in Schedule 1 of the Bill.
I was in agreement until I reached subsection (7)(b), which tells the arbiter how to do his job. As the noble Lord explained, in what is probably the most usual situation regarding the respective contributions of landlord and tenant, the value of the quota shall be apportioned on a 50/50 basis. That is what the subsection says. It seems odd to me to tell an arbiter to use his expertise and valuation skill and then in that subsection tell him what the answer is.
If I remember correctly, a 50 per cent. tenant share of the value of a quota would be an extreme case under the proposals in the Bill. The arbitrary split seems to be starting at the wrong place to begin with. Such a solution, whatever the split—whether it be 50/50 or 60/40 or whatever else—would not get my support. I understand that it would be objectionable to the Tenant Farmers' Association, which says, as I understand it, that it is against any arbitrary apportionment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend would give way? I spoke last night to the chairman of the Tenant Farmers' Association. They are very much in favour of this amendment, and they do not say what the noble Lord thinks that they have said. I am sorry to have to say that, but I can say it categorically—unless they have said something different to the noble Lord, of course.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, it obviously depends to whom in the Tenant Farmers' Association you speak.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I quite agree, my Lords.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, as I understand it they would be against any arbitrary apportionment because it would be wrong in nearly every case. It would take no account of the reality of the contribution of the parties. If a milk quota must be carved up, the method prescribed by the Government, though hideously complicated, provides for more flexibility in the assessment of compensation than does an arbitrary apportionment such as lurks in subsection (l)(b), even with the encouragement to arbiters, contained in the other subsections, to use their skills.
Furthermore, the thought behind the Government proposal is that the greater the amount of the quota on the holding, the greater the compensation for the tenant. However, under this proposal the thinking is that the tenant would usually get 50 per cent., whatever the size of the quota. The Government approach is a more sensible one.
The noble Lord, Lord Walston, and my noble friend Lord Stodart have referred to Amendment No. 25. I am not clear whether it is going to be moved. Of course it also sets out a 50/50 share as the norm, and you have to prove under that amendment that such an

933
allocation between landlord and tenant is wrong. Of course I have to say that I would object to that one for all the reasons I have just given for disliking an arbitrary apportionment in principle and a 50/50 split in detail.
The main objection to Amendment No. 25 is that it refers landlord and tenant to arbitration under Section 12 of the 1966 Act, which is the section dealing with rents, and that would not seem an appropriate section to deal with compensation. I believe that noble Lords would be misled if they were to be seduced by the simplicity of this amendment, and by the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. Although I believe—and I said so in Committee—that the Government are doing the wrong thing, the way they are going about it in the Bill is preferable. When my noble friend Lord Belstead opposes this amendment, as I hope he will, I shall be on his side.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I perhaps have the advantage that I have not taken part in any conversations or negotiations, although I am grateful for a note from my noble friend Lord Belstead. I also was interested in this amendment, if only because it would get rid of what is there at the moment, which is bad legislation. But I must admit that I still feel that a mistake is being made.
The movers of this amendment, as politicians, are trying to tell individuals, in what must be always a highly individual situation, what they should do and are endlessly trying to establish baselines from which they should kick off. To me this must mean that there is bound to be a quarrel; which indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, has said, there has been. It has been quite evident that the disagreement between the landowners and the farmers has been a considerable one.
Therefore, we reach a position where rules have to be laid down, and immediately things become more and more complicated, more and more based upon guesswork and supposition, and so more and more unsatisfactory. I cannot see why, if it were brought forward again, this amendment should not be perfectly effective—if one trusts individuals to work out their own destiny with the help of arbitration—as far as subsection (7)(a), leaving out subsections (7)(b), (8), (10) and (11).
It is shorter, which in itself is a merit, and it gets over all the difficulties of deciding what is a dairy appurtenance. It leaves out all the difficulties that there must inevitably be in varying tenancy agreements in regard to the financial arrangements which are made over buildings and the question of whether they have been put up by the tenant or the landlord. It avoids all those things which will cause so much trouble when tenancies come to an end and which will also cause trouble if these sort of arrangements are ever used as a pattern in the event of other quotas coming along. Therefore, if the noble Lords who brought forward this amendment feel that it is possible to bring it forward again at Third Reading in the way that I suggest, I shall be in favour of it. At present, I cannot say that I am.
6.15 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, can my noble friend on the Front Bench help me on the question of quotas? Under either this scheme or the Government schedule quotas would be bought and sold on the open market. It is no use pretending that this is not happening; It was reported in the press the other day that quotas are being sold at 20p a litre in Cumberland, and they are all done on artificial grass rents. In effect, the system is detaching the quotas from the land, and making a muddle which could possibly result in extra legal transactions and large sums of money changing hands.
The whole situation of quotas under this sort of arrangement—with the Ministry of Agriculture possibly adopting a Nelsonian pose to what is going on—is building up nothing but trouble for the future. Can my noble friend give us some information and help on this point?
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, as I put my name to this amendment perhaps I may intervene. The first point raised by my noble friend Lord Radnor and others concerns subsection (7)(b). The trouble is that the arbitrator needs a starting point. We all agree on that. My noble friend Lord Middleton and I can disagree where that starting point is. He had a starting point in his amendment. It was not what I liked, but it was a starting point. I have a starting point in my amendment which we shall deal with later. Incidentally, I may say to the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, that mine is a good deal lower than this one. I did not have the courage to put my name to this to start with, but we shall come to that later.
The Government have a starting point in their amendment. I would ask my noble friend Lord Belstead whether he knows where his starting point is for the average tenant. I think he misled himself last week—when perhaps I caught him on the hop—in giving an example; he gave an extreme example. I think I know where his starting point is. His starting point is around 30 per cent. In my later amendment it is between 30 per cent. and 50 per cent., but I should like to know what he thinks his starting point is to an average tenant.
The second point about this amendment which 1 do not think your Lordships always see is that it involves only a starting point. In all our amendments—well, at least in my amendment and the one we are speaking to now—the arbitrator can vary it 100 per cent. one way or the other, but he must have a starting point, and that is the trouble with taking out subsection (7)(b); he would not have a starting point.
The final point I should like to make is on the question of the incoming tenant. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, dealt with it extremely well, but may I add one other point on it. When you come in as a tenant, as I have said before, it really does not make any difference, whether you pay me, the outgoing tenant, or the landlord. You have to pay one or the other. If you pay one a bit and the other a bit, it does not make any difference; it is the same notes coming out of your pocket. Also at the end of the day all this quota will come into the landlord's hand. It will be an asset for him forever, provided that quotas

935
continue. It is an asset today, as my noble kinsman has said. It is an asset that one cannot get away from. I wish it was not, I wish the things were not there, but it is there and we have to deal with it. Whatever happens at the end of the day the landlord will get this unexpected benefit. I am saying that he did not earn it in 1983 or 1984 when this suddenly came from heaven (or I should say hell?) any more than the tenant did. What your Lordships have to decide is where does the arbitrator start from? The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, says with good British compromise, "Down the middle". I support him and I hope your Lordships will.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, simplicity has very great attractions. This amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie—the noble Lord is not such a simple soul as some might think but a highly skilful farmer and a highly knowledgeable man in the industry—this schedule, with the greatest respect, gets simplicity but desperately at the expense of accuracy. The truth of the matter is that the great attraction of this amendment in leaving out the Government's Schedule 1 with all its length and complexity is that that is achieved by leaving out so much that there is considerable uncertainty about the operation of Amendment No. 16.
I put to your Lordships some of the main difficulties, as the Government see them, if Amendment No. 16 were to be agreed to. First, the noble Lord's amendment is based on the idea of a typical holding. But a holding may not be typical at all. Secondly, it provides for an arbitrary 50/50 split of the quota as the norm, rather than looking at the facts of each farm separately. Thirdly, it would mean that a tenant who had run down his holding and had a low quota would still have compensation even though he had arguably damaged his landlord's interest in the land. I do not say that pejoratively. I say it as something that is sometimes a matter of fact. Alterna-tively, the tenant who, through his great efforts, had earned allocated quota above what could reasonably be expected (very often that happens) might, as I understand this amendment, get relatively little recognition under this method because there are no criteria written in.
Finally, one of the things which worries the Government most of all is, if the noble Lord will forgive me, the vagueness of the wording. It could lead to arbitrations which would be lengthier and more costly than under the provisions of the Bill. There are also a number of omissions. No provision is made for tenants of Crown land, statutory successions, assignments or sub-tenancies. Indeed the absence of any indication as to which tenants are to be eligible means that the effect could be that each successive tenant on a particular holding would be eligible for compensation, not just the original tenant to whom quota was allocated or his statutory successor or assignee. Thus, landlords could in effect find themselves having to pay several times for the same quota.
As I see it, those are the problems with Amendment No. 16. Let us not forget, we could in many cases be
936
talking about very large sums of money. Indeed, in the interests of many tenants I hope that in some cases there will be considerable sums of money being talked about, although we should not forget that at the end of the day it is the incoming tenant who, finally, will have to pay. That is something we need to keep very much in mind.
We have also been talking about Amendment No. 25. My noble friend Lord Middleton put his finger on the essential difficulties with Amendment No. 25. This is familiar because my noble friend mentioned it so clearly and it has already come up on Amendment No. 16. But I mention it again. There is not really a starting point. The individual circumstances that may exist on a particular holding cannot be taken into account because the idea is a 50/50 split. I think that is unfair. There are no criteria to say how one goes away from a 50/50 split.
My noble friend Lord Stanley asked me a direct question about where our starting point was. As I sought to make clear at the Committee stage of the Bill, the Government's starting point in the interests of the tenant is linked to a standard quota which is well below—in fact it is about 11 per cent. below—the average yield for the country with the right for the arbitrator to vary the arrangements if, when he looks at a particular farm, either the quality of the land or the climate conditions lead him to believe that he ought to start from a different basis.
Before any of your Lordships say to me that that will lead to a lot of different decisions, I should say that I know it will. But it is fair, precisely for the reason that, starting off from at least a standard that is understandable in national terms, it allows the arbitrator to take account of the circumstances of the farm in question. It takes into account the situation where a tenant took over a non-dairying holding and turned it into a flourishing milk-producing unit, but it will also safeguard the landlord in the case where perhaps bad farming practice has resulted in a very much reduced quota being allocated.
A specific 50/50 split as the starting point would not, I suggest to my noble friend Lord Stanley, take account of such situations. I think it could be highly unpredictable in its operation. I have to say this straight out: I think these Amendments Nos. 16 and 25 will shift the balance substantially towards the tenant. I say that bearing in mind that the Government brought forward amendments, to which your Lordships agreed at Commitee stage, whereby we shifted towards the tenant in Committee. Let us remember that although that creates problems for the landlord, who has to make arrangements, at the end of the day it is the incoming tenant who finally pays the bill. For the good of young farmers in this country and the landlord-tenant system generally, surely we ought to remember that.
Of course I understood when my noble friend Lord Stodart said that he wished he could do away with all the complexities of Schedule 1—something which my noble friend has said to me inside and outside the House on more than one occasion. Of course I understand that, but may I gently say that it was the

937
industry itself which came to us in the Ministry of Agriculture originally and said that it wanted a basic framework from which to start. The absence of guidelines for arbitrators will, I believe, mean that producers in similar circumstances could receive very different treatment under these amendments which are being put forward. Again, I was very interested to hear my noble friend Lord Middleton put his finger on that point. If my noble friend is right, then at the end of the day these amendments, put forward in good faith, of course, are not in fact going to be fair either to landlord or to tenant. On those grounds, with regret, I must oppose them.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Burton: My Lords, may I put forward one suggestion which might meet the wishes of a number of your Lordships? Our Scottish legislation is not at all as satisfactory as the English legislation, but it does have one saving provision in it which might be acceptable to England and Wales. It is that the landlord and tenant can agree between themselves and can contract out of the Government proposals. Therefore, the tenant and the landlord could make an agreement; and I should think that in a great many cases they would do so rather than accept what we have in the Bill.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the debate has been interesting and objections have been put forward to our scheme. The Minister, who is always fair and very thorough, has pointed out that there will be difficulties arising from this amendment. I accept that that may well be so. But let us not beat about the bush. What we are doing here is looking at a principle, which has been accepted as a principle by the Government, that we split this uncalled-for bonus between the landlord and the tenant. That is accepted. We are looking for a starting point.
It has been said that the 50/50 split would apply in all cases and would be very unfair to the landlord with a bad tenant and to the tenant who had a high quota through his own efforts and skill as a dairyman. We do not think so. We think that it is so cast that with 50/50 as a starting point the arbiter will be perfectly capable of assessing whether the split should be in favour of the landlord or of the tenant. The arbiters are accustomed to doing this. They know the district better than the Government can assess the district. I think that on this basis they can make a fair job of the assessment.
If there are flaws, then I think the House should express its opinion on how the split should be made. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said that we are talking about a lot of money and that money is being paid over right now. It is not coming out of any landlord's pocket; it is being dealt with in the business. The example quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, was that the tenant would get £34,600 and the landlord would get £69,000. This was considered to be much fairer to the tenant.
When the Milk Marketing Board took a different set of figures, a more average set of figures, we got figures
938
of £17,000 for this 800,000-litre quota to the tenant and £86,700 for the landlord. For an average quota of 340,000 litres, the figures were £7,400 to the tenant and £36,800 to the landlord.
Is it going to be considered fair in the country that this unexpected bonus, which has already hit the tenant, the milk producer, extremely hard, this artificial value, should be split in that way? That is the point that this House has to decide. Is the 50/50 starting point much fairer than the one at present, which is heavily biased in favour of the landlord? Are they going to say—and this is a slightly dishonest argument—that this is "a landlords' House"? But it is not so. There is none fairer than the Members of your Lordships' House.
But it does look to be an unfair basis for starting on the figures that we see. Imperfect though our amendment may be, I know that the Government are efficient and kind, and have excellent draftsmen, and that if we get the principle right then they will be able to correct the actual mechanics. So I am afraid I must press the amendment.
6.35 p.m.
On Question, whether the said amendment (No. 16) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided; Contents, 78; Not-Contents, 107.

DIVISION NO.2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Airedale, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Amherst, E.

Lockwood, B.

Attlee, E.

Longford, E.

Banks, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Barnett, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Birk, B.

McNair, L.

Blyton, L.

Melchett, L.

Brockway, L.

Milverton, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mishcon, L.

Crawshaw of Aintree, L.

Morris, L.

David, B.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Nicol, B.

Diamond, L.

Phillips, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Donoughue, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

[Teller.]

Ennals, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Rea, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Rhodes, L.

Foot, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Gallacher, L.

Rochester, L.

Glenamara, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Simon, V.

Greenway, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Grey, E.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Hampton, L. [Teller.]

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hanworth, V.

Strabolgi, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hooson, L.

Tordoff, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Underhill, L.

Hunt, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Walston, L.

Hylton, L.

Whaddon, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

White, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Wigoder, L.

Kagan, L.

Winstanley, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Wise, L

Kirkhill, L.

939

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Lawrence, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Layton, L.

Beloff, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Belstead, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Bessborough, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Bolton, L.

Lurgan, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lyell, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

McFadzean, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Mancroft, L.

Burton, L.

Manton, L.

Caithness, E.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-

Campbell of Croy, L.

Avon, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Merrivale, L.

Carnock, L.

Mersey, V.

Chelmer, L.

Middleton, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Coleraine, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Colwyn, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Craigavon, V.

Northbourne, L.

Craigton, L.

Onslow, E.

Crathorne, L.

Orkney, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Peel, E.

Davidson, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Reigate, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Richardson, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rochdale, V.

Elton, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Faithfull, B.

St. Davids, V.

Ferrers, E.

Sandford, L.

Forbes, L.

Savile, L.

Forester, L.

Seebohm, L.

Fortescue, E.

Selkirk, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Gisborough, L.

Shannon, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Somers, L.

Gridley, L.

Somerset, D.

Grimthorpe, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Strathcona and Mount Royal,

Marylebone, L.

L.

Halsbury, E.

Sudeley, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Swansea, L.

Henley, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hives, L.

Tranmire, L.

Hooper, B.

Trenchard, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Trumpington, B.

Ingrow, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Kimball, L.

Vernon, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Vivian, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Waldegrave, E.

Lane-Fox, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.43 p.m.
Earl De La Warr Earl De La Warr moved Amendment No. 17:
Leave out Clause 12.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 17, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 42, because Amendment No. 42 asks for the same fate for the schedule as Amendment No. 17 does for Clause 12. Since this clause came into the Bill at Report stage in another place, the conflict of interest between landlord and tenant has been the only subject we have debated. Indeed after this we are going to go on debating it. I rather wish I was going to speak at the end because I should like to lift your Lordships' minds to the wider and longer-term issues that I think are concerned here.
In the debate on Second Reading in your Lordships' House on 6th May, my noble friend Lord Belstead said, "In the last two years quota has acquired a value". That was at col. 623. With the greatest respect to my noble friend, I believe that this proposition was a little bare and perhaps a little bland: certainly it requires further analysis. He went on to say—and we shall return to the point later—that because quotas are tied to the land a tenant cannot sell or take his quota with him.
Let us remember what a quota is and what it does. A quota specifies for each farm how much milk by volume can be sold without incurring a levy on the excess production: normally known as a super-levy. If it is relevant to the question of whether quotas do create an asset, then the answer, as I see it, is that the capital or rental value of a farm that is equipped for dairying will depend on whether it has a milk quota and, if it has, how much it is.
Every farm that is thus equipped and that was producing milk in 1982–83 was given a quota and, with its output thus restricted, it suffered then a loss of earning power—a loss which it carries today and a loss which will get greater if demand falls further. Therefore I maintain very strongly that while quota remains linked to the land it does not have a value: it has a negative value. I very much doubt whether a tenant, however wealthy he is, would wish to take on a share of that. I hope I have made it clear at this stage (and I shall have more to say later) that I reject the basic logic the Government have used and which has apparently been adopted by most sides of the industry that we are starting with an asset which we have to share out.
I believe, as I said on Second Reading, that is the logic of the looking-glass and I will not have it. In any case I do not relish the idea of seeing the Government go into Looking-glass Land, because, like Alice, once they get there they may tend to do some very strange things. So much, then, for the nature of quotas while they remain attached to the land.
This brings us to the next question. "Are there any circumstances in which quota can have a value?" Yes, indeed there are, but only when it is allowed by the Government to leave the farm and so become mobile. For at this point, for the first time, the purchaser acquires the right to sell more levy-free milk to rectify the loss of earning power that he has suffered since 1983. So quotas do not become assets unless or until they leave the farm.
If any of your Lordships were to go to, for instance, Denmark you would find no trade in quotas. There quotas are linked to the land and unused quota is withdrawn, though not necessarily cancelled. National regulation or legislation exists and has existed from the first—because the Danes thought about this—to enforce this linkage to the land. That does not seem to be the way the Government are going about things in this country. Apparently they are encouraging or at least allowing a trade in quotas to develop. It has not got very far but it has started. I use the words "encouraging" and "allowing" because it does not appear to me that the Government are clear exactly where they stand in this matter, as the Danes were

941
clear when they addressed the subject right at the start. It appears that they are content at least for farmers to use the flimsy legal loophole of temporary land transfer for the purpose. I wish they had addressed themselves to these fundamental points right at the beginning of the quota era.
I believe that mobility of quotas—and here I know I am on contentious ground—is in the long run very damaging to the industry for two main reasons. First, the demand for dairy produce continues to drop and stocks continue to rise. Whereas not long ago we were talking about 1 million tonnes of butter, we are now talking about 1¼ million tonnes. If quotas are allowed to circulate freely without any withdrawal, total production will stay at its present level. Take-up from the Community scheme will be nil because the free market terms will be very much better—up to 20 per cent., we have heard this evening—and paid at once as against something like 17p over seven years.
If total production does not drop by fall-out the only solution as demand goes down—and I am certain that it will—will be more and yet more across the board cuts in quota. So every dairy farmer will continue to live under the Damoclean sword of uncertainty, unable to plan ahead and probably unwilling to invest—a well-trodden downward path in any industry, whether it be milk, motor cars of microchips.
My second objection is just as serious. As total quota drops so will the traded price per litre go up. There will be more and more money chasing fewer and fewer goods—the classic inflationary road. This industry is chronically and at times acutely short of liquidity. I use the word "liquidity" in its financial sense. It cannot afford any new increases in its costs; it cannot afford new premiums; it cannot afford compensation.
In little over two years' time, quotas and their method of operation will be up for review. The Government will want to make substantial changes. But what are they doing now in this Bill? It may be unintentional, but they are using primary legislation to solve what they perceive as a problem. Here is the crux of the matter. In doing so, they are enshrining the principle that quotas belong to people and not to the land, in spite of what my noble friend said at Second Reading. If they do that, then automatically quotas become tradeable and mobile; and as I have said, I do not believe that this is in the long-term interests of the industry.
And so I interpose this suggestion among the debates that have taken place on the sectional interests. I say to the Government that it would be far better to avoid primary legislation. The only way they can do that is to leave this clause and its schedule right out of the Bill; and that is what I am proposing. I beg to move.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, there is one thing about the noble Earl's amendment—it would certainly solve all our problems straight away if we accepted it. Quite frankly, I agree with his amendment in one way, except that he has come with it too late. If we had
942
looked at the matter in the very early days of quotas and realised what the situation was going to be, we could have been clever and given the whole of the quota to the Milk Marketing Board and not allowed it to have any value at all. That would have solved the situation.
I claim a little credit for having said early on that we had not looked at this matter clearly enough and had not seen it through. Nevertheless, it is with a little hindsight that one sees the situation today, a situation with which we are saddled. In spite of my agreement with the noble Earl, I cannot see that we can go back now, much as he would like it and much as I would perhaps like it. With that, although I support the noble Earl in one way, I cannot see that we can support the amendment.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I should like to agree with the noble Lord who has just sat down. I remember the days of the hop market quota. Quotas were not tied to the land. The quota was a certain figure and all the hop farmers together could not exceed that. This prevented overproduction. It would have been a good thing if we could have done the same with milk. It is too late. I just wanted to make that point, and I agree with what the noble Lord said about it. It is too late.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord De La Warr pointed out, both at Second Reading and again today, one would think that a milk quota, where it remains firmly attached to the land, is a restriction on production and in itself a thing of no value. But the fact is that milk quotas are being traded. There are devices by which this is being done. They have acquired a value, and we have heard this several times this evening.
It seems to me that our own Government have departed from what I believe was the intention of the Council of Ministers and have departed, as my noble friend has reminded us, from the way milk quotas were treated in other member countries by countenancing what my noble friend calls the mobility of milk quotas by means of the temporary transfer of land. The argument runs like this. If a milk quota can be traded for value, why should not a tenant farmer who leaves his dairy farm with a quota attached to it get something for what he leaves behind? The Government were persuaded, wrongly in my view, that a milk quota should somehow be treated as a tenant's asset irrespective of whether or not it enhanced the landlord's reversion. My noble friend Lord Belstead will remember that I expressed my misgivings about that when the proposal was first floated.
I believe that a case can be made for compensating a tenant for the milk quota provided he can show that he has left something behind which improves the landlord's asset. I suggested in Committee how the long-established principles of compensation in the Agricultural Holdings Act could be adopted in order to provide for that, but the Committee did not accept my proposal and so we are thrown back to the Government's proposals in the Bill.

943
I have to say that I believe these proposals are based on a wrong concept. My noble friend has explained why it is wrong. He is right to point out the difficulties that may follow. Because the Government did not read, or misread, the signpost they went down the wrong track at the outset; and I was interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, said about that. I agree with him.
Months of dispute followed because of the difficulties inherent in applying this concept to our own landlord and tenant system, and those difficulties were amply demonstrated by the debates on this issue in Committee, and again at length tonight. My noble friend is right to raise this fundamental issue, but I fear that he may be only illuminating that signpost which the Government missed many months ago. Nevertheless, I support him just in case—and it is a great deal to ask, as I recognise—the Government can see their way not just to alter the Bill in the way that my noble friend proposes but to make a radical reappraisal of their milk quota policy.
7 p.m.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, I should like to say a few words about this matter. I hasten to explain, to backtrack for a moment, that in fact I preferred Schedule 1 to the Bill to Amendment No. 16, but I also have the strongest sympathy for the amendment of my noble friend Lord De La Warr. It is a matter that we should consider very seriously.
I do not believe that it is altogether too late. I think that affairs in Europe may well compel some most draconian measures in this country if we do not pay heed to what is happening elsewhere within the EC. I think it was the original intention of the Commission as far as possible to avoid a value being put on quotas. It seems that we have not really made up our minds about this matter. We have had a hankering, and have never been quite sure whether to opt entirely, for what I describe as the North American option—the option of allowing quotas to acquire value. If we did that and followed the North American option, we should have to ask ourselves a number of questions.
First, we must ask the extent to which it is in the interests of the consumer. I gather that the price of liquid milk in Canada is 28p a litre and that here it is only 16p. It may well be that that has had something to do with the North American option. But let us suppose that one does not get 28p instead of 16p here. I wonder whether it is going to be in the long-term interests of British agriculture to embark wholeheartedly on that course.
I emphasise that it is particularly unsatisfactory in our circumstances that premiums should be taken out of the industry—that is, unless cash can come in from somewhere else. It may be that it will have to come from the consumer in the end. Therefore, I have the gravest fears about the future under the course we are now following because, as has already been pointed out by my noble friend Lord De La Warr, these quotas will increase in value. Moreover, one must look at the value of quota in relation to the actual cost of a cow today. It is a substantial item. We must also remember
944
that there may be quotas coming for other commodities and that we are now setting a precedent as to how they are to be handled.
It may be that to seek an alternative to the North American solution is more bureaucratic, but I am concerned about our present posture. In fact, I am reminded of the grand old Duke of York and his 10,000 men. As your Lordships will know, he marched them up and he marched them down, and when they were only half-way up they were neither up nor down. I feel that if we are not careful that is where we will end.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I think that the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, has raised an important point in relation to the nature of the value of quotas. To speak briefly on this subject, it seems to me that the nature of the value of quotas is associated with the value of land. The creation of quotas has, in fact, creamed off some of the value of the land and made it transferable. Quotas have made land a negotiable asset. Land which has less quota will be less valuable, and land which acquires more quota will become more valuable. The nature of quota is intimately associated with the value of land.
It is for that reason I am not happy with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. I believe he is wrong in saying that value has been created. Value has not been created but has been transferred from the farms which have a low quota or no quota to the farms which have a high or good quota. For that reason it would seem logical that if the tenant is to participate in the benefit of having a large or high quota he should also contribute, and other tenants should contribute, in the same measure in respect of the farms where the quota is low because of inadequate performance, or for whatever reason. It has been the essential nature of quotas that they run with the land and that their value is part of the value of the land, whether or not they are transferable.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord De La Warr for bringing forward this point because, as I said earlier, the fact that quotas are changing hands at between 14p and 20p a litre, depending on the part of the country, and the fact that people have received large sums of money, has partially liberated them. It has also created a problem because we are not quite sure whether or not these are extra-legal transactions. People have paid money for something which, in all honesty, is dubious.
I arrive at a totally different conclusion from that of my noble friend Lord De La Warr. I should much prefer the quotas to be totally divorced from the land. I should like to see a system where you buy the licence, or there is a licence to sell X litres of milk. I could then buy that licence and I could let it to someone else. A landlord could buy it and even let it to someone else's tenant. Above all, when the Community wants to reduce the amount of milk that is produced the Commission itself could buy in quotas. That is exactly what is done by central banks when they want to control the exchange rate. That would seem to be a

945
sensible way of proceeding. If it can be Community-wide, so much the better. It would be a fully tradeable asset.
We know of some of the difficulties that have occurred recently. For example, I know of one landlord who has two almost identical holdings with two identical milk parlours on them. On one, there was a good tenant with 120 cows, milking away like mad and producing a considerable amount of milk, and so on. The other tenant was idle, or was doing what many of us think is a good idea—he had low input, low yield, careful grass management of his farm and consequently was producing much less milk from the same amount of land.
That seems to me to have produced some form of inequality. I do not quite know how to get round it, but I am absolutely certain that once the quotas become fully marketable these problems will vanish. It is only what is done with the first change of ownership of the windfall—and let us be honest, it is a windfall. People known to me have sold quotas from Hampshire to farmers in Wales on grass lets and they have received a lot of money for them. I must raise the point of who will pay and whether it is to be the consumer. Surely, if it is a quota to produce milk at a certain price, the consumer does not come into it. He will only buy milk at price X, and as there is a licence to produce it at that price, that is the price at which it is traded. The consumer is not affected.
I could not be more pleased that my noble friend Lord De La Warr has brought up this matter because I think it is vitally important; and the development of selling quotas with slightly dicey grass lets is something which will end in a lot of—I nearly said spilt milk— tears, certainly.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I also should like to support my noble friend Lord De La Warr. I am very interested to note that it seems that he has unanimous support from all sides of the House. Since our deliber-ations on the previous stages of this Bill, during which endless criticisms were levelled at the Government's proposals on quotas, it has become clear that very few people, if any, are in favour of the current intentions. It was to be hoped that the Government would come forward with such an amendment. I wonder whether these proposals would ever have come to us had this clause been debated in Committee in another place.
There was bound to be friction over any split of a value of quotas. British agriculture does not want to be split in this way. Surely the Government do not wish to destroy the landlord and tenant system, but it is hard to think of any other legislation which would do more to destroy this liaison in agriculture. What is equally serious is the amount of money which these proposals will take out of agriculture. The retiring farmer will take with him the money that he receives and that money will be lost.
What is the answer? I think that we are the only country in Europe that has got itself into this muddle. The answer is to accept this amendment, drop these
946
quota proposals, look at what has happened on the other side of the Channel or, indeed, the North Sea, and then ensure that quotas are allowed to have no value, which I believe to be in the spirit of the EC regulations.
If a quota is not required, it should be called back into a pool, as one of your Lordships said—though I cannot remember who it was. This would give flexibility. If there was a need for further reduction in milk supply (which is a not improbable situation), individual farmers would not have to adjust, they would not have to cut by a further 1, 2, 5 or 10 per cent., or whatever it may be, at great inconvenience to themselves. There would be a quota pool which need not be issued. If there were need for further milk, the Government could produce quota from the pool and any spare quota would be available for any farmer starting up dairy farming. The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, said that we were too late, but surely it is better late than never. As we are, we are getting into an awful muddle, and we had better try to put it right now, even though we are a little late.
If the Government's intentions are allowed to pass—and in view of the Government's amendments today it can be seen that they have already run into some unexpected difficulties—we are in for a problem. What happens when a farmer is an owner-occupier and the tenant of the neighbouring farm? There would be enormous scope for abuse. What happens if a tenant rents some extra grazing from a nearby farm? We are to compensate the tenant • "for his expenditure". Is it to be net expenditure after grant or his gross expenditure that is taken into account? I do not think that this is made clear.
The tenant is to be compensated for dairy improvements and fixed improvements,
"which are relevant to the keeping of dairy cows on the tenancy".
Surely what is important is that the improvements and fixed equipment are specifically adapted for dairy cows. There are improvements such as cattle courts which could equally well be used to store cattle or even sheep.
Since the Committee stage I have been doing some homework and I have found two dairy farmers who are giving up dairying. One is on a large Scottish estate which is giving up the dairy farm in hand and proposing to let it to a limited partnership. I asked the factor whether this was wise in view of the current legislation in the offing, and he said that in no way would he be handing over the quota, but he would be charging the incoming tenant extra rent for it. I asked him what might be the value of the quota and, calculating it on the Government's recommendation, it appears that it will be about £180,000. So after we had finished our telephone call, I decided that I had better try to work out what the tenant might have to pay, and I thought that perhaps 10 per cent. would be a not unreasonable amount to put on £180,000. So before starting to pay his ordinary rent the tenant will have to pay £18,000 a year rent for his quota. That is not on.
Then there is another case of a large estate that has rented a dairy farm from a small neighbour. The quota

947
value in this case is reputed to be £110,000 and presumably this would have to be split between the landlord and the tenant. However, as the tenant has provided nearly all of the equipment, the compensation would be largely payable to him and the small, poor landlord would have to provide a very large sum of money in way of compensation to his neighbour. I do not think that this is very sound legislation.
At Committee stage my noble friend, in referring to Scotland, intimated that it was his intention to give tenant farmers in Scotland a different standard quota on which to calculate the compensation due other than the one used in England. What he appears entirely to have forgotten is that average Scottish rents are well below English rents. So on the basis of the calculation worked out by the Government for England and Wales the Scottish landowner would already have had to pay more; and now, with a different standard quota, the poorer the ground, the more he will pay, and the more money will be taken out of circulation and out of the areas where it is most needed. I think that these are very bad and very unjust proposals.
I cannot put down an amendment because of course this matter will appear in an order at some future date. However, if it appears, as I gather it may do, it looks very much as though someone will have to pray against the order.
It is fair to say that it is said there would be very few cases in Scotland; but it does not matter if there is only one case; it is one case too many. I really cannot understand why my noble friends on the Front Bench, who I feel are probably not too happy about it themselves, should continue to push this legislation forward. Surely my noble friend's amendment is the answer. Any tenant, whether in England or Scotland, who is giving up dairying must have made his decision before this legislation appeared, whether the term day was in March or May. This legislation came into force only in June and so he had already given his notice to leave. It will be no hardship to put this measure back so that we would have nine months up to next March in which to produce a proper reasoned amendment and pass a proper Bill.
I hope that this might remove any value on quotas, as my noble friend suggested. I am sure that if his amendment is accepted, we could take this measure back and I am certain that all sides of the industry could tell the Government what would be satisfactory and how they should deal with milk quotas.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I think that in this case the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, whom I admire greatly, is missing the point just a little. It is all very well, but if Clause 12 is abolished, the people who have the quotas now are left with them. In spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said, of course the quotas have a value, and it is a positive value which has been proven. The noble Earl has quoted case after case, and of that I have no doubt whatsoever.
If one is simply going to leave the situation as it is, how will quotas be reduced and how will the industry
948
be brought back onto a proper basis? Most people produce too little milk in relation to their capital equipment and so one hopes that farmers will leave dairying. And who is going to allocate the quota? My goodness, landlords will be keeping their tenants alive in order to maintain the value of the farm, passing the lease on in order to maintain the quota. Without any doubt, it gives the farm extra value. That is the flaw in that highly simplistic argument. It has a value. I do not like it. I do not think that we should have had quotas, but they are here and they have a value. The only real answer is to trade them.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, like other noble Lords I am indebted to my noble friend Lord De La Warr, provided he does not successfully press the amendment. He has raised an interesting debate in which I have learnt things and to which I shall draw my right honourable friend's attention. Like the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, 1 feel that perhaps he was referring to the quota system as he wished that it should have been. Although he made many valid points, as my noble friend Lord Massereene said, it is now a little late for that.
Let me briefly put the Government's view by saying a word about the quota system as we have it. The first point to bear in mind—which, with great respect, I think my noble friend Lord Burton wished to sweep aside—is that this was not a bright idea of the British Government but was something to try to solve a desperate problem of overproduction of milk in Europe, which was and still is costing individual taxpayers enormous sums. The council passed a regulation, amending Regulation No. 804/68, which says that it is all about curbing the increase in milk production while at the same time permitting the structural developments and adjustments which are required. The Ministers in Europe had two things in mind. The first was to try to curb the rapid expansion in the milk sector. The council also recognised the danger of any quota system—ossification of the industry at an arbitrary point in time—and so it specifically recognised the need for development.
The regulation that it produced makes it clear that the quota is allocated to the producer. But at the same time the regulation also made it clear that the quota is tied to the land. That summarises the essential tension in a difficult situation. The quota is tied to the land, thus giving the landlord a definite interest in its future, but it is assigned to the producer; and in that context it may be helpful to regard the quota in a similar light to a licence. It allows a producer to sell a certain amount of milk without attracting the levy while he retains occupancy of the land. In those circumstances it is difficult to say that the quota belongs to anybody at all. That is why the Government find it difficult to agree with anyone who may suggest that the clause and the schedule in the Bill have the effect of giving ownership of quota to the producers, so breaking the link with the land.
Were there no link with the land there would be no need for compensation to the tenant. The tenant would be able to take the quota away with him or sell it, in which case there would be an argument for the

949
tenant compensating the landlord. But as it is our aim has been to try to provide some form of recompense to tenants who have worked, sometimes for a whole lifetime, to build up milk production on the holding and who cannot at present realise any value from the asset which they have helped to create. I was so glad that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, who I have also agreed with earlier today, brought that point out with absolute clarity.
I realise that my noble friend Lord De La Warr is highly suspicious and critical of the whole idea of the thing being an asset. I understand when your Lordships deprecate the fact that it is an asset which is inevitably being created. But we have to face the fact that there is now a Community precedent for the compensation of tenants, and indeed landlords, for the loss of quota. The Community milk outgoers scheme clearly provides that it is for the tenant to determine whether he wishes to enter the scheme. It also recognises that both landlord and tenant have an interest in the quota and provides that both may share in the compensation in the event of the surrender of the quota scheme.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Onslow, who twice this evening has said what a great pity it is that we cannot have a sensibly tradeable asset if we have to have quotas. All I can say is that the Government, more or less urged on by the entire industry, have sought consistently to achieve greater mobility of quota. Without such mobility, the dairy industry cannot develop efficiently within the constraints of the quota system. We have managed to introduce leasing. We shall keep up the pressure on the Commission to see whether we can get a better system.
The impression from listening to my noble friends Lord Burton and Lord De La Warr was that if only we had a system where at least we could take quota out, put it in a pool and reallocate it, things might be pretty good. That is what the Danes are said to be doing. I understand that they have been making a habit of confiscating unused quota. But the European Commission has made it absolutely clear that that is not in accordance with Community rules. Quota, once granted, cannot be withdrawn exept where Community rules make explicit provision. Denmark is the only member state operating in that way, and Denmark will have to answer if the Commission takes action.
My noble friend Lord Burton said that we were storing up trouble which no other country had. I wish that I could agree with him but, with respect, I understand that the problems over which we have been agonising in the past half hour have been occupying the minds of those involved in the industry in France, in Ireland and in Germany.
I repeat that the Government are genuinely indebted to my noble friend. It is not the first time that I have been involved in debates with him on matters which are absolutely fundamental. He initiates such debates, which is exactly what the House is about. But, seriously, I beg him not to press this amendment. If he did, I think it would be looked upon with deep
950
resentment by the tenants of this country, who feel that at least the Government, with the help of your Lordships, reluctant though I know it has been, have tried in a difficult situation to feel their way through to a fair solution which will recognise that the tenant, just once—it is a once-and-for-all payment—is able, when he either moves or retires, to take some value of the quota which in many cases he may have spent the whole of his lifetime working up for the good of the holding. That is all that I can say on behalf of the Government, except once again quite genuinely to thank my noble friend for moving this difficult amendment.
Earl De La Warr: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. In the past few minutes he has tempted me very much. I am a tenant. I am the tenant of my six year-old grandson. I spend a lot of my time resenting every penny that I pay to the little blighter. That is the first point.
Perhaps I may just refer to three points that have been made, two by my noble friend. He talked about the precedent created on compensation. There are two very different types of compensation, and one is compensation to an outgoing tenant where there is no removal of milk from the system. We all know that we are still producing too much milk. The other compensation is used to induce milk to leave the system. I want to draw my noble friend's attention to that. Allied to that is what he said about the encouragement of mobility. That is the one matter that alarms me. To avoid ossification we have gone for mobility and thus done what we can to keep up the level when we know that demand is going down. That was central to my argument.
The third point is that the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, said that we are too late. He may be right. Maybe we are in many ways too late, but at least this has served notice, and the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie has assisted in this, on the Government that we may be on a dangerous path. During the next two years when we come up to the review we should be looking at whether we should change the system to bring supply and demand more in line with each other.
I hope that what has been said not only by me but by other noble Lords will be taken on board by the Government and that they will watch carefully to see that they do not become too entrenched. That is why I sought to link what I had to say with this clause, because it seemed to me that by using primary legislation the Government were becoming too entrenched.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, thinks that my arguments were simplistic. I shall try to do better next time. I shall not cease, and I hope that other noble Lords will follow me, to watch what is happening to the demand and supply of milk and the quota system. I am much more interested in that than in the squabble between landlord and tenant. That is not fundamental. I hope that my noble friend will not think that I am lecturing him and, having said that, I think that I can safely take the view that I have

951
served my purpose by bringing these matters to your Lordships' attention. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will feel that we have reached a suitable break point in the consideration of milk. I suggest therefore that we do not return to this matter before 8.35 p.m. I beg to move.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) (No. 2) Order 1986
7.34 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd May be approved. [24th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the Motion to continue the powers in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 I shall, as I usually do, be reviewing the security situation in Northern Ireland. At the same time I shall attempt to describe in general terms some further legislative proposals which the Government intend to pursue when proposing amendments to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978.
Before I go into the detail of the security situation I shall forestall one question which I know will be asked by everyone who speaks in the debate; namely, when will my right honourable friend introduce a Bill to amend this Act? As your Lordships are aware, we are committed to bringing forward a Bill during the lifetime of this Parliament. I give your Lordships the undertaking that we shall fulfil that commitment.
I shall review the security situation briefly. So far in 1986 14 members of the security forces and 14 civilians have died as a result of the security situation in the Province. Each and every death is of course a matter of the deepest regret and concern. Your Lordships will know that over the past few months the homes of off-duty members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary have been subjected to contemptible and disgraceful attacks, associated with so-called loyalist protests against the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
I am sure that all your Lordships will permit me to ask you to join me in condemning those Loyalist politicians who condone those attacks. Above all, I ask your Lordships to join those Loyalist politicians, of whom there were quite a few, who condemned those attacks. It was a matter of the deepest regret to learn of the disgraceful remarks made by the honourable Member for North Antrim after the Northern Ireland Assembly was dissolved on 23rd June this year. For those of your Lordships who may not have heard or
952
seen those remarks I would point out that he said to the policemen present:
"Don't come crying to me when your homes are attacked".
Coming from someone with influence in Northern Ireland, such a remark can only be classified as an incitement to attacks on the Royal Ulster Constabulary to whom each and every one of us, let alone everyone in Northern Ireland, owes a profound debt of gratitude. I am sure that your Lordships would agree with me that the Royal Ulster Constabulary has steadfastly and, above all, impartially upheld the law in Northern Ireland for everyone. For it to be attacked and denigrated in that way saddens me. I believe that it saddens all friends of Northern Ireland in your Lordships' House and throughout the world. Such remarks do not and can not help the fight against terrorism which is the object of this order.
I pay tribute to the Royal Ulster Constabulary, in particular for the way in which it has conducted itself in recent months. I shall also take the opportunity to pay tribute to the armed forces for their tremendous support of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Your Lordships know that significant extra military resources have been deployed in the Province to assist the Royal Ulster Constabulary to protect police stations and to mount additional patrols, while the men and women of the Ulster Defence Regiment continue to bear the brunt of front-line support for the Royal Ulster Constabulary over much of the Province.
I also wish to pay tribute to the dedication with which members of the prison service approach their duties. I am glad to have your Lordships' unstinting support in this. Those duties are made much more difficult by the nature of the prison population in Northern Ireland. Those prison officers have also been subjected to attacks from so-called Loyalists.
The threat from terrorism, particularly Republican terrorism, regrettably remains high. That threat takes different forms, including shooting attacks on the security forces, the use of home-made explosives, and of course mortar attacks against security force bases. The security forces are countering that threat by maintaining the most intensive rate of operations since 1981. May I make it crystal clear that we are committed to fight and defeat the evil of terrorism. That is done on the basis that our security policy pays strict observance to the law and makes the minimum possible derogation from it to ensure that terrorists are brought to face justice for their crimes. The brave and impartial way in which the judiciary go about their duties must be recognised. I am sure that I have the support of your Lordships in paying tribute to the judiciary.
It is against this background that we consider the emergency provisions Act. All of us will agree that it is the duty of your Lordships' House and of another place to ensure that any derogation from the ordinary law as we know it is fully justified. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State, his predecessors, and, indeed, all my colleagues, have carefully considered the review of the late Sir George Baker of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978. We have also given careful consideration to

953
the views of individuals and organisations, including the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, who have commented on Sir George's recommendations. We have accepted that there is scope for amending the Act. As I said earlier, we shall be introducing legislation for this purpose as soon as the parliamentary timetable permits, and certainly during the lifetime of this Parliament.
I should like to take your Lordships once again over the proposals that I have put before the House during the last two debates on orders to continue powers in this Act. I can perhaps elaborate a little more on the proposals this evening. The proposals included an increase in the Attorney-General's discretion to certify cases out of the scheduled mode of trial, the repeal of the police power of arrest in Section 11 of the Act which duplicates that of Section 12 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, the recasting of Section 2(2) so that the onus in bail applications will be on the prosecution, the widening of Section 2(5) to include members of the RUC and RUC reserve, and making the temporary provisions of the Act renewable annually by Parliament and subject to a maximum life of five years without re-enactment. The first of these proposals has already been achieved—that is, the Attorney-General's discretion to certify cases out of the scheduled mode of trial.
In my past reviews of the Act I have said that my right honourable friend was considering the recommendation of Sir George Baker that magistrates should be able to remand persons accused of scheduled offences in custody for up to 28 days without consent so as to avoid what your Lordships will, I think, agree are wasteful and meaningless remand hearings. I can now tell your Lordships that my right honourable friend proposes to implement this recommendation. He also proposes that certain powers in the Act—the powers of entry and search in Section 11(2), the power of arrest without warrant in Sections 13 and 14, and the powers of entry and search in Section 15(2) and (3)—should be exercised only on the basis of reasonable suspicion.
In addition, we intend to propose provisions effectively replicating for Northern Ireland the provisions of Sections 56 and 58 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 governing the rights while in custody of suspects arrested under the emergency legislation to have someone informed of their arrest and to have access to a solicitor. We also intend to take the opportunity to introduce measures designed to inhibit the exploitation by para-military organisations of the private security industry in Northern Ireland. It is a matter of deep concern to us and I am sure to your Lordships and naturally to many in Northern Ireland that members of para-military organisations on both sides should be able to engage in what are often little more than glorified extortion rackets while they masquerade as private security companies. We propose what we see to be a relatively simple scheme in which private security companies would be required to seek a certificate from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State which could be denied if the Secretary of State were satisfied that its granting would further the aims of a para-military
954
organisation whether directly or indirectly. That is how our minds are turning. I would be glad to take on board any points that your Lordships may care to raise during the debate.
There is one other matter which I am sure concerns your Lordships, particularly at this time of the year. I refer to the controversial issue of marches and parades. As your Lordships are aware, over the last year or so there have been some who have chosen to abuse the tremendous tradition in Northern Ireland for parades and marches. Some parades have been triumphalist and sectarian and, in many cases, parade organisers have shown no consideration for the rights and feelings of the residents of the areas in which they propose to march. As a result the chief constable of the RUC has had to reroute some parades. I shall have a little more to say about this. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State, on the advice of the chief constable, has banned others. Having said that, the extreme step of rerouting or even banning parades has been taken on very few occasions. The chief constable of the RUC, in his annual report for 1985, reported that of 1,897 Loyalist parades in the past year, only 15 were rerouted by the police and two were banned. I hope therefore that your Lordships will understand the scale of these measures that have had sadly to be taken either by my right honourable friend or by the chief constable requesting rerouting. I am sure that all of your Lordships will join me in asking everyone in Northern Ireland not to undertake any marches that are likely to increase tensions in the community and, above all, to be guided by the advice of the RUC.
This has been a brief review and, I hope, not repeti-tive. I should like finally to mention the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Your Lordships will appreciate the importance of the Border with the Republic and how its importance is emphasised in Republican terrorist activities. The Border aspect is what makes the work being done under the auspices of the Anglo-Irish Agreement on cross-Border security so crucially important. It would be foolish and, I think, unrealistic to expect overnight results. There may be cynics and there may be others who say that there have been no improvements in cross-Border security. Your Lordships will, I believe, agree that major moves of this nature take time. I believe that we have made a start on this very important process.
At the last meeting of the Anglo-Irish intergovernmental conference on 17th June the joint chairmen received a report from the chief constable of the RUC and the deputy commissioner of the Garda on measures agreed to improve arrangements for the exchange of information and to develop liaison structures. I am able to say that a significant amount of work has been done, and more will be done shortly. I would not want to inform your Lordships of what these measures are. All that I am able to say is that they offer the best prospect that there has ever been for improving co-operation between the two forces.
I would be happy—I mean this—if I could come before your Lordships to say that we do not need the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978. I am afraid, however, that in the face of the threat of terrorism in Northern Ireland this is simply

955
unrealistic, and I cannot do so. Against that background it would be irresponsible not to retain the important powers in the Act which make it possible for the security forces and the judicial system to deal effectively with terrorism in Northern Ireland. With that in mind I commend the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1979 (Continuance) (No. 2) Order 1986. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd May be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee. ] —(Lord Lyell.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for his short but comprehensive review of the security situation in Northern Ireland. Of course we join with the Minister in expressing our debt of gratitude to members of the RUC and the security forces, members of their families, members of the prison service and the judiciary.
The Minister has reminded us of the background against which the Government ask the House for the renewal of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978. The essence of his case is that these provisions—abnormal though they are—are still necessary in order to maintain law and order in the Province. We know that the assassinations and the bombings continue. We know that members of the police force have been attacked and their homes petrol-bombed, and that they have been cold-shouldered by members of their own community. That is obviously very sad. The Minister also referred to the provocative parades. They are still on the streets of Northern Ireland, but relatively few have been rerouted.
In the debate on Monday night on the appropriation order, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, the Minister said that since 21st May no attacks had been recorded on policemen's homes. Will the Minister tell the House whether his use of the word "recorded" had a special significance? Is there a policy of not reporting each and every attack on policemen's homes which takes place? I noticed the reference to recorded number of attacks.
The task of upholding law and order during the months ahead is likely to be very difficult for the police and the security forces. The Minister has already referred to the utterances of the leader of the Democratic Unionist Party. We have all read or listened to his appalling words. He warms to the theme of,
"hand-to-hand fighting in every street in Northern Ireland".
Indeed, he has been moved to proclaim that,
"we are on the verge of civil war".
His deputy reinforces this sinister message when he shouts,
"the hour of politics has passed".
In this House we see how those words bear within them the seeds of conflict, violence and disaster. On top of those threats from the so-called Unionists there is some evidence—though I do not know how conclusive that evidence is—that Libya intends to
956
resume financial aid to the Provisional IRA. In our view, given those internal and external threats the Government would be wrong to assume that the disgraceful speeches and the threats are meaningless rantings and ravings of bogus leaders. One fears that they may be more than that. Therefore the Government are right to ask the House for the renewal of the Act to ensure the continuance of civilised life in the Province.
That is not to say that we have no reservations about some of the provisions of the 1978 Act, or that we have no reservations about the administration of criminal justice in Northern Ireland. The Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights has already complained of,
"the apparent lack of urgency and piecemeal approach to the development of emergency legislation".
It is referring to the non-implementation of the Baker recommendations which were delivered to the department in 1984. But this evening the Minister has anticipated a great part of that criticism and we welcome the message that he has brought to the House.
I was particularly pleased that the powers of entry and search under some of the sections of the Act will henceforth be exercised on the basis of reasonable suspicion. But I am sure we would require more time before we would dare to comment on the detailed amendments which the Minister has outlined to the House. However, when we see the Act I am sure that it will in general be given support. It may well be that we shall also come up with our own amendments. I am particularly pleased that the Minister has given a commitment—I do not think that is too strong a word—that the amendments to the 1978 Act will be introduced within the lifetime of this Parliament.
Since we last debated the renewal of the 1978 Act there have been growing pressures in Northern Ireland to abolish supergrass trials. We know that a Private Bill has been introduced in the House of Commons to do away with such trials. I think that a number of Members of your Lordships' House have been approached over the past nine months by various people in Northern Ireland seeking our support for a similar Bill in your Lordships' House. Some of us adopted a cautious attitude to that approach. But there may be a new factor in the situation. As I understand it, there is growing cross-community support for the principles of the Bill which has been introduced in the other place. If that be so—that is my caveat—then I should have thought that the Government ought to have another look at the principle embodied in the Bill.
There is one other matter to which I want to refer; that is, the serious anxiety about the position in which Mr. Stalker finds himself. I am sure we would not be doing our duty in this House if we were not to draw the attention of the Government to the rumours about Mr. Stalker's position. There is anxiety about the manner of his suspension and the alleged grounds for his suspension, and about his removal from the leadership of the RUC inquiry. Indeed, whose decision was it that Mr. Stalker should be suspended and that

957
Mr. Sampson should be invited to take over the RUC inquiry?
We urge the Government to produce the answers to the many questions which are being asked about this worrying affair. The rumours are circulating in the press. It is now high time that the Government got to the heart of those rumours. With those few comments, we give our support to the order.
8 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, if I may agree with the last remarks of my noble friend, of course the Government must clear up this Stalker business quickly. But to say anything about it before it is cleared up seems to me entirely wrong and I shall not follow that course.
We sometimes complain about certain business being taken in the dinner hour. I do not mind being put in the dinner hour if it is the dinner hour. But we have been put in the after-dinner hour this time, and as a result of that the noble Lord will have to forgive me if I do not wait until 8.35 because I have other, absolutely unbreakable duties.
This is not an occasion to say very much. This is the most dangerous time of the year in Northern Ireland, as we all know. If one adds Dr. Paisley's threats—empty though I think they may be and certainly hope they are; but we cannot so assume—to the persistent terrorism of the IRA, this is hardly a time to begin questioning the continuance of the emergency provisions. We on these Benches will happily support their continuance. I hope that in a year's time one may be able to say something different. I must confess that I doubt it. However, until things change, it is no good talking about it at all.
As the Minister told us, some changes have been made. I am particularly interested in one of them. I have always favoured the de-scheduling of offences as much the most likely thing to do any good to the overcrowding of terrorist prisons with offenders some of whom ought not to be there at all. As the noble Lord will remember, the Cobden Trust produced a report suggesting that over 40 per cent. of scheduled trials in the Diplock courts were wholly unconnected with terrorism. I do not know that 40 per cent. is true, but certainly a large number were. If such a step as was recommended by Baker—and by most people who have had anything to do with this—has been taken I should like to hear more about it. Perhaps not tonight, but the next time that we discuss these matters, the noble Lord might give us some estimate of what the de-scheduling has saved in the way of Diplock trials. That will be very helpful.
Equally I think that the temporary suspension of the seven-day production of the criminal before the court is a very wise thing. I have been pressing for this for years in England, where there are not even terrorists. In the case of terrorist crime, which is so much more serious, this is a way of easing the pressure on the prisons and reducing the dangerous risk of moving terrorists about, because on a number of occasions rescues have been made on these moves.
958
As to the introduction of the two clauses in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, I have not been able to look up which they are, but I think that they are entirely concerned with the treatment of men under arrest and before charge and they are on the whole very liberalising and decent measures. I am very glad that the noble Lord feels that these can be introduced. I will not go into detail because I may be talking about the wrong ones, but I think it is a very good thing.
I must, I think, join my noble friend and the Minister in condemning not only the words of Dr. Paisley but his suggestion that attacking the police was the sort of thing that his followers might reasonably do. I think that this is something that we must not stop talking about. If the leaders of round about half the Unionist population are going to take that sort of line, we really are in the most serious trouble. With regard to the change in Northern Ireland this year, making the police face both ways, and the fact that the worst of the Unionists despise the police for one reason only—that is, for their impartiality—I believe that this is such a terrible accusation that one really wonders whether the people who speak on behalf of those who hold these views really know what they are saying at all. It is fair to say that half the Unionists, the Molyneaux group, have never supported this sort of thing. The only way forward, of course, is through those people, and they will probably be shot in the back like everybody else who is moderate in Northern Ireland.
One could continue on these lines for some time. The only thing we are here to discuss is the necessity to renew the emergency provisions, and I have not the slightest difficulty in saying that from these Benches we think that it is absolutely essential to do so.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I wish to begin by express-ing my gratitude to the noble Lord the Minister for explaining in considerable detail the Government's legislative intentions arising out of Sir George Baker's report. That, I am happy to say, enables me to shorten my remarks quite a lot.
The noble Lord went on to mention the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Here I should like to express the strong hope that there will be a major input from the British side into the conference of Ministers concerning the administration of justice and police matters. We cannot just leave it for the Irish Government to make all the points that need to be considered by the conference. I should like to emphasise here that there are many improvements that can be made in present procedures that will not require legislation. Obviously there are others that will require changes in the law, but surely we can make a start with those that can be done administratively.
I come now to the letter from the Secretary of State dated 6th June and addressed to the chairman of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, which again the noble Lord mentioned in passing. Paragraph 19 of the letter acknowledges that there has been a delay in producing legislation to amend the Act

959
that we are considering tonight, but it ends with a rather cryptic sentence:
"We are very conscious of the need to articulate changes in emergency legislation with developments in the normal law of Northern Ireland."
That may be good Civil Service prose, but I wonder what it means. Can the noble Lord throw any light on it? In particular, to what parts of the normal law does it refer?
I have several other questions arising out of the Secretary of State's letter. The first concerns paragraph 21. What does "considerable progress" mean in relation to improved police-public consultation in line with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act in England and Wales? Surely this is something that can be improved without legislation.
Secondly, on paragraph 23, what does "considerable progress" mean in relation to tape recording of police interviews and a code of practice for the treament of persons in custody? Surely this is another place where there is no need for legislation.
Thirdly, there is the police complaints and disciplinary procedure. I should like to ask whether things are moving faster here, because paragraph 24 of the letter says that there will be a draft order in council later this year, and I welcome that.
Having put those questions to the Minister about some admittedly ultra-sensitive areas of law enforcement and policing, I trust that the whole of your Lordships' House will congratulate the Wiltshire police on its discovery of weapons, and the arrest of two men at Trowbridge yesterday. Equally successful was the discovery of the hotel bombs in Glasgow last summer and the arrest of those recently found guilty of the Brighton bombing and the hotel attempts. In Northern Ireland this year numerous large bombs have been found and successfully defused.
I should like to pay tribute to others who now bear some of the heat and burden of these difficult issues. I mention first the committee on the administration of justice in Northern Ireland. This multidisciplinary voluntary body, which arose out of the fragments of the 1970s movement of the peace people, has held a number of conferences and has published no fewer than eight reports on such subjects as the administration of justice, emergency law, police complaints, police and public consultation, minority rights in Northern Ireland and plastic bullets. Had it not been for that body there would not now be in Northern Ireland so large a pool of informed, responsible, non-violent opinion on these difficult questions.
Secondly, I should like to pay tribute to the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. It is a government-appointed body. Its members include a Queen's counsel, a leading trade unionist, senior academics and others with good local community contacts under the distinguished chairmanship of Mr. James O'Hara. It is most regrettable, and it must be very frustrating to the members and staff of the commission, that so many of their recommendations remain not yet implemented. They include the recommendations of December 1984, February 1985
960
and February 1986. The present situation is not, I am afraid, a very good omen for the study now being carried out by the commission on discrimination in Northern Ireland and the promotion of equal opportunities.
Police accountability is the last and most important subject that I wish to mention tonight. It has been highlighted by the miners' strike in England and the case of Mr. John Stalker both in Northern Ireland and in England. Indeed, that case was mentioned quite rightly and properly by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, when speaking from the Opposition Front Bench. The Minister will be aware that I have tabled a question about this matter and I shall expect a reply in due course. Meanwhile, I commend to your Lordships The Times leader on this matter of 27th June. I hope that it will be widely studied both in this House and by the Government.
I come back to the wider matters of police account-ability. It is a fact that responsibility for the police under both the principal Acts—that of 1970 as well as that of 1964—is divided between police authorities and chief constables and the Secretaries of State. The position is further complicated by the automony of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the autonomy of the inspectors of constabulary.
Northern Ireland differs from England in that its police authority is not composed of two-thirds elected representatives and one-third justices of the peace, but is wholly appointed by the Secretary of State. It is notoriously difficult to get cases brought against police personnel. When cases are brought it is equally difficult to get courts to convict. I suggest that the position will be improved by having independent police complaints commissions with investigating capacity of their own, but I do not believe that that is likely to provide a complete solution.
Another improvement in Northern Ireland may be to have a judicial component in the membership of the police authority. However, I submit that a full examination should be made of how police account-ability is organised in other countries, and in particular those which one could call "plural democracies", and in other divided societies.
The basic legislation both in England and in Northern Ireland should also be amended so as to define much more clearly and precisely the meaning of such words as "police efficiency", "police policies", and "operational control". We place exceptional trust in our police forces, and that demands exceptional responsibility and accountability. I do not want the police to become scapegoats for the ills and sins of our society. The position therefore cannot be allowed simply to drift on either in Britain or in Northern Ireland.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Moyola: My Lords, it was not my intention to say anything on this measure this evening, but as I am perhaps the only person present who actually lives in Northern Ireland I should like to express and add my appreciation of the efforts of the RUC over the past

961
few months. I should also like—and I have done so on at least two occasions—to add my voice of condemnation absolutely wholeheartedly against attacks on the police and on their homes. Above all, I should like to add my condemnation of people who deliberately incite such attacks.
The Anglo-Irish Agreement has been touched upon. I thought that my noble friend in his opening remarks sounded a little complacent on this matter. I am bound to say to him that to those of us in Northern Ireland the good which that agreement has done is, at present, absolutely unapparent. No one to whom I have spoken can see what it is achieving. I need hardly say that the harm which it has done seems to me to be absolutely immense. Resentment is still present. If action against the agreement has perhaps been less over the past few weeks, we must not underestimate in any way that the resentment against the agreement and the way in which it was made is still very much present. With those few words, I most certainly add my support to the Motion.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I hope that I have not pre-empted any of your Lordships who may wish to add anything. We are very grateful for the close attention that has been paid to this rather complicated Act and Order. We are also grateful for the detailed points that have been raised by your Lordships in such a good-humoured, reasonable and kind way. However, at the outset I have one confession to make.
It has been drawn to my attention that in some of the remarks that I made about the events that took place outside the Assembly on 23rd June this year, I referred to a gentleman who is a Member of another place. It says in your Lordships' Standing Orders that it is something in the region of undesirable that any Member of another place should be mentioned by name "or otherwise identified" for the purpose of criticism of a personal nature. What any of us might have said tonight is milk and water compared to what has been said in the Assembly about myself, let alone my right honourable and honourable friends in another place. However, we have rules of conduct in your Lordships' House. I have unwittingly breached some of those rules and I wish to apologise to your Lordships. I, above all, should have known better. I think that our feelings on this particular matter are known.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, referred to a comment which I made in my opening speech about attacks and intimidation in respect of members of the RUC and their homes. If I understand him correctly he referred to "recorded" or was it "reported" attacks on the homes of members of the RUC?
Lord Prys-Davies: It was "recorded".
Lord Lyell: I have glanced through my brief and I see that there is nothing there and so I must have added an obiter dictum. I shall check the implications of what was said and write to the noble Lord on that particular point. So far as the intimidation of members
962
of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, members of the prison service and others is concerned, of course the RUC have already adopted a wide range of security measures to counter the risk of attack on police officers and their families by Republican terrorists. But, following the more recent spate of the so-called Loyalist attacks, the chief constable has established a special committee to review whatever additional measures are required to meet this renewed threat. In addition, special arrangements have been made to assist ex-members, and what we call "police families", who are subject to intimidation.
I assure my noble friend Lord Moyola and your Lordships that extra patrols are being mounted in vulnerable areas, and alternative accommodation is being provided for those who have to move from their homes. A wide range of measures has been introduced following the events in Portadown on 31st March this year. These seem to have proved effective, and there has been a gratifying decline in the number of attacks on the RUC and their families, but they have not ceased altogether.
I am not able to add anything of substance as regards any Libyan connection for the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. May I study the implications of his remarks, and if I find anything of value communicate with him in writing? The noble Lord raised another point which was also raised by the noble Lord. Lord Hylton, and, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson. This was the question of the inquiry by Mr. Stalker, the deputy chief constable of Greater Manchester.
Mr. Stalker was appointed by the chief constable of the RUC on 24th May 1984 to head a team of detectives drawn from the Greater Manchester police force to carry out an inquiry in Northern Ireland. I understand that Mr. Stalker's interim report was received by the chief constable of the RUC on 18th September 1985, and that it was sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland on 13th February this year. I am advised that on 4th March this year the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland asked the chief constable for further information. On 6th June this year it was announced that Mr. Sampson had been invited to replace Mr. Stalker as the leader of the inquiry.
Following allegations against Mr. Stalker, he was taken off the inquiry. After Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary and the Attorney-General had been consulted, the chief constable of the RUC invited Mr. Sampson to take Mr. Stalker's place as head of the inquiry into the Northern Ireland allegations, and to bring it to an early conclusion. One further point I wish to stress is that the team remains as it had been under Mr. Stalker's leadership, and the investigation will be completed as soon as possible.
The allegations against Mr. Stalker are a matter for the Greater Manchester Police Authority. I hope that your Lordships will bear with me this evening, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, will bear with me on the position this evening. Of course the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has a further question, and I hope that I shall be able to bring some light to this matter in

963
due course, but I could not—and indeed I would not want to—go any further on this particular matter this evening. I hope that your Lordships understand.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, also raised the question of supergrass trials. The use of the evidence of former accomplices has been instrumental in combating terrorism. We believe that it has saved many lives. The criteria for the use of such evidence in Northern Ireland are the same as in England and Wales. Therefore, I could not hold out any prospect that the Government would support the principles of a Bill introduced in another place.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, raised three points concerning a letter that had been sent by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to the chairman of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights in Northern Ireland. So far as tape recording and the codes of practice are concerned, we await with considerable interest the outcome of field trials in Great Britain of the tape recording of police interviews. We are also considering the extent to which codes of practice would bite (if I may put that term before your Lordships this evening) on the exercise of powers under the emergency provisions Act and the implications of how these powers would work.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, also raised what he called the "cryptic sentence" in the letter from my right honourable friend. We believe that the law of Northern Ireland should, so far as is possible, reflect the law in the rest of the United Kingdom. Secondly, we believe that the emergency legislation should detract as little as is necessary from the normal legal rights of the individual. Because of the unique constitutional position of Northern Ireland it is not possible to include special provisions connected with terrorism in the normal law which is enacted by Order in Council. I think your Lordships would admit that such provisions require legislation by Act of Parliament, and therefore we propose, as I pointed out in my opening remarks, to make special provisions governing the rights of suspects arrested under the emergency legislation which will have the same effect as Sections 56 and 58 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 as they apply to persons arrested under the provisions for terrorism in Great Britain.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, raised a third question on paragraph 24 of the letter. I hope I can give the noble Lord the assurance that arrangements are in hand for the publication of a proposal for a draft Order in Council. We hope that this will be published before your Lordships' House rises for the summer Recess. Certainly I would not speak for another place, but I think we may be here, and I hope that we shall be able to give the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, some indication of what he is seeking.
We were particularly grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, as we put it, "at this season". As we all know, the warm weather brings out the traditional marching parades, with all the emotions that are engendered. We are also grateful for his support of the 28 days' remand, and his wise words on that matter. I am particularly impressed by, and
964
grateful for, his close attention to the two sections, Sections 56 and 58, of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. I think I expanded a little on that in my earlier remarks when trying to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. We are particularly grateful for the attendance and the remarks of my noble friend Lord Moyola, and for his tributes to the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
None of your Lordships would be surprised if I mentioned the agreement. I note the points raised by my noble friend about the agreement. I hope that he will allow me to retain my position in what I said—that it is my belief that it is a first step. However, I understand the feelings of my noble friend.
I hope that I have covered all the points. I shall study everything that has been said and will write to your Lordships if there has been any gap. We have had a worthwhile debate. I have taken on board the suggestions made about any review of the emergency provisions Act.
So often we concentrate on the issues which divide people in Northern Ireland, but I hope I may ask all your Lordships, all our colleagues in another place and, above all, all politicians even in Northern Ireland to concentrate on the common goals. Surely one goal which unites everybody in Northern Ireland is the eradication of terrorism, and that is the one goal before us tonight. I stressed that I hoped that I should not have to come forward another year, but our goal is to eradicate terrorism and, until we do that, emergency powers are necessary. With that, I commend the order to your Lordships this evening.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House adjourn during pleasure until 8.35 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[Sitting was suspended from 8.30 to 8.35 p.m. ]

Agriculture Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 17, line 19, leave out from ("by") to end of line 21 and insert ("whatever means").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as the Bill is written those tenants who have purchased quota will be entitled to the value of that purchase when they quit. This has never been in dispute and is obviously very fair. This amendment corrects an omission in that, as the Bill is written, if the tenant was given (rather than purchased) any extra quota he would, in effect, have to leave it on the farm. I hope your Lordships and my noble friend Lord Belstead will agree that this is a technical amendment and that the Government can accept it. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I understand that my noble friend Lord Stanley is seeking in this amendment to cover the situation when somebody, other than the tenant himself, bore the cost of acquiring quota through a land transfer. My noble friend feels that if a third party bore the cost on behalf of the tenant, the tenant should receive compensation as if he had borne the cost himself. I agree that this amendment in a sense is technical. I am not sure, however, that it is equitable. We are talking here about money which the landlord will have to pay out. It is fair to ask whether the landlord should make a payment where the tenant has himself incurred a cost as a result of which the landlord will benefit through the presence of quota on the holding. My answer to that is, yes. But if the tenant did not himself bear the cost. why should we require the landlord then to compensate him?
I feel that my noble friend's amendment is directed at a small number of very unusual cases. I do not say that because they are few we need not bother about them, but I suspect that they are so unusual and, indeed, so various in their circumstances that it could be a mistake to change the general rules to apply to them. There is a very real danger that we shall cause inequities rather than remove inequities if we act in this way.
For the basic reason which I tried to put in the middle of what I said—which is that it really does not seem to me to be right to require compensation when somebody has not himself borne the cost—I think that this amendment ought not to be made.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I am not sure which land this quota is attached to.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, it is attached to the land that I am talking about, the tenant's land. Perhaps I may address myself to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Belstead. I was interested in the point he made. I had a slightly different picture in mind in so far as it was possible that the tenant had been given the quota by his father, his aunt or his grandmother, and I should have thought—this could be quite common—that this would fall into the category of the amendment moved earlier by my noble friend, as though the tenant had purchased the quota from outside. I do not know whether my noble friend wishes to think about that and reply to it now, or whether perhaps I should write to him between now and Third Reading so that he can consider the matter. I think that we are all on level keel about this, except that he sees it in a different light to the way I see it.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if my noble friend feels that he would like either to write or to have a word with me, I should be very ready to consult him on this. As I say, at the moment I think that there is a difficulty of principle which I have enunciated. But if my noble friend cares to contact me in whatever way he thinks best, perhaps we can look at the point again.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 17, line 30 at end insert—
(" "tenant" includes those occupiers of land under agreements approved by the Minister within the meaning of section 2 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 and who produce milk on the land so held;").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment. I understand that it is to be taken with amendments Nos. 38,39 and 40. The purpose and object of this amendment is to ensure that an occupier whose occupation of land under an agreement other than a tenancy is not protected by the Acts because of the agreement of the Minister under Section 2 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 shall be included in the provisions. Since the Government's Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 seem very satisfactorily to cover the same ground, I should be happy to withdraw this amendment if the Minister is intending to move those amendments.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, as my noble friend has not withdrawn the amendment, I should like to support the principle behind it and to say that the actual case that it arose out of was a letter from a Mr. Kala who had been a licensee since 1974 of the Central Lancashire New Town Development Corporation. He saw, very wisely, that his case would have been excluded from the provisions of compensation and so he wrote not, as one would have thought, to the NFU or to the CLA, because he knew there were still squabbles among them, and not to the Government, because he knew that they were still battling over the main framework of the quotas; he wrote to the professional bodies with whom he had dealt and in whom he had confidence. I think that they should take credit for drawing the attention of the Government to this amendment. I should also like to thank my noble friend Lord Belstead for accepting the principle and bringing in very swiftly his own Amendments Nos. 39 and 40.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, this amendment has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. It would be my intention when we get to Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 to move the Government's amendments. It is not being done as a matter of habit. I should be delighted to accept this amendment or the amendment of my noble friend Lord Stanley, which is No. 38 on the Marshalled List; but on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and my noble friend Lord Kinnoull (which is being moved now) although it covers Section 2 lettings I do not think, with respect, that it covers Section 5 lettings; that is, the lettings from two years to five years. I think that we would wish those lettings to be covered. I like to think that the Government's amendments covers those.
In the case of my noble friend Lord Stanley and his Amendment No. 38 I am advised that in his amendment the reference to agricultural holdings is

967
legally faulty because it implies that a holding may be partly an agricultural holding and partly not, and also there is some ambiguity in the meaning of the word "agreement" in the amendment.
I accept the principle following a discussion which I had with my noble friend Lord Kinnoull which persuaded the Government of the lightness of this particular cause, and it is the Government's intention to move Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 on the Marshalled List when we get to them.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for those assurances and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 18, line 17, after ("treated") insert ("for the purposes of any claim in respect of that quota—
(i) ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 19 and to speak to Amendments Nos. 20 to 24. Your Lordships may recall that the provisions in Schedule 1 to the Bill provide for the value of "transferred quota" (that is, quota that a tenant has required through a land transfer) to be credited to the tenant. This entitlement exists provided the tenant was either allocated some quota by the Minister or was in occupation of the land as a tenant on 2nd April 1984. Where the original tenant met both these tests, as the great majority have done, there is no problem—the full right to compensation will pass to his successor or assignee.
I have, however, been advised that in those few cases where the original tenant received no allocated quota and his only quota that he acquired through a land transfer there could be a lacuna in the drafting. To put this right we need to state that the successor or assignee is to be treated as if he had been in occupation on 2nd April. This will ensure that he gets the full compensation. A similar point arises with sub-tenancies. To ensure that the head tenant (or sub-landlord) can recover from the landlord the compensation he has to pay the sub-tenant for transfer quota we have to make a similar amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendments Nos. 20 to 24:
Page 18, line 20, at end insert ("; and
(ii) in a case where the former tenant was in occupation of the land on 2nd April 1984 (or is treated as having been in occupation of the land on that date), as if he had been in occupation of it on that date.").
Page 18, line 37, after ("treated") insert ("for the purposes of any claim in respect of that quota—
(i)").
Page 18, line 40, at end insert ("; and
(ii) in a case where the assignor was in occupation of the land on 2nd April 1984 (or is treated as having been in occupation of the land on that date), as if he had been in occupation of it on that date.").
Page 19, line 11, after ("treated") insert ("for the purposes of any claim in respect of that quota—
(i)").
Page 19, line 14, at end insert—
(ii) in a case where the sub-tenant was in occupation of the land on 2nd April 1984 (or is treated as having been in occupation of the land on that date), as if he had been in occupation of it on that date;").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
The Earl of Kinnoull The Earl of Kinnoull moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 20, line 23, after ("area") insert— ("and the extent and nature of the fixed equipment provided by the landlord and available for the feeding, accommodation and milking of dairy cows on the land").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in my noble friend's absence I should like to move this amendment and to say that it deals with the principle of valuation on the standard quota. My noble friend the Minister will know that the professional bodies are anxious that there should be an additional flexibility when assessing the standard quota, particularly where the circumstances of the holding differ from the norm. What this amendment does is to introduce the element into the valuer's mind not only of considering the quality of the land and the climatic conditions of the area, but also the very important and very relevant circumstances of the actual accommodation and buildings on the farm which are vital to the production of the dairy unit.
As the House will know, the accommodation is an essential part in appraising the basic practical productivity of a farm, and I hope that my noble friend if he does not like the form of words (which of course I would accept) likes the principle which, as I say, is to add flexibility to this quite difficult and possibly slightly inflexible form of standard quota valuation. I beg to move.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, I think it is important that proper account should be taken of the fixed equipment when considering the average number of hectares which could be expected to have been used for the feeding of dairy cows. I believe that this amendment would improve Schedule 1; and I support it. But that support is slightly qualified by my saying that perhaps I would have preferred to have seen these words placed in paragraph 2 on page 20.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I regard this amendment with the deepest suspicion. I really cannot understand what it has to do with hectares of land. I note the amendment refers to,
"the extent and nature of the fixed equipment provided by the landlord".

969
It says nothing about any fixed equipment provided by the actual milk producer. So it has nothing to do with fixed equipment of that kind and I wonder whether it is intended to apply in a case where the land contains, for example, skyscrapers in which 50 cows can be accommodated on a hundred storeys and fed on in-bought stuff. I wonder whether that should be considered. I should be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I think there must be a certain amount of radioactivity between the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, and myself on this matter. I also considered this amendment with suspicion. I believe that in fact it would restrict the arbitrator's latitude and I would put it to my noble friend Lord Belstead that if it is a dairy farm and that is written into the tenancy, there is no need for this amendment. However, if it is not a dairy farm so far as the tenancy is concerned, then it is unfair in assuming, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, pointed out, that the tenant should have farmed it in an intensive dairy manner, whereas he might have used it partly to farm sheep or corn or beef.
In such a case, his dairy buildings might have been half-filled with sheep or beef and he might have been running a mixed farm. That would have been taken care of in the tenancy agreement, as I understand it. All he has to do under the tenancy agreement is to farm in accordance with good husbandry, which he was doing before this wretched quota came in upon us. I shall not continue with that subject. I ask my noble friend to treat this amendment with suspicion.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I can understand the logic of this proposal. I can see that buildings and equipment, especially accommodation (whether in the form of skyscrapers or not) can affect the productive capacity of a holding; and there is of course a serious point here. I would again say to my noble friend Lord Stanley that I listened to eloquently-moved amendments at the last stage of the Bill about looking only at the productive capacity of the land with no concentrates added. Indeed, I believe we have on the Marshalled List another amendment which we shall deal with later.
This is very much the same kind of amendment but it moves in the opposite direction; and in just the same way as I ventured to part company with my noble friend on his amendment and may possibly find myself wishing to do so again, so I think that my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, have a point when they say that this would move in what could be an unfair way in the opposite direction. After all, compensation to the tenant under the schedule has already taken this into account in calculating the tenant's fraction.
Compensation to the tenant is thus already reduced where the landlord has provided valuable buildings and equipment which enhance the productive
970
capacity. It would seem to me to be double counting to say that those facilities should also be taken into account in calculating the standard quota. The effect would certainly be to increase the standard quota in many cases and thereby to reduce the excess quota—and of course the tenant is allowed to claim 100 per cent. of the excess quota. So I think we need to look with care at this.
Also, there is an anomaly here, and I am advised that its effect would be to increase the standard quota where valuable fixed equipment had been provided, regardless of who had provided it. So even if the tenant had himself borne the cost, the effect would be to boost the standard quota, reduce the excess quota and once again penalise the tenant by reducing his compensation. I do not think that can be right, and it is for those two reasons that I join with the noble Lords who have opposed this amendment in saying that I do not think that would be fair.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I should be the first to admit that there are a few holes in this amendment. First of all, I think that it is in the wrong section, but to use the word "suspicion" is slightly strong because really all this humble amendment tries to achieve is to ascertain the basis of valuation. When looking at a farm you do not just look at the land: you also look at the buildings.
My noble friend talked about double counting. If that were so, I should not wish to pursue the matter, but I should like to take advice on that before the next stage of the Bill to see whether there is a serious point here and a point which would help both the tenant and the landlord; because we are seeking very much to help tenants as well as landlords. We are looking to try to improve what is a very complicated issue in valuation terms and one which I do not think should be left without giving guidance to the valuers. We are seeking to sharpen up some of the Bill's proposals. However, I do not wish to detain your Lordships at this late hour. If necessary, I shall seek to have a discussion with my noble friend before the next stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 20, line 19, leave out from ("means") to end of line 21 and insert—

"(i) in the case of severely disadvantaged land 4,500 litres per hectare,

(ii) in the case of disadvantaged land 5,250 litres per hectare,

(iii) in all other cases 6,000 litres per hectare,

(c) the prescribed average yield per hectare means—

(i) in the case of severely disadvantaged land 5,000 litres per hectare,

(ii) in the case of disadvantaged land 5,834 litres per hectare,

(iii) in all other cases 6,300 litres per hectare.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 27,28,29 and 32, but not to No. 30

971
at the moment. The question I pose to the House is once again perfectly simple: what do your Lordships consider is a fair starting point for the division of quota value between tenant and landlord? Your Lordships have, by a narrow majority, aided and abetted by my noble kinsman the Chief Whip, voted (I think incorrectly) not to accept the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, that it should be 50/50; though it is quite apparent to all who listened to the argument that the Government's formula is not liked by your Lordships.
So in the spirit of British compromise I ask your Lordships to accept this compromise of mine, which would raise the average tenant's share from approxi-mately 30 per cent., as proposed by the Government, to approximately 40 per cent. as in this amendment. Any of your Lordships who received the Milk Marketing Board's recent brief will see my figures and the Government's figures roughly in that line.
The method I am using is similar to that which I explained in Committee, so I shall not weary the House by repeating the details except to say that this amendment lays down a set of figures that an efficient tenant might be expected to obtain from grass on the various types of land in the United Kingdom. In fact, it follows the philosophy of my noble friend Lord Belstead and takes into account the difficulties, particularly of those in less favoured areas.
I have to repeat the point that this quota value is a once and for all windfall. I think I called it a windfall from hell. I do not know where it came from but it is a windfall (and it is once and for all) which will revert to the landlord completely in his future tenancies. What he does with it is up to him. Indeed, if today's conditions continue it will be worth a great deal of unexpected money to him and his successors. Therefore, it is only just that those who contributed to its original value should participate in its value. Who can honestly say that the tenant who buys the cows and milks them and stays, day in and day out, week in and week out, without a morning or evening off, is not entitled to something? Indeed, all your Lordships agree that he should get something. It is a question of how much.
In effect, my amendments would give the average tenant a starting point of between 30 and 40 per cent.—a meagre contribution, I would say, and many tenants would say, but I ask your Lordships to consider it sympathetically. I would ask my noble friend Lord Belstead, when he replies, not to concentrate on the details of my amendment. They can be corrected at Third Reading, and that does not worry me. I want his remarks, when he replies, to concentrate on whether he considers that my 40 per cent. starting point is more just and fair than his 25 per cent. or 30 per cent. If he would say that, I am sure we can make some headway. I am not asking for 50 per cent.; I am asking for 40 per cent. If he can persuade your Lordships that the tenant deserves only 30 per cent., I have to say to your Lordships, with the greatest respect, that I do not think you have any idea how hard-working and dedicated the farming community and the tenants in particular are. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment and the idea behind it. We are now at the stage when the Government have won the day with regard to the appalling complexity of this appalling Bill, and the appalling circumstances of having to accept quotas. We are now at a stage where they have rejected the noble Lord, Lord Middleton; they have rejected the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr; and they have rejected me—much more naturally, I may say. We are now stuck with this appalling Bill. What we must do now is to look at the fairness of it. All right; we had a great deal of self-interest displayed on all sides, and we have rejected 50/50. We must look at this in the light of the figures I produced in an earlier amendment and see what it is going to do to the harmony of our industry. It is for this reason that we must look at the detail—and that is what we are doing—of this complex and awful Bill. But we are stuck with it, we have to improve it, and I think this would be an improvement.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I should like to say a few words. I said at earlier stages of our debates today that I liked the noble Lord's amendment and that it helped the smaller man. I think the noble Lord agrees there. At the same time I think that that help runs right through it, which is the kind of thing you cannot help. That is what I meant when I said I thought it went too far. But as my noble kinsman has said, it is our last chance to do something about the results of the Government's schedule, and I would give the amendment unstinted support.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, this amendment takes away the Minister's duty to prescribe the amount of milk to be taken as the average yield per hectare. It seeks to prescribe in statute in 1986 how much the average yield per hectare should be for evermore. That seems to be the basic objection to this amendment.
My noble friend Lord Stanley said that we need not look too closely at the figures, but one has to look closely at the figures in this amendment. The amendment adjusts the prescribed quota and the prescribed average yield per hectare downwards in the case of disadvantaged land, but it lays down a standard which is two-thirds below that which has been set by the Government. The effect of this, I need hardly say, is to raise the amount of compensation payable to a tenant.
The Government's standard, which my noble friend Lord Belstead has announced, seems to be very much more realistic, and indeed is already very generous to tenants. When my noble friend Lord Stanley proposed and then later withdrew an amendment at the Committee stage which had a similar effect, he drew the mild criticism from my noble friend Lord Belstead that he was opening his mouth a little wide on behalf of outgoing tenants. With this amendment, if they will forgive my saying so, he and the noble Lords who put their names down with his are opening the gape very much wider. I cannot support the amendment, and I hope that the Government will not do so either.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I have to say that I agree with every word that my noble friend Lord Middleton has just said. It would not be acceptable to the Government, persuasive though my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley is, to accept altered standard quotas of some two-thirds downwards when the standard quota which has been put forward by the Government is based on an assessment of national yields which have been calculated downwards, because of the imposition of quotas, by some 11 per cent. with of course the interests of tenants in mind, and when I made no secret on the last day of the Committee stage that we had also made our calculations by constantly rounding down in the interests of tenants. In those circumstances, I could not voluntarily agree to accepting my noble friend's amendment.
Perhaps I may add two points. One other effect of Amendments Nos. 27, 28, 29 and 32 would be that the figures for the calculation of standard quota would be enshrined in primary legislation rather than in subordinate legislation as we would intend. This would have serious practical difficulties. First of all, it would not enable the Minister to make separate provision for Channel Island herds, which of course have lower yields and which again can be looked after in the subordinate legislation provided we are not forced to have the figures on the face of the Bill.
Secondly, we need to bear in mind the possibility of across the board cuts in quotas at some point in the future, when again there would need to be a recalculation in the interests of general fairness. The Government would intend, should this situation arise, to adjust the prescribed quota standard figures to take account of any such cuts so that tenants would not be placed at a disadvantage when it came to calculating the standard quota. I am sure that that will strike a chord in the heart of my noble friend Lord Stanley. As I am sure your Lordships will recognise, it is far easier to make such adjustments if the figures are prescribed in subordinate rather than primary legislation.
It is for those reasons that I am extremely concerned about these amendments. Moreover, I have to say that I do not like them for the reasons that my noble friend Lord Middleton very fairly put forward.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I am sorry that my noble friend has given that reply. I make just four points. First, anybody who has milk cows and can obtain 4,500 litres from each is not doing too badly, and I doubt whether there is a single person in this Chamber who would be capable of doing it. Secondly, my noble friend is saying, in effect, that the average tenant who can produce this 4,500 litres per cow—which, as I said, I consider to be high—is only deserving of 30 per cent. of the quota value. I do not think that is just. I know that every tenant in this country, and in Scotland, would think that is too low.
Thirdly, I am not in dispute with my noble friend Lord Middleton when he says that I am trying to get more by lowering the standard quota. I make no bones about that. My whole argument is that I do not think it is fair to get only 30 per cent. I might think it fair—I
974
would think it fair—to get 40 per cent. and I would be happy with that. However, my noble friend thinks the tenant is worth only 30 per cent. I am sorry to say to him that I do not think that will go down very happily in the shires. Fourthly, my noble friend the Minister and my noble friend Lord Middleton do not like my lack of flexibility. All I can say is that they will have to wait for one minute when I shall come to Amendment No. 30 and will deal with that problem.
I would divide the House if it were not so late, because I honestly believe that I am right and if I did not know that at this time of the night I shall not win what I ought to win. Therefore, I shall withdraw the amendment, but I must tell my noble friend that he will see me again on Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 not moved. ]
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 20, line 32, at end insert—
("( ) In prescribing the quota per hectare under sub-paragraph (1)(b) above and the average yield per hectare under sub-paragraph (2) above the Minister shall have regard only to the number of litres of cows' milk which might reasonably be expected to have been produced by cows kept for milk production grazed and fed from crops (other than loose grain) harvested from the land in question.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I feel like Father Christmas, in that I keep producing another amendment as fast as the child does not like the one he is given; but I do not mean to refer to my noble friend on the Front Bench as a child.
This amendment is similar to Amendment No. 27 except that it allows the Minister to decide where the quota level should be—which I think totally destroys the argument put forward by my noble friend Lord Middleton and my noble friend Lord Belstead that my earlier proposal blocked-in the arbitrator. I ask my noble friend to think seriously about the amendment. It is on the same lines and gives great scope for the arbitrator. It is nothing like so rigid as my previous amendment. I suppose my noble friend will say that it is too vague and that the arbitrator will not know which way to go; so I shall have to come back at Third Reading to put in some figures. I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend says.
There is one point that I must put to my noble friend but he may accuse me of having a chip on my shoulder. I notice with the greatest of interest that under the Scottish formula those in Less Favoured Areas have a quota of 5,500 litres. For reasons that I totally fail to understand, and which I am sure my Welsh neighbours certainly will not understand, those who live in just as inhospitable a climate have a quota of 6,000 litres. When my noble friend replies will he please tell me why the Scots are so favoured? I beg to move.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, I feel that I am going to be disloyal to my noble friend. I did not know

975
Wales until I had the great joy of visiting it once a year when I was at the Ministry of Agriculture. One aspect that was revealed to me was that there is no comparison between the severity of conditions in Wales and those that exist on some of the uplands of Scotland. I was amazed at the difference. It may be that the Welsh are cleverer and more enterprising with the re-seeding that was done and which I believe cannot be done on the uplands of Scotland, but I am afraid that I part company with my noble friend when he says that the conditions in Wales are equivalent in severity to those in Scotland.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin will take particular note of what my noble friend Lord Belstead is obviously just about to say, because some of us object very strongly to this special quota for Scotland.
I think it has been forgotten that the poorer the ground the lower the rent; and therefore one starts at a lower base level, anyway. It is therefore not necessary to reduce the amount of milk on the standard. It is based on the rent. There is therefore a differential already: the worse the ground, the lower the rent.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, this is an amendment which I have called in shorthand for the past few weeks the "no concentrates amendment". It is Amendment No. 30, I believe. We seem to have travelled across a couple of borders and I have slightly lost track of where we are. This is the "no concentrates amendment", which in essence provides that if the matter goes to arbitration, or indeed if the landlord and tenant are deciding between themselves, the land must not be looked at in a way in which it would be reasonable to suppose it should produce a yield of milk but should be looked at in terms of what the land alone could have produced if no concentrates had been put on it at all.
I think that there are two very difficult problems here. Perhaps your Lordships will forgive me if very briefly I repeat them because I must return to this point. First, is it reasonable to operate on the basis that the land could have produced a particular amount of milk if no concentrates had been used? We all know that virtually all dairy farmers use concentrates. Landlords are entitled to expect that their tenants will have used a certain amount of concentrates and they will have earned a quota which reflects this practice. By ignoring this, I think that the amendment reflects a significant shift in the balance between landlord and tenant which we have spent so many months discussing with the industry.
I do not think that the new balance would be equitable. For those tenants who are on average yields and have a corresponding allocated quota, it would reduce the standard quota per hectare by some 25 per cent. and that would give such tenants 25 per cent. excess quota even though their managerial input, which the excess quota is intended to reflect, had been nothing out of the ordinary. Indeed, many tenants
976
whose performance had been well below par and who were therefore leaving their landlords with less quota than they could reasonably expect, could be considerably rewarded by this amendment. I do not think that is fair. I want to be fair to the tenant and I think that the Government have shown that they wish to move towards the tenant, as we have done, but I do not think that that situation is fair.
The other difficulty is that we do not think it will work. The point here is much more simple. If one looks back, I believe the best example of what I am trying to say was in 1984–85 when all dairy farmers faced with quotas considerably relaxed the amount of concentrates that they were putting on the land and it was not found that yields went down in a ratio. My advice is that this amendment would present to professional valuers an almost impossible task. How could they assess how much milk a holding would have yielded in the absence of concentrates? I suggest that they can only do that by applying very arbitrary rules which would inevitably fail to take into account all the relevant factors and would produce substantial inequalities.
In providing compensation for tenants at the end of their tenancies we have to bear in mind that not only landlords but also incoming tenants are affected by the imposition of quotas. So it is not only the interests of the outgoing tenant that we need to bear in mind. I am convinced that to depart substantially, as this amendment would do, from the balance which we are trying to achieve in Schedule 1, is something which the House needs to consider very seriously.
Perhaps I may finally answer the direct question which my noble friend Lord Stanley put to me about a figure which is set lower for Scottish less favoured areas than in Wales and indeed in England. I know that my noble friend Lord Stodart of Leaston attempted to explain—and after all my noble friend is a Scot and farms north of the Border—how there are very particular factors to take into account so far as Scotland is concerned. I would only add that I think it is important, if I may say so to my noble friend Lord Stanley, to remember that the prescribed quota per hectare is only a starting point in the calculation of the standard quota.
If one imagines two farms of very similar land quality, one in a Scottish LFA and one in Wales or in England, the standard quota will be approximately the same for both. That will be achieved by comparing each with the appropriate average yield for the area in question and then making a proportionate adjustment to the prescribed quota per hectare. The effect of the adjustment is to give similar treatment to similar cases. Although one may be starting from slightly different bases, which is what my noble friend is complaining about, because we have gone to great pains to allow flexibility for arbitrators in the schedule I do not think that there will be inequities at the end of the day when the arbitrator comes out with his final figures.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, let me deal with my noble friend Lord Stodart regarding Wales

977
and Scotland to start with. I should like to know where he went to and when he went there. I expect that he went to the Vale of Clwyd in July. I say to him and to my noble friend Lord Belstead that Less Favoured Areas are Less Favoured Areas, whether they be in Scotland, Cumbria or anywhere else. I cannot see that they would be Less Favoured Areas unless they were made Less Favoured Areas. I am sorry to repeat that. One cannot say that a Less Favoured Area in Cumbria, the Scilly Isles or Scotland is any better or worse than a Less Favoured Area elsewhere. If my noble friend does that, there is every case for saying that there will be different sheep premiums in each Less Favoured Area. That does not hold water.
Both noble Lords are treading on dangerous ground. I cannot accept that in any form whatever. I do not think that my noble friend on the Front Bench would want to accept that either for future debates. I thank my noble friend Lord Burton for his support, even though it was slightly twisted from my line of thought. Anyhow, it was support.
What in effect my noble friend on the Front Bench is saying when he opposes the amendment is that he is not prepared to give even 40 per cent. to the tenant as a starting point. He is prepared to give only 35 per cent. Yet at the same time he says that it does not matter terribly where we start when he talks about Scotland—trying, if I may say so, to get himself off the hook over the Scottish figure being 500 litres below mine. He says that it is only a guide. If it is only a guide and if it is so unimportant, let us start a little lower.
I shall not make progress with my noble friend at this stage. I leave it with him, but I shall be back. I do not think that your Lordships have it quite right yet. My goodness, I have moved a long way from where I started in favour of my noble friend Lord Middleton, even though he may say that I have not come far enough.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, with due respect, my noble friend behind me is rather
978
ignorant about the climate of the Western Highlands. Regarding concentrates on shallow, gravelly land, on my estate the rainfall is heavy, but it varies from area to area on the estate. One part has 20 inches more than the other. How can that be compared with Wales? It cannot be. It is an absurd comparison. It is a far more difficult climate. From the point of view of dairy farming, that is not on. People have cows, but only a few. I was really talking about the extraordinary climate in certain parts of Scotland which they do not have in Wales or in any other part of the British Isles.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, would it not settle the argument if we had the average figures for milk production per cow in Scotland and in England?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is not only the climate of the Western Highlands of which my noble friend Lord Stanley seems to be ignorant: with the greatest of respect to him, it is also the practices and procedures of your Lordships' House. He keeps on saying that he will have to come back to the matter on Third Reading. Third Reading is not another Committee or Report stage. It is supposed to be an occasion when the Government can put forward amendments on points to which they have agreed and on areas in which they look forward to making improvements in the Bill. I respectfully suggest that it is not an occasion to re-run the arguments which we have all heard all over again simply because he may happen to have a fuller House then.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I have already spoken. I have no right to reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.25 p.m.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 21, line 6, at end insert ("(other than uncalved heifers)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a purely drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 33:
Page 21, line 19, leave out ("the sum of that value and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, despite what the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said, I should like to think about this amendment. It appears to me that both the climate and the soil are unfavourable at present. I shall think about bringing forward the amendment on Third Reading. I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 33 not moved.]
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 21, line 20, leave out from beginning to first ("the") in line 21 and insert—
("annual rental value at the end of the relevant period of).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment concerns the calculation of the tenant's fraction. We believe that the clause as drafted does not compare like with like. That view has been expressed by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the Association of Agricultural Valuers, which question the validity of the proposed wording. If the basis of the numerator is the annual rental value as in paragraph 7(1)(a), surely the basis of calculating the denominator in paragraph 7(1)(b) should also be the annual rental value and not the rent payable.
Rent payable may vary significantly from the annual value. If it does vary, it is likely to be less than the annual value for various reasons. Many landlords do not press their older tenants for a full rent. A lower rent may have been agreed for some special reason. It may relate to something that the tenant has done for the landlord. There is also the problem of the triennial rent review. If we talk about the rent at April 1984, some of those rents will have been set at April 1981.I am told that rents increased on average 10 per cent. per annum during that period. There is a significant injustice. I believe that the present drafting is unfair. I therefore beg to move.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I support my noble friend. I think that it is an unfair basis for the calculation. I do not know how many Members of the House understand the equation. As I understand it, we put the numerator on the top line and the numerator plus the denominator equals the fraction. As my noble friend said, there are two calculations at different times. That can throw up an injustice either to the tenant or to the landlord. If the tenant is currently paying too high a rent, which is possible with the rents coming down, he will suffer. If the landlord is receiving too low a rent, he will suffer.
The agricultural valuers association, which carries out the valuations, considers that the system is unjust.
980
What is more, it is unnecessarily complicated. I hope that my noble friend will accept the spirit of the amendment, even if he does not accept its words.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I accept that there is something in the spirit of this amendment. I appreciate that there may be instances where a landlord may have agreed to accept a rent lower than he could have claimed under the Agricultural Holdings Act. I also know that as rent reviews normally take place at three year intervals, the rents which were being charged in 1983 were in many cases lower than they would have been if they had been fixed during the year. But while I can understand the reason for the amendment, I have to say that I think there is some difficulty in ascertaining what rent would have actually been paid in 1983. In essence, we will be talking about a sort of retrospective rent review.
It is true that, in looking at the tenant's contribution, we take the annual rental value. But there is no alternative in that case. The task of assessing that value is considerably lighter than assessing the rental value of the whole holding. By adopting this amendment, we would effectively be resorting to retrospective rent reviews for 1983 in most cases. This would add greatly to the complexity of the compensation process. For that reason, I am very reluctant indeed to go down this path. I should be happy to have a further word with noble Lords who have spoken to the amendment, possibly after this proceeding. At present, I am sorry but I cannot voluntarily accept the amendment.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I find it hard to accept the objection raised by the Minister that it would be difficult to value the rent retrospectively. This kind of thing is being done quite frequently by valuers. This proposal has been put forward by the very organisation that would have to do the valuation. It is therefore reasonable to suppose that it conceived of it as being reasonable and not too difficult. In the circumstances and having heard the Minister's assurance, it would be wrong at this time of the night to press the matter further. I would ask him, however, to consider seriously the points that have been made. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 21, line 32, at end insert ("and there shall be disregarded any agreement made with the tenant as to the compensation to be payable by the landlord for such improvements and fixed equipment on the termination of the tenancy under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment. I move it to clarify an apparent misunderstanding that occurred in Committee between my noble friend Lord Gray, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, and myself, on how the tenant's improvements would be assessed in Schedule 1. This amendment makes clear that the tenant's improvements will be assessed at their current rather than their written-down value. If my noble friend tells me that my amendment is unnecessary—I suspect that he will do so, because he has kindly

981
written to me about it—I hope that he will be able to spell out where this is done in the Bill. It has given my advisers and myself some concern. I would suggest that, if necessary, it might be better to spell it out rather more clearly in the Bill by including a further amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I hope that I have the right point here. My understanding, before my noble friend moved the amendment, was that his worry was to ensure that if the landlord and tenant have agreed that a particular tenant's improvement should be written down to £1 by a certain date for the purposes of calculating compensation under the Agricultural Holdings Act, that agreement should not spill over into the calculation of the tenant's fraction for quota compensation. It would clearly be wrong if there was any such spillover effect.
I hope that that is my noble friend's point. I was not quite sure from the way in which my noble friend moved the amendment that I had it right. If indeed I am on the right point, I am advised that it is not necessary to make a specific provision to prevent it as the legal position is clear already. An agreement between the landlord and tenant for valuation for compensation under the holdings Act would not be relevant to the valuation for calculating the tenant's fraction under paragraph 7 of Schedule 1.
When a valuer is asked to assess the rental value of an improvement for the purposes of paragraph 7, the question to which he will have to address himself is what value did that improvement actually have at the end of the relevant period, normally 1983? There is no statutory provision that would justify the valuer taking account of any arbitrary written-down value that might have been agreed for other purposes. I hope that I have got the point right and that, in the light of the assurance that I have given, my noble friend Lord Stanley will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. He has understood the point correctly. I tried to nod to him but he was looking the other way. I accept the point that he is making. I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 22, line 32, leave out ("freehold and leasehold").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is simply being tabled with the aim of improving the clarity of our intention. Our intention has always been that the arbitrator should be able to look at the value of the quota taken into account in paragraph 9 of Schedule 1. We referred to freehold and leasehold interests, since they are the most obvious type of transactions which are undertaken. However, on reflection we felt that the reference to freehold and leasehold may be too restrictive. For this reason this amendment would delete the reference to freehold and leasehold. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Airedale): My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 38 I have to say that if this were agreed to, I could not call Amendments Nos. 39 or 40.
[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendments Nos. 39 and 40;
Page 28, line 6, after second ("year") insert ("(including any arrangement which would have effect as if it were such a tenancy by virtue of section 2 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 if it had not been approved by the Minister).")
Page 28, line 7, leave out ("the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 applies") and insert ("that Act applies (or would apply apart from section 5 of that Act);").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend I beg to move Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 en bloc. They were spoken to with Amendment No. 19.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 41 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 42 not moved.]
Lord Burton Lord Burton moved Amendment No. 42A:
Page 10, line 32, leave out paragraph (d).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I regret that these amendments have been put down inadvertently in the name of my noble friend Lord Astor, which may have surprised some of your Lordships. I am not quite sure of his involvement in crofting.
In moving Amendment No. 42A may I also speak to Amendments Nos. 42B and 42C and Amendments Nos. 43A to 43G. Your Lordships have shown your general displeasure over the whole of these quota proposals, but there is no bigger unfairness in them than the references to crofters. Your Lordships may remember that I raised this matter in Committee, but we had no time to consider it before an amendment was lodged by the Minister. The Minister would not have known the answers and I therefore gave him warning that I would be raising the matter now.
First, I discovered that there appears to be a handful of crofters with milk quotas. I think there are possibly 16, but the exact number is a little uncertain. If this proposed legislation was implemented, there would be a disgraceful injustice placed on the landlords. With regard to the landlord, let me say it is doubtful whether the legislation would stand up in the Court of Human Rights as there is such an injustice here. It is possible that our own courts might not agree to it. I should think that the first case that came up would certainly be taken to law. The situation is that the landlord is not in a position to use the quotas in any way. They are attached to the land and the landlord would almost certainly not be allowed to take the land in hand. He is allowed to do so for specific purposes, but not for the purpose of farming it. Indeed, he is not allowed to choose his tenant.
The Crofters Commission dictates within small bounds who may and who may not be a tenant of the croft. It hardly ever permits the landlord to take the croft in hand. Indeed, according to the legislation, the landlord might well have to produce perhaps £20,000

983
or even £30,000 for something that he could not use and could not dispose of. A crofter or somebody wanting to be a crofter with £20,000 to £30,000 plus the capital cost of the croft compensation would not be a person that the Crofters Commission considered to be of crofting status. He would, therefore, not be considered eligible to be a tenant of the croft.
Furthermore, crofting rents are about one-seventh or one-eighth only of the open market rent. As a result the compensation that will have to be paid to a crofter under the legislation will be very substantially greater than that paid to normal dairy farm tenants. To apply the same regulations to ordinary farms and crofts would be entirely inequitable. Why has the Crofters Commission failed to draw attention to this, I wonder?
If one looks at this from the position of the crofter, if he wishes to buy his croft—which, of course, he is allowed to do, whether or not the landlord likes it—he will presumably have to pay a share of the value of the quota to the landlord, who will have done nothing to earn it. One can imagine how popular that will be with the crofting tenant. If the crofter wishes to assign his croft, he is liable to have his estate increased in value by the value of the quota, and there seems some doubt about the resulting tax position.
The Crofters Commission is virtually the landlord, except that it does not receive the rent, although it does decide who shall be the tenant. It therefore seems only reasonable that if any compensation is to be paid it should be done by the Crofters Commission, not by the landlord. However, I feel that it would be much better to adopt my proposals and remove anything to do with crofting from the Bill. I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Gray of Contin): The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, who tabled the amendments, and my noble friend Lord Burton, who spoke to them, will realise, I am sure, that the effect of the amendments would be to disqualify crofters from receiving compensation for milk quota. I am aware that there are at least 16 crofting tenants who have been allocated milk quotas. To deny them the right to milk compensation which will be available to all other tenant dairy farmers would be wholly wrong and quite unjustifiable. In terms of dairy fanning and milk quotas, they are no different from their colleagues who hold their land under different tenure codes.
The nature of crofting tenure is such that it is fair to say that crofters will be among those who derive greatest benefit from the compensation arrangements. This is only right and proper since all the dairy development and any quota level achieved beyond what might be expected for crofting land will all have been at the tenant's expense and effort. The landlord's contribution in most crofting cases will have been the provision of bare land. If crofting rents are lower than the average, it is merely a reflection of that situation. It is also important to realise that the crofting landlord will be left with a greatly enhanced asset.
Similar considerations, of course, apply in the case of small landholders. I must repeat that to exclude crofters from these provisions would in my view and
984
(I am sorry to use the expression to my noble friend Lord Burton) be monstrously unfair and wholly discriminating. Clearly, quota compensation creates a new situation. This is a matter which we shall have to discuss with the Crofters Commission. The Crofters Commission would not unreasonably withhold consent.
My noble friend Lord Burton also raised the matter of tax. I must tell him that the value of a lease which is being passed on in succession is, of course, not subject to inheritance tax. My noble friend Lord Burton had a fairly reasonable discussion this afternoon with some of my officials and raised a great many queries with them. I have a note of the queries and of the answers which he received. However, as this is a matter which has a rather restricted area of interest, and as my noble friend Lord Burton has already been given the answers, it would perhaps be unnecessary for me to weary the House at this late hour by going through them all. However, I trust that the information which my noble friend was given will be satisfactory to him.
I am sorry that I cannot accept the amendments for reasons which I believe are wholly justified. In those circumstances, I wonder whether my noble friend would consider withdrawing the amendments which have been tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Burton: My Lords, the only crumb of comfort that I have received from that answer is that my noble friend on the Front Bench will discuss the matter with the Crofters Commission. The commission no doubt knows the position.
My noble friend has tried to compare crofting rents which are on a so-called fair rent basis. If my noble friend looks back to when the crofting legislation went through your Lordships' House he will recollect a very clear discussion on what was or was not a fair rent. "Fair rent" is not a fair term for the rent which crofters pay. It is a very different matter from open market rents. The whole system is very different indeed. My noble friend must look at the situation. It is not being unfair to crofters.
If the crofter wishes to buy his croft he will have to pay the landlord for something for which he has not received any cash. He has been given his quota, but part of that quota will be paid to the landlord. This legislation will be no more attractive to the crofter than to the landlord.
If there is to be any compensation paid, the people who ought to be paying it are the Crofters Commission. They are the people who say who is and who is not to be the tenant of a croft. On many occasions they have refused to allow us to have on our property the tenants that we wanted, and on a number of occasions they have given us tenants that we particularly did not want. Therefore, to pay the whole of this sum—perhaps £20,000 or £30,000—of compensation to a crofter, when the croft itself may not be worth anything like that, is unreasonable. I know that there is no point in dividing the House

985
tonight. However, I feel very strongly about the matter. It is with the greatest reluctance that I must beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, before my noble friend withdraws his amendment, and with the leave of the House, perhaps I may make two points to him. First, as regards buying the croft, no compensation would be payable. If the croft were being bought it would rule out the question of compensation. The crofter and his landlord are free to agree between themselves as to what the rent for a croft should be and the period for which it should stand. The figure set will be the rent for so long as the agreement lasts and thereafter until a new agreement is entered into, or alternatively the Scottish Land Court on application by either landlord or tenant fixes a different rent.
Once the court has fixed a fair rent it cannot normally be altered for a period of seven years except by agreement between the crofter and the landlord. When a croft falls vacant and is relet again, the court will not normally alter the rent fixed for a period of seven years or such longer period as may have been agreed between the parties. The basic principle behind fair rents is that the crofter shall not pay rent on buildings or other improvements which have been provided or paid for by himself or by anyone who preceded him in tenancy.
Lord BurtonMy Lords, I do not think that I am entitled to speak again on this matter. However, my noble friend must take great care about investigating some of these matters. I am certain that he is wrong, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 42B and 42C not moved.]
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 43:
After Clause 13, insert the following new clause:—
("Rent arbitrations: milk quotas.

.—(1) Where there is a reference under section 12 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 (arbitration of rent) in respect of land which comprises or is part of a holding in relation to which quota is registered under the Dairy Produce Quotas Regulations 1986 which was transferred to the tenant by virtue of a transaction the cost of which was borne wholly or partly by him, the arbitrator shall (subject to any agreement between the landlord and tenant to the contrary) disregard—

(a) in a case where the land comprises the holding, any increase in the rental value of the land which is due to that quota (or, as the case may be, the corresponding part of that quota); or

(b)in a case where the land is part of the holding, any increase in that value which is due to so much of that quota (or part) as would fall to be apportioned to the land under those Regulations on a change of occupation of the land.

(2) In determining for the purposes of this section whether quota was transferred to a tenant by virtue of a transaction the cost of which was borne wholly or partly by him—

(a) any payment made by the tenant in consideration for the grant or assignment to him of the tenancy or any previous tenancy of any land comprised in the holding, shall be disregarded;

(b) any person who would be treated under paragraph 2? 3 or 4 of Schedule 1 to this Act as having had quota transferred to him or having paid the whole or part of the cost of any transaction for the purposes of a claim under that Schedule shall be so treated for the purposes of this section; and

(c) any person who would be so treated under paragraph 4 of that Schedule if a sub-tenancy to which his tenancy is subject had terminated, shall be so treated for the purposes of this section.

986

(3) In this section—

"quota" and "holding" have the same meanings as in the Dairy Produce Quotas Regulations 1986;
"tenant" and "tenancy" have the same meanings as in the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has been spoken to earlier with Amendment No. 11.I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Scotland: tenants' compensation for milk quota]:
[Amendments Nos. 43A to 43H not moved.]
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 33, line 6, leave out ("Minister") and insert ("Secretary of State").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps for the convenience of the House I may speak to Amendments 44 and 45. These amendments are merely clarifying amendments. In the absence of a definition of the term "Minister" of general applica-tion throughout the Bill, it is necessary to refer specifically to the "Secretary of State" in the Scottish schedule, Schedule 2. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 33, line 30, leave out ("Minister") and insert ("Secretary of State").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 34, line 24, leave out. ("keeping of dairy cows") and insert ("feeding, accommodation or milking of dairy cows kept").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, for the convenience of the House, perhaps I may speak to Amendments Nos. 46, 47 and 48. These are merely drafting amendments carrying through to the remainder of paragraph 7 in Schedule 2 the more precise definition contained in paragraph 7(1)(b) qualifying the tenants' improvements and fixed equipment and the land to be considered in the calculation of the tenant's fraction. These amendments do not alter the effect of the original wording. I beg to move.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I am afraid that they do alter the situation. The word "accommodation", which is one of the words mentioned here (as I said earlier when I think my noble friend was not in the Chamber), could apply to beef cattle or sheep, or anything else at the same time. I would suggest to him that he looks carefully at this, and that instead of the wording he has put down he should use the words "specifically adapted for dairy cows". This would cover the situation that he is clearly seeking to cover.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I must say to my noble friend that even if I were persuaded by his argument I should find it impossible to accept it in those terms. The terms of Amendments 46, 47 and 48 are clearly stated on the Marshalled List. They are to,
"leave out ('keeping of dairy cows') and insert ('feeding, accommodation or milking of dairy cows kept')",

987
in Amendment 46. In Amendment 47, it is proposed to leave out,
"('keeping of dairy cows') and insert ('feeding, accommodation or milking of dairy cows kept')".
In the case of Amendment 48,
"('keeping of dairy cows')"
is to be left out and,
('feeding, accommodation or milking of dairy cows kept')"
is to be inserted.
My best information is that these words have been carefully selected and achieve the object that we have in mind. With respect to the noble Lord, while I am grateful for his assistance, I think I must stick to the words on the Marshalled List.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 46A and 46B not moved.]
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 35, line 9, leave out ("keeping of dairy cows") and insert ("feeding, accommodation or milking of dairy cows kept").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 35, line 9, leave out ("keeping of dairy cows") and insert ("feeding, accommodation of milking of dairy cows kept").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 36, line 1, leave out ("in the open market").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I believe that arbiters and the Scottish Land Court must be able to make use of all the evidence available in determining the value of quota under paragraph 9 of Schedule 2. This paragraph as it stands confines that evidence to sums paid on the open market for interests in land. It would in this connection be wrong to ignore such evidence as may be to hand relating to private transactions. In the early cases of quota valuation at least there will not be a great deal of evidence of any type available to arbiters, and therefore a restriction which cuts out a significant body of evidence would be unwise. This amendment removes that restriction. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 36, line 20, leave out ("section") and insert ("sections 77 and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, for the convenience of the House perhaps I may speak to Amendments Nos. 50 and 51. When the Secretary of State is a party to an arbitration the Scottish Land Court appoints the arbiter rather than the Secretary of State. These amendments make it clear that this will also be the case in an arbitration to determine milk quota compensation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 37, line 6, leave out ("section") and insert ("sections 77 and").
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 37, line 12, at end insert—
("(4A) in the case of an arbitration under this paragraph, section 61 of the 1949 Act (determination of claims for compensation where landlord's interest is divided) shall apply, where the circumstances require, as if compensation payable under paragraph 2 above were compensation payable under that Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment applies Section 61 of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1949 to an arbitration under Schedule 2. Section 61 deals with the situation where the subjects of let are divided between several proprietors and the rent has not been apportioned. Section 61 entitles the tenant to require that any compensation payable to him is determined as if the holding had not been so divided and the arbiter shall where necessary apportion the amount awarded between the persons who together constitute the landlord and the holding. The section further provides that any additional expenses of the award covered by the apportionment shall be paid by the proprietors in such proportion as the arbiter shall determine. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 14 [Duty to balance interests in exercise of agricultural functions ]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 11, line 14, after ("features") insert ("and of any features of archaeological interest there").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment will put into the Bill a requirement on agriculture Ministers to take account of the need to conserve and enhance any features of archaeological interest in the countryside. Your Lordships debated this point in Committee on an amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu. I explained then that it had always been our intention that archaeological features should fall within the scope of this clause but I appreciated that there might be some element of doubt in the present wording. I was then very ready to accept my noble friend's amendment in principle and undertook, having looked more carefully at the precise wording, to bring forward this amendment today. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
10 p.m.
Earl Peel Earl Peel moved Amendment No. 54:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause:
("Capital grants

.—(1) In section 28 of the Agriculture Act 1970 there shall be added to the definition of "agricultural business" the following words—

"and, for the purposes of capital grants, includes such ancillary farm-based businesses as the Ministers may, from time to time by order specify."

(2) Orders made under subsection (1) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, subject to annulment in pursuance of a Resolution of either House of Parliament.")

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I put down this amendment purely as a precaution, but I am delighted to say that, as I expected would happen, my noble friend Lord Belstead was as good as his word and Amendment No. 62A is the official Government

989
amendment for the extension of agricultural grants to cover ancillary farm-based businesses. I must say to my noble friend, if I may speak to his amendment at the same time in order to speed up matters, that I should like to thank him for having brought his amendment forward. I know that he has had, if I may say so, a certain battle on his hands, and I am therefore particularly grateful to him for having come forward with an amendment which is really much wider than I, and I feel many other people who spoke to the matter originally, had hoped for.
If I may, I should like to ask him a question directly connected to the amendment which he will be moving; that is, Amendment No. 62A. I am curious to know what the "appropriate authority" refers to. I should like to raise one further point, if I may. In my original amendment I included extending grants to tourism and craft industries outside the less favoured areas. Because of the certainty of objections from the European Commission I withdrew that from this amendment and it does not appear in my noble friend's amendment either. But I would urge him and the Government to put pressure on the European Commission perhaps in future to try to get this extended, because I feel that it would make a difference to farms outside the less favoured areas. We tend to think that all the impoverished farms are within those areas, but this is simply not the case. I beg to move.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to my noble friend on the Front Bench for what he has done in this field, and to thank him also for no less than three letters to me on the topic, to which I should like to make some brief response. The amendment of my noble friend Lord Peel was, and still is, specifically on the question of grants. The amendment in the name of my noble friend on the Front Bench, No. 62A, is also on the matter of grants.
I wonder whether my noble friend on the Front Bench can make it clear when he responds that, welcome as it always is, except for the grants for tourism and crafts in the less favoured areas—which have been, as it were, available for the last 14 years and which at last were taken up a year ago—every other extension beyond tourism and crafts in the less favoured areas and into tourism and crafts and any other form of diversification outside the less favoured areas will require further negotiations with the Commission. Let us hope that my noble friend will be as successful with them as he has been with our own Treasury.
Turning from grants to planning, I am particularly grateful for what my noble friend had to say about that. I think there is a considerable amount of work still ahead of us in order to modify the background against which all town and country planning has been done since the war—reserving all the best land for agriculture alone and operating as though agriculture was the mainstay of the rural economy, which, alas, it no longer is.
May I also particularly welcome the arrangements which he and I have been able to come to, in my capacity as chairman of the South-East Regional Planning Conference, for setting up a rural issues
990
group and focusing studies and research on these knotty problems in that particular area. My only regret is that we did not start all this about five years ago, in which case we would have been in a much better position to help the farmers than we are today. But at least we have now made a start, and I am grateful to my noble friend.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, before my noble friend Lord Peel withdraws Amendment No. 54, as he referred to Amendment No. 62A may I speak to that amendment so that it does not have to be spoken to again? Amendment No. 62A is supposed to be the Government response to the very cogent case which my noble friend Lord Peel, together with my noble friend Lord Sandford, put forward at Committee stage. My noble friend Lord Peel presented the case for an amendment similar to No. 62A in Committee, and has really played a great part in bringing this issue before the House. I would just say to your Lordships that this issue has been pursued all the way through another place, and it is my two noble friends who have brought it to finality today. In Committee I said we would do what we could, and Amendment No 62A is the response.
I think that for the record I must just say this. We have all the while tried to say that we were very sympathetic to the case for on-farm diversification, but that there were several difficulties. One of them, uppermost in our minds, was really a problem of ministerial powers. How far, for example, was it appropriate for the Ministry of Agriculture to venture into the field of non-agricultural enterprises—a field in which a number of other highly-skilled agencies, notably the Development Commission and the tourist boards, are already doing excellent work?
However, your Lordships will have noticed that the new clause in Amendment No. 62A would restrict the grants to enterprises carried out on the same, or adjacent, land, and by the same person as the relevant agricultural business. The new enterprise would therefore be centred on an existing farm business. Quite clearly, over many years the Ministry of Agricul-ture has developed considerable expertise in helping farmers to identify and mobilise the resources of their businesses into other enterprises. It is that, and the universal support for my noble friend's amendment, that has convinced the Ministry that we would be the appropriate agency for giving grants in the field.
The other thing which, for the record, I must say is that difficulty exists over the availability of funding for new grants of this sort. My noble friend Lord Sandford made the point that grants for crafts and tourism are restricted. Yes, they are restricted to the less favoured areas, because that is what the Commission requires them to be; but, of course, the less favoured areas in this country are now enormously extended, compared to what they were a year and half ago, as a result of a successful negotiation by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, in Europe for the extension of the LFAs in England and Wales.
We are left, so far as this amendment is concerned, with the question: where is the money going to come from? I have to say to your Lordships that we have not yet been able to resolve that. Therefore, we shall need to give further thought to how any new grants could be

991
financed; but I recognise that your Lordships believe this is to be an appropriate moment for the Ministry of Agriculture to take powers which have been urged on us by my noble friends. When I come to Amendment No. 62A, I shall move that amendment.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships, and in particular to my noble friend Lord Sandford, for having somewhat jumped the gun. I now beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 55:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause:—
("Keeping bulls on land crossed by public rights of way.

.—(1) Section 59 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (prohibition on keeping bulls on land crossed by public rights of way) shall have effect subject to the amendments provided for by subsections (2) to (4).

(2)In subsection (2) paragraph (b) shall be omitted.

(3)Subsections (4) and (5) shall be omitted.

(4). After subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsections:—

"(4) On the application of an occupier who wishes to permit a bull to be at large in a field or enclosure crossed by a right of way to which this Part applies, a council may, subject to subsections (5) (6) and (7) below, order the temporary diversions of the right of way.

(5) A temporary diversion order made under subsection (4) above shall continue in force for a period of not more than 4 months from the coming into operation thereof and no subsequent order shall be made under that subsection as respects any length of right of way to which the previous order relates unless a period of 12 months has expired from the time when the previous order took effect.

(6) In deciding whether to make an order under subsection (4) above the council shall take into account the interests of users of the right of way but shall not unreasonably refuse to consent to the making of an order.

(7) The council may make an order under subsection (4) above either in terms of the application or, after consulting the applicant, in such other terms or subject to such conditions as they think fit.

(8) If, within a period of 6 weeks from the receipt of a written application, the council fails either to determine the application or to notify their decision to the applicant, the application shall (subject to the provisions of subsection (5) above) be deemed to have been granted and the council shall forthwith make the order under subsection (4) above.

(9) On the making of an order under subsection (4) above the council shall forthwith cause a copy of the order, together with a plan at a scale of not less than 1:10,000 illustrating the effect of the order, to be sent—

(a) to any other council or parish or commmunity council, in whose area the right of way is situated;

(b) to any organisation prescribed to receive copies of public path diversion orders for that area; and

(c) any person to whom the council is required to give notice of a public path diversion order under the pro- visions of paragraph 1, (3A) to part 1 of schedule 6 to the Highways Act 1980;

and to be displayed, and maintained for the period of the diversion, in a prominent position at the ends of the diversion.

(10) It shall be the duty of the council to be satisfied that the diverted right of way is, throughout the period of the diversion properly signposted throughout its length, and the provision of any necessary signposts may be included in an agreement under subsection (11) below.

(11) An order under this section temporarily diverting a right of way—

(a) shall not affect the line of the right of way on land not occupied by the applicant,

(b) shall not divert any part of the right of way on to land not occupied by the applicant, unless written consent to the making of the order has been given by the occupier of that land, and by any other person whose consent is needed to obtain access to the land,

992

(c) may require as a condition of the taking effect of the order the provision and maintenance, for the duration of the order, of any necessary facilities for the convenient use of the diversion,

and the council may enter into an agreement with the applicant for the provision and maintenance of any such facilities by the council at the expense of the applicant.

(12) In this section "council" has the meaning given to it by section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment we return to the subject which we discussed at not very great length at Committee stage—namely, the change in the law made by Section 59 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 which allowed farmers to run beef bulls over a certain age on fields crossed by public rights of way as long as they were with cows and heifers.
I return to this point, after withdrawing the amendment at Committee stage, for two reasons. First, at that stage the Government had not received the information they had requested from the Ramblers Association about the number of cases which had been reported to the association where people had encountered bulls in fields crossed by public rights of way and where they had either been chased from the field or frightened or had some other unpleasant experience. The other reason I withdrew the amendment which I tabled at Committee stage was because a number of your Lordships and the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, in particular as well as the Countryside Commission all said that the procedures which I had in that amendment for temporarily diverting rights of way were unnecessarily bureaucratic and complex.
I consulted the Countryside Commission about this. A meeting was held by the Countryside Commission with other interests also present—the National Farmers' Union, the Ramblers Association and others. The Countryside Commission has provided a draft which is now my Amendment No. 55 in which it has, I hope successfully, tried to come up with a much simpler formula where basically a fanner who applied for a diversion would automatically get one and would know that he was going to get one within six weeks unless some fairly exceptional circumstances applied.
I should make it clear first of all that this amendment is not supported by the Ramblers Association. The association feels that the amendment has gone too far in allowing temporary diversions of rights of way. It thinks it would be open to abuse and that farmers would be able to divert rights of way where they do not need to. It opposed the amendment for that reason. I personally would confess to having some worries about it myself. But it seems to me that the problems caused by the change of the law in 1981 are so great that, if we can in Parliament find a compromise which will prevent walkers being injured and possibly in future killed by bulls, we should try to find it. It is for that reason that I tabled the amendment, which, as I say, has the support of the Countryside Commission, although not, I suspect, of the National Farmers' Union and not, certainly, of the Ramblers Association. Whether or not that makes it a reasonable compromise other noble Lords may care to comment on.
The only other point I wanted to make in introducing the amendment is that since the Ramblers Association produced a dossier of cases for the Government I have received a large number of letters—about 20 or 30—from people who have encountered bulls on public rights of way. These were not included in the dossier. I think there was a feeling from some noble Lords at Committee stage that this was not really a very serious problem and did not apply to very many people. I would simply say that every time there is any publicity about this matter when I have been involved or when the name of the Ramblers Association has been mentioned, a large number of letters have arrived, many describing incidents that happened some time ago but all, of course, since 1981.
Very quickly, to give your Lordships some idea of this—and I have no intention of going through all 20 or 30 letters—perhaps I may mention a few of them. Some people wrote to me about an incident in Devon where they were following a signposted public footpath. They were confronted by a bull and got away only by jumping into a ditch full of water. They made the point that at the time they were 20 years old and fit. It would have been a different story had they been elderly or with children or whatever. Another letter from Devon described an incident which occurred when somebody following a path went through a gap in a line of trees. As he went through the gap he came face to face with a large Charolais bull which had been out of sight until that point. I hope that will convince people that it is not always possible when you enter a field to know whether or not there is going to be a bull in it. In that case, the person had to climb out of the side of the field, leaving the right of way.
In a large number of the letters I have received it has been a case, as in previous correspondence, of people walking with young children. In October of last year a mother walking with her daughter on a footpath in Hertfordshire noticed some cows as they walked through the field but some way further on went round a corner in the field and found a bull blocking the path. They had to get out across the hedge.
Someone writing from Essex was on holiday in Somerset and was following a walk with waymarked coloured signs showing them where to go. They were confronted by a large white bull, presumably a Charolais or a Limousin. The children with them were aged 12 and 9. The adults were frightened, not so much for their own safety but for that of the children.
So it goes on. A family from Norfolk who were walking in Norfolk were unable to complete a walk because they met a bull and were frightened that the children would be attacked by it. Finally, there was another incident where a group of children were being taken for a walk in the countryside by two teachers and another adult. They were in a field and suddenly a bull appeared with, as they said, enormous horns. They had to huddle the children together and retreat backwards out of the field to the stile. The teacher who wrote to me said it was an extremely unnerving experience and they felt it was lucky that none of the children was injured.
It is because of what I believe are a large number of incidents of that sort that I am convinced somebody
994
will be injured or killed if the law is not changed. I hope that in replying to this amendment the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will be able to comment on the Countryside Commission's view, put to me in writing, that this amendment as drafted represents a reasonable compromise. I hope the noble Lord can also say whether the Government still believe, now that they have some details of incidents, that the law as it was changed in 1981 makes it safe for people to walk through fields where there are bulls grazing with cows and heifers and whether the Government are still convinced that nobody will be seriously injured, or killed, if the law remains unamended. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I have great sympathy with this amendment. I must confess that when the subject of bulls was discussed during the passage of the 1981 Bill—it is dealt with in what is now Section 59 of the Act—I was not particularly interested in this subject. I was not turned on; I believe that is the phrase. But since then I have met a bull on a public footpath in an area of outstanding natural beauty and my interest has been sharpened considerably. It was a large Hereford bull confined between two hedgerows. It was not looking at all friendly. It was not turned stern on, or whatever is the expression in farming phraseology, and it was facing me. I turned a corner and there it was. I suspect that the farmer was using that section of the footpath temporarily as a pen. I did not stop to ask the bull its age; I turned tail and fled.
Clause 14 of the Bill lays upon Ministers responsibility for achieving a balance between, among other things, agriculture and enjoyment of the countryside. There can be no doubt that on that occasion the balance was tilted heavily in favour of agriculture. I think it follows, as night follows day, that this amendment should be agreed to.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, unlike my noble friend Lord Hunt I was deeply interested and involved in this matter when it was discussed in the debates on the Wildlife and Countryside Bill away back in 1981. Indeed, at that time I felt very strongly that the arrangements we came to under Section 59 of that Act would not be satisfactory. I think that events which have taken place since then have shown that 1 was entirely right.
The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, brought this matter to our attention at the Committee stage of the Bill and, as he rightly said, his amendment was objected to by many noble Lords in all parts of the Committee on the ground that it laid an unnecessarily onerous burden —an administrative and bureaucratic burden—on farmers and local authorities in working that particu-lar clause. I am bound to say that with the help of the Countryside Commission the new form of words introduced by the noble Lord removes that objection. I do not believe that the arrangements outlined in the amendment are unnecessarily burdensome adminis-tratively, and I think that they are matters which could easily be dealt with by landowners and local authorities.
When this matter was dealt with and discussed at Committee stage, it seemed to me that it was dealt with on the opposite side of the Chamber with a degree

995
of levity which frankly made it appear that many noble Lords did not understand the seriousness of the problem. It was said to us, in particular by the noble Earl, Lord Enniskillen, I think, that people who went to the country ought to learn about it and ought to know all about bulls. Indeed they should, but I would say that those noble Lords who are fortunate enough to own land through which pass public rights of way, and particularly land in national parks—and I happen to be one of them—are very privileged indeed, but they also have certain responsibilities. I think that they have a responsibility to see that the rights of those who use the public footpath are properly protected, and indeed that those rights are properly enjoyed by the people concerned.
I, too, have received the list of cases sent by the Ramblers Association, and it is deeply impressive and very worrying. It shows not only that a very large number of people have been frightened but that some people have been quite seriously injured by bulls being run in bits of land through which pass public rights of way—and it is by bulls who are present under the arrangements under Section 59 that many of these people have been injured.
The allegation made at Committee stage was that townspeople ought to learn a little more about the country. The cases that have been presented by the Ramblers Association, and which I am quite sure have been brought to the notice of the Minister by the Ramblers Association, show that many of the people injured were not townspeople but farmers, farmers' wives, stockmen and herdsmen. Indeed, these cases also show that there were just as many people injured, and indeed killed—because some have been killed—by beef bulls as by dairy bulls.
I think the facts that we have been given from the Ramblers Association show that it is time that we took some steps in this matter. I do not know whether we can take these particular steps, but we really must do something. I have some kind of interest in the public footpaths, particularly the long-distance routes pioneered by the Countryside Commission, and it has been my feeling since the passing of the Act and the new arrangements under Section 59 that there has been an attitude of increasing indifference by certain farmers—not all, certainly—to the rights of those who use the footpaths. In the area where I live in the Lake District, I have spoken with a neighbouring farmer who I know very well and who keeps a bull in a field which has a public footpath. It is the same path that goes through my land. The bull's name, if any of your Lordships are interested, is Cedric. I said to the farmer, "Is he dangerous?" "He is that", he replied. "What about the footpath?" I asked. "Would you walk down it?" "No," he said; "I would go in the tractor".
I really think that where a farmer or landowner knows that a bull may be running in land through which there is a public footpath—quite properly under the present arrangements—and where he knows that it might constitute a danger to people walking along that footpath, then that farmer or landlord has a duty to put up a notice or to draw this fact to the attention of those people using the footpath.
I think that the arrangements in the noble Lord's amendment provide an admirable solution. Certainly
996
some solution must be found, and I hope that we do not have to wait until we have a fatality—we certainly will have such a fatality in due course—involving someone sufficiently famous and distinguished to reach all the headlines in the newspapers. Then we shall take action very rapidly. I hope that we shall take some action before that day, and I am very glad to support the amendment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I cannot support this amendment, and the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will know that I cannot. First of all, I am surprised that he has 100 per cent. support from the Countryside Commission. I must say that I have not had a brief to that effect. No doubt when he sums up he will say that he has had 100 per cent. support from the Countryside Commission.
Noble Lords know all my objections, but I shall deal with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, in particular. He thinks, quite misguidedly, that these paths only go across the land of the large landowners that he believes sit on these Benches. I am not a landowner, though my wife might be called a small landowner. These paths go across small farms. What does the small farmer do under the noble Lord's amendment, particularly the small farmer who farms in Anglesey, where there are footpaths all around the coast.? What does he do? He may have to talk to 25 other small farmers, and it is very difficult to get 25 farmers to agree. That is the first point.
Let us forget about the large landowner. I care about him, of course; I have been a tenant of one. But let us just think for one minute about the small farmer and the problem that he will have on his 20-acre holding. How is he to divert a footpath when he is next to the sea? If your Lordships can tell me, I shall do it, but I do not know how.
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, made his second point. He said that it was not walkers who were killed but me, the farmer, or my wife. With great sadness, I draw attention to a report published today by the Health and Safety Executive. I rang up to find out how many people were killed on farms last year. Out of a tragic figure of 70 or more, I think six were killed by bulls. They were all farm workers or farmers in gangs. I think it was Mr. Boswell, the chief inspector, who said that the reason why those accidents occurred throughout agriculture was, as I know only too well, that we cut corners. Why do we do that? I am speaking under privilege here, thank goodness, but I do a lot of naughty things because I am under pressure. The sun is coming; I have to make the hay. Then along comes the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, saying "You have to move this footpath, put up signs and everything else". I am under stress, as are all my farming neighbours. I make no bones about it. I cut corners.
Both noble Lords talked about balance. It is a question of balance. Seventy-seven or so people were killed on farms last year because we cut corners. The amendment would put another load on to my back and on to the backs of small farmers generally. Somebody may one day get hurt by a bull on a footpath; but somebody may get hurt crossing the street tonight. Putting more stress on the farmer on

997
balance will kill more farmers, their wives and farm workers. That is a point that I have not raised before; I shall not raise the old one again. I object to the amendment.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I shall not vote for the amendment, but the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has raised a matter which we ought to take slightly more seriously. A problem has arisen. Some people are frightened. If a bull can frighten the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, he must be extraordinarily brave; considering Everest and the Imphal, the bull should be made a Japanese general. There is a recognisable problem and something ought to be done about it.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I wish to speak briefly against the amendment. There is no point in repeating arguments that I put forward at Committee stage, but I should like just to take up cudgels with the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. While he was speaking, I read carefully page 16 of the Marshalled List. I cannot see that the amendment is anything but a complicated affair both bureaucratically and in practice, with notices being posted and signposts being put up for the length of the right of way. People would have to be consulted, and so on. I do not think the wording is a great deal better than last time in that respect. I have risen to speak to say just that.
If the amendment were enacted there would be rather a mess. There would be such confusion that the walkers, the ramblers and the bulls would all come together by accident. It is easy to leave signposts where they should not be, and little boys run away with notices posted across the countryside. I have been involved in diverting footpaths, and the notices usually disappear within 24 hours somehow or other. I hope that the amendment will be resisted.
10.30 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with what has been said by noble Lords opposite. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, mentioned some cases where there had nearly been fatal accidents. In the North of England and in the Yorkshire Dales national park I have been inundated with letters from small farmers who would be seriously inconvenienced if this proposal became law.
We have many cases where footpaths go through almost every other field. If farmers had to adhere to what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, suggests in this amendment, not only would their lives become extremely difficult, but they would incur great expense. They would no doubt have to resort to agricultural buildings as an alternative. It is a question of balance, as several noble Lords have said, but I urge all noble Lords to reject the amendment. It would be unworkable.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I see that there is a difficulty, which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has spelled out. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in a charming speech, if I may say so, pointed out how he had his wits sharpened. He said that as night follows day the amendment should be accepted. My night does not follow day in quite the same way as the noble Lord's.
998
The noble Lord had an experience with a bull. I had an experience when I went to Devon and went into a field. There was no bull there, but there were a couple of horses. They came towards me. When they were near me they reversed themselves and showed me the back end of their hooves. I found that a disagreeable and frightening experience. Bulls are not the only problem.
If people go into the country, they are bound to come up against country matters and country animals. My noble friend Lord Peel made a pertinent point that with so many small fanners and so many public footways, it would be an intolerable burden if they had to divert their paths.
The amendment is a considerable one. If a person wishes to put a beef bull in a field, which is the only way in which beef cattle are kept, he has to apply to the council. If the council has not agreed to the diversion within six weeks, various action is taken. When the council agrees, it has to send a plan of the change with a map to all the interested parties and local authorities. Signs have to be erected at the beginning and end and all the way down the new diversion. Presumably that all has to be done at somebody's expense. As my noble friend Lord Radnor said, all the signs are susceptible to being removed by people who like to use them as walking sticks and other such things.
This is a bureaucratic and lengthy amendment which would produce great problems if it were put into action. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will not press it. One accepts the difficulty that exists with animals in fields, whether they are cows, bulls or horses. On the whole, the system has worked reasonably well. The alterations suggested in the amendment would produce more complications than they would resolve.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, we have footpaths; they are rights of way. The public have the right to use them. We have stock on the farms which have the foothpaths. The farmer feels that he has the right to put the animals in the fields, particularly if he is a dairy farmer using a beef bull or has suckler herds with beef bulls.
The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has twice put forward amendments. He has produced this one on behalf of the Countryside Commission, a body which we all respect for what it does. Noble Lords opposite are nearly 100 per cent. against the amendment. They must produce a solution to the problem. Except for the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, noble Lords have merely condemned the amendment out of hand, as far as I can see, without producing a solution to a problem that we all know exists. Before we condemn the amendment of my noble friend Lord Melchett, which does seem slightly—well, actually a little more than slightly— bureaucratic and will cause difficulties, I would invite noble Lords to consider what is the solution to the problem if it is not something similar to what he has produced. I shall be interested to hear what the Government have to say before making any further comment.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: Reverting to what has been said about a sign, I should like to draw attention to an article in the Daily Telegraph in May this year, when under the heading "Horns of a Dilemma", there

999
was reference to a sign spotted by a reader on a footpath near Berwick-upon-Tweed. It said, "Warning. Bull loose in this field. Cross it at your own risk."
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I should like to reiterate what I said at Committee stage. There is a solution to the problem. It is progressively to divert footpaths on a permanent basis so that that they run along headlands and along routes that are more attractive to walkers and more practical for farmers.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I should like to reply to the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie. It is surely illegal already to have what I believe is called an animal of dangerous propensity out in a place where it is liable to affect the general public. I am worried as to where we draw the line. I have handled bulls, including Jersey bulls, for a long time. But the only animal that flattened me was a cow. The only other that nearly caused a good deal of damage was a roebuck. I happened, however, to be stronger than the roebuck.
Where do we draw the line? My noble friend Lord Ferrers referred to horses in a field. That is absolutely right. There can be some very dangerous stallions. A tame stag or a tame roebuck is extremely dangerous. Even a dog could be dangerous. One has to comply with the law. Another example could be ganders. Indeed, we had a buzzard on the ground that damaged several people. But, being a protected bird, we were not allowed to kill it. We had a cock pheasant that nearly every day put the fear of death into schoolchildren on their way home from school. However, it was out of season, so we could not kill it. Thousands of acres of parts of the country could be sterilised if we were to accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, there is a great deal of truth in what my noble friend Lord Burton has said. I was interested to hear my noble friends Lord Stanley and Lord Peel explain the problems for farmers, my noble friend Lord Stanley referring to land near the sea in Wales and my noble friend Lord Peel dealing with the uplands and the national parks of which he has knowledge, if an amendment of this kind were to be made. We are, incidentally, talking about the production of beef, in some cases through suckler herds. The production of high quality beef is what we rather hope farmers will concentrate upon instead of growing too many acres of cereals.
We are also concerned, if I may speak seriously, with the living of farming families. There really could be occasions where we should be talking about driving farming families out of business in regard to beef production if an amendment of this sort were made. Although the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has taken great trounble with the amendment in an effort to make it less bureaucratic, it nonetheless seeks to provide for making temporary path diversion orders for up to four months in a year. If this could not be done, the farmer would have no practical alternative to running his beef bull in a field.
Although this is in many respects simpler and therefore preferable to the previous amendment, the overwhelming objection to the amendment remains.
1000
As my noble friend Lord Ferrers said, this is a system that would present a heavy administrative burden at a time when we are striving to reduce the burden of bureaucracy and regulation. My noble friend referred to local councils which would be faced with considerable demands upon their staff and resources. I understand that, as a result of the meeting between the Countryside Commission, the Ramblers Association, and the National Farmers' Union, the local authorities made it quite clear that this amendment would create difficulties for them because of the administrative burden it would place on them.
My noble friend Lord Radnor made the point that this would have a very serious effect for farmers. What worries me is that it would require farmers to plan weeks in advance where their bulls would be on any given day and to deal with yet more paper work. I seriously wonder at the moment, when we are in a period which is approaching a drought, exactly how, if this amendment was agreed, one would organise where to keep beef cattle which had to be moved around quite a bit with the grass starting to dry up.
I am sorry, but I feel that I cannot make a very helpful response to either my noble friend Lord Onslow or the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, with regard to the point that something needs to be done. We have the compromise position which was reached in the 1981 Act. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, gave us wise advice; but the advice which he gave is a difficult matter on which to reach agreement, as all your Lordships will know.
I am very happy to look at this problem, but I am not happy to move away at the moment from the compromise which was reached in the 1981 Act. On balance I think very definitely that if we did so, it would result in a situation which would make life almost impossible for a farmer, be he small or big, who was keeping beef cattle on his farm.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down I wonder whether he would do me the courtesy of answering my specific question. I asked him, in the light of the cases which the Ramblers Association presented to the Government between Committee and Report stage, whether the Government still hold the view that it is safe for members of the public to walk on footpaths through fields where beef bulls are grazing with cows or heifers?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, that point is easily answered. The Ramblers Association has prepared a dossier of incidents where bulls may have presented a hazard to members of the public. The reports include just one incident in which a member of the public has been injured by a bull being kept in accordance with the 1981 Act. Even one incident is one too many. But we have to keep a sense of proportion. In saying that I think the balance of advantage lies very definitely against this amendment.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I was particularly disturbed to hear the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, begin his remarks by saying that there was a lot of truth in what the noble Lord, Lord Burton, had said, because I think that was rather an insult to the many hundreds of thousands of people who are concerned about this

1001
matter. The idea that some silly story about a cock pheasant is treating this problem with the seriousness which most noble Lords—at least on this side of the House—believe that it deserves is a little insulting coming from a Back-Bencher on the other side. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will reconsider that remark. The only danger that the noble Lord, Lord Burton, is likely to meet with a cock pheasant is if he shoots one and it plummets dead on top of his head. I dare say that there will be one or two walkers who, having read his remarks in your Lordships' House tonight, will hope that a cock pheasant will be prepared to commit the ultimate sacrifice on their behalf.
The noble Lord, Lord Burton, suggested that it was already illegal to keep dangerous animals in fields where the public had access. That is right. It is an offence under the Health and Safety at Work Act. The Health and Safety Executive has refused to issue advice as the Government said it would following the 1981 Act because the executive agrees with the Ramblers Association that the 1981 Act is wrong and that all beef bulls are dangerous and should not be put in fields crossed by public rights of way. The noble Lord, Lord Burton, is at least right on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, said that this will involve putting up a lot of extra signs. But it is already a legal requirement—I hope that the noble Lord is aware of this—to put up warning signs if a bull is grazing in the field. That is a legal requirement under the Health and Safety at Work Act, as no doubt the noble Lord knows. It seems to me that it is a question of either putting up warnings signs or putting up signs diverting the footpath. I cannot see in that respect that a great deal of extra work or trouble will be caused.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I did not say necessarily signs; I said extra work and extra stress. As my noble friend Lord Belstead said, we will not know where we are going to put them in two or three years' time.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, as I said, it should not involve extra work because the noble Lord should be putting up warnings signs as it is, and under my amendment he would be having to put up diversion signs. I do not see that that will involve extra work, as he suggests.
The noble Earl, Lord Peel, said that it would cause serious inconvenience to some farmers who had written to him. A number of noble Lords seem to have forgotten that over a great area of the country before 1981 there was a total ban on putting any bull in fields crossed by public rights of way. The suggestion that the 1981 provision was a compromise is ludicrous. Compromise involves some meeting of minds. There was a compromise agreed before 1981—that embodied in the amendment. The compromise between the National Farmers' Union and the Ramblers Association involved temporary diversions of footpaths. The provisions in the 1981 Act were not agreed by anyone representing people who walk in the country or anyone else who uses the countryside for recreation. They have been opposed consistently by all
1002
those interests, including now the statutory body responsible for giving advice on these matters.
While I accept that this certainly would cause some inconvenience for some farmers, it would be less than many farmers had to suffer before 1981 when no power of temporary diversions was available to them and there was a total ban on putting bulls in fields crossed by public rights of way.
The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, seemed to suggest that I might be misleading your Lordships' House in saying that the Countryside Commission supported the amendment. I have a letter dated 27th June from the head of the recreational access branch of the commission which says of the text of the amendment that it would,
"in our view achieve a fair and equitable balance of the various interests (farmers and landowners, users of rights of way and the local authorities) but at the same time ensure that the procedures to be followed in making a temporary diversion order are as simple as possible."
It seems to me that this is the last possibility that we have for a compromise on this issue. The compromise goes further, as I said, than the Ramblers Association is prepared to agree and than I should personally. The alternative which a number of noble Lords said should be suggested is to go back to pre-1981 and have a total ban on all bulls in fields crossed by public rights of way. If a compromise of this sort is not acceptable, that seems to me to be the only sensible solution. It is certainly one I will press for if the amendment, as I expect, is not accepted by your Lordships.
There has been a lot of laughing and smiling by noble Lords opposite about bulls and the dangers of other assorted animals with which people frequently no doubt come into contact in the countryside. I think that one noble Lord opposite at least might have had the courage of his convictions and said what a correspondent to Farmers Weekly said a couple of weeks ago about this amendment and the attempt to prevent a walker, probably a child or an elderly person, being seriously injured or killed by a bull. He said what I believe noble Lords opposite also believe.
"First, young children, invalids, old people, disabled persons and the like have no valid reason to be in fields in the countryside on isolated footpaths, even if accompanied by well-meaning guides".
That is what the conflict on this amendment is really about. Noble Lords opposite simply are not prepared to accept that a large number of people in the country have any right to use the public footpaths and the public rights of way granted to them by Parliament across private land. I believe that they have, and I believe that the amendment will make it safe for them to do so.
10.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 55) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 12; Not-Contents, 38.

DIVISION NO.3

CONTENTS

Crawshaw of Aintree, L.

Gallacher, L.

[Teller.]

Hunt, L.

David, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Melchett, L. [Teller]

1003

Morton of Shuna, L.

White, B.

Nicol, B.

Winstanley, L.

Stoddart of Swinton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Belstead, L.

Hives, L.

Boston, L.

Hooper, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Long, V. [Teller]

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Burton, L.

Middleton, L.

Caithness, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Carnock, L.

Northbourne, L.

Cathcart, E.

Onslow, E.

Craigton, L.

Peel, E.

Davidson, V.

Radnor, E.

De La Warr, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Renton, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Sandford, L.

Elton, L.

Savile, L.

Ferrers, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ferrier, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Trumpington, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Ullswater, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
10.57 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Earl Cathcart): My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 55 A, I should say that there has been a misprint, and the amendment should read, "County Councils shall have the power to make Landscape Conservation Orders" and not "designate Landscape Conservation Areas".
The Earl of Onslow The Earl of Onslow moved Amendment No. 55A:
After Clause 14, insert the following new Clause—
("Landscape Conservation Orders.
. County Councils shall have the power to make Landscape Conservation Orders.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, first of all I must say that I have no intention of dividing the House, or even hoping that this particular sentence will go into the Bill. I am moving the amendment because when it came up at the end of Committee stage last time I think we were running at least two hours late, my noble friend Lord Denham was looking very flustered and putting pressure on us all to get on, and I have a feeling that we did not air it enough. There is no hint of criticism of my noble friend Lord Denham for getting flustered. He was quite right to get flustered. We were all taking much too long and talking too much, and I might even say having unnecessary Divisions, but be that as it may.
I think that there is a need for the power of local authorities to make landscape conservation orders. Funnily enough I think the need for that power is greater outside national parks and even outside AONBs than within them. We have the precedent of the tree preservation order, which allows a local authority to keep trees but does not allow it, for some extraordinary reason, to keep small trees when they have been cut and laid and formed into a hedge.
We have all had the bits of paper, and I do not think that at this late hour one wants to go into the details of the cases where great damage has been done. There are obviously two dangers to the concept of landscape conservation orders, and one is the exact opposite of the other. One is that local authorities will make one
1004
at the first stirring of a minority in a local conservation area which has nothing better to do and will slap them on all over the place, and that will bring them into disrepute. The opposite of that is that they will not put them on enough because they will say, "It is too much 'aggro' and too much difficulty", and so on and so forth.
I think those of us who have even had bits of Laurence Gould second hand have realised that there is an opinion that perhaps the Wildlife and Countryside Act is not functioning as efficiently as it should be. I know that the Government are thinking along the lines of landscape conservation orders. I am hoping that I can get from my noble friend some views of how the Government's thinking is going. I do not want a commitment. All I want is a pre-Green Paperish sort of idea. Then I shall have great pleasure in withdrawing the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I want to emphasise that we are talking about landscape conservation orders and not areas. I apologise to your Lordships for the difficulty that has been caused. It was not the fault of the Office. There was a small upset on the way to the Office and that is why the printing has come out as it has.
I support the noble Earl in this amendment and I shall give a few more reasons why we have brought it forward tonight. The Association of County Councils and other bodies would like these reserve powers to preserve valuable features of the countryside; not as a matter of course, but only where voluntary agreement fails, as it does sometimes. If I may, I shall give one example: I do not want to waste too much of your Lordships' time. I shall not talk about national parks and the Broads, for I believe they have a degree of protection already and I know that the Government are considering having discussions with them about extending this kind of power.
I give one example of an area outside national parks, AONBs or anything else that one can mention. This is in Hampshire, near Whitchurch, where a chalk downland, not protected in any other way except by the local council—who declared it a country heritage site, which is its local term for saying that it is a desirable feature—has been badly damaged by motor cyclists. In this case the landowner was not interested in working with the county council to protect it. The council felt that if it had had a power of this kind it could have done something instead of waiting for the local population to be up in arms.
It would perhaps be to the advantage of farmers in the long run if we had this kind of power, because on the whole people do not mind too much what farmers do, but, when there is a special area about which they are concerned and which is dear to them either as an amenity or as a piece of natural beauty and they see it being destroyed, they cry out for planning controls on fanners. It seems to me that it woud be much better to avoid the demand for blanket planning controls by giving the county councils this reasonable power to protect these simple areas where there is a need.
As the noble Earl has said, there is no intention of pressing this to a Division. In view of the fact that dangers to these areas are likely to increase now that farming grants have been changed and there will be

1005
less pressure to grow things on the land, such areas will need protection in other ways. We want to know from the Government when their consultation document is likely to come out and whether they envisage legislation, say, in the next Session. I shall not go further than that because, after all, things may have changed after the next Session. Is it their intention to give priority to this legislation?
Lord Hunt: I am happy to be one of the sponsors of this amendment, having missed the opportunity of discussing the prospect of landscape conservation orders when it was discussed in Committee on 19th June. I was naturally glad to hear—indeed I knew already because the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Mrs Angela Rumbold, had told my council (the Council for National Parks) at an anniversary conference—that the Government are considering the possibility of making such orders available in national parks. But I feel that the Government ought to extend their view, their focus, more widely in the course of the consultations than they say they are going to. Indeed, I particularly hope that the Government will reconsider and have not closed their minds to the possibility of extending such orders, making them available in ESAs, in AONBs and in our green belts. I will not take the time of the House now but I could give examples of damage and destruction that has been caused in the green belt areas and in areas which are not in either of the other categories. I hope that the Government will continue their consultations on that comprehensive basis.
I regard it as significant that the Association of County Councils should be pressing for this kind of legislation. Indeed, they are pressing that the Government should come forward with legislation without undue delay. It is a measure which obviously has political connotations and the ACC would not be making such a pressing case if they were not confident of public support for it locally. It is a measure of the way that public interest is growing in the protection of the rural environment.
I think that many of your Lordships know that the availability of LCOs is also the view of the Council for the Protection of Rural England, the Council for National Parks (which I have the honour to preside over) and the Countryside Commission. I do not take the view that reserve powers of this kind and for this purpose threaten the voluntary principle. They exist already in respect of SSSIs under the 1981 Act, as everyone knows, and they have existed for nearly 40 years in regard to access agreements in the form of access orders to the countryside under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949.
There has never been any suggestion to my knowledge that their existence constitutes a threat; and I know of only one example where, in the case of access orders, such an order has had to be made. That was in the Peak District. I think you have only to ask any national park authority, particularly a national park officer, and planning officers and you will find that the final power to make such orders has greatly strengthened their hand in negotiating voluntary agreements. We are not asking the Minister, as the noble Earl has said, to commit the Government, as the
1006
ACC would have us do, to legislation. We are only asking that he should undertake to give the possible availability of landscape conservation orders countrywide—wider than national parks—due consideration during his consultations.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I rise not so much to support this particular amendment as to express the hope that in dealing with this and other matters like it to do with the protection of the countryside, we try to improve our track record and our rate of response. The nearest thing to a landscape conservation order on the statute book at the moment is the landscape area special development order. That has been there since 1950; that is to say, for 36 years.
When I came to review the national parks in 1972, they had been on the statute book for 22 years and up to that time they had been adopted in parts only of two national parks. It has taken another 14 years to get to the point where we have at last agreed to adopt them in the whole of the national parks and all efforts to get landscape area special development orders extended to AONBs etc. have so far been resisted.
This rate of response cannot continue. There is enormous public support for the protection of the best of the countryside and it really is building up trouble for the future if we respond as slowly as we have so far. So in giving general support for the idea of landscape conservation orders and for the publication of a consultation document, I would urge both my noble friend from the Ministry of Agriculture and my noble friend from the Department of the Environment to move with more decisiveness and despatch after the consultation process and to get these orders where they are needed in good time.
Lord Craigton: My Lords, I, too, signed the amendment put down at Committee stage, and I support very much the urgent need for something along the lines of conservation orders. I shall be very interested to hear what the Minister is going to say.
Baroness White: My Lords, I would hope that at the very least the Minister will be able to assure us on this occasion that the consultations will not be confined to national parks, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has said (and he and I are both very much concerned with national parks, as officers of the Council for National Parks) we recognise that at least in the parks one does have some measure of protection, and there are examples in parts of the country, which are not in designated areas at all, which require just this sort of protection for which the County Councils Association is now pressing.
It is clear one cannot simply ask the Government to accept this amendment as it now stands, although personally I wish very much that they had been sufficiently enthusiastic about this to have given themselves powers—not more than that, obviously— in this Bill; otherwise, we shall probably have to wait for a very long time before we get enabling legislation through the House. It seems to me that an opportunity has been missed, which is sad. But, I repeat, at the very least we should have an assurance that the consultation which has already been announced by the Minister for the Department of the Environment

1007
should cover a wider area than the national parks themselves.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, everyone is, quite rightly, concerned about conservation, and particularly over the last few years an immense amount of work has been done and many steps have been taken to ensure conservation. It seems to me that we have at the moment the national parks, sites of special scientific interest, areas of outstanding natural beauty, environ-mentally sensitive areas and landscape special development orders; and I would ask my noble friend to say when he replies whether he thinks there is some facet which is inadequately covered—because it seems to me that we have so many of these things and if we are not careful we are going to have yet more and nobody will know where they are or whether any part of their land is or is not covered by some order. While the conservation of the land and the countryside is quite correct and quite proper, I think we have to be careful not to cover ourselves with such a multitude of bureaucratic regulations that nobody knows where they are or how they are going to be operated.
Lord John-Mackie: The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has taken the words right out of my mouth, except that I had only four items listed and he had five: I did not know about the landscape development order which he mentioned. I would be worried not so much about this order which might come along, but rather about the question of who is to operate it and who is to decide about the landscaping. Is this going to mean a whole host of extra officials for the councils? I think we would need to know a little more about how it is going to be operated, who is to take the decisions and whether there will be a right of appeal, and so on.
As the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, says, I think we have plenty to be going on with, and as has been stressed by a whole lot of people—environmentalists, conservationists and so on—that they would like to have co-operation with land-owners and farmers. I would say that going ahead with order after order is not the way to get that co-operation.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, both noble Lords who have just spoken are right to say that we have a number of ways of designating the countryside, and there are a number of further designations which they have omitted to mention—Heritage Coast, for example. All these are fancy-sounding names for fancy bits of countryside, but very few of them contain any powers to protect those areas of the countryside. A major study of national parks undertaken a couple of years ago showed that whether you farmed or operated a business or anything else inside or outside a national park made little difference to whether developments went ahead, whether landscape was changed, hedges were lost, woodlands were lost, and so on.
The designation "area of outstanding natural beauty" is notorious for being largely meaningless when it comes to actually affecting the future of the conservation interests in the countryside. The same is true of many other designations. Sites of special scientific interest now have some very limited protection, but as the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, stressed at the Committee stage, the Government's
1008
approach, embodied in the 1981 Act, has been a voluntary one. So the protection for sites of special scientific interest, which are the most protected areas of the countryside, still rests on the voluntary agreement of the people who own and manage the land. There is no power of compulsion there which is peculiar to sites of special scientific interest, apart from a modest delaying power of nine or 12 months.
All these fancy titles do not mean much when it comes to affecting what actually happens on the ground. The significant difference, as I am sure both noble Lords recognise, in the proposal for landscape conservation orders is that they would actually give the public the power to say that something should not be destroyed. That is what makes them different from all these other things. For myself, I should prefer to take a simpler course, and one we discussed at Committee stage—namely, to extend the planning control system. Then you cover the whole countryside. You do not need to start parcelling up different areas and calling them fancy names which sound intimidating and mean very little. You control development when it is actually proposed to take place rather than make orders to protect things which people may not want to destroy, or, in the case of sites of special scientific interest and the Wildlife and Countryside Act, sites which they decide to destroy only when you offer them compensation for not doing it.
So there is a simpler system. It is to extend development control to cover agriculture and forestry developments. But in the absence of that, I hope the Government will at least make some rapid progress with landscape conservation orders.
11.15 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, talked about such conservation orders being extended outside of national parks. I agree with him. But I should just like to make one point. Everybody seems to think that things are totally protected in national parks. Yes, of course, we have the prior approval situation, but farmers can go ahead without grants. This point is very often forgotten.
Furthermore, a good many authorities now are rather frightened. They have become diffident about entering into management agreements because of the amount of money that is involved. If we had a power of last resort, if I may call it that, along these lines, it would certainly be an improvement.
Lord Belstead: My noble friend Lord Onslow put down this amendment because we covered the point at a very late hour in Committee and he wanted to probe a little more regarding the Government's announce-ment of a consultation paper on landscape conservation orders. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, asked what would be the timing. The consultation paper is now in hand within the Department of the Environment. The process of preparing a final text for issue is bound to involve consultation between my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues in other departments who have an interest in the scheme. At the moment I cannot give an exact answer about the timing, but I know that this paper will be issued as quickly as possible.

1009
The noble Baroness, Lady White, was particularly anxious that the proposals and consultations should apply outside the national parks; a point which was also made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. But as was indicated by my noble friend Lord Elton, our proposals will relate primarily to land in the national parks. But I would say to the noble Baroness that since this is a consultation exercise interested parties will of course be able to make their views on coverage known to Government.
Several of your Lordships have asked, "Will the Government get on with it?" I was encouraged by the way that my noble friend Lord Sandford, in passing, was good enough to make the point that, whereas when he was at the Department of the Environment he was not able to land the landscape area special development order, we have been able to do so under the present Government. I must therefore assume that my noble friend was congratulating us when he mentioned that topic in his remarks.
What can I add? I think I can add just two things. One thing we will have to think about quite carefully in this LCO area is the question of permanency; that is, should the orders be used to provide a breathing space for further negotiation, or ought they to be something which has permanent effect? That is something which the LCO consultation paper will no doubt advert to. The question of rights of appeal for the owners and occupiers of land affected by orders is again obviously something which will have to be dealt with and will be of interest in the consultation arrangements.
I do not feel that I can give, ahead of the consultation paper, any more information than that. I hope that my noble friend will not feel that I am being deliberately evasive. We are going to bring forward a consultation paper and no doubt we will be referring again to this interesting topic in your Lordships' House.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I can certainly thank my noble friend for his civility and I can thank him for his effort, but I do not think that I can thank him for much information. I was pleased to hear him say "primarily in national parks". By that I assume he is not excluding non-national park areas.
We have the precedent of the tree preservation order and we have the odd distinction that you can protect one or two good oak trees but cannot protect the only site in north-west Europe where the yellow-legged boll-weevil, or whatever it is, breeds, except by the voluntary principle. That is unfortunate. Further-more, when we originally allowed farmland not to be covered by any form of planning it was when there were still horses on the land and the availability of the JCB and the Hy-Mac was not all that easy and most farm buildings were made of natural material—brick, clapboard or tile, or something like that. We have, of course, advanced technologically very far in those 40 years.
However, all I can do is hope that this little debate may have pushed the Government a little way with their paper. Obviously we will study the paper with great keeness when it is published and will certainly come back to the subject. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 [Designation and management of environmentally sensitive areas]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 11, line 35, after ("may") insert ("with the consent of the Treasury and after consulting the persons mentioned in subsection (3) below as to the inclusion of the area in the order and the features for which conservation enhancement or protection is desirable").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I speak, if I may, to Amendments Nos. 57, 58 and 59.
In our previous debates in Committee on this clause there was some apprehension about the role of the Treasury. There is, I believe, general recognition in your Lordships' House that Ministers of Agriculture cannot designate environmentally sensitive areas without first agreeing with the Treasury that the money is available and will be spent properly. However, several of your Lordships have suggested that the clause seems to say more than that.
Concern was expressed that the clause could give the Treasury a direct veto on the conservation merits of any particular area. That was no part of our intention in drafting the Bill. I have therefore looked at the clause again in view of what was said to see whether it could be changed to reflect our intentions more clearly. This amendment is the result of that process.
I hope it makes clear that we are not proposing anything out of the ordinary. The Treasury role will be no different from that which it has in other spheres, such as capital grants. The procedure will be as follows. My right honourable friend will select environmentally sensitive areas in consultation with the environmental experts. He will present the outcome to the Treasury, which will want to know that our estimates for each area are reasonable, reliable and can be contained within the available budget. As I have said, the present budget is £6 million. If the Treasury is satisfied on those points it will confirm its agreeement by signing the order.
I hope that will satisfy your Lordships, including my noble friend Lord Renton, whose eagle eye is always on the correct drafting of the Bill. I have to admit openly to your Lordships that this amendment does not actually change the intention of the Government, but I hope that it honestly reflects what it is we meant to say and that it is more acceptable to your Lordships than the previous wording. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker: My lords, I call Amendment No. 57 as an amendment to Amendment No. 56.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 56, Amendment No. 57:
Line 2, after ("Treasury") insert ("Which consent shall be granted or refused on financial grounds only)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Minister has said a good deal of what I might have said and I do not intend to speak at great length, but he emphasised in his last two sentences that what he is proposing tonight does not in fact change the position that existed before in the Bill. It is perhaps a little neater, but it still leaves the Treasury, if it so desires, with a power of veto which it could exercise.
My amendment to the amendment would limit the Treasury's intervention to financial grounds, be it for

1011
refusal of the grant or for giving it. I cannot see why this is not acceptable. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to answer me, and that he will feel able to accept this amendment, because it leaves the Treasury's position beyond all doubt.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I think we should acknowl-edge that my noble friend Lord Belstead has done something which must have resulted from a tremendous struggle behind the scenes, a struggle which the Treasury is known always to win and never deserves to win, least of all on this occasion. But he has done his best, though he has been candid enough to acknowledge, as he was kind enough to say in a letter which he sent to those of us who were concerned, that the substance of the matter is not really changed at all by his amendment.
But the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, is one that he should accept with open arms, because that amendment puts the matter right. If we have to put up with the consent of the Treasury—which is a nonsense anyway—then let Parliament make it clear that that consent can only be granted or refused on financial grounds. I hope that my noble friend will listen to the reason of the noble Baroness.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I wish I could respond to my noble friend Lord Renton, and indeed to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, but I really cannot, and I shall tell your Lordships why I cannot. There is not a single precedent that I can find—there may be one but I cannot find it—whereby Treasury consent is fettered in the way that the noble Baroness would wish it to be in this Bill. For example, in the Agriculture Act 1947, which was legendary legislation passed during the tenure of the famous Labour Minister of Agriculture, Tom Williams, there is no such limitation; nor is there in the Agriculture Act 1967; nor in the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 on drainage and other grants; nor in the Countryside Act of 1968, which is often in our minds—all these Acts were passed by Labour governments—nor even in the Agriculture Act of 1970 governing capital grants, which was again an Act passed by a Labour government. There is no precedent for this provision and I cannot accept it in this Bill.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, is he saying that he is accepting the logic of the amendment of the noble Baroness, but also saying that he cannot accept the amendment merely because there is no precedent for it?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am saying that there is no precedent but I am also saying that I think that because there is no precedent there is no case. If I may say so, the case for the Treasury's surveillance is well put in the wording that we have. This evening I have interpreted what the wording means and by tabling the amendment that I have brought forward I have tried to make that wording as clear as possible. I cannot go further than that.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am not moved by the fact that there is no Labour administration precedent
1012
for this. I did hope that the Minister would have been prepared to establish a precedent himself and perhaps make a little history tonight if he had so wished. But I think the logic of my suggestion is clear. I am extremely sorry that he has not felt able to accept the amendment, but I do not propose to put it to a vote this evening and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 56 agreed to.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Craigton Lord Craigton moved Amendment No. 5 7A:
Page 11, line 36, after ("sensitive") insert ("fanning")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment would rename "environmentally sensitive areas" "environmentally sensitive fanning areas". There is an apology due to the Minister and to the House for the amendment being put down in this way. I put it down in the Public Bill Office last Wednesday, and it was only this morning, when I came to your Lordships' House, that I found—and the Public Bill Office wishes me to say this—that an error had been made in that office and nobody had seen the amendment before. That puts me in a difficulty, because it is a fairly complicated decision to make: am I right that they should be environmentally sensitive farming areas? Nevertheless, I shall do my best. If my noble friend on the Front Bench says that he has not had an opportunity to consider this, I shall of course withdraw the amendment and, in spite of what my noble friend Lord Ferrers said, I will put it down again on Third Reading.
How did the term "environmentally sensitive area" arise? I am looking at MAFF's consultation paper of April 1985, which asks for comments on the new farm structure regulations for the European Community. One of those structure regulations is Article 19, which,
"permits the designation of environmentally sensitive areas in which traditional farming practices can be encouraged through financial incentives".
It goes on:
"the details of each scheme would depend on the nature of fanning practices and conservation features of the area".
Article 19, which includes in the title the term "environmentally sensitive areas", is one of 22 articles, all of which form the basis of farm capital grant policy. In that context, the term is perfectly satisfactory, because it was one of the articles concerning farm capital grant policy. But Article 20, for example, concerns woodland improvement. Woodland improvement would be all right as a farming grant but it is far too general a term to use otherwise, as is the term "environmentally sensitive area". Article 16 is "Tourism and craft". The term came from a very narrow start.
If we think of what the term really means, every SSSI is an environmentally sensitive area, as is every national park. That is far too wide. A complaint was made by another speaker earlier about the number of terms that we have. I believe that the Department of the Environment, the NCC and other non-government organisations would not like to see "environmentally sensitive area" as the name for that

1013
narrow farming grant division. If the Minister were to ask that department, he would be told that it would be much better to call them environmentally sensitive farming areas. At another time we can have environ-mentally sensitive water-borne areas and all sorts of different designations.
I believe that I am right. I think that on reflection the conservation world and the Minister will agree. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, we all respect the zeal of my noble friend Lord Craigton for conservation. It is a zeal which I share. I am a former president of the Conservation Society. But I am very much afraid of his amendment. What I fear is that by inserting the word "farming" it will limit the effect of the clause, so that it is only farming areas which could be designated in the way that the provision intends. Areas, for example, which are given over to forestry or are merely open spaces with neither forestry nor farming on them—
Lord Craigton: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, that is exactly the point. As my noble friend on the Front Bench knows, I tried to widen the area beyond farming areas by using a little equipment from outside farming areas, and he would not let me. This amendment refers solely to farming areas.
Lord Renton: My Lords, it does not appear to me to be so on the wording. I may be wrong. At this late hour one can get things wrong. I am afraid that to insert the one word "farming" would limit the operation of the clause.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Craigton mentioned this subject at an earlier stage of the Bill. He put down the amendment which I had time to see. It is not a name that we should have chosen, but it is a name adopted by the Community. It is rather technical, and long-winded, I know, but by now everyone with an interest in the matter has heard of environmentally sensitive areas. We have all become accustomed to using the tags, and we all know what they mean. That is not a good reason for saying that the name should not be changed, but it means that a new name must be better. I should readily accept a new name that was so compelling and accurate that it displaced ESA from our memory. I am not keen to change the name without an attractive alternative.
My noble friend has found the alternative that he favours—environmentally sensitive farming area. I wonder whether the House feels that that has the right ring. I feel that we should be exchanging three words for four. I am not sure that that is the mouthful that I like. If one were feeling rather tired one might not get one's tongue around it.
More seriously, my noble friend draws attention to the fact that these are farming areas rather than other types of environmental sites. Nonetheless, he is conjuring up a name which I do not think necessary. When my noble friend Lord Renton says that it could be misleading, I think that he is right.
Forestry is difficult with respect to ESAs because technically forestry is not part of agriculture.
1014
Nonetheless, forestry areas will fall within ESAs. The Forestry Commission, for instance, has gone out of its way to give special assurances that it will take particular care when it has forestry areas within ESAs. For that reason, I think that the caution of my noble friend Lord Renton is well placed.
Lord Craigton: My Lords, surely "agricultural" is the word that dominates Clause 15. Agricultural forestry is only forestry taken on incidental—I think that is the word in the Bill—to ordinary farming.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend can clear this up before he sits down, but I thought that forestry was specifically excluded from ESAs. If my noble friend says that it is included, I am delighted.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, without going over the ground again, perhaps my noble friend Lord Onslow would like to read what I said. I did not say that it specifically included it. I set out the situation with regard to forestry in a few words.
If I have the leave of the House to speak a second time, I should say that if it were felt, which, with respect to my noble friend Lord Craigton, I do not think it is, that this was a better, slicker and more attractive name, we would go for it. But it is a mouthful. It is not what everyone in Europe is familiar with. For that reason, we should do well to stick with what we have.
Lord Craigton: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 11, line 37, leave out subsection (2)
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential—I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton for his advice—on Amendment No. 56. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 12, line 1, leave out ("(2)") and insert ("(1)"). The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Peel Earl Peel moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 12, line 33 at end insert—
("( ) Before entering into an agreement with a tenant or other person who is not the owner of the land, the Minister shall ensure that the landowner has been notified of the terms of the proposed agreement and has sufficient time (no longer than six weeks) in which to discuss with the tenant or other person the implications of the proposed agreement.")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment is similar in intent to one that I moved in Committee. However, in that amendment the responsibility for informing the landlord of any agreement made with the tenant in an ESA lay with the ministry itself. My noble friend the Minister gave an assurance that tenants would have to sign a declaration stating that their landlords had been informed. That went some

1015
way to allaying my fears about landlords not having the opportunity of discussing these important matters with their tenants.
Very serious issues concerning the tenant and landlord are involved. It is a matter that could well affect the rental and the capital values of farms. A tenant could find himself in breach of his tenancy agreement and, indeed, might ultimately face some form of dilapidation claim. The new amendment is a compromise in that the responsibility to inform the landlord would still lie, as my noble friend the Minister has assured us would happen, with the tenant. However, in his endeavours to secure fair play on both sides my noble friend, I think I am right in saying, regarded the amendment that I moved, and indeed, the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Radnor, as being landlords' amendments. It is fair to say, I believe, that the amendment that I am now moving has the full support of the NFU and the CLA. We are discussing very important items. I believe that the obligation for the landlord to be involved in these matters must be in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, this amendment is eminently sensible. I shall be astonished if the Minister manages to make a case against it. It is natural justice, where an agreement of which he does not know has been made concerning a man's land, that both parties should be responsible for informing him. I support the amendment.
11.45 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I support the amendment very strongly. It is not simply natural justice; it is common sense. The assurance given by my noble friend Lord Belstead that a written declaration would have to be produced and that there would be a standard agreement between the Minister and the people involved with farming is not good enough. It does not take into account that although the agreement between Minister and those indulging in farming on ESAs may be standard, the agreements between the various fanners and their landlords may be very variable. That must be taken into consideration. I believe that noble Lords almost throughout the Chamber felt ESAs to be a good thing. They gave the whole principle a great welcome from the Second Reading onwards.
But it must surely be important that these ESAs work, and work very well. I think matters work well if there is good will and if they are efficient. To take the first one first, if the Bill remains as it is now and becomes an Act, there is scope for friction between landlord and tenant and that would be a misfortune. That is an important point. I cannot see any arguments against putting this in the Bill, as does the noble Lord, Lord Mackie. It seems to make it simpler, more definite, and in all probability makes ESAs much simpler to operate and to get into motion than the Bill as it is now written. I support the amendment very strongly indeed.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, during the course of this Bill the Government have given a number of assurances about the position of landlords. In essence there is not very much between my noble friend Lord
1016
Peel, and other noble Lords who have spoken in the same way as my noble friend this evening, and myself. I have therefore looked hard at this amendment. On behalf of the Government I have given my noble friend an undertaking already that if tenants have not notified their landlord and have not shown the agreement to the landlord they will not have their application for inclusion in an ESA accepted. We shall achieve this by asking the tenant to declare that the landlord has been notified and a false declaration will carry legal penalties. My noble friend would like me to go further and ensure that the landlord has been notified. I can see only two ways of doing this. First, we could seek out every landlord in an ESA and ask them whether they have been notified. That would be a huge administrative task, and inevitably I do not think that it would succeed in every case. It would be very expensive indeed. Alternatively, we could require tenants to provide a confirmatory letter from the landlord but I do not think it needs much imagination to see that that also would create some administrative problems.
I repeat that we have made it quite clear that we shall require, through the ESA agreement, that the tenant has notified the landlord before making the agreement. Having listened to your Lordships, may I go this far? I am certainly prepared to consider whether we might write that requirement into the Bill. It does not go quite as far as my noble friend wants me to go but it goes about three-quarters of the way. We have made it quite clear that we shall require, through the ESA agreement, that the tenant has notified the landlord before making the agreement. I would be prepared to look at that urgently with a view to putting it on the face of the Bill.
For the rest, I think the assurances would need to stand, and those assurances I have repeated this evening. I hope that my noble friend may feel that I have shown good will in trying to go at least half-way.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he explain the great difficulty? Does he mean that the tenant would have several landlords? I should have thought it perfectly simple, if you know the tenant, to find the landlord.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if the House will give me leave, the first and important difficulty is this. In an environmentally sensitive area—which could be a huge area—if the amendment is accepted one has to find every single landlord and to contact him. That is a very formidable administrative task. It means that hard-pressed staff in short supply will be used in pushing pens instead of doing what we want them to do in environmentally sensitive areas; that is, to get on and see that the areas are monitored and managed properly.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I am a little worried about this. I had a case where I received an assurance from the Minister and the land court came out and said that an assurance from the Minister was not what was written into the Bill and therefore it was not adequate. I am very concerned about this. I know that we should all like to accept the assurances of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, but I am not happy that that is adequate.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, perhaps we are getting it the wrong way round. Why not contact the landlords instead of the tenants? After all, the landlords will do their level best to ensure that their tenants' interests are safeguarded.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I have listened with interest to what my noble friend the Minister has said. I do not think that the amendment would in fact result in every landlord having to be informed by the ministry because it would concern only those tenants who were to be involved with agreements. I am encouraged by what my noble friend has said. On the basis of that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 12, line 38 at end insert—
("(7A) Where agreements have been made under subsection (4) above with persons having an interest in land in a designated area the Minister shall arrange for the effect on the area as a whole of the performance of the agreements to be kept under review and shall from time to time publish such information as he considers appropriate about those effects.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, during Committee stage we had a most useful debate on how we plan to monitor the effects of the environmentally sensitive area arrangements. I explained that we were committed to proper monitoring in order to ensure that our schemes are successful. But there was a general view from your Lordships—and I confess that I shared it—that it would be appropriate to reflect our intention to monitor on the face of the Bill.
I am pleased to present the amendment to the House. I believe that it provides appropriate statutory backing to our intentions. It also makes provision for the information gathered to be published. There will be many interested people who will wish to know how the schemes are progressing. As I explained in Committee, I think that formal annual reports would be a rather cumbersome way of achieving this. There is always a risk that such reports will become dry tables of statistics, issued simply because the annual deadline has arrived. The form of words in the amendment is an attempt to overcome this.
I hope that the amendment is acceptable to your Lordships. It certainly represents a move in the Bill towards monitoring environmentally sensitive areas. If your Lordships agree to it, we shall be indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, who first raised the matter, and I shall be indebted to your Lordships' House for making what I believe will be an improvement to the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the amendment, which meets the monitoring point about which we were so concerned. I look forward to the first published information. We can then decide whether what the Minister considers appropriate is what we also consider appropriate.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 12, line 43, at end insert—
("(8A) The Minister shall after consultation with the persons mentioned in subsection (3) above and with such bodies as seem
1018
to him representative of the interests concerned prepare and issue a code of practice for the purpose of providing practical guidance to drainage bodies or authorised persons in the exercise of their duties in respect of any land subject to an order made under subsection (1) above.
(8B) The Minister may from time to time after consultation with such bodies as seem to him representative of the interests concerned revise the code of practice issued under subsection (8A) above by revoking, varying, amending or adding to the provisions of that code.
(8C) In subsection (8A) above "drainage body" and "authorised persons" have the same meanings respectively as in the Land Drainage Act 1976 and the Land Drainage (Scotland) Act 1958.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as your Lordships know, land drainage works, both capital and maintenance, can cause serious damage to wildlife interests. Even routine maintenance works like dredging, removing silt, weed cutting, grass cutting, the use of herbicides, and so on, can all causeproblems for wildlife and do great damage. It is also possible to plan such works in ways that will minimise and maybe even remove any possibility of their causing damage.
At present the Ministry of Agriculture, the Welsh Office Agricultural Department and the Department of the Environment have issued voluntary land drainage and conservation guidance notes to help the various interests—water authorities, IDBs, the NCC, and so on—discharge their duties under Section 22 of the Water Act 1973, which was amended in 1981 by the Wildlife and Countryside Act.
Those guidance notes deal with consultation procedures only. As a result of a debate in another place on a similar amendment, I understand that they are going to be amended to cover consultation in environmentally sensitive areas.
There are two problems with that approach. First, because the guidance notes are voluntary, not statutory, some people involved in land drainage and other works have ignored them. We discussed one recent example of that in Committee, an internal drainage board in the Somerset levels, and I will not go over that.
The second problem with the current approach is that, however complete the consultation arrangements and however much goodwill there may be around them, they are never likely to cover the full range of activities that a drainage authority may wish to undertake in an environmentally sensitive area. When a large number of small-scale routine works are undertaken together, they may cause significant damage.
The existing guidance notes deal only with consultation procedures. This amendment would ensure that they were extended to cover practical guidance on the operational aspects of land drainage within ESAs, thereby ensuring, I would hope, that nobody involved in land drainage was likely to damage an ESA in a way that might damage the prospects of individual farmers and landowners continuing to receive money through payments made in relation to the ESA. At the moment there is a risk that a farmer's and landowner's payments may be jeopardised by operations unwittingly carried out by a land drainage authority, such as an IDB.
Finally, there are several precedents for operational guidelines to help implement legislation of the kind

1019
which I am proposing in the amendment. The Control of Pollution Act has led to the Ministry of Agriculture producing a code of good agricultural practice. The heather and grass burning code is another example published by the Ministry of Agriculture and the Welsh Office in 1984. The Food and Environment Protection Act makes provision for a number of codes of practice for the purpose of giving practical guidance in respect of the use of pesticides.
I hope that I have explained very briefly the purpose of what is a new and fairly complex amendment. I do not believe that it is controversial: I believe that it is helpful. I feel that it will be particularly helpful in safeguarding the interests of farmers and landowners in ESAs who have a conservation interest because of their water table. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I understand the reasons which have prompted the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, to propose this amendment. However, having listened to the noble Lord, I still think that the amendment is not necessary. Guidelines to water authorities and to internal drainage boards on fulfilling their obligations with regard to conservation while carrying out land drainage operations have been in existence since 1982. However, those guidelines are currently being revised following a review of their initial operation and to take account of the recommendation of the House of Commons environment committee.
The revised guidelines will in general be based on the best practices already adopted by water authorities and internal drainage boards. This work is well advanced, and the revised version will advocate that all drainage authorities should consult annually with the Nature Conservancy Council on maintenance operations and more frequently on specific areas of importance to the council.
The guidelines will also recommend that special consultation should be carried out at the earliest possible stage of planning the construction of new or improvement works, and that environmentally sensitive areas receive special consideration. It is those last words which I should have thought covered the intention of the amendment.
There is already a statutory obligation to consult the NCC where drainage operations might affect SSSIs. In considering applications for grant aid, the Minister insists that the application must provide evidence of the views of the NCC, or other appropriate organisation, on the scheme, unless there is no possible conservation interest. However, it is the ESAs in which the noble Lord is interested in moving the amendment, and I like to think that his intention is covered in the reply which I have given to the amendment.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I know that it is very late but, no, it is not covered. The noble Lord and I read out almost exactly the same brief, but I went on to say that the problem with the guidance notes, to which the noble Lord referred, is that they cover only consultation procedures, they do not cover the operational requirements and they do not give practical advice on operational requirements. I am afraid that I said exactly what the noble Lord said, and
1020
then went on to say that my amendment addresses a completely different point. The noble Lord did not respond to that point at all.
As I have said, it is very late. I wonder whether I may ask the noble Lord to study in Hansard what I have said, and if he feels able to respond to the particular points which I raised on the amendment then—rather than my trying to press it now—he can write to me about it. He just repeated what I said in introducing the amendment and even at this time of night I feel reluctant simply to leave the matter there. If the noble Lord would be able to agree to read what I have said and write to me if he can respond to the particular point, I should be grateful.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that. I have the current guidelines in front of me. It seems to me that they go a great deal wider than just consultation. However, I am very ready to write to the noble Lord, and I shall endeavour to do so before the Third Reading of this Bill.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I have great pleasure in begging leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 62A:
After Clause 18, insert the following new Clause:—
Farm capital grants: ancillary businesses etc.

(1) In section 28 of the Agriculture Act 1970 (interpretation of provisions relating to capital and other grants) at the end of the definition of "agricultural business" there shall be inserted the words "and includes any other business, of a kind for the time being specified by an order made by the appropriate authority, which is carried on by a person also carrying on a business consisting in or partly in the pursuit of agriculture and is carried on on the same or adjacent land".

(2)The existing provisions of that section shall become subsection (1) of that section and after that subsection there shall be inserted—

"(2) An order under subsection (1) above shall be made by statutory instrument and any statutory instrument containing such an order shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.".")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment on the amendment of my noble friend Lord Peel, Amendment No. 54. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 20 [Short title, commencement, consequential amendments, repeals and extent]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 16, line 36, leave out ("section 15(12)") and insert ("sections (Validation of Apple and Pear Development Council Orders) and 1512)")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 63 and 64 are both consequential. I beg to move. On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 16A, line 4, leave out ("and 15(7) and insert ("[Rent arbitrations: milk quotas], 15(7) and 18")
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Exeter City Council Bill [H.L.]
The Queen's Consent signified; Bill reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at two minutes past midnight.

  AFGHANISTAN: WEAPONS SUPPLIES AND UN TALKS
  AFGHANISTAN: WEAPONS SUPPLIES AND UN TALKS
  THE KURILE ISLANDS
  THE KURILE ISLANDS
  SVALBARD: CONTINENTAL SHELF
  SVALBARD: CONTINENTAL SHELF
  SVALBARD: UK TREATY RIGHTS
  SVALBARD: UK TREATY RIGHTS
  MR. PHILIP HARTLEBURY AND MR. COLIN EVANS
  MR. PHILIP HARTLEBURY AND MR. COLIN EVANS
  AGRICULTURAL R & D: FUNDING 1987–88
  AGRICULTURAL R & D: FUNDING 1987–88