Sitting of 13 May 1987

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Mr. Speaker: I have a short statement to make. The order of the House of 13 November last provided for a ballot to be held today for private Members' motions to be moved on 5 June. Clearly, in the changed circumstances there is no point in having a ballot for that day I have therefore given directions that it should not be held. I understand that this is acceptable to the House.

1

2

3

4

5

6

Date when Closure claimed, and by whom

Question before House or Committee when claimed

Whether in House or Committee

Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by the Chair

Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion

Result of Motion and, if a Division, Numbers for and against

and (2) in the Standing Committees under the following heads:—

1

2

3

4

5

Date when Closure claimed, and by whom

Question before Committee when claimed

Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by the Chair

Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion

Result of Motion and, if a Division, Numbers for and against

—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

PRAYERS

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Return ordered,
  Of the number of Instruments considered in Session 1986–87 by the Joint Committee and the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments respectively pursuant to their orders of reference, showing in each case the numbers of Instruments subject to the different forms of parliamentary procedure and of those within the Committees' orders of reference for which no parliamentary procedure is prescribed by statute, and the numbers drawn to the special attention of the House or of both Houses distinguishing the ground in the Committees' orders of reference upon which such attention was invited; and the numbers of Instruments considered by a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c., and by the House respectively, in Session 1986–87, showing the number where the Question on the proceedings relating thereto was put forthwith under Standing Order No. 101(5). — [The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

  PRIVATE BILLS AND PRIVATE BUSINESS
  Return ordered,
  of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders introduced into this House, and brought from the House of Lords, and of Acts passed in Session 1986–87;
  Of all Private Bills, Hybrid Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which in Session 1986–87 were reported on

  PRIVATE BUSINESS

    CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL
    Ordered,
    That in the case of the City of London (Various Powers) Bill, Standing Order 208 (Notice of consideration of Lords Amendments) be suspended and that the Lords Amendments be now considered.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
    Lords amendments agreed to.

  CLOSURE OF DEBATE (STANDING ORDER No. 35)
  Return ordered,
  respecting applications of Standing Order No. 35 (Closure of debate) during Session 1986–87, (1) in the House and in Committee of the whole House under the following heads:
  by Committees on Opposed Bills or by Committees nominated wholly by the House or partly by the House and partly by the Committee of Selection, together with the names of the selected Members who served on each Committee; the first and also the last day of the sitting of each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; the number of days on which each selected Member served; the number of days occupied by each Bill in Committee; the Bills of which the Preambles were reported to have been proved; the Bills of which the Preambles were reported to have been not proved; and in the case of Bills for confirming Provisional Orders, whether the Provisional Order ought or ought not to be confirmed;
  Of all Private Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which in Session 1986–87 were referred by the Committee of Selection to the Committee on Unopposed Bills, together with the names of the Members who served on the Committee; the number of days on which the Committee sat; and the number of days on which each Member attended;
  And of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders withdrawn or not proceeded with by the parties, those Bills being specified which were referred to Committees and dropped during the sittings of the Committee.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

  PUBLIC BILLS
  Return ordered,
  of the number of Public Bills distinguishing Government from other Bills, introduced into this House, or brought from the House of Lords, during Session 1986–87, showing:
  (1) the number which received the Royal Assent, and
  (2) the number which did not receive the Royal Assent,
  indicating those which were introduced into but not passed by this House, those passed by this House but not by the House of Lords, those passed by the House of Lords but not by this House, those passed by both Houses but Amendments not agreed to; and distinguishing the stages at which such Bills were dropped, postponed or rejected in either House of Parliament, or the stages which such Bills reached by the time of Dissolution. —[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

  SELECT COMMITTEES
  Return ordered,
  for Session 1986–87, of statistics relating to the membership, work costs and staff of Select Committees with so much of the same information as is relevant to the Chairmen's Panel and the Court of Referees. —[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
  Return ordered,
  of the days on which the House sat in Session 1986–87, stating for each day the day of the month and day of the week, the hour of the meeting, and the hour of the adjournment; and the total number of hours occupied in the sittings of the House, and the average time; and showing the number of hours on which the House sat each day, and the number of hours after the time appointed for the interruption of business. — [The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

  SPECIAL PROCEDURE ORDERS
  Return ordered,
  264
  of the number of Special Procedure Orders presented in Session 1986–87; the number withdrawn; the number annulled; the number against which Petitions or copies of Petitions were deposited; the number of Petitions of General Objection and for Amendment respectively considered by the Chairmen; the number of such Petitions certified by the Chairmen as proper to be received, and the number certified by them as being Petitions of General Objection and for Amendment respectively; the number referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses; the number reported with Amendments by a Joint Committee, and the number in relation to which a Joint Committee reported that the Order be not approved and be amended respectively; and the number of Bills introduced for the confirmation of Special Procedure Orders;
  Of Special Procedure Orders which, in Session 1986–87, were referred to a Joint Committee, together with the names of the Commons Members who served on each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; and the number of days on which each such Member attended.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

  STANDING COMMITTEES
  Return ordered,
  for Session 1986–87, of (1) the total number and the names of all Members (including and distinguishing Chairmen) who have been appointed to serve on one or more of the Standing Committees showing, with regard to each of such Members, the number of sittings to which he was summoned and at which he was present; (2) the number of Bills, Estimates, Matters and other items referred to Standing Committees pursuant to Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c) or Standing Order No. 102 (Standing Committees on European Community Documents) considered by all and by each of the Standing Committees, the number of sittings of each Committee and the titles of all Bills, Estimates, Matters and other items as above considered by a Committee, distinguishing where a Bill was a Government Bill or was brought from the House of Lords, and showing in the case of each Bill, Estimate, Matter and other item, the particular Committee by which it was considered, the number of sittings at which it was considered and the number of Members present at each of those sittings. — [The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. McKelveyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the seasonally adjusted unemployment figures for Scotland for the last available date and in May 1979, compiled on a similar basis.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): On a comparable basis, seasonally adjusted unemployment in Scotland was 150,400 in May 1979 and 344,600 in March 1987.
    Mr. McKelvey: Is it not astonishing that the Secretary of State for Scotland can stand at that Dispatch Box without hanging his head in shame when announcing these horrendous figures? I suspect that he will not need a crystal ball to translate those figures into terms of human misery, despondency and despair that the Government have spread throughout Scotland. I say to him, on behalf of the unemployed of Scotland, that he has one opportunity for atonement, and that is to resign here and now.
    Mr. Rifkind: Before I do, may I welcome the hon. Gentleman on his return to the House? We are all pleased to see him after his recent illness.
    I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's strength of feeling on this subject, but he should be aware of the substantial progress that the Scottish economy has been making, particularly over the last few months. I remind the House that the Scottish Business Survey, which was published by the Fraser of Allander Institute a few weeks ago, said:
    "The short-term prospects for the Scottish economy have improved markedly during the opening months of 1987 with business optimism continuing to rise and the prospects of some growth in employment. Firms in all sectors expect both sales and new orders to grow over the next few months with manufacturing and construction being particularly buoyant."
    Mr. Hirst: Does my right hon. and learned Friend find it objectionable that the Opposition should speak in the way that they do, when their policies on nuclear power and weapons would, at a stroke, destroy scores of thousands of jobs in Scotland?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct. The South of Scotland Electricity Board has estimated that electricity tariffs would have to increase by 20 to 30 per cent. as a consequence of the abandonment of nuclear power. Apart from anything else, that would have meant that the Finnish pulp mill, which is coming to Irvine, would not have contemplated a Scottish location, and many of the tens of thousands of jobs around Scotland—Caithness, in particular—would have been severely affected, if not entirely lost.
    Mr. Wilson: Is not the real indictment of the Secretary of State that after eight years he can rejoice in the unemployment figures that we have heard? He is so complacent about the situation that he relies solely on grasping the straws of short-term prospects. When will he do something about the Scottish economy, because under his care and that of his predecessor it has rotted away?
    Mr. Rifkind: Far from being complacent, I am delighted that, over the past eight weeks, unemployment
    266
    in Scotland has fallen by more than 16,000. I believe that the prospects for the Scottish economy are better than they have been for years. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the increased competitiveness of the Scottish economy, the increased productivity of those who work within that economy, and the far healthier state of the whole spectrum of Scottish business have enabled such improvements to take place.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall reading an article, in the Glasgow Herald in 1978, written by the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) predicting that unemployment would be well over 3 million in the next five years and pointing out that that would be due to the large numbers of new young people coming on to the labour market? Surely the hon. Gentleman was right. Is it not wrong for the Opposition to indulge in such double-standard electioneering and to seek to repudiate the figures that members of the Opposition predicted when they were in government?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct. The hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) made that prediction and emphasised that that increase would take place irrespective of which party was in government. However, thanks to improvements in productivity, competitiveness and the fall in inflation that has taken place since the Government came to power, not only is the standard of living of the Scottish people higher than ever before, but we have the prospect of a continuing fall in unemployment in Scotland and throughout the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Lambie: Does the Secretary of State realise that unemployment in the Irvine travel-to-work area is now nearly 12,000, which is the equivalent of 25 per cent.? Is the Secretary of State aware that during the past six weeks I have twice raised the question of the threatened closure of McKinnon of Scotland knitwear factory in Irvine? The right hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friends promised me their full support, but I have now been informed that the Industry Department in Scotland has withdrawn its offer of financial help to one prospective buyer of that factory. Why?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman has been misinformed. Discussions are continuing, and we have made it clear that the prospect of financial help for anyone interested in taking over that particular plant remains available for discussion. The Scottish Office has withdrawn no offers of help from anyone in connection with this particular plant. The hon. Gentleman, who represents Irvine, knows perfectly well that the prospects for Irvine took a tremendous turn for the better with the decision by the Finnish pulp mill to locate in Irvine. The hon. Gentleman is aware that the Labour party's policy on nuclear power would doom any prospect of that pulp mill coming to his constituency.
    Mr. Dewar: In view of the figures, is not this professional optimism from the Secretary of State beginning to sound a little like cant? Is it not shameful that, after eight years of Conservative success, of which we hear so much, there are 363,000 Scots drawing unemployment benefit? According to the Library statisticians and working on a comparable basis, that is about 130 per cent. more than the figure that the Prime Minister inherited in 1979. Does the Secretary of State

    267
    accept that unemployment must be a key issue in the coming weeks? Whatever the hopes of Scottish Ministers, many people in Scotland cannot forget the scarring misery of the dole queues and, I am afraid, the contribution that has been made to that crisis by the Government's thrawn indifference to what is happening in our communities.
    Mr. Rifkind: First, the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that unemployment doubled under the previous Labour Government, and I do not recall his drawing comparable conclusions at that time. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman knows well that the competitiveness and productivity of Scottish industry have never been higher. Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman knows that the Government have not only given substantial support to the Scottish Development Agency and Locate in Scotland, but have transformed those bodies into internationally recognised agencies, which are the best of their kind anywhere in Western Europe. In addition, the hon. Gentleman knows that the Labour party's proposals for an assembly with tax-raising powers have already been condemned by Scottish industry as likely to do enormous damage to industry and to the prospects for employment in Scotland.
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that there are a number of questions on unemployment on the Order Paper. I ask for brief questions, which may lead to brief answers.

    Guinness plc
    Mr. Craigenasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what follow-up discussions he has had with Guinness plc since the statement by the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) to the Scottish Grand Committee on 17 July 1986.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): My right hon. and learned Friend has met representatives of Guinness on three occasions since 17 July 1986. I have also been involved in meetings with the company. These discussions, which are continuing, have ranged over a variety of matters related to Guinness's activities in Scotland.
    Mr. Craigen: Why did the Secretary of State for Scotland not answer the question? Is it because he realises that it was unfair of the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) to upstage the leader of the Liberal party last July during the Scottish Grand Committee debate on industry when he gave an assurance that the Secretary of State was on his charger as far as the Guinness company was concerned? We know that the Secretary of State is accident-prone in regard to horses. He falls off them. What more is the Secretary of State doing to get the company to locate in Scotland and bring the promised jobs?
    Mr. Lang: We shall miss the hon. Gentleman's carefully modulated tones in the next Parliament. I wish him the best of luck in his future career
    As my answer demonstrated, my right hon. and learned Friend and I keep in close touch with Guinness. We are watching the continuing developments involving the increasing location of its activities in Scotland.
    Mr. Bill Walker: When my hon. Friend discusses matters with Guinness, will he discuss broken pledges and pledges that may not as yet have been fulfilled? Will he
    268
    consider any pledge that was given to the leader of the Liberal party who robustly came out in defence of the Guinness attempted takeover of Bell's, Scotland's best performing whisky company at the time, on the basis that Bell's was in need of Guinness's assistance? We now see what that assistance has produced. We should like to know exactly what the promises were.
    Mr. Lang: I am sure that the leader of the Liberal party can speak for himself, once he has cleared the matter with the leader of the Social Democratic party.
    My hon. Friend will be glad to know of Guinness's expanded activities in Perth. Britain's leading spirits organisation, covering the marketing and sales of all United Kingdom brands, will be located there and will create 50 new jobs.
    Sir Alex Fletcher: Does my hon. Friend agree that Guinness is suffering from a marked shortage of genius and that it would not require much at all to fulfil the commitments that were made many times in Scotland last year to move its headquarters and jobs to Scotland? Will he tell the House what the members of the Guinness board are saying about those commitments?
    Mr. Lang: I hope that the amount of genius on the Guinness board has increased now that the chairman and chief executive and also two leading non-executive directors are Scots. As my hon. Friend knows, the chairman's office is in Edinburgh. The chief executive of the group and the chief executive of the new united Distillers group also have offices in Edinburgh.
    Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister give us some assurance in relation not only to the headquarters of Bell's and other aspects of the Guinness subsidiary being located in Scotland, but the manufacturing base? Some of us have misgivings. We were given assurances by the previous management of Guinness—assurances that can bear no weight. Some hon. Members who have bottling plants in their constituencies are extremely worried about such assurances. What approaches have been made by his right hon. and learned Friend to ensure that not only the headquarters but the productive capacity and throughput of Bell's subsidiary are located in Scotland?
    Mr. Lang: We are certainly in touch with Guinness on a continuing basis. The closure of bottling plants is regrettable, but some rationalisation of that kind was almost inevitable, regardless of ownership. All distilling, blending and bottling in the group is now centralised in Scotland.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Setting aside the whiff of City scandals, will the Minister explain to the House, as the Secretary of State has declined to do so, what happened to the pledges made on behalf of the Secretary of State on 17 July by the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary? What happened to the pledges about jobs? What happened to the firm, documentary commitments? What happened to the plan for location in Scotland? Above all, will the Minister tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the people of Scotland are now somewhat discouraged with his ill-founded optimism which has been shown most recently and notably in regard to Caterpillar?
    Mr. Lang: I have already told the House of a number of developments to the advantage of Scotland in connection with Guinness. I can also point to the Glenochil yeast plant being retained in preference to the

    269
    Bristol plant, thus saving 300 jobs; to the modernisation of the Johnny Walker bottling plant at Kilmarnock, where there are 800 jobs; and to the expansion of Gleneagles as an international leisure centre.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: With regard to what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) said about me, will my hon. Friend confirm that I was simply putting on record the position on 17 July in the interests of the people of Scotland and of all Scottish Members of Parliament? Does my hon. Friend agree that, irrespective of other matters, the whole of Scotland is full of admiration for the way in which Sir Norman Macfarlane has acted as chairman of Guinness?
    Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I entirely agree with his latter remarks.
    Mr. Speaker: I called the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) because he was mentioned, so I shall call one more Opposition Member.
    Mr. Martin: Because of the amalgamation with DCL, Guinness now owns almost the whole of the Port Dundas area in my constituency. The White Horse bottling plant has been lying empty for well over a year now, and steps should be taken by the Government to find out what will happen to that plant.
    Mr. Lang: I dare say the hon. Gentleman will already have taken up that matter with the owners. I am sure that he shares my satisfaction at the continuing success of the whisky industry. Exports in the last year for which we have figures exceeded £1 billion in value.

    Village Halls
    Mr. Michael Forsythasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding capital grants for village halls in the Stirling constituency; and if he is satisfied with the operation of the relevant scheme in the central region.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): My hon. Friend has made representations on behalf of the communities involved in the grant scheme for village halls since Central regional council declined to support this programme. However, Stirling district council is prepared to sponsor projects, and I will be providing half the eligible costs to enable four to proceed.
    Mr. Forsyth: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is disgraceful that Central region should have sought to prevent halls in my constituency benefiting from grants from the Scottish Office to the extent of 50 per cent.? What is the position now in respect of the halls in Gartmore, Killin, Lochearnhead and Brig o'Turk?
    Mr. MacKay: I share my hon. Friend's concern that Central regional council did not agree to take part in what is considered in most parts of Scotland—including my own constituency—to be a worthwhile scheme. I can confirm that the four halls that he has mentioned will be going ahead, and that I shall be contributing £95,000 of central Government money to the project.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the people who run the village halls in Stirling, to which reference has been made, would be in a better position to organise their enterprises if the Scottish Council for
    270
    Voluntary Organisations was given some support by his Department for getting a full-time officer, so that the schemes for co-ordinating SED and capital grants and other running costs could be made available publicly?
    Mr. MacKay: I would rather use the money to help the communities to build halls than create yet another centralised Scottish bureaucracy.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Is it not sheer humbug for a Tory Member of Parliament who has spent his undistinguished career here attacking all forms of public subsidies to seek to distort the record of Labour local authorities in relation to the provision of subsidies to village halls in his constituency? Is the Minister aware that no fewer than 40 village halls throughout rural Stirlingshire have had the benefit of assistance under this and other schemes, thanks to initiatives taken by Stirling district council — a Labour-controlled authority — under the excellent leadership of Councillor Michael Connarty?
    Mr. MacKay: I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) requires a lecture from the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), who has his own distinguished line in hyprocrisy—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a parliamentary phrase. Please withdraw it.
    Mr. MacKay: I quite happily withdraw the lane' word. The hon. Gentleman has a most distinguished line in his own unique blend of intellect which he brings to the House. Those of us who have to listen to him in agricultural debates, in which he is a noted expert. being a major landowner in Scotland, are well aware of his brilliance.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total number of unemployed people in Scotland in (a) May 1979 and (b) May 1987 or the latest available date; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lang: There were 154,419 unemployed claimants in Scotland in May 1979 and 363,781 in March 1987. While unemployment still remains too high, it is encouraging to see the substantial reductions in the Scottish total in the last two months.
    Mr. Canavan: If the Minister has the chance of addressing the Prime Minister's Nuremburg-type rally at Perth this coming weekend, will he take off his Goebbels mask and tell the people of Scotland the whole truth which is that, according to the independent unemployment unit, the real total of unemployed people in Scotland is well over the 400,000 mark? There are over 400,000 reasons why the people of Scotland will reject the Tory party. The Tory party in Scotland will be reduced to a discredited rump at the forthcoming general election. Perhaps even the people of Galloway and Edinburgh, Pentlands and Argyie and Edinburgh, South will return Labour Members of Parliament instead of the Thatcherite lackeys who misrepresent them at present.
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Member has a wonderful sense of humour. For the moment, I shall content myself by welcomimg the fact that unemployment in his constituency

    271
    has fallen by about 1 per cent. over the last two months, and that about 77 per cent. of the members of his local job club go out of the job club into employment.
    Mr. Henderson: Is not the whole truth seen when one also looks at the figures of employment? Will my hon. Friend confirm that employment has been rising steadily in Scotland, together with manufacturing productivity, exports and industrial profitability?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In particular, self-employment has been rising sharply as people realise the attraction of setting up their own businesses in the improved economic climate that we have established in Scotland.
    Mr. MacKenzie: Does the Parliamentary Under-Secretary accept that many hon. Members, especially Opposition Members, and indeed many people throughout Scotland, will regard the figures that he has given as absolutely scandalous? Secondly, does he agree that he must look very much beyond even the figures that he has so starkly mentioned today? There are men over 40 who do not see any prospect of ever getting a job under this Administration, and many young people now in their early 20s have never had a decent job since they left school. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary and his colleagues, who are responsible for the administration of industry in Scotland, should think black burning shame of themselves that these young people should have no hope at all under this Government.
    Mr. Lang: I can understand why the right hon. Gentleman, having had no familiarity in his party during its period in government with falling unemployment, may not recognise the good news that is now coming through in the Scottish economy. Unemployment is falling sharply among the long-term unemployed and among young unemployed. The economy is responding to the wide range of measures for training and increasing enterprise that we have generated in the last few years.
    Sir Alex Fletcher: Will my hon. Friend tell the House the extent to which employment and self-employment have increased in Scotland since 1983?
    Mr. Lang: Since 1983 self-employment has increased by 27 to 30 per cent. That is a very encouraging figure. In terms of employment generally, because of the expanded work force, undoubtedly there are many more people in employment than there have been for some considerable time.
    Mr. Bruce: Does the Minister acknowledge that since the Conservative Government came to power in 1979 Scotland has lost no fewer than 180,000 jobs in manufacturing industry and that nothing in the Government's policy is replacing those? Will he further acknowledge that, instead of selectively taking the last two months, the realistic trend of the last six months shows that the rate of decrease in unemployment in Scotland is such that it will take 160 years to get the unemployment level back to the level that the Tories inherited?
    Mr. Lang: That is one of the most idiotic questions that I have heard in this Chamber for some considerable time. The hon. Gentleman takes no account whatever of the expansion of the service industry, and of banking and the financial sector, all of which generate good, effective and profitable jobs. A more significant point about
    272
    manufacturing industry is that output is almost at the level that it was at when there were 190,000 more jobs in manufacturing. That improved productivity is the strongest safeguard for future growth and employment in Scotland.
    Mr. Buchan: Does the Minister agree that on no fewer than 19 occasions the Government have fiddled the figures, and that on each occasion that has, accidentally, Glory be, brought the figures down? Does the hon. Gentleman further agree with the Secretary of State for Employment, who said, "I lose no sleep over unemployment"? As Conservative Members are fond of quotations, does the Minister agree with the most recent quotation by the Secretary of State when he went to Renfrewshire, an area devastated by unemployment, where eight out of 10 young people in my constituency either have no job or are on short-term training, and said, "Every day is like Christmas."? If every day is like Christmas, when will the unemployed get some bloody presents from the Government?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. There have been only six discernible changes—[Interruption.] —in the method of calculation of unemployment — [Interruption.] Two of the changes—the change to fortnightly registration and the inclusion of the severely disabled — have had the effect of increasing, not reducing, the unemployment count. If the hon. Gentleman wants to look for dramatic and substantial changes in the way in which the unemployment figures are calculated, he should look back at the previous Labour Administration, who removed adult students, which had an effect that could have been as high as 200,000 at some times in the year.

    Primary Schools
    Mr. Steelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to alter his policy relating to the merger of primary schools so as to have at least three teachers.
    Mr. John MacKay: My right hon. and learned Friend has no such policy. Decisions on those matters are essentially for local authorities.
    Mr. Steel: Is the Minister aware that he will always be warmly welcomed in the Borders with his fishing rod in the increased leisure time that he will have from 12 June onwards, but that his last visit to my constituency has been widely misconstrued? The speech that he made at the opening of Newlands school, amalgamated with two schools two miles on either side of it, has been widely interpreted as meaning the first amalgamation of rural schools in scattered areas. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will make it clear that that was not his intention.
    Mr. MacKay: The right hon. Gentleman was present when I made my speech at that opening, and I think that he was as impressed as I was with the new school that was being built there. I would not embarrass him by asking him whether he was impressed by the speech, but I remind him of what I said in it. I said that there are some places, as in my constituency, where one-teacher schools are inevitable. That is our firm policy in the Scottish Office.
    Mr. Henderson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that in helping such schools it is of great assistance that the pupil-teacher ratios are better than they have ever been before?

    273
    Will my hon. Friend further confirm that that also helps the unemployment problem because more young people are now leaving school with an educational qualification than ever happened under the Lib-Lab pact?
    Mr. MacKay: My hon. Friend is quite right. The pupil-teacher ratios in primary and secondary schools in Scotland are at the best level that they have ever been. Indeed, we are seeing an increasing number of youngsters leaving school with qualifications.
    Mr. Dewar: The Minister will understand that I did not have the advantage of listening to his speech, but I carefully read the press statement. In it, he makes it clear — presumably it is a highlight that he wished to emphasise by including it—that he thinks that schools with fewer than three teachers are educationally disadvantageous. There is a clear implication that he expects them to go whenever possible. I want to be clear that that is his position, particularly on 5 May the Secretary of State for Education and Science in England gave a writen answer in which he distanced himself deliberately from that position and made it clear that he thought that
    "geography; the distances to be travelled to alternative schools in the event of closure; and the age of the children making these journeys."—[Official Report, 5 May 1987; Vol. 115, c. 311.]
    should be taken into account. Can the Minister do something to put a warmer face on the nasty accountancy approach that he seems to have been taking to those matters until now?
    Mr. MacKay: Perhaps it is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman was not present on that occasion to hear my speech and to see the school, but the position is as I stated to the leader of the Liberal party, the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel). Of course there are areas in which, inevitably, one-teacher schools will be the way in which local communities' educational needs have to be dealt with. It is clear that when there are any proposals for amalgamation from the regional councils, it is essential that the parents and other local interests are consulted and the decisions are taken along with the policy. For primary schools, where there is a distance of more than five miles between the closing and receiving schools, that case has to come to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and myself. We then look carefully into the situation, and that includes asking the local Member of Parliament for his comments.
    Mr. Donald Stewart: As the Secretary of State for Education and Science has recommended a reprieve for all rural schools south of the border will the Minister issue a directive or recommendation to local authorities in Scotland to the effect that a similar position should obtain there?
    Mr. MacKay: It is a pity that the right hon. Gentleman, who is the leader of the Scottish National party, does not realise that there is a difference between Scotland and England. The Department of Education and Science put out a circular and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has announced a change in that position. Our Department did not put out a circular. Our position is the one that I laid down clearly a few minutes ago, which is that it is up to the local authorities to look at the issue. In my view—I made this perfectly clear in my speech in the Borders — if local
    274
    authorities are to change the school structure in the villages, they have to co-operate and take with them the parents in the villages.

    Civil Nuclear Power
    Mr. Hirstasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the effect on electricity prices in Scotland of phasing out civil nuclear power.
    Mr. Rifkind: The South of Scotland Electricity Board estimates that tariffs would have to rise by about 30 per cent. if civil nuclear power generation were to be phased out in Scotland.
    Mr. Hirst: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for his reply. Does he agree that if Labour and the alliance got their way and scrapped nuclear power the high energy using industries would leave Scotland altogether? In particular, will my right hon. and learned Friend reiterate that if Opposition policies to scrap nuclear power are implemented the British pulp mill at Irvine will never go into production?
    Mr. Rifkind: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Liberal assembly voted to abandon nuclear power, and the Labour party also carried such a resolution. No doubt because of the damage that would be done to the Scottish economy by the Labour party's policy, the Scottish TUC refused to support the Labour party on this issue. The TUC has emphasised that it believes that Torness should be commissioned and that Hunterston should continue to be available. It has emphasised its belief that nuclear power must play a crucial part in meeting Scotland's energy requirements. The Scottish TUC has clearly rejected the views of the Labour party in Scotland on such an important issue.
    Mr. Strang: Does the proposal put forward by the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Planning—that people living close to nuclear power stations should receive financial compensation—have the right hon. and learned Gentleman's support?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman can be assured that any policy with regard to those near nuclear power stations that may be enunciated by the Government will apply throughout the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Corrie: If nuclear power were phased out in Scotland, what effect would it have on employment in the generating industry? What effect could it have on employment outside the generating industry because of increased costs?
    Mr. Rifkind: The best estimate of those who would be directly involved is of some 10,000 jobs in Scotland associated with the nuclear industry. In recent weeks, we have had the decision on Sizewell by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, which has led, for example, to Weirs announcing 200 or 300 extra jobs, to Babcock confirming that it would now not need to announce additional redundancies and to other such improved opportunities. Clearly, phasing out would have a devastating effect in Caithness, where about 20 per cent. of all employment is associated with Dounreay, which might explain why one alliance Member is strongly in favour of nuclear power although his colleague the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) is strongly against it.
    Mr. Foulkes: Does the Secretary of State accept that it does not help the economics of the SSEB to have the huge capital investment of Inverkip power station lying unused? Is he aware that Strathclyde region has suggested to the SSEB that it carry out a study into the feasibility of converting Inverkip to coal burning? Will the Secretary of State and the Government give every encouragement, both moral and financial, to the SSEB to carry out this important and valuable proposal by Strathclyde regional council?
    Mr. Rifkind: The specific use of Inverkip is clearly a matter for the SSEB to determine in the light of its overall requirements. I was encouraged by the fact that when the SSEB made its announcement about Inverkip it said that it believed that those who would otherwise be employed at Inverkip could be re-employed elsewhere within the SSEB's activities. The future use of Inverkip must be a matter for the SSEB to determine.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: Further to what my right hon. and learned Friend has said about Sizewell, is he aware that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) has made it clear that the alliance policy is against the Sizewell decision, despite the importance of the jobs for Renfrewshire and Glasgow, and that the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) — I make nothing of the point that he is not here today, as he has many duties, for example, at Oxford university — has not dissociated himself from that statement? Is not the right hon. Member for Hillhead a disgrace to Glasgow?
    Mr. Rifkind: Not only the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) but all alliance candidates in Renfrewshire and elsewhere in the west of Scotland must accept, as the Labour party must accept, that companies such as Weirs, Babcocks and many others which are heavily dependent upon such orders would suffer severe redundancies if the policies of those parties were implemented.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Ernie Rossasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the seasonally adjusted unemployment figures for Scotland and the Dundee travel-to-work area for the last available date; and what were the figures in May 1979, compiled on a similar basis.
    Mr. Lang: There were 150,400 unemployed claimants in Scotland on a seasonally adjusted basis in May 1979 and 344,600 in March 1987. Unemployment data on a seasonally adjusted basis are not available for smaller areas.
    Mr. Ross: How does the Minister feel about the fact that since the Government came to power unemployment in Dundee has doubled? How does he line that up with the recent decision of the Secretary of State to claw back £500,000 in rates from the Dundee district council? How many jobs will that cost the local community, particularly as the Secretary of State for Employment has withdrawn 450 community places? How many jobs will be lost in Tayside by his right hon. and learned Friend's decision to claw back £2·8 million from the Tayside region?
    Mr. Lang: If the hon. Gentleman would care to reflect on the number of jobs that have been lost by the high rates in Dundee, he might be nearer to the mark. Dundee has
    276
    featured considerably in the Government's plans to help people with training, employment and enterprise measures. Many schemes have been pioneered successfully in Dundee and it now has five job clubs. The Scottish Development Agency has launched a major initiative in the area and the area also has an enterprise zone. The consequence of that is a continuing and substantial increase in enterprise in the Dundee area.
    Mr. O'Neill: Would the Under-Secretary of State care to reflect on the fact that in the past 12 months the number of people out of work in Clackmannan has dropped by six? What would he say to those who are employed by McKinnons, who had their hopes dashed by the parsimony of the Scottish Office in backing the bid that was put in for that group some weeks ago? How can he square his crowing about the fall in unemployment figures with the prospect of 150 jobs going down the river because of the failure to back a bid which may have guaranteed 1,000 jobs in Scotland?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman can have absolutely no evidence for that claim, as my Department has been involved in making available assistance in the context of a takeover of that company. As to unemployment in Clackmannan, I have no doubt whatsoever that Clackmannan will share in the fall in unemployment, which is now so apparently widespread around Scotland.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the Dundee travel-to-work area millions of pounds of public funds have been spent and an enterprise zone has been created since 1979? Does this not show that throwing public money at problems does not necessarily produce jobs? Secondly, does he agree that jobs are created by those who work and create wealth and that the additional rates imposed by the Tayside regional council will make it extremely difficult for the Tayside health board to raise the extra funds and will cost many jobs?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. During my last visit to Dundee I was most impressed by the way in which some of the old jute warehouses had been adapted to provide accommodation for new, small, start-up businesses. The businesses are creating many jobs and seem to have a high survival rate.
    Sir Russell Johnston: Should the mad caprice of the electoral system produce another Conservative Government, would the Minister be able to make any projection of a decrease in unemployment over the next two years, or is he just wandering around in a fog with no idea of where he is going?
    Mr. Lang: On the contrary, we have a firm idea of where we are going. In the next Parliament we shall continue with the policies that are now yielding such great successes, as a result of which such independent organisations as the Fraser of Allander Institute and the CBI are now producing their most optimistic estimates of the economic situation for a long time.

    National Farmers Union
    Mr. Bruceasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairman of the National Farmers Union of Scotland and what matters were discussed.
    Mr. John MacKay: My right hon. and learned Friend and I attended the union's dinner on 12 March. I

    277
    addressed the annual general meeting the following day and had a further detailed exchange with the leadership and members.
    Mr. Bruce: The Under-Secretary will recall that a delegation of myself and colleagues met him on 8 April and urged him, amongst other things, to support the increase in the suckler cow premium. I welcome the fact that yesterday the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in a written reply to me, confirmed that that will be done, in response to pressure and demand from the industry, and indeed, from myself and hon. Friends. Will the Minister now acknowledge that although that is helpful, it does not resolve the crisis in the beef industry, which is looking for a double figure devaluation of the green pound? Will he give an assurance that he is pressing for that?
    Mr. MacKay: I do not want to depress the hon. Gentleman's delusions of grandeur, but I remind him that it was the Government, with Agriculture Ministers at the December Council, who persuaded the Community to raise the ceiling on the suckler cow premium, which has allowed us to increase the amount to be paid this year from £24·74 to £33·40. That will mean that some £3¼ million more will go into the Scottish beef industry. The industry will welcome that and will thank the Government for their efforts in getting that.
    Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. Friend agree that that increase of no less than 35 per cent. in the suckler cow subsidy is good news, but does he also agree that the Government's retention of the sheepmeat and beef regimes, lowering interest rates and the keeping down of inflation is also welcome news for Scottish farmers, who have been going through a difficult period as a result of the weather and for other reasons?
    Mr. MacKay: Yes, my hon. Friend is quite right. One of the other important gains that we made at the December Council was to keep the beef variable premium scheme for the next two years instead of having to battle for it every year. My hon. Friend is also right about the need for a devaluation. We have made it clear that the 4 per cent. devaluation proposed by the European Commission is not enough. Our aim will be for a higher devaluation, certainly one higher than that for the French and Irish, who already have more MCAs than the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Does the Minister accept that the Government's record in rural Scotland is downright shameful? In particular, does he remember the description of the Government's position by the president of the National Farmers Union of Scotland as
    "A botched-up, incoherent and chaotic set of policy decisions"?
    Now that we have almost unprecedent depression and uncertainty in the farming industry, and growing chaos in the CAP, is the Minister aware that the industry will be far better off when it returns to the practical partnership on which it has always been able to rely under Labour Governments?
    Mr. MacKay: I am always interested in the view of the landowner from Berwick on these matters. I should like to be a fly on the wall when he explains to farmers around Britain that the Labour party will rate agricultural land and considerably increase the cost to farmers. We have a good record on farming. Of course, there are difficult times
    278
    with surplus production, but anybody who thinks that there is an easy solution to that lives in cloud-cuckoo-land, which is probably where the hon. Gentleman does live.
    Mr. Pollock: Does my hon. Friend agree that, above all, farmers seek confidence in their industry's future and reassurance about their prospects? Does he agree that he and his colleagues must be seen publicly to fight their corner on behalf of farming? Will he continue to give a commitment to fight vigorously to remove the distortion of the green pound and protect Scotland's vital livestock sector?
    Mr. MacKay: I am well aware of the position of the beef sector and its importance to Scottish agriculture. Indeed, when I visited my hon. Friend's constituency earlier in the year and met his farmers they left me in no doubt about the importance of those matters and I left them in no doubt about the Government's commitment to the farmers and the rural economy of Scotland. That is shown clearly by the announcement that we have just made about the suckler cow premium and the reiteration that I have just made of the view of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on our aims in the current negotiations over the green pound.

    Steel Industry
    Mr. James Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next meet the chairman of the British Steel Corporation to discuss the tube manufacturing side of the steel industry in Scotland.
    Mr. Lang: There are no plans for any meeting in the immediate future, but as indicated on previous occasions my right hon. and learned Friend hopes to continue to meet the chairman of the British Steel Corporation on a regular basis.
    Mr. Hamilton: When the hon. Gentleman next meets the chairman of the British Steel Corporation, will he remind him of the widely reported statement that a French company is trying to form a consortium with Clydesdale steelworks in my constituency and that, if the consortium is formed, 600 jobs will go from Clydesdale steelworks? Bearing in mind all the other redundancies that have taken place in Lanarkshire, does he not feel that it is incumbent on him to impress upon the chairman that it is vital that the consortium be made aware that the 600 jobs are saved?
    Mr. Lang: I wish the hon. Gentleman a long and happy retirement when he leaves the House.
    The press reports to which the hon. Gentleman referred are speculation. The BSC will be vigorously seeking additional orders for the steel capacity in this country, both at home and abroad. Any proposal would have to come to the Government for approval, and no such proposal has been put to us.

  SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

    Road Deaths
    Sir Russell Johnstonasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland what was the number of fatal accident inquiries concerning road deaths in the last year for which figures are available.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Peter Fraser): As far as can be ascertained, in 1986 there were 13 road traffic cases which resulted in fatal accident inquiries being instructed.
    Sir Russell Johnston: Is the Solicitor-General aware that many people are puzzled about the small number of fatal accident inquiries that there are in proportion to the number of fatal accidents? I understand that in 1986 there were 600 fatal accidents. Can he advise the House what criteria are used by his Department to initiate inquiries, because in many cases great stress is caused to individuals who suffer the loss of friends and relations because of a lack of knowledge as to exactly what happened?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: If there are criminal proceedings following a fatal accident on the roads, in most circumstances it would be wholly inappropriate, either before or after such a trial, to hold a fatal accident inquiry. In some circumstances, under the Act there is a mandatory requirement that a fatal accident inquiry be held. A discretionary inquiry is held where it is considered expedient in the public interest on the ground that the death was sudden, suspicious or unexplained, or occurred in circumstances such as to give rise to serious public concern. It is under the last head, where a discretion is exercised, that such inquiries are held.

    Royal High School, Edinburgh
    Mr. Canavanasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland what is the number of people employed by the Crown Office at the old Royal High School building, Edinburgh.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The total number of persons employed in the Crown Office is 104.
    Mr. Canavan: Although I realise that the Solicitor-General may be busy in the next few weeks looking for another job for after the general election, may I ask him to try to find time to look for alternative premises for the more important people who are employed at the Crown Office headquarters? After the general election the building will be required for the Scottish Assembly, which the Labour Government will set up and which the majority of the people of Scotland want because they are absolutely fed up with being ruled by a quasi-colonial Tory junta which received no mandate from the people of Scotland in the last general election, and which will be kicked out by an even more resounding majority at the next general election.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The only chance there is of significant movement is that of the hon. Gentleman from his seat, as the Labour party Front Bench will have to move below the Gangway to find somewhere to sit after the general election. I have indicated on previous occasions that the Crown Office will look for alternative premises some time in the future. There is plenty of work for the Crown Office to do and it is a perfectly satisfactory use of the building for the time being.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: Will my hon. and learned Friend take steps, anticipating the high probability of his being returned and occupying his present position after the general election, to look at the possibility of his staff being employed elsewhere so that the Royal High School
    280
    building can be sold because a Scottish Assembly will have no part in the prosperous, competitive Scotland that the next Conservative Government will seek to achieve?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Yes. As I have already said, there is another appropriate location in Edinburgh for the Crown Office. It is extremely unlikely that the existing building will ever be put to the use of a Scottish Assembly. The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) should appreciate that while his party was in government it spent its time arguing strenuously about a Scottish Assembly but did absolutely nothing to reform the law in Scotland. Since 1979 we have introduced about 23 reports from the Scottish Law Commission. We have done a great deal more than the Labour Government ever did, with all their talking.

    Project Zircon
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if he is now in a position to say when he expects to receive (a) an interim and (b) a full report from the procurator fiscal on the progress of police inquiries in relation to Project Zircon.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: A number of reports have been received since 31 January.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is it not 101 days since the special branch moved into Queen Margaret drive? Is it not 105 days since the Glasgow Herald and The Scotsman prominently displayed information about the likelihood of a police raid? Is it not 106 days since the Secretary of State for Scotland was first told what was happening? Is it not 107 days since Chief Inspector Ray Dowd of New Scotland Yard contacted Alan Protheroe of the BBC? Why have distinguished policemen in Strathclyde and the Metropolitan police failed to come up with anything?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I know that the answer I have to give to the hon. Gentleman will not fit in with the bizarre preoccupations that he has over this matter and the gratutiously offensive things that he has said repeatedly and without any foundation or basis of fact about my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I would have thought that the last honourable thing that the hon. Gentleman might do before the end of this Parliament is withdraw those remarks.
    Mr. Foulkes: Does the Solicitor-General for Scotland accept that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, as the Department responsible for Project Zircon, would be the aggrieved party in any action taken in relation to that project? I am sure that the Solicitor-General for Scotland is aware of Professor Bradley's view that the aggrieved party has a particular role to play in the case of any prosecution. Therefore, can the hon. and learned Gentleman say what contact has been made with Ministers or officials at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to ascertain their views on the matter?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: My interest and that of my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate is to ascertain, through the procurator fiscal, following an investigation, whether there have been any breaches of the Official Secrets Act or any other offences.
    Mr. Dalyell: The Solicitor-General for Scotland is just stalling for time.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: If the hon. Gentleman will give me a moment, I might be able to give his hon. Friend a reply.
    Mr. Dalyell: Just be a Law Officer.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I know what Professor Bradley has said, and on previous occasions I have indicated that my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate and I disagree with what he said would be the appropriate steps to be taken with regard to contracting the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. However, more recently, as I have said, we are awaiting further reports, although some have been received. In that context, there is no further contact with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the great difficulties in the Zircon project investigation was the fact that the BBC linked the various programmes in a way that made it impossible for the searches to be carried out without having to look for all the related aspects? That complicated the inquiry from the outset and it was necessary that the instructions given to the procurator fiscal made it clear that that complication existed.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: When my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary addressed this matter in a debate some weeks ago he made it clear that the matter relating to the "Secret Society" programmes was so interwoven that that action had to be taken. As far as I am aware, the BBC has never publicly dissented from that.
    Mr. Buchan: Surely this is a most shocking situation. It is three months and more since the most devastating invasion that has ever occurred in Britain, in which the hon. and learned Gentleman's Office was closely involved. It had all the appearances of a conspiracy and charges have been made about the Secretary of State for Scotland. After three months, and on the eve of their own demise,
    282
    the Government still cannot come forward with even an interim public statement. It is an absolute disgrace for the whole of Scotland.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am not sure whether there was any question in the hon. Gentleman's comments. However, while the matter is being investigated, and while reports are being received, I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman, who proclaims himself to be a protector of the interests and rights of the individual, would expect such reports to be carefully considered by Crown counsel before any action was taken. To make a statement about this matter in the interim could, in certain circumstances—and I am not saying that such circumstances will occur—be highly prejudicial to anyone wanting the right to a fair trial.
    Mr. Dewar: The Solicitor-General may remember that when we last exchanged views on this matter at Question Time, he gave what I am sure was the inadvertent impression that all the material to allow the "Secret Society" series to be transmitted had been returned to the BBC. I understand that that is not true with regard to the Zircon programme. Will the Solicitor-General confirm that? Can he estimate when the material will be returned to the BBC, so that the BBC can proceed with showing that film?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Certainly, as I understand it, and I do not depart from this view, with regard to five of the six programmes, all the necessary material has been returned. There is what I believe is described as a principal transmission film of the Zircon affair programme which is still being held. Technicaly, I cannot say whether there is sufficient material in the hands of the BBC for that programme to be broadcast. However, I can confirm that the principal transmission film is still retained. In any event, I understood that it was the BBC's attitude that it would not broadcast that particular programme. I am not sure whether the hon. Member is aware of any change in the BBC's attitude.

State Security
3.31 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the need for the Prime Minister to set up an inquiry into the role of the late Airey Neave, and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in relation to attempts to destabilise the elected Government in the 1970s."
The matter is [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Dalyell.
Mr. Dalyell: The matter is definite in that the authors of "The Pencourt File" which, as the Prime Minister rightly said, sparked off the 1977 inquiry into the security services, have been reported as having been interrogated by the right hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) and the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), the late Airey Neave and the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I refer to the article by Anthony Cheesewright which is in your possession, Mr. Speaker. That article is headed
"Tebbit's joy at Wilson's plight."
The information has come to light since the Prime Minister turned down the call for an inquiry.
I have to persuade you, Mr. Speaker, that the matter is important, because it raises the issue of obligations of hon. Members of this House in condoning trouble made for the elected Head of Government of this country by the security services.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Bad taste."] I hear it said that this is in bad taste. I will openly say that the late Airey Neave was a friend of mine—[Interruption.] It is important also because a beneficiary of so much of the late Airey Neave's activity is the present Prime Minister —[HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."] It is unbecoming for such a beneficiary to turn down an inquiry demanded by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Sir J. Callagham).
Mr. William Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Dalyell: The matter is urgent because the then hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), who seemed—and I put it politely—to acquiesce in the daily tricks of the 1970s, is now in charge of the Conservative party. In advance of the general election, could time be found for a statement as to whether the right hon. Member for Chingford is a reformed character in this matter? Has he changed his spots? A great deal has been written about this matter in the public prints. Before the House goes to the polls, we should have an answer one way or the other. There is a powerful lead letter in The Guardian today stating that there is an obligation of the kind for which I asked last Thursday for the clearance of the late Airey Neave. As the Leader of the House is present, there is an obligation for the clearance of the late Sir Maurice Oldfield.
Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration.
I have listened with great attention to what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I regret that I do not consider that the matter which he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Not at this moment. I have received four further applications for debates under Standing Order No. 20 on the proposed poll tax in England and Wales. I propose to call only one—that of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) which is in broad terms. According to "Erskine May", page 350,
"A further application on the same subject on the same day … will not normally be accepted by the Chair."
I cannot therefore accept further applications on the subject of a poll tax in England and Wales, but I will hear the hon. Member for Blackburn.

Rating System
3.35 pm
Mr. Jack Straw: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely
"the proposals for the poll tax in England and Wales and its differential impact in different regions."
The matter is obviously specific. The urgency is that the Government published a Green Paper, Cmnd. 9714, "Paying for Local Government", on 28 January 1986. They set a consultation period until 31 July 1986. The right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), then Secretary of State for the Environment, said in the House:
"The pace of further developments … will depend on the outcome of the consultation process."—[Official Report, 28 January 1986; Vol. 90, c. 798.]
All local authority associations, including the Conservative-dominated Association of District Councils, have damned the proposals for a poll tax, and so have many others. Opposition to the poll tax in England and Wales is as widespread as it is in Scotland. Ministers, knowing this, have dodged and refused debates in the House, and any detail of the impact has had to be dragged from them. [Interruption.]
The importance of this is clear. A poll tax is unheard of in the western world outside the United Kingdom. It is a medieval tax. It will hit all those on low incomes, including widows, pensioners, families with adult children and the single unemployed everywhere. It will hit inner London and widen the north-south divide. [Interruption]
Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The application is being made to me and I want to hear it.
Mr. Straw: A poll tax will aggravate inner-city problems. All 40 authorities which would bear the greatest burden of poll tax are to be found in inner London and in the metropolitan counties. The 20 authorities which would benefit most are in the south of England. I give just one example. The Secretary of State for the Environment said that under his proposals the same local tax bill would be paid for the same standard of service. Yet in Burnley, Pendle, Rossendale and Darwen and Hyndburn, the poll tax would be about £200 per head, twice the amount in Gillingham, Kent, where expenditure is only 33 per cent. higher.
The proposals in the Green Paper were made to this Parliament. Ministers should have the guts to debate them in this Parliament.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent Consideration——
Mr. Dennis Skinner rose——
Hon. Members: Throw him out.
Mr. Skinner: Oh, yes— not you; only Labour.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has caused me to lose my place—namely,
"the proposals for the poll tax in England and Wales and its differential impact in different regions."
Again, I have listened with great care to what the hon. Member for Blackburn has said, but I regret that I do not consider that the matter which he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.

Points of Order
3.39 pm
Mr. David Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have we not now heard a complete abuse on two occasions of Standing Order No. 20? I submit that the last application was purely politics.
The first application was a smear against a former Member of the House whose crest is over the entrance to this Chamber. Would it not be in the interests of the House if some procedure were devised under which applications under Standing Order No. 20 were submitted to you in advance so that you could sift out what was bogus and what was not, before, in my submission, the rules of the House are completely and utterly abused, as has happened on these two occasions?
Mr. Speaker: The Standing Order No. 20 procedure is a prized time for Back Benchers and it must not be abused. However, those applications were submitted to me in advance and if they are in order I am bound to hear them.
Mr. Bill Michie: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. While fully accepting your ruling on the Standing Order No. 20 application by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), in view of the serious implications for many families in the inner cities of England and Wales, would it be possible for you to use your good offices to influence the Leader of the House to make a statement some time this week?
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the House will have heard that. It is not a matter for me.
Mr. William Cash: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As may well be known, on a number of occasions I have had reason to cross swords with the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) about points of order. However, I have never before heard him behave in such a disgraceful manner as he has done today. Would it not be proper, Mr. Speaker, for a reprimand to be given to him for behaving like a bounder and a cad?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's application was in order and it is up to him how he puts it. I shall take Mr. Marlow.
Mr. Tony Marlow: On a brief point of order, Mr. Speaker, and a disturbing one. If there is to be a rat hunt in this House, I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that vermin will not be found on this side of the Chamber.
Mr. Alan Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would not raise this point of order except that we are at the stage of Dissolution and it is a matter of some importance to the House. As you will appreciate, tomorrow is the last Prime Minister's Question Time before the election. A week ago today, after the right hon. Lady's statement, I wrote to her on behalf of
288
Opposition Members asking why, for four months, she told the House that no inquiry was necessary into the treason allegations when in fact an inquiry was taking place at the same time. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is usually meticulous in replying promptly to correspondence. I have received an acknowledgement, but not a reply from the Prime Minister —[Interruption.]— in the intervening week. Is there any way, Mr. Speaker, in which you can help us to ensure that, before Question Time tomorrow, we have information from the Prime Minister to explain why, for four months, she told the House far less than the truth?
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman has not raised a matter of order, but it will doubtless have been heard by the Leader of the House and by other right hon. Members on the Government Front Bench.
Later—
Mr. Andrew Faulds: On another point of order altogether, Sir.
Mr. Speaker: Well——
Mr. Faulds: A real point of order, unlike most that appear from the Benches opposite and these Benches sometimes. Could you explain to us, Sir: those of us who are eager to pay the normal courtesies to you — not eager to see you go, but eager to pay the normal courtesies in bidding you farewell and a very successful campaign for your return— when are we by this rearrangement of the old traditional procedures allowed to do so? Will it be late on Friday? Will it be early on Monday? Could the House and those hon. Members who are eager to pay their proper respects to you be allowed some sort of information as to when this is allowed to happen?
Mr. Speaker: This matter was raised yesterday and I propose to make a statement about it tomorrow. I can tell the hon. Gentleman now that on Friday I propose to remain in the Chair after the proceedings are at an end to greet and say farewell to hon. Members who may wish to do so. Furthermore, hon. Members who are retiring from Parliament and may happen to be here on Monday will be welcome to come to my house between 12 noon and 1pm for a glass of sherry.
Mr. Faulds: Those of us who will he returning to this place——
Mr. Dennis Canavan: What about those with no chance?
Mr. Faulds: Those of us who will be returning to this place who will, unfortunately, by other commitment be unable to bid you farewell on Friday, will we be welcome to your house, Sir, on Monday?
Mr. Speaker: I shall have to see whether I can afford it.

Appellate Committee (Proceedings)
3.43 pm
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I rise to raise with you, Sir, a point of order of which I have given you notice. As a courtesy, I have also given notice to the Lord Chancellor and to the Clerk of the Parliaments since they clearly also have an interest in the matter.
It is my submission that there is supposed to be published in the Official Report of each House of Parliament, all proceedings in Parliament.
Members of both Houses are entitled to draw from, respectively, the Vote Office of the House of Commons, and the Printed Paper Office of the House of Lords, the Official Reports of the proceedings in Parliament of the other House: which Official Reports are also available for sale to the public.
The proceedings of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords are "Proceedings in Parliament": yet they are not available either to Members of the House of Commons, or to the public, as Official Reports. I would therefore be most grateful to you, as I expect many outside both Houses would also be, if you would be good enough to arrange for the proceedings of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords to be made available to Members of the House of Commons and, indeed, therefore to the public in the same manner as are also the Official Reports of all other proceedings in the other House of Parliament.
I should like to add two points. Those proceedings are in no way analogous to private Bill proceedings. They are proceedings which define the public general law as passed by both Houses of Parliament. Secondly, Select Committees of this House as well as individual Members in debate may need to quote those proceedings, and it is both ludicrous and anomalous that they should have to rely on Times law reports, accurate or inaccurate as the case may be, of those crucial proceedings in Parliament, rather than on an Official Report of them.
I do not expect you, Mr. Speaker, to be able to rule on this today; but I would be most grateful if it were possible for you to do so tomorrow. I am most obliged to you for hearing me.
Dr. John G. Blackburn rose——
Mr. Speaker: On the same matter?
Dr. Blackburn: Yes, Sir. Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) said that he would wait for a decision, not only as an act of courtesy, but as this is a delicate matter. One of the cases bears on my constituency and relates to the motor industry. If that information was available, it would not only help planning and financial investment, but would have a direct effect on jobs in my constituency. Therefore, I take this opportunity to support my hon. Friend on this important point of order.
Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn) for what he has said and the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) for raising this important matter. I shall, indeed, look into it and do my best to make a statement to the House on this tomorrow.

Dangerous Substances
3.50 pm
Mr. Doug Hoyle: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend the application of industrial hazard regulations to include all sites containing potentially dangerous substances; and for connected purposes.
First, I should declare an interest as president of the Association of Scientific, Technological and Managerial Staffs. This will be the last ten-minute Bill that will be presented before the Dissolution of Parliament. Nevertheless, it is an important measure.
My Bill would extend the role of the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1984. At the moment those regulations cover only 200 sites. Some 1,300 sites are not covered by those regulations, but they are covered by the Notification of Installations Handling Hazardous Substances Regulations 1982. The difference between those regulations is that the Notification of Installations Handling Hazardous Regulations are much weaker. For instance, they do not include controls on the handling of dangerous substances. There is no requirement on them to draw up, on site or off, emergency plans concerning the public. Indeed, there is no requirement for them to inform the public as to what steps they should take during an emergency. It is only recently that the operators were required to notify the Health and Safety Executive, but thanks to pressure from the trade unions and the environmental lobby, operators can no longer keep them secret; they must reveal them, Even so, the public are not made aware of them.
If the regulations could be brought within the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1984, operators would be required to do the following. They would be required to produce on-site and off-site emergency plans, provide information to members of the public about what to do if an emergency occurs and convince the Health and Safety Executive that the plant they operate is being run safely. Those requirements are good so far as they go, but they could be better. It is certainly an improvement on the other requirements. The effect of the regulations applies only to the larger plants that are handling chemicals in very large quantities. The other quantities that are being handled by smaller plants are just as dangerous but at the moment they are escaping these regulations. For instance, incidents involving liquefied petroleum gas, which is better known as calor gas, or half a ton of chlorine may be just as dangerous as incidents where chemicals are being handled in far larger quantities in major plants. My Bill would include the other 1,200 sites that are handling these dangerous chemicals.
The extension of the CIMAH regulations will have one further effect. It will reverse the Government's policy of reducing the numbers of Health and Safety inspectors. The Government have only just removed the ban on the recruitment of inspectors. That is disgraceful and callous, and shows an uncaring policy.
Another difficulty with regard to the Health and Safety Inspectorate is that their remuneration is pitched far too low at the moment, so there is a difficulty in recruitment. I hope that the increase that the Institution of Professional Civil Servants has applied for will be received favourably because it will increase remuneration and make it easier to recruit inspectors. There is a need for them. They are interested not only in remuneration but in health and

291
safety. Indeed, there is a great demand for that. Having fewer inspectors means that health and safety is going by the board. It is difficult to do a job and improve health and safety when at the same time we have a Government committed to deregulation and Victorian values.
In his recent report, the chief safety inspector said:
"There is a disquieting increase in industrial accidents".
That is especially true of the chemical industry, for which the fatal and major accident rate has risen from 77·1 per 100,000 employees in 1981 to 104·3 per 100,000 employees in 1986. That represents an increase of 35 per cent. in the past five years. That means that human blood has been spilled on the floor of chemical plants and that is due to the cut in the number of health and safety inspectors that has occurred since the Government took office.
Recently there have been three major accidents. The BP Grangemouth explosions caused the death of three people. Houses 20 miles away were shaken by the explosions and people telephoned the emergency services in the belief that an earthquake had taken place. There was a serious fire at the Coalite plant — a matter that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has frequently raised in the House. We discovered that, at that plant, dioxin was still stocked despite the fact that the company had said that it had got rid of it in 1968.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: 1978.
Mr. Hoyle: I bow to my hon. Friend's superior knowledge.
The plant had claimed that it had got rid of its stores of dioxin in 1978, but that was not so. There was also a major fire at ICI Billingham, which killed one person.
If that is the state of affairs at major sites, one shudders to think what health and safety conditions are like at smaller sites; that is why I wish to bring those sites within the remit of my Bill.
If my Bill is implemented it will lead to the recruitment of extra factory inspectors. It will also lead to greater safety and protection not only for the people working on the sites but for the public. I believe that, unless something is done and such measures are adopted, sooner or later we shall have a British Bhopal.
I believe that the public have a right to know whether they are sitting on a time bomb. For that reason, I have introduced this Bill. I realise that, as it has been introduced so late, we shall not make much progress. However, with the general election on the way, I believe that the public have a right to know about such matters. Health and safety should be one of the major election issues. I hope that I shall obtain leave to bring in this Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Doug Hoyle, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Frank Cook, Mr. Ernie Ross, Mr. Chris Smith, Mr. Ian Mikardo, Dr. M. S. Miller, Mr. James Lamond, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. Stan Thorne, Mr. Stan Crowther and Mr. Richard Caborn.

DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES
Mr. Doug Hoyle accordingly presented a Bill to extend the application of industrial hazard regulations to include all sites containing potentially dangerous substances; and for connected purposes; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday and to be printed. [Bill 161.]

Abolition of Domestic Rates etc. (Scotland) Bill (Allocation of Time)
3.58 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): I beg to move,
That the Order of the House [11th February] be supplemented as follows:

Abolition of Domestic Rates etc. (Scotland) Bill (Allocation of Time)

  Lords Amendments
  1. — (1) The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and, subject to the provisions of the Order [11th February], those proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of the proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
  (2)Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
  (3) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
  (4) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration), a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.
  (5) If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, on this day before the expiry of the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
  2.—(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above—

  (a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of the Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment to the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;

  (b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

  (i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown. That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or, as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;

  (ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;

  (iii) put forthwith with respect to the Amendments designated by Mr. Speaker which have not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments; and

  (iv)put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

  (c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.

  (2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

  Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments
  3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of the proceedings.
  4. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

  (a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;

  (b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

  (i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;

  (ii) in the case of the remaining items designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their said Proposals; and

  (iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House cloth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

  Supplemental
  5. — (1) In this paragraph 'the proceedings' means proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.
  (2) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of the Message or, as the case may be, for the appointment and quorum of the Committee.
  (3) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which they are appointed.
  (4) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
  (5) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
  (6) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.
  he motion provides for three hours of debate, which begins now. We must get through a large number of amendments, but the bulk of them are technical and drafting amendments. I believe that the period of three hours provides plenty of time for discussion of the issues of substance raised in the amendments. However, it would be unfortunate if we were to use up time discussing the allocation of time motion. I hope that the Opposition will agree that that is sensible.
  4.0 pm
  Mr. Donald Dewar: As so often happens, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) is wrong. We intend to say a little about the timetable motion. I assure him that we wish to leave adequate time to raise or amendments and ensure that they are debated. I find the allocation unsatisfactory, for reasons to which I shall refer in a moment or two.
  I recognise the pressures on Governments and that Ministers like to get to their legislative programmes. I accept, too, that, on occasions, there are double standards
  294
  in speeches made in debates of this kind. I do not deny that, probably in a month or two, we shall use timetable motions and defend the principle, but we must examine the merits of every case as a matter of perspective— as a matter of keeping a sense of proportion. The Government have the duty to think about what is right for the House and for the parliamentary process. They have got the balance wrong on this occasion, and I shall attempt briefly to persuade the House of that fact.
  The Under-Secretary of State briefly introduced his motion. It is a supplementary motion, tacked on as almost an afterthought to the main guillotine motion, which, of course, truncated the Committee proceedings. Normally the Leader of the House or the shadow Leader of the House would perform on such occasions, but this time we have had to be content with the Under-Secretary of State. I make no complaint about that, except to remark that he is rather more shameless in his approach to such matters than is the Leader of the House, who normally, probably because of long contact with the Prime Minister, has a certain self-deprecating style. He smuggles bad news and offensive material into debates in a way that is quite endearing. There is always an air of apology about such matters. He implies that he is only the messenger. The defence is always one of incrimination, that he is bringing the news from some other Minister. On this occasion, of course, the Under-Secretary of State is attempting to bungle through the remaining stages of a highly controversial measure in three hours, and three hours alone. This is not satisfactory, partly because of the enormously long consideration of the workability and practicability of the measure, both in the House and in another place.
  The amendments deal with issues of genuine concern. During the long Committee stage, despite some of the misplaced sarcasm in an earlier debate, Ministers were forced to give ground. We now have a series of specific but important issues dealing, for example, with the definition of mentally handicapped, and with students, in the context of exemption from poll tax. The amendments raise complicated arguments; for example, about the definition of severe impairment. Why are we talking about mentally handicapped people, but not about physically disabled people? A range of issues are raised in the amendments and in the variations to the Lords amendments that have been put down by my hon. Friends and myself.
  No one who has followed the debates, even in the most Cursory way, will fail to recognise that, in connection with the protection of the living standards of students, there are severe reservations about what the Government are proposing, even after the rather ill-defined and incomplete amendment. Such anxiety is not the preserve of the National Union of Students and individual constituents, but has been reflected by principals and vice-chancellors, who are genuinely concerned about the ability of universities to compete for students in the circumstances that the Government envisage.
  Mr. Andrew Faulds: Would my hon. Friend care to consider the significance of the fact that, on this major piece of legislation, which drastically changes the rating system into this new poll tax idea, it is a matter of such importance to the Government that they have managed to muster three Back Benchers and one PPS to discuss these issues, that my admirable young hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), out

  295
  of his usual charitable inclinations, had to lend his backside to their Benches to make them look healthier; and, of course, that he was trying out a future position on those Benches in government?
  Mr. Dewar: My hon. Friend has made a fair mathematical point with characteristic subtlety. He is right. There is a proper degree of diffidence among some Conservative Members about appearing in such debates these days.
  The complicated matters to which I have referred and which we shall debate in a short compass have been swept up into a brief period of parliamentary time. The debate is taking place in injury time— the twilight days— with a Scottish Office team that is already living on borrowed time. The exceptions are not satisfactorily defined. We are still getting an enormous number of representations from people who have no political axe to grind but who are alarmed at what is happening. My first point is that the timetable motion does not give the House the opportunity it should have to consider, debate and reach a measured conclusion on such matters.
  One other factor of a more fundamental nature must be canvassed. We are looking, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) said by way of an intervention, at a remarkable fiscal innovation. We are looking at an almost unprecedented poll tax, certainly in the sophisticated financial systems of Western Europe. It is a poll tax, and I use that term unashamedly. Presumably I shall no longer be criticised for doing so. It was given the Prime Minister's imprimatur only this week as the proper expression. I was delighted to hear the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs refer to the "poll tax" in the proceedings last night on the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Bill. It is a poll tax. The hon. Gentleman was quite right to use that term. It is an imposition of so much per head, straight across the board. It is a tax that is widely seen as regressive and impractical. It has little support across the range of Scottish public opinion.
  I recognise that the motive for introducing the poll tax—the volte face that we have seen since 1983 in Government thinking—is imagined electoral advantage. Conservative Members are wrong. It will be an unpopular imposition and will become much more unpopular over the next year or two, if it reaches the statute book and, even more relevantly, if it is ever implemented. I have made the point before that we know that an irreversible rise is built into the poll tax. With the treatment of commercial and industrial rates we shall narrow the tax base— the buoyancy factor — in a remarkable fashion. The poll tax will certainly escalate in a way that will greatly disappoint, and probably alarm, those who may calculate temporary personal advantage from it.
  I make those points because the depth of opposition to, and the concern about, the tax puts a large question mark over the propriety of forcing the measure through in this way. From a large amount of independent evidence, we know that there is concern about its impact. I saw a report — I am sure that the Minister is familiar with it— from Professor Hughes at the department of economics at Edinburgh university. He did a calculation based upon, I gather, an extensive and cheerful survey of a sample of Scottish households to try to take into account the impact
  296
  of the social security changes that are so interlinked with the poll tax and rebate system, and the impact of the tax itself. His conclusion was that one needed a household income of well over £400 a week before one was likely to benefit from the changes. That underlines what I have said about its regressive nature.
  I have another report. Again, it is from an area of the country that has not traditionally been seen as in alliance with my party. I refer to the plea—that is the correct word — from the convenor of the Highland regional council, whose planning department, according to The Scotsman,has come to the conclusion that the effect of the tax in the Highlands will be
  "staggeringly different from the Government's intentions set out in the Green Paper.
  According to the department, up to 91 per cent. of households in the more remote parts would be worse off and the local taxation burden on such communities would rise by more than 230 per cent."
  It is not just a plea from our heartland and support. We are articulating a view that is beginning to be painfully reflected in different parts of Scotland. I believe that the Government should even now think again. My plea is a simple one. I do not think it is right for Ministers to force the Bill through in this way and at this time. We all know that there is an election in only a few weeks' time. It would be best to suspend judgment on the matter now and leave it to the judgment of the electorate, to see what the people have to say about it. If the Bill is forced through with a last-gasp guillotine motion, we shall be lumbered with an unwanted and ill-advised tax that will be deeply resented.
  Politicians talk — I did so a moment ago myself— about propriety, but that is too nice a consideration. There are deeper and more basic considerations here. It is a matter of a feeling for Scotland and respect for Scottish opinion, and it would be wrong to bulldoze the legislation through in the dying days of this Parliament. To do that would be to show the kind of insensitivity that damages trust, not in the Chamber, but in the communities of Scotland.
  We unashamedly dislike the measure. It is wrong and we are implacably hostile to its implementation. We do not approve of the decision to force it through in this way. It is for those reasons and because we know that, on this and many other issues, we speak for such a wide coalition of Scottish opinion that I shall, in a while, invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide against the motion.
  4.12 pm
  Mr. Alex Fletcher: I shall be brief, and I mean it—unlike the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar).
  I was surprised by the complaint made by the hon. Member for Garscadden, which was not about the shortage of time that is available' in this session of Parliament to discuss the legislation. It has spent many hours in Committee, in another place and in this Chamber. Presumably his objection is that, at this late stage in this Parliament, the House is making decisions on the final shape of the legislation.
  I do not understand that objection. What could be fairer and more democratic than that the Government should put specific proposals before the electorate in Scotland about the community charge and the abolition of domestic rates? The proposals are in no way uncertain or ambiguous: they are specific proposals, enabling the voters in Scotland to know precisely what the choice is

  297
  between the present system of domestic rates and the community charge proposed in the legislation. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, who is normally fair-minded about these matters, should completely ignore the fact that, as we go into the election, there will be no doubt in people's minds about what the Conservative party is proposing in terms of the community charge, or about what the Labour and other Opposition parties are proposing—they are all proposing the status quo.
  Mr. Faulds rose——
  Mr. Fletcher: I said that I would be brief, so I shall not give way.
  The other parties are all proposing that we should keep the present system of domestic rates; the effect of that, as it is in Edinburgh, will be to increase again by 30 per cent. the cost of rates to many people who cannot afford that amount of tax.
  The Government believe that the new system is a fairer way of raising local revenue. The Opposition believe that the present system is fairer. In the time-honoured phrase, we shall be going to the country now, and the thing to do is to trust the people.
  4.15 pm
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: I support the views expressed by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who spoke of the coalition of interests in Scotland against the Government's proposals for reform of local taxation. I hope that, after the election, the hon. Gentleman will again talk of a coalition of Scottish interests, and will be prepared to participate in these discussions if the electorate decides that it is appropriate to have cross-party government.
  Speaking about the timetable motion, the Minister has made the quite astonishing suggestion that the matters to be considered this afternoon are purely technical. They are far from that. Some of the amendments passed in another place go to the very heart of the Government's Bill and of the principles that the Minister has earlier stated. They go against the concept of universality — that everyone in Scotland must pay, whatever his ability to pay, at least 20 per cent. of the new poll tax. I do not see how the Minister can set that aside as purely technical, and no doubt we shall be discussing that in more detail later.
  Since the Bill was considered in Committee and in another place, a number of further matters and representations have come to light which make it quite improper — I repeat the word used by the hon. Member for Garscadden—to proceed with the legislation in the face of the increasing evidence of the inequitable way in which the tax will operate, and the improper way in which it will bear heavily upon the majority of the Scottish people.
  The study to which the hon. Member for Garscadden referred, by Professor Gordon Hughes of the university of Edinburgh's department of economics, makes it clear that the main burden of the poll tax will fall on those with gross household incomes ranging from 70 per cent. to 150 per cent. of the average household income. In other words, the bulk of the Scottish people will be cowering under the blows inflicted by this insensitive and out-of-touch Government.
  Mr. Barry Henderson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maclennan: This is an all-too-short debate, and the hon. Gentleman should take up any matters that may concern him with the responsible Minister.
  Professor Hughes stated, in conclusion:
  "It should be noted that, if the community charge is as expensive and difficult to collect as some fear, the average local tax burden of all groups will increase because of the high levels of the community charges required to replace domestic rates. The question of implementation must therefore he the main concern about the effect of this proposed reform".
  Professor Hughes has raised issues that were raised in Standing Committee but were not authoritatively examined— certainly not by the Government. However, they were raised by Opposition Members of all parties.
  It has also been made clear—some of the Lords amendments touch on the point — that the above-average increase in local taxes due to the community charge, in households whose heads are aged between 45 and 59, confirms the belief of many of us that the poll tax will bear heavily upon broad sections of the community which the Government have tried to suggest they were seeking to protect. In households whose heads are aged between 45 and 59, families with children over the age of 18 who are still living at home will bear the burden of the tax change.
  These are authoritative objections and they go to the root of the proposals, which the Government have presented as an attempt to relieve the Scottish people of an unloved tax. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Sir A. Fletcher) wholly misrepresented the position when he suggested that other political parties in Scotland have not put forward alternatives. Not only has the Scottish National party put forward its proposals for a local income tax, but the two alliance parties have done so. Furthermore, in another place, the official Labour Opposition also supported proposals for the introduction of a local income tax.
  In a series of answers to parliamentary questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) on 8 April and, subsequently, from myself, the Minister demonstrated how right we have been to advocate local income tax. On the equalised figures that he has, most Scottish people living on the incomes that I have summarised, in the groups that are mentioned by Professor Hughes, will be substantially better off under the local income tax scheme.
  No doubt this measure will be a centrepiece of the Prime Minister's speech in Scotland later this week. It was brought forward in a hurry without adequate consultation and without consent. Its sole aim is to seek to save the Government from the embarrassment caused by the revaluation that they put in hand.
  The Scottish people regard this tax as anathema. That is one reason why the Conservative party in Scotland will go down to humiliating defeat on 11 June. The Minister who has been saddled with this measure may well prove to be its most spectacular victim. He has fought it through Parliament against the overwhelming opposition of all those hon. Members who represent the true interests of the Scottish people.
  The impropriety of seeking in a matter of a few hours to wipe out a form of taxation which, though inequitable and unloved, has lasted for 200 years, beggars constitutional precedent. The Minister has done nothing for his own reputation or for that of the Government in seeking to proceed in the manner that he has proceeded today. There are many significant and substantive

  299
  amendments and they have to be considered in the all-too-short time available. Substantial debates cannot take place. The amendments touch upon the position of students and the definition of the registered disabled and mentally handicapped and cannot possibly receive proper consideration in such a short time.
  I predict that if this measure is placed on the statute book it will not last five years. It will be repealed and replaced by a tax that is in accordance with proper principles of local taxation, related to an ability to pay. That reform will be welcomed by the people of Scotland as a whole. Even though the Labour party has not been in the van, it will follow us in introducing an effective local income tax.
  4.22 pm
  Mr. Norman Buchan: I shall be brief, because many hon. Members want to take part in the debate. This measure is a kind of constitutional travesty. Never in the whole history of Parliament has a basic tax that is to be applied to the entire population of Scotland and in future to the population of England and Wales been treated with such contempt and brought in as a guillotined measure. It should be subject to measured debate rather than to the guillotine. It is a constitutional travesty to impose a guillotine of this magnitude in the very last syllable of recorded time in this most meretricious of all Parliaments and Governments. That is my first and most crucial point.
  Secondly, this measure not only deals with taxation which per se should put it beyond this kind of behaviour, even from this Government, but affects the well-being of the majority of the British people. The figures were not given of those who would benefit and those who would not. On the scale of comparative poverty and wealth, in every case those who are rich will benefit and those who are poor will suffer.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: That is just rubbish. How can the hon. Government possibly argue that, when poor pensioners living in their family homes will find themselves considerably better off? How can the hon. Gentleman possibly argue that everyone who is poor will be worse off?
  Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman should look at the position of poor pensioners in council houses and in some areas in his own constituency. I agree that in the case of four pensioners living together, one can make a comparison with less well-off households, but in 99 per cent. of cases the rich will benefit and the poor will suffer.
  If the hon. Gentleman wants a comparison he can look at the rateable value on the Prime Minister's house in Dulwich. This measure will in future apply to England and Wales. It is precisely because it will be extended that it has been brought in in this desperate way. All the evidence is that the same pattern will be applied in England and Wales and as a result, the Prime Minister will be given £140 a month. This measure will hit pensioners, council tenants and people on below-average wages, but less than about 15 per cent. of the top earners will lose.
  To benefit from this measure a person will need to earn about £558 a week. That is over £2,000 a month, well into £25,000 a year. The average family will lose. One thinks especially of comparatively poor families with children of
  300
  18, 19 or 20. They will lose. The additional rates on council houses in my constituency vary for a three-apartment house from £33 to £40 per month. For a four-apartment house the figure is £35 to £47 per month. The tenants of those houses, whatever their earning capacity, will be worse off to the tune of £20 a month for a couple and £40 to £60 a month if there is another earner. Compare that with the Prime Minister, who will benefit by £140 a month. Council house occupants in my constituency will face an extra bill of £20 to £60.
  Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman seems to be basing his claims about gainers and losers on the present rating system. Can he tell the House whether he believes that the present rating system in Scotland is fair?
  Mr. Buchan: If the hon. Gentleman had given us enough time to discuss this measure, we could have looked at alternative methods. At the moment, we are dealing with a measure rushed through at the very last point of time in order to obscure, among other things, the real horrors that are being applied. This is not the only aspect. This is part of the open manifesto, but we must also consider the Government's hidden manifesto. The Government claim that they will move from direct taxation to indirect taxation, which means value added tax, and that will hit the poor. Direct taxation has been cut, but the average taxpayer is nearly £7 a week worse off as a result of the increase in indirect tax.
  The Government are trying to beat their hidden manifesto by running to the country and they do not have the courage to perpetuate their policies for another week. They are running to the country a year before their time in order to hustle through measures like this and avoid the measures that are clearly adumbrated in the hidden manifesto.
  The Tory Commissioner in Brussels, Lord Cockfield, who is an appointee of the Prime Minister, is proposing to extend value added tax to books. At one time the Conservative party might have resisted that. It is also proposed to extend it to other publications, to babies' and children's clothes and to fuel and food. That is the background to which this tax has been rushed through.
  I hope that the people of Scotland, who have been betrayed by the Government, will know about the results that we are seeing here and about the monstrosity that is being committed, and that they will reject the Conservatives at the polls in three weeks. This is a damnable and in many ways an unconstitutional measure and it will certainly hit the pockets of all the working people of Scotland.
  4.29 pm
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: I am astonished at the speech by the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan). The hon. Gentleman never ceases to astonish me. He seemed to be arguing that pensioners who had saved a little money during the course of their lives and who are on low incomes should subsidise people in work who are earning good money. That is the substance of his argument. He seemed to be arguing in favour of retaining a rating system that he admits is unfair. I wonder why. The explanation is obvious. The hon. Gentleman likes the rating system because it allows his party to remain in local government and force pensioners and others with savings and low incomes to pay for the extravagance of his

  301
  colleagues in power in local government. He knows that when the Bill is on the statute book the game will be up for the Labour Left in local government in Scotland because no longer will those people be able to ask the minority to pay for their extravagance and their policies.
  If, as the hon. Gentleman argues, the Bill is so unfair and so unpopular, why are he and the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) so anxious to prevent it from getting on the statute book? If it is so unpopular in Scotland and if it will do so much harm, they have the ideal opportunity in the forthcoming general election campaign to convince the people. The reality is that, even in these last desperate hours, they are struggling to prevent the Bill from being passed because they know that it will be popular, even with those who will have to pay a little more, because the people of Scotland recognise that the system proposed in the Bill may not be perfect, but it is very much better than the rating system that we have. The people of Scotland are not so venal as those in the Labour party and the alliance, who think that, just because some people will have to pay a bit more, that is a reason for not having the legislation.
  The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland does not want the Bill to reach the statute book because he does not want the people of Scotland to have a clear choice. He has regaled the House with long speeches— half an hour on Second Reading and goodness knows how many hours during the 120 hours in Committee. He has failed, despite repeated challenges, to explain how his local income tax would work. He say: "We in the alliance have said that we are in favour of a local income tax," but he has not explained how that tax would not result in people in rural areas paying far more towards local government than they will under the community charge or at present under the rating system. He has failed to do so despite repeated challenges. He says that it is not his job to define how local income tax will work. He wishes to prevent the Bill from reaching the statute book so that there will not be a clear choice for the Scottish people.
  The clear choice is that if they return a Conservative Government, they will see the abolition of the rating system and a fairer system instead, whereas if the Conservative Government are not returned, we shall have fudge and mudge. However, the hon. Gentleman and his party will never form a Government and people will be left with the rating system ——
  Mr. Maclennan: The people of Scotland, particularly those in the Highlands, know that although the rating system is bad, they will be substantially worse off under the Government's proposals. Dr. Arthur Midwinter has put to the Government the fact that seven out of 10 households in the Highlands region will pay substantially increased taxation as a result of the Government's proposals. That is a fact. On local income tax, the hon. Gentleman does not need a speech from me to draw attention to the facts, which demonstrate beyond peradventure that, under local income tax, the majority of Scottish people would be substantially better off than under the appallingly inequitable tax that the hon. Gentleman has been backing from the beginning.
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman is like a cheap ticket tout. He sought to intervene when I criticised him for not spelling out how his local income tax policy would work, yet again he has failed to do so. Instead, he makes
  302
  allegations about our policy and who would be disadvantaged by it. The hon. Gentleman fails to deal with the basic point, that, under his policy of a local income tax, people in the Highlands, with a narrow tax base, would pay far more than they will under the community charge or the present rating system.
  In his speech on local income tax, the hon. Gentleman made great play about the effect on people with average incomes, but he does not seem to have noticed the answer that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary gave, which shows that a local income tax would be a disaster for the people of Scotland. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to promote such a policy, that is his business, but he owes it to the people of Scotland to explain how it will work and how it will be to their advantage. The fact is that, for the vast majority of people in the Highlands who at present are suffering under the rating system, the community charge will be a welcome relief.
  It is true that those who are in work, who are able to pay and who have contributed nothing to local government in the past, will be required to do so, but the hon. Gentleman does not take into account the effect of the community charge on local government itself. He seems to imagine that the whole thing is static. The fact is that when the politicians in local government are subject to accountability, when they know that every decision that they make will have an effect on the pockets of the people who elect them, they will behave more responsibly.
  It is important that the Bill is passed, not only so that the people of Scotland have a clear choice, but so that local government is given a guiding light for the way forward. The way forward is to be responsible and accountable to the people. By all means let us make local government take decisions at local level; let us remove some of the controls on expenditure that have been imposed from the centre, as we do in the Bill; but let us recognise that it is only by bringing accountability to the system that we shall achieve that aim.
  The Bill has been discussed ad nauseam in the House. This view has come not just from Conservative Benches; significantly, every newspaper in Scotland has commented on the lamentable opposition from the Opposition parties. Every commentator, every group——
  Mr. Dewar: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why some of the points that we pushed so enthusiastically and unrewardingly in Committee now appear as Government amendments?
  Mr. Forsyth: If I may say so, the hon. Gentleman does his colleague, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) a great disservice. My instant reaction is that, based on the latter's performance in Committee arid his muddled thinking— at one point he had to ask my hon. Friend the Minister what his own amendment meant — it is not surprising that he did not score many successes in Committee. If the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) finds that the arguments in the other place were aired more successfully, I should have thought that that was a criticism of his colleagues, not of my hon. Friend who is putting forward suggestions for change. Indeed, the fact that there are amendments before the House shows that my hon. Friend is being flexible in considering the matter.
  My criticism of the Opposition is that on Second Reading, in Committee and during the Bill's passage

  303
  through the other place, they singularly failed to come up with an alternative to what we have on offer. They have nailed their colours to the rating system, which is unfair, because it penalises people who improve their properties, those who have saved and those who have a stake in their property. It rewards extravagant and unprincipled Left-wing local authorities, in which I understand the hon. Member for Garscadden has some interest.
  The people of Scotland are waiting for the Bill to become an Act. When it is, they will know that the hon. Member for Garscadden and his friends would repeal it if they won the election. I am sure that the people will give their verdict at the polls.
  4.38 pm
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: Unlike the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), I do not intend to speak for long. I remind him that one of the reasons why we shall vote against the motion is that it is unfair and unjust. It is the job of a parliamentary Opposition, with different constituencies, to oppose measures that we consider to be deeply damaging to our electorate.
  To some extent, I was surprised to listen to the claims made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Sir A. Fletcher), followed by the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) and subsequently the hon. Member for Stirling. There were great calls to the Scottish people for the coming election. We know that the Bill would never have seen the light of day if the parliamentary majority in Scotland had control of legislation. It has been pushed through on the basis of English votes in the House of Commons because there is an overall United Kingdom majority for the Conservative party.
  It is illogical for the hon. Members for Edinburgh, Central, and for Stirling to say that it will be sufficient to put the matter to the test of the electorate. If the Conservatives won the election, but their numbers were decimated in Scotland, would the Government say that they would drop the legislation? Having put the matter to the Scottish people, would they say that the legislation had been rejected because there was not sufficient support at the polls? That puts to the test Conservative Members' assertions that they are putting something to the Scottish people. They are not. It is part of the programme for the British people, and if the Scottish people take a different view, they will have to like it or lump it. In this case, they will be lumping it. They will have to pay out a substantial sum in cash.
  The Government are to leave it to the electorate and the people, but to which electorate and people are they leaving it? I have no doubt that in the coming election the Scottish people will reject not only the Conservative party but the piece of legislation on which it has pinned its hopes. Is it not a mark of the Conservative party's desperation that, two years ago, it was looking around for something on which to get a grip? The Conservative party, to its eternal discredit, has produced a piece of legislation that will have a vicious impact on the people of Scotland. It will cause distress and hardship.
  The Government say that it is a choice between the rating system and the community charge, but I can envisage no benefit to the people at large from this new system. I accept the Government's arguments against the rating system, which has long outlived its usefulness and
  304
  any fairness. The Scottish National party and the alliance parties have proposed a local income tax, which would be based on ability to pay. The acid test will be whether it is fair. Will people have to pay more even though they may not have the income to do so? The abolition of domestic rates—much though I welcome the abolition—is spoilt by the introduction of the poll tax. If this measure ever comes into effect, the Government will bitterly regret what they have done. The dislocation caused will far out-measure any of the temporary embarrassments felt by the Government during the rating revaluation about two years ago.
  4.41 pm
  Mr. Bill Walker: I am fascinated to learn that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) comes to the House to suggest that the business on which Scottish Members spend their time is not relevant to Scotland but is relevant to the whole of the United Kindom. We believe that our separate Scottish laws are important, so much so that we spend many hours on them in Committee — many more than the hon. Gentleman has ever done.
  Labour Members have a commendable record for the way in which they work on legislation that affects Scotland. We may not agree with what they do, but we will not criticise their work load. Sometimes they put their points badly and do not present them well, and sometimes they fluff them. That has been their record on the Bill—they have not won the arguments or presented them well — but one cannot argue with the fact that Labour Members attend the Committees and apply themselves.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has a commendable record in dealing with Scottish legislation. Some of us think that, like most lawyers, he goes on a bit, but no one ever suggests that he does not carry out his duties properly and effectively. The hon. Member for Dundee, East is criticising not only Conservatives, but the Labour party, suggesting that Labour Members should not apply themselves so diligently to Scottish business because he judges it to be United Kingdom business. This is a piece of Scottish legislation and it is right that it should have been dealt with as it has been. Much time was spent on Second Reading and in Committee considering it.
  The Opposition think that Conservative Members have suicidal tendencies, but that is not so. I invite Labour Members to tell me after the general election about their great pledge that they will win Tayside, North. That is called whistling in the dark anywhere else. The alliance candidate may have an argument with Labour Members, never mind me, on that.
  Mr. John Maxton: I tend to agree with the hon. Gentleman— he may just retain his seat, in which case he looks like being the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland after the election.
  Mr. Walker: That is just about the most awful piece of nonsense to which I have ever listened. I believe that the Secretary of State for Scotland will be my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind). He is probably one of the most able and clever Secretaries of State that we have ever had. There is no doubt that he will retain his seat comfortably. I believe that any honest individual in the House would accept the fact

  305
  that my right hon. and learned Friend will lead for the Conservatives in Scotland on this matter. He will be leading out front, as he does so ably and well.
  Mr. Henderson: Unlike the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), our right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State can trust his No. 2 to handle the Bill effectively. Is my hon. Friend surprised that, during all the hours of consideration in Committee and on the Floor of the House, we still have not heard from the Scottish National party or from the other parts of the anti-Conservative alliance how their local income tax will work? Is it the kind of local income tax that will disadvantage the most deprived areas, or is it the kind of local income tax that will mean that people who live in areas of prudent local authorities will subsidise those who live in the areas of spendthrift local authorities?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The motion before the House is long and wordy, but I cannot find any reference in it to income tax. I hope that hon. Members will stick to the motion.
  Mr. Walker: I do not want to be caught out twice in two days, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Once is enough. May I say that I regret that your comments yesterday have not been printed in Hansard and I hope that the matter will be put right. If one looks carefully, one will see that there is an omission at the beginning of the relevant business yesterday. The statement that you made and which I did not hear is not reported. I do not argue, but it should be printed. I just wanted to let you know about that, Sir. I have no wish to fall foul of you on two consecutive days——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand the point that the hon. Member is making. I have not studied Hansard, but I assure the hon. Member that I shall and, if there is any fault, I shall seek to have it corrected.
  Mr. Walker: I have no doubt that you will do that, Sir. The object of drawing it to your attention was to see that the record was put right.
  I return to why there should be a guillotine and why the community charge will be of benefit to people in Scotland, especially in my constituency. My hon. Friend the Minister may be interested to know that the rate demands in Scotland went out within the past two weeks, certainly they did in Tayside. I have not heard a single unfavourable comment on the community tax, but I can certainly fill a barrel with the unfavourable comments that I have received on the rates increases that have just been inflicted on the citizens of Tayside by the Labour administration, assisted in that enterprise by the nationalists. The people of Tayside have no doubt who is attempting to protect their best interests. People in north Tayside believe that the hon. Member for Dundee, East, who cannot even attend the House when his Bill is debated, is not the type of individual who should comment ——
  Mr. Maxton: The hon. Gentleman was not here yesterday.
  Mr. Walker: Hon. Members may find it amusing, but from time to time I have a slight hearing defect, which is the result of my activities while I was on service for His Majesty. That is a matter of record, and I am not ashamed of it, but it gives me problems from time to time. I was present at that time, so that is not the problem.
  306
  It is unique for a party to go to a general election with legislation as interesting and, perhaps, as controversial as this, but it would be barmy even to think that any party would be so foolish as to do so if it did not genuinely believe that the new system was a substantial improvement on the existing system of local government taxation. Rates are unpopular with the public at large and people have condemned them, particularly the few who have to pay vast sums.
  The Labour party has used the rating system more effectively than has any other local government party because it recognises that it can buy votes by spending other people's money. I congratulate the Labour party on having done that so successfully. Labour party Members are troubled because, if the system is changed, they will have the same opportunity to buy votes as they have done in the past. Everyone over the age of 18 will be required to contribute, which can only mean that they will take an interest in how the money is spent. Even those who are given income assistance in the form of rebates will take an interest because of the fact that they have to make a contribution.
  The contribution is approximately the same as the cost of a television licence. There are figures on how many television licences exist among the lower paid, pensioners and those on supplementary benefit. I have no doubt that they will be capable also of paying the community charge, or at least the reduced rate that they will be required to pay. The people who will pay the full amount are those who can afford to pay. I have three adult daughters who enjoy the benefits of local authority services, and I think it is right that they should pay for them.
  Sir Russell Johnston: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why it is right that someone on a low wage should pay exactly the same as someone who earns an enormous amount of money?
  Mr. Walker: I can explain that easily. Much of local authority expenditure comes from central taxation. Those on high incomes—whatever "high" is; it is relative—pay more income tax and buy more expensive products which carry more value added tax. Therefore, they contribute handsomely to the coffers of central Government. As it is the central Government, on behalf of the taxpayer, who pick up the bulk of the cost of local government services, it can be said that those on higher incomes are already making their contribution through central taxation.
  The big problem with linking local authority expenditure to rates is that other local government expenditure affects central Government taxation. I mentioned earlier today that the Tayside region has put up its rates, which will put an unbearable additional burden on the Tayside health board. The board will have to find an additional £500,000, which means that £500,000 less will be spent on health services and facilities. The ratchet effect of this has meant that the Government have had to find a way to ensure that central Government expenditure is properly funded, as it is through taxation — that is, personal income tax, value added tax and corporation tax on profitable companies.
  Those taxes fund the central Government's contribution to local government expenditure, so taxpayers who pay higher rates of tax are able to say, with hand on heart, "I am paying for my proper share of services." Anyone who uses additional facilities, such as

  307
  water, has to pay for the amount consumed, as determined by the water meter. Many provisions are available to cater for that, so it is right that those who can afford to pay should pay equally. In other words, those who use the same services should pay equally, and those who, for whatever reason, require income assistance — whether through supplementary benefit or in some other way—are catered for in the same way as students and others who have special requirements.
  My hon. Friend the Secretary of State is to be congratulated on the way in which he has dealt with those who have special needs. I congratulate the Government on the way in which they have dealt with these matters. I am delighted that the Bill will be on the statute book as an Act before we go to the country.
  Mr. Maxton: Will the hon. Member answer this question : if the Scottish people reject his Tory party at the next election and, by some mischance, the people of England return a Tory Government, will he demand that his Government withdraw this measure?
  Mr. Walker: That is a nonsensical question, but I have no hesitation in answering it. I expect the Conservative party to do as well in Scotland as it did in 1983, if not better. I shall not make unrealistic claims——
  Mr. Norman Hogg: Why not? You always do.
  Mr. Walker: I shall not make unrealistic claims, and I shall not be tempted by the less than silent Deputy Chief Whip of the Labour party. I say to the hon. Gentleman that we expect to do well and to return as the Government. I expect to be sitting in my place as the hon. Member for Tayside, North and I look forward to looking into the eyes of those hon. Members who are fortunate enough to return to the Labour Benches and to see whether they enjoy again their term in opposition.
  4.56 pm
  Mr. Ancram: In the few moments left before the debate ends, I will respond to some of the points made during——
  Mr. Hugh Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there any reason for calling the Minister at this stage? There is nothing in the rules to suggest that the rest of us should not be called.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that the Standing Order requires this debate to be concluded one hour after its commencement, which will be at 4.58 pm.
  Mr. Faulds: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is an extremely important and radical piece of legislation. A number of us are very eager to speak; not only Members for Scotland but Scottish Members who represent English constituencies, because the implications of the legislation will spread into England. It is quite improper if, to help the Government's funk in running to the country, parliamentary discussion is prevented and that this is pursued and allowed by the Chair. We must have an opportunity——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not reflect on the Chair in that way. I am the prisoner of Standing Orders. I have to carry out the Standing Orders which have been agreed to by the House. The Standing Orders govern the timetable.
  Mr. Faulds: Further to that point of order, Sir. When will we have the opportunity to revive this debate, because it is an extremely important and very radical measure?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman now is, I must say, abusing the time of the House. I told him quite clearly that I am bound by Standing Orders, as is every other hon. Member, including him.
  Mr. Ancram: During this debate we have heard nothing but black propaganda from the Opposition parties.
  Mr. David Lambie: Could you quote the Standing Order on which you base your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I would not refer to Standing Orders unless I had made sure that I was acting in accordance with them.
  It being one hour after the commencement of proceedings
  on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question,
  pursuant to the Order. [11 February]
  The House divided: Ayes 256, Noes 176.

  Division No. 164]

  [5 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Corrie, John

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Couchman, James

  Alexander, Richard

  Critchley, Julian

  Ancram, Michael

  Crouch, David

  Ashby, David

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Dicks, Terry

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Dover, Den

  Bellingham, Henry

  Durant, Tony

  Best, Keith

  Evennett, David

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Fallon, Michael

  Blackburn, John

  Farr, Sir John

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Fletcher, Sir Alexander

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Forman, Nigel

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Forth, Eric

  Bright, Graham

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Brinton, Tim

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Franks, Cecil

  Browne, John

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Galley, Roy

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Butterfill, John

  Gorst, John

  Carlisle, John (Luton N)

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Grant, Sir Anthony

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

  Greenway, Harry

  Carttiss, Michael

  Gregory, Conal

  Cash, William

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Gummer, Rt Hon John S

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Chope, Christopher

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Churchill, W. S.

  Hannam, John

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Harris, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Harvey, Robert

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Cockeram, Eric

  Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)

  Colvin, Michael

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Conway, Derek

  Hayward, Robert

  Coombs, Simon

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Cope, John

  Henderson, Barry

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hicks, Robert

  309

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Raffan, Keith

  Hind, Kenneth

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hirst, Michael

  Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Renton, Tim

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Holt, Richard

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Hunter, Andrew

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Jackson, Robert

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Rost, Peter

  Jones, Robert (Herts W)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Ryder, Richard

  Key, Robert

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Knowles, Michael

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Knox, David

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lang, Ian

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Latham, Michael

  Shersby, Michael

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Silvester, Fred

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Sims, Roger

  Lester, Jim

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Lightbown, David

  Speed, Keith

  Lilley, Peter

  Speller, Tony

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Spencer, Derek

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

  Lord, Michael

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Steen, Anthony

  Maclean, David John

  Stern, Michael

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Madel, David

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Marlow, Antony

  Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)

  Marshall. Michael (Arundel)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Mates, Michael

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Mather, Sir Carol

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mellor, David

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Merchant, Piers

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Tracey, Richard

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Moate, Roger

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Wall, Sir Patrick

  Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

  Waller, Gary

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Walters, Dennis

  Mudd, David

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Warren, Kenneth

  Nelson, Anthony

  Watts, John

  Neubert, Michael

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Newton, Tony

  Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Whitfield, John

  Norris, Steven

  Whitney, Raymond

  Onslow, Cranley

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Osborn, Sir John

  Wilkinson, John

  Ottaway, Richard

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abgdn)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Pawsey, James

  Wood, Timothy

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Woodcock, Michael

  Pollock, Alexander

  Yeo, Tim

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Powley, John

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Price, Sir David

  Mr. Gerald Malone and Mr. Michael Portillo.

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  310

  NOES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Anderson, Donald

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Home Robertson, John

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Howarth, George (Knowsley, N)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

  Barnes, Mrs Rosemary

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Barron, Kevin

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Beith, A. J.

  Kennedy, Charles

  Bell, Stuart

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Kirkwood, Archy

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

  Lambie, David

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Lamond, James

  Blair, Anthony

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Leighton, Ronald

  Boyes, Roland

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Litherland, Robert

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Livsey, Richard

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

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

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Bruce, Malcolm

  McGuire, Michael

  Buchan, Norman

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Caborn, Richard

  McKelvey, William

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Maclennan, Robert

  Canavan, Dennis

  McNamara, Kevin

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  McTaggart, Robert

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  McWilliam, John

  Cartwright, John

  Madden, Max

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Marek, Dr John

  Clarke, Thomas

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Clelland, David Gordon

  Martin, Michael

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Maxton, John

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Coleman, Donald

  Michie, William

  Conlan, Bernard

  Mikardo, Ian

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Craigen, J. M.

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Crowther, Stan

  Nellist, David

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  O'Brien, William

  Cunningham, Dr John

  O'Neill, Martin

  Dalyell, Tam

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

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

  Parry, Robert

  Deakins, Eric

  Patchett, Terry

  Dewar, Donald

  Pike, Peter

  Dixon, Donald

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Dobson, Frank

  Prescott, John

  Dormand, Jack

  Radice, Giles

  Douglas, Dick

  Randall, Stuart

  Dubs, Alfred

  Raynsford, Nick

  Eadie, Alex

  Redmond, Martin

  Eastham, Ken

  Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

  Edwards, Bob (Wh'mpt'n SE)

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Fisher, Mark

  Robertson, George

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Forrester, John

  Rooker, J. W.

  Foster, Derek

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Foulkes, George

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Sheerman, Barry

  Freud, Clement

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Garrett, W. E.

  Shields, Mrs Elizabeth

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Gould, Bryan

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

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Sims, Roger

  Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

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

  311

  Snape, Peter

  Wareing, Robert

  Spearing, Nigel

  Welsh, Michael

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Stott, Roger

  Wilson, Gordon

  Strang, Gavin

  Winnick, David

  Straw, Jack

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Taylor, Matthew

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Mr. Don Dixon and Mr. Frank Haynes.

  Wallace, James

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Order of the House [11th February] be supplemented as follows:

  Lords Amendments
  1. — (1) The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and, subject to the provisions of the Order [11th February], those proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of the proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
  (2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
  (3) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
  (4) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration), a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.
  (5) If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, on this day before the expiry of the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
  2.— (1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above—

  (a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of the Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment to the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;

  (b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

  (i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown. That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or, as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;

  312

  (ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;

  (iii) put forthwith with respect to the Amendments designated by Mr. Speaker which have not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments; and

  (iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

  (c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.

  (2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

  Stages subsequent to First Consideration of Lords Amendments
  3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of the proceedings.
  4. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

  (a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the c Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;

  (b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

  (i) put forthwith the Question on any. Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;

  (ii) in the case of the remaining items designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their said Proposals; and

  (iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

  Supplemental
  5. — (1) In this paragraph 'the proceedings' means proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.
  (2) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of the Message or, as the case may be, for the appointment and quorum of the Committee.
  (3) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which they are appointed.
  (4) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
  (5) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
  (6) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.

Abolition of Domestic Rates etc. (Scotland) Bill
Lords amendments considered.
Abolition of Domestic Rates etc. (Scotland) Bill
  Clause 2

    VALUATION ROLL NOT TO INCLUDE DOMESTIC SUBJECTS
    Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 9, after "the" insert financial".
    5.11 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 14, 26, 27, 29, 30, 34 to 36, 40 to 48, 51, 53, 55 to 62, 65, 68 to 77, 79 to 109 and 117 to 132.
    Mr. Hugh Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In case there was any misunderstanding when I intervened on a previous point of order, in no way was I challenging your ruling. We should all have known that the debate was limited to an hour. I confess that I was not aware of that, although I did know that the time taken on the guillotine motion was to come out of the time for debate. If there was any misunderstanding, I apologise.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I would never expect him to reflect adversely on the Chair.
    Mr. Ancram: I say to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) that he and I are in the same position. During the past two debates on the Bill — the one on Third Reading and the one that has just finished— we were both talked out by others in the Chamber. This is the first occasion, therefore, that he and I have had to speak on the Bill for some time.
    Hon. Members of an arithmetical frame of mind may have noticed already that the first group contains nearly 100 amendments, or about three quarters of the total number made in the other place. The very first amendment, which changes a reference to "year" in subsection (1) to "financial year", reflects very well the general nature of the amendments in the group, since they are essentially of a drafting and technical nature and make no changes of substance to the Bill as it left the House. The House may be relieved to hear that I do not intend to describe each amendment in the group individually. They fall into fairly well defined categories, and I am sure that it will be for the convenience of the House if I confine my explanation to those categories.
    First, as I have mentioned, there are the amendments concerned with references in part I of the Bill, which includes schedule 1, to the expression "year". At present clause 6(1) provides that "year" is to mean the financial year of a local authority. However, in view of the proposed relocation in clause 26 of the definitions now in clause 6(1) — for which amendment No. 26 paves the way — the appropriate references in part I of the Bill to "year" in relation to a local authority are now being changed to references to "financial year". This is the approach already taken for the other parts of the Bill.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Most of my colleagues have spent many hours on the Bill. As a newcomer, may I ask why it is said more and more that the administration costs of the proposals are enormous and far greater than was first thought by the Government? The definition of "year" creates great difficulties when people are moving from accommodation to accommodation. Do the Government think that the financial difficulties of administration are greater than they first thought''
    Mr. Ancram: In Committee, representations were made to us not only by hon. Members but by outside bodies, such as the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, that the complications of administration were compounded by the proposal in the Bill at that time to have a transitional period of three years when there would be two systems running in tandem. Because of the valid concern about the cost and complexity of administering two systems together, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State decided that we should get rid of the transitional period and go for the clean break in 1989. Some of the major concerns put to us by local authorities and others who would have the responsibility of administering the legislation were met by that decision, which was carried through by my right hon. and learned Friend on Report.
    Mr. John Maxton: With respect, the Under-Secretary failed to answer the questions put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). He answered the question about running two systems. That is perfectly fair, and we accept that. But it does not answer the question that, standing on its own, it is going to be a much more expensive system to administer than the present rating system. Is that or is that not correct?
    Mr. Ancram: We have never said for a moment that this was going to be as cheap to collect as the rating system. Nobody could deny that the rating system has the virtue of being simple and easy to collect. Obviously the community charge is going to he more difficult and, therefore, more costly to collect. Although I was not alive at the time, I am informed that the window tax was a very simple and easy tax to collect. However, that was no justification for keeping it, as it really was a tax that nobody could justify. To argue against the introduction of a community charge on the basis that it will cost somewhat more than the rates to collect, rather than to compare the fairness of the present system with the fairness of the community charge, is the Labour party's last faltering attempt at opposition, which it has failed so constructively to do up until now.
    Sir Russell Johnston: Before the Under-Secretary of State leaves that point, will he help the House by telling us, roughly speaking, how much more proportionately it will cost?
    Mr. Ancram: This does not arise directly out of the amendments. If the hon. Gentleman cares to look at the debates in Committee he will find that this was discussed on a number of occasions and that estimates— they have only to be estimates—were given. I do not have them to hand, because they do not arise out of these amendments. However, I will make sure that the hon. Gentleman receives the information that was made available in Committee.
    The second series of amendments deals with the definition of the term "rates". The main amendment here

    315
    is No. 77, which provides a general definition of "rates" to mean the non-domestic rate under clause 3 and the non-domestic water and sewerage rates with which schedule 5 to the Bill is concerned. What is intended is that wherever the word "rates" appears in statute, unless the context otherwise requires, it will have this meaning. It will be clear when the context is concerned with local government finance and with rating, and consequently when rate means those three forms of non-domestic local taxation or assessment, as opposed to simply an amount or standard.
    The introduction of a general definition of the term "rates" has, in turn, required a number of consequential amendments to other provisions in the Bill. Those are the subject of amendments Nos. 72, 85 to 87, 89, 92, 96 to 102, 105 to 109, 127 to 129 and 131 to 132. I could give hon. Members examples of those amendments if they wish, but I rather gather that the House would wish me to proceed to the third category of amendments.
    The third category of amendments in this group continues the theme of refining the Bill's provisions regarding definitions. I have already mentioned amendment No. 26, which paves the way for the amalgamation of clauses 6 and 26 so that the Bill will contain only one clause containing definitions of the terms which it uses. I am sure the House will agree that, in terms of legislation, that is a useful and constructive amendment. The other amendments in the category are Nos. 69, 70,71, 74 to 76, 88, 91, 93, 95 and 103.
    The fourth category comprises a series of drafting and consequential amendments relating to what will shortly become the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987. This covers amendments Nos. 80 and 117 to 124. In general, these amendments parallel the provisions for the recovery of rates in section 247 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947, as replaced by paragraph 1 of schedule 4 to what will become the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987.
    The new clause contained in amendment No. 80 makes amendments to relevant parts of the Debtors (Scotland) Bill itself. The general effect of these amendments is to ensure that procedures and definitions relating to the recovery of community charges parallel those in the Debtors (Scotland) Bill for the recovery of rates. The amendments raise no new issues of principle and seek simply to apply to the community charge system the reformed system of diligences in the Debtors (Scotland) Bill 1987.
    Mr. George Foulkes: When the Minister explains it like that and in this environment it sounds very clinical and reasonable. Can he explain exactly what it means? What will it mean in circumstances where someone has not paid and the sheriff officer comes to his house and kicks him out on to the street with all his furniture? What will it mean for ordinary people who are caught in that sort of net? Will the Minister spell it out instead of reading the civil servant's description? Will he put it in graphic words, more human terms, so that an ordinary person can understand?
    Mr. Ancram: It is nice to see the hon. Gentleman at this debate. Had he been to some of the other debates we have had on the Bill, he would have had the answer to his question in full and in detail. Indeed, had he attended—I suspect from his question he did not—the proceedings in the House on the Debtors (Scotland) Bill 1987, he would
    316
    be well aware of the new provisions and systems of diligence that are being introduced. Many of them are being introduced as a result of the Scottish Law Commission's report, which I seem to remember the hon. Gentleman has supported in the past and called for the Government to put into legislation.
    I am sure that the fact that we are now making sure that the forms of diligence that are operable under this Bill match those within the Debtors (Scotland) Bill on the matter of rates is something that the hon. Gentleman will welcome. I am convinced that, given his history on this matter, had we not done that he would have been the first to criticise us. As I said, I welcome the fact that he is here and I am sure that he will be able to read the lengthy debates we have had on this matter in the past. However, I am sure he would not wish to bore his hon. Friends by a repetition of those debates.
    The last category of amendments in this group comprises a series of drafting and technical amendments. One example would be amendment No. 73, to clause 26, which makes an adjustment to the definition of part residential subjects. At present, the definition opens with the phrase
    "lands and heritages which are occupied partly as the sole or main residence of any person".
    The amendment would substitute the word "used" for "occupied". The difference is perhaps a small one, but the term "used" creates greater consistency of terminology within the Bill.
    Again, amendments Nos. 34 to 36 and 43 to 45 clarify the circumstances in which long-term tenants may be liable for the standard or collective community charge. At present, tenants may be liable if the premises
    "have been let for a continuous period of 12 months or more".
    That could be taken to imply that a lease would have had to run for 12 months before any question of a tenant's liability arose. As hon. Members will recall, that is not our intention, and the amendments simplify the provision to make the tenant liable when premises
    "are let for a period of 12 months or more"—
    that is, when a lease for 12 months or more exists, the tenant is liable.
    None of the amendments in this group has any significant policy content. Taken together, however, they do represent a significant improvement to the Bill, particularly as regards its organisation. In many cases they arise from criticisms or comments that have been made, either here or in the other place. They leave the Bill very much clearer and sharper. As I said at the beginning, they are largely technical. That is why, with respect to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), I did not go into a great deal of detail about the individual provisions within the amendments. I am glad to commend them to the House.
    Mr. Maxton: I accept that these are largely technical amendents, some of which we asked for, some of which were asked for elsewhere and some of which were asked for by our technical experts outside. They do improve the Bill. However, one would have thought that when the Government were changing definitions in the Bill and making them more precise and exact they might have introduced an amendment, now that it is accepted, to take out the term "community charge" and put in the term "poll tax". After all, as that is what the Prime Minister now clearly calls it, why should we not call it the same? It

    317
    is what the author called it when he originally wrote his articles. The Government do not do that because in previous White Papers they have rejected it.
    Mr. Foulkes: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is not just the Prime Minister who calls it a poll tax? Yesterday the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs also referred to it as a poll tax.
    Mr. Maxton: I accept that. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has referred to that point.
    The Minister studied history, as I did, and I believe that it was at the same university. It has always been my view that the window tax was nearer to the poll tax because of was difficult to collect and easy to evade and was given up simply for that reason.
    Mr. Andrew Faulds: My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) has made the valid point that this amendment should be made. These are not community charges because they are not spread across the community in any sort of equity. They are the introduction of a poll tax. There is no way in which that can be denied by the Government. Even the Prime Minister in her last moment of remorse has put the proper title to this charge.
    It is quite clear that the Conservative party in Scotland, or what is left of it—they are now all members of that rather selective and dying species, a small group called the league of lemmings—will not be in the next Parliament to answer the recriminations from the people about these issues. It is quite improper that this enormously radical change in the raising of local revenue should be introduced in the inappropriate terminology of a community charge when it is nothing of the sort. The word "community' suggests a sort of fairness in the measure; but, of course, there is no fairness in a measure that introduces a retrogressive tax, a poll tax, which no other Parliament in Europe—indeed, in the civilised world—has dreamt of introducing. It is a measure of the reactionary nature of modern Toryism—not the old Toryism of Disraeli, with his one nation—under the present Prime Minister, about which numberless Conservative Members are extremely unhappy but have not got the guts or the gumption to attack. It is quite unacceptable that these very radical changes should be introduced in a House as empty as this one is when the implications for England——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that we are dealing with Lords amendments of a very narrow sort. I hope that he will address himself to the Lords amendments.
    Mr. Faulds: I have ranged a little broader because the implications of this legislation will, in the unfortunate eventuality that the Conservatives get back, be applied to England and Wales. I am the only Member in the House this afternoon representing an English constituency. The fact that I happen to be a Scot is one of those fortunate accidents of fate, because most English constituencies do rather better in their representation if they are represented by a Scot rather than by the half-educated English.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): Tell that to your constituents.
    Mr. Faulds: They are well aware of that and they return me with unfailing regularity, as I have no doubt they will at the next general election.
    318
    I simply want to make the point that on the question of the amendments, to use the phrase "community charge" is misleading not only to the House but to the wider electorate outside. It should be rephrased to use the exact description, which is "poll tax". I hope that during the election campaign the point will be made about the implications of a poll tax for every individual in Britain—not just in Scotland, but in England and Wales. It will be massive in terms of the effect on the charges they are going to have to pay to raise local revenue.
    It would have been more responsible of a more responsible Government—which, of course, we do not have — had these measures been examined in great detail. Every single aspect of the raising of local revenue should have been examined to see how a more equitable system than the rating system could and should have been introduced.
    With that, Sir, because I see your eye looking somewhat averse at me, I shall end my comments on this amendment in the hope that we will have another chance to raise these massively fundamental issues of how local revenue should be raised.
    Mr. Ancram: It would be less than kind if I did not respond to the first English intervention on the Bill.
    Mr. Faulds: Scottish on the part of the English.
    Mr. Ancram: Whether it is Scottish on the part of the English——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand that the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) was, in fact, born in Tanganyika.
    Mr. Faulds: Mr. Deputy Speaker, you make my argument for me. Not only do the Scots have to represent English interests, but the Scots also have to show the rest of the world how to conduct their lives to a better purpose. The fact that my father was a Scottish missionary only underlines the importance of the point that I am making.
    5.30 pm
    Mr. Ancram: I am interested to learn the origins of the species of the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds). I have a close link with the hon. Gentleman, because he was once at school in my constituency and I am sure that that is where he managed to adopt the accent with which he entertained the House.
    I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Warley. East mention the word "equity". I understand that the hon. Gentleman is an expert on that subject. The hon. Gentleman raised the serious question why there is not an amendment about the words "poll tax". He wanted to know what was fair about a flat rate. I remind the hon. Gentleman that in many walks of life there are flat rates. We pay a flat-rate television licence. We pay the same rate of excise duty on the petrol and drink that we buy and, if we happen to smoke still, on the tobacco that we smoke.
    Mr. Rifkind: And on VAT.
    Mr. Ancram: Indeed, as my right hon. and learned Friend reminds me, on VAT. There are many examples of flat rates. We should look for the ability to pay not within the context of the community charge, but within the context of the largest proportion of local government expenditure and from where that is financed, namely, the central taxpayer where the ability to pay is underwritten throughout.

    319
    The hon. Member for Warley, East said that after the election, whether my right hon. and hon. Friends constitute the Government, there will be recriminations against the imposition of the charge. He echoed the point made earlier by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) that Scotland would be lumbered with the community charge. I am delighted to hear Opposition Members say that. That shows that, in their heart of hearts, they believe that the Conservatives will win the general election.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 14 agreed to. [One with Special Entry.]

  Clause 5

    STATUTORY AND OTHER REFERENCES TO RATEABLE VALUES ETC.
    Lords amendment: No. 15, in page 4, line 46, leave out from "the" to "value" in line 47 and insert
    "assessed rental or, as the case may be the gross annual, net annual or rateable"
    Mr. Ancram: 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. 16 to 25.
    Mr. Ancram: This group of amendments to clause 5 are also technical. The most significant are numbers 15 to 19, which introduce into subsections (1) and (2) the concept of "assessed rental". This term has not had any relevance to valuation for rating purposes since the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956, but it still appears in a number of deeds of condition for tenement properties, particularly in the west of Scotland. It was accordingly suggested by the Property Owners and Factors Association of Scotland, and by the Law Society of Scotland, that the absence of any translation of the term "assessed rental" in clause 5 might create practical difficulties, and it seems sensible that the Bill should seek to avoid this possibility. The amendments also have the effect of clarifying the meaning of "assessed rental" by equating it to "net annual value" in all cases.
    The purpose of amendments 20 to 23 is to ensure that, for the purposes of subsection (3) of clause 5, references in enactments to gross annual value, net annual value or rateable value take proper account of material changes of circumstances affecting the value of the property concerned. Amendment No. 24 is also of a technical nature. Subsections (1), (2) and (3) of the clause refer specifically to the appearance of net annual values in the valuation roll. Although valuation rolls must have a column for net annual value, assessors do not have to put a figure in that column if net annual value is the same as rateable value—as it is in most cases—so there would be difficulty in operating clause 5 where the net annual value column has been left blank. The amendment would require that in such cases, references in the clause to the appearance in the roll of net annual value should be taken as references to the appearance of rateable value.
    Mr. Foulkes: Put a bit of emotion into it.
    Mr. Ancram: The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) may find this point very
    320
    complicated, as indeed it is for the uninitiated in the law. However, it is of great importance to those who operate the law, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that these are useful amendments.
    The final amendment in this group, Lords amendment No. 25, defines the terms "gross annual value","net annual value" and "rateable value" for the purposes of clause 5 only. Given the purposes of clause 5, it is clearly necessary that the values be calculated on the basis of the law in force immediately before the domestic valuation and rating systems are abolished, and I am pleased to say that the amendment achieves this. As I have explained, the amendments in this group are largely technical. They make a number of useful improvements to the clause, and I commend them to the House.
    Mr. Robert Maclennan: Very briefly, I want to inquire why the amendments were introduced in another place so late in the consideration of the Bill. If they are as important as the Minister has suggested, did they not occur to the Minister prior to the introduction of the Bill? If not, is that not evidence of what the alliance has been saying all along—that the Bill was ill considered and rushed in judgment?
    Mr. Ancram: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to me, he would have found that these are detailed points of law. The term "assessed rental" has not had any relevance to valuation for rating purposes since the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956. We are therefore very grateful to the practitioners who are concerned about such matters — for example, the Property Owners and Factors Association of Scotland and the Law Society of Scotland. Those two bodies drew these points to our attention. I should have thought that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) would welcome the fact that we have taken those representations on board.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 16 to 27 agreed to.

  Clause 8

    LIABILITY FOR PERSONAL COMMUNITY CHARGE
    Lords amendment: No. 28. in page 7, line 25, at end insert—
    "( ) A person undertaking a full-time course of education shall, in respect of the period beginning when he undertakes the course and ending when he ceases to do so, be liable for only such percentage as may be prescribed of the amount of the personal community charge for which he would otherwise be liable.".
    Read a Second time.
    Mr. Maxton: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) is not a signatory to amendment (g), and he therefore cannot move it. None of the signatories is present. With Lords amendment No. 28, it will be convenient to consider Lords amendment No. 32.
    Mr. Ancram: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Amendment No 28 responds to concern expressed in another place about the position of students. It was argued that liability to pay the full charge could act as a marginal, but possibly significant, deterrent to overseas students

    321
    thinking of coming to Scottish universities. There was also the question whether home students should be liable to pay the community charge. Some noble Lords argued for complete exemption, others for 100 per cent. reimbursement through the grant mechanism. The view was forcefully expressed that to make students liable and increase their grants to enable them to pay the charge involved needless additional administration and that our original proposal, which I explained in Committee and on Report, for a flat incrase in grants based on the Scottish average, could lead to some unfairness.
    In light of the arguments advanced in another place, which were reflected in amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, which was not moved, we cannot accept that students should be totally exempt. We remain clearly of the view that, like other adults, students must make some contribution towards the cost of local services which they use and, consistent with the fundamental principle of accountability that underlies the introduction of the community charge, they must have some financial interest in the cost implications of the policies they can vote for.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Will students get an increase in grant to cover the cost?
    Mr. Ancram: If the hon. Gentleman had followed the arguments earlier——
    Mr. John Home Robertson: The hon. Gentleman should not be so patronising.
    Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman from his partician loftiness is shouting from a sedentary position; he would do well to listen to the changes that were made in another place.
    An Hon. Member: Just answer the question.
    Mr. Ancram: I shall certainly answer the question put by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), if his hon. Friends will allow me to do so.
    At a previous stage, we had proposed that a supplement to the grant would be given to all who were eligible for grant to help them pay the largest proportion of the community charge. At that time, I made it clear that we would probably wish to supplement the grant, for those eligible for grant, by an amount of up to probably 80 per cent., which would match the general level of rebates for others on low incomes under the proposals in the Bill.
    As I was saying, an argument was put forward in another place that this could be unfair to some who would be paying the charge, because the supplement would reflect the average of the community charges for Scotland and not necessarily the community charge in each area; it was also argued that there might be unfairness because some students, such as foreign students, would not get any supplement. For that reason, we moved away from the proposal to supplement the grant to the proposals in the amendment we are considering.
    Mr. Faulds: The hon. Gentleman made what appeared to be an adverse comment about my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) in referring to his patrician background. That seemed to come somewhat oddly from his mouth in view of his genetic inheritance, and the more so because of his Parliamentary Private Secretary who is even more patrician than he is. Having shared an office with my excellent colleague my hon. Friend the Member for East
    322
    Lothian, may I assure the Under-Secretary that he is much less a patrician? In fairness to his electoral chances, may I point out that he is much more plebeian than I am?
    Mr. Ancram: I cannot comment on the last point, but I can on the earlier ones, because the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) and I went to school together; we were at the same public school and I have known the hon. Gentleman for a long time. Not for that reason only but because he lives in the same part of the Scottish borders as I do, I must point out that on the last reckoning he owns rather more land in the Scottish borders than I do. It was with certain experience that I used the phrase advisedly. I may say also that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) is not my Parliamentary Private Secretary, but the PPS of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: It is the old boys' network. As a commoner, if I may intervene in the aristocratic argument, am I right in believing that students in Scotland will pay 20 per cent. of the poll charge and that they will get no increase in student grant to cover that 20 per cent.? Many students in Aberdeen will be affected; indeed, the city of Aberdeen itself will be affected by the charges.
    Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing me back to the part of my remarks which I have been trying to complete for some time. If I may explain what the amendment will do, the hon. Gentleman will get the answer to his question.
    Amendment No. 28 responds positively to many of the points of criticism made in another place. The purpose of the amendment is to provide that students should pay only a reduced charge. We envisage that the amount payable will be equivalent to the amount which would be paid by an individual receiving the maximum rebate. It is important that there should be fairness between those two. If the hon. Gentleman checks, I believe that he will find that the students themselves recognise that point.
    As the House will recall, the illustrative assumptions we have made about the rebate scheme involve a maximum rebate of 80 per cent., so that everyone is called upon to pay a minimum contribution of 20 per cent. as the personal community charge. On the same basis, therefore, we would envisage prescribing that students should pay 20 per cent. of the charge. As I say, it is to keep equity between the two systems.
    The original proposal was to supplement the grant to help students pay roughly the same proportion of community charge as somebody on a full rebate. We have removed the idea of supplementing grant and have effectively created an exemption of up to 80 per cent. So the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that we decided to go down the route not of supplementing grant but of exempting students from a proportion of the charge. We believe that the system we are proposing, which the students themselves prefer to the system originally proposed, will meet some of the criticisms.
    Mr. William McKelvey (Kilmarnock and Loudon) rose——
    5.45 pm
    Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman must allow me to develop my points about the amendment.

    323
    The new approach envisaged in the amendment has a number of important advantages. First, for home students, it means that their financial outgoings will be substantially reduced. This will be helpful to them in budgeting, particularly during the vacation period when they will not normally have any direct income from grant. That was a weakness, perhaps, of the previous proposals.
    Secondly, it means that the amount payable by each student will not depend on the difference between the charge in his area and the Scottish average, but will simply be a set proportion of the charge in that area. Again, that was a criticism levelled at the original proposals.
    Thirdly, there will be important administrative simplifications. I acknowledge that our earlier proposals involving a non-means-tested addition to grant, would have involved some extra administrative burden on the Scottish Education Department and local education authorities in England and Wales administering the awards scheme for students coming to Scotland. The new approach will achieve the required result very simply.
    Finally, the amendment will substantially improve the position of overseas students. It would have been difficult, if not imposible, to offer them compensation through the student awards system as was proposed for home students eligible for awards, but the amendment will mean that the amounts they are called upon to pay will be substantially reduced. The Government's new approach in this respect substantially meets the concerns which were expressed about the position of overseas students.
    Mr. Barry Henderson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the scheme which he has just outlined. Will he confirm that at universities such as St. Andrews, which is normally residential, a great many students will be much better off under the community charge system than under the rating system because many who live in private accommodation outside university residences pay rates for which they get no assistance?
    Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I know this from experience in my constituency. Students who live in accommodation where rates are payable contribute to the rates wholly or in part, depending on where they live. At the same time some students, because of parental contributions, do not receive any support through awards. Hon. Members know only too well that the hardest pressed students are those who get no award because of parental contributions but actually get no parental contribution; they have to pay full rates for their accommodation, without any assistance. So I agree with my hon. Friend that the improvements made in another place answer not only some of the criticisms but the real problems that exist under the present rating-system.
    Mr. Foulkes rose——
    Mr. Ancram: If I give way to the hon. Gentleman, I hope he will tell me how, under his Government, or under his prospective Government's policies which he is putting forward at the election, he would seek to help students who at the moment have to pay rates without any assistance.
    Mr. Foulkes: I am glad that the Minister has conceded that we will win the election. I will leave it to my hon. Friends to explain what the Labour Government will do.
    324
    I hope the Minister will not chide me for not knowing the answer to the question, but I have not been involved in the previous consideration of the Bill; as he knows only too well, I have been involved in other parliamentary business elsewhere.
    Yesterday, I visited Ballochmyle hospital in my constituency and was approached by representatives of the student nurses there. They were concerned that they were not getting an increase or rather the proposed increase—for those in the nursing profession—and were worried because, as I understand it, they will not be treated like other students, and in the way that the Minister has just described. Therefore, can the Minister tell the House the rationale and reason why student nurses are not treated in the same way as other students in relation to the poll tax?
    Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking that question. The simple answer is that student nurses and others, such as apprentices and those on youth training schemes, are in a fundamentally different position from students. All those individuals either have earnings or are in receipt of allowances, and have access, if necessary, to the rebate scheme that is proposed in the legislation. However, students will not have access to that rebate scheme if they fall within the definition of "students" that is triggered by this amendment. It is because there is a different way of dealing with those groups that they do not fall within this amendment.
    Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister saying that student nurses could end up paying more than 20 per cent., or more than the lowest rebated level? Does that apply to those student nurses who receive substantially less, in real terms, than some students who will have their poll tax reduced to 20 per cent.?
    Mr. Ancram: For those who do not fall within the category of student, that depends on the income of the individual. I am not making any accusations, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was present when we discussed the rebate scheme and illustrated the income support levels that are likely to exist. However, we may deal with that when discussing other amendments later today.
    The entire principle of the Bill is to ensure that through a rebate scheme, those on low incomes will receive support. The principle behind that remains that each person should contribute something. Students fell out of that category because, quite rightly, they are dealt with less and less through the social welfare system, and more and more through educational provisions, and in other ways. For that reason, it was felt that students should be treated in a different way.
    It was for that reason that we originally sought to supplement student grants. However, given the complications that were advanced about those proposals, we are now proposing a much simpler system which, I believe, is generally welcomed by universities and student bodies because it is regarded as an improvement.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: It is hardly surprising that students welcome this provision because many currently pay rates, which Opposition Members wish to continue. However, what is the position for students living in halls of residence? At present, the University Grants Committee pays a substantial sum to Scottish universities for the domestic rates arising from their students. Under

    325
    these proposals, are we to take it that, because students will no longer pay rates and because the halls of residence will no longer he rated for domestic rates, there will be a windfall gain for the Scottish universities insofar as the UGC makes those grants to those Scottish universities?
    Mr. Ancram: My hon. Friend is moving away from the territory for which I have responsibility — the administration of the community charge — into the financing of higher education. Although I may have views on that, I have no responsibility for it as a Minister. However, I have noted my hon. Friend's comments and I am sure that those who have that responsibility will also have noted his points.
    Mr. Dick Douglas: I am sure that the Minister has received some advice about central institutions, such as halls of residence, on a par with the comments made by his hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). Surely the Minister has some views on this matter?
    Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman is right. Of course I have views on this. However, it is not for me to speak on this subject from the Dispatch Box. University finance does not fall——
    Mr. Ernie Ross rose——
    Mr. Ancram: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue. University finance does not fall within my area of responsibility, either in terms of universities or of higher education generally. My hon. Friend the member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. MacKay) is the Minister responsible for that.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: We are talking about legislation that is not yet enacted. Therefore, we are discussing the possibilities of seeking to amend and improve it. However, other amendments to other legislation are running parallel with this.
    The Minister's right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science who is responsible for universities, is introducing an entirely new body which will have a Scottish component. The Secretary of State for Scotland will have a responsibility to give advice to that new funding body from the Scottish perspective. Therefore, it is important that the Minister should address this aspect now, because clearly the Secretary of State for Education and Science will consider this debate and read the comments made by the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). If he listens to him, without any guidance from the Minister at the Dispatch Box, he may well adopt the rather meagre and miserly attitude taken by the hon. Member for Stirling and deny the universities the funds they desperately need.
    It is important that the Minister realises that he has a say, because under the new funding proposals for universities, the Secretary of State for Scotland will have a responsibility to give guidance on the position of the Scottish universities.
    Mr. Ancram: Hon. Members must appreciate that the question of funding and of what happens to the university resources that currently come from the UGC—which at the moment meet the rates on student accommodation—is a matter of university or higher education finance. Obviously, it must be considered but it is not a matter on which, from the Dispatch Box, I shall either give a projection or make a policy statement.
    326
    Quite rightly, because that is the purpose of the amendment, I am dealing with the position of students— [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West wish to intervene? He is a great mutterer from a seated position.
    Mr. Douglas: I do not want to prolong this agony for the Minister, but the Scottish Office Minister responsible for education is sitting along the Bench from him. 'The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. MacKay) has the responsibility, in the Scottish Office, for central institutions, including colleges of education which have halls of residence and which would receive "windfalls" on the lines that the Minister has mentioned. What is the view of the Scottish Office about those "windfalls"? Surely to goodness it has a view on that.
    Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman is talking about a situation that will not arise for another two years. It absolutely fascinates me to hear Opposition Members say that we should be taking a distinct and definitive view on university financing two years hence——
    Mr. Douglas: I am not talking about university finance.
    Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman says that he is not talking about university finance. However, the purpose of the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling was to talk about university financing. What fascinates me about this argument is that Opposition Members suggest that, if universities were to benefit from some sort of windfall, it should be taken from them. I am sure that the universities will note the remarks made by Opposition Members.
    To sum up, this Government amendment represents a clear and positive response to the concern that has been expressed about students. It rightly maintains the principle that students should be liable for the community charge, like other adults who use local services and influence them through their votes. The amendment achieves the result that the Government have intended all along, that students should be in broadly the same position as those in receipt of the maximum rebate—by a mechanism which, I must admit, is much simpler than that which we had originally envisaged. The amendment greatly improves the position of overseas students and also that of others who would not have been eligible for assistance through grants. It removes many of the areas of concern that had arisen. Therefore, I commend the amendment to the House.
    Amendment No. 32 provides that students who are resident in premises subject to the collective community charge should not as a result be exempt from the personal community charge. They will thus be subject to individual registration and will be liable to pay the reduced amount of charge provided under amendment No. 28. They will not be liable to make collective community charge contributions to the landlord of the collective charge premises. Some anxiety was expressed in this area and I believe that the amendment has also been broadly welcomed. I commend it to the House.
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must tell the House that both amendments Nos. 28 and 32 involve privilege.
    6 pm
    Mr. Maxton: I shall be brief, as I am aware that many hon. Members wish to speak on the slightly more important issue of the disabled and the poor, who should be exempt from this disastrous tax.
    I wish to make three points. First, we welcome the change, while recognising its limitations. For the vast majority of students at Scottish universities, colleges and other educational institutions there will be no financial change whatever. The Government made it clear that they would put a certain amount on the grant, and the amendment merely gives a legal definition to it and a basis for it which was not otherwise the case. I welcome the change for that reason. It also helps foreign students and students who are out of receipt of grant, perhaps in a fourth year, or repeating a year for which they have no grant, and I welcome it for that reason also.
    Secondly, on several occasions the Minister mentioned the figure of 20 per cent., but there is nothing in the amendment or the Bill to say that. The figure shall be "prescribed", so it is not even necessarily the same amount as for security benefit.
    Mr. Ancram: It will be.
    Mr. Maxton: This was the opportunity that the Minister had for inserting 20 per cent. clearly and unequivocally in the Bill. The Minister keeps saying 20 per cent., but I am reliably informed that the Department of the Environment does not wish to have 20 per cent. written into the Bill, because, if by some mischance it has the opportunity, it wishes to have a much higher minimum payment than 20 per cent. Therefore, the Department ensured that no minimum percentage was written into the Bill.
    Thirdly, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) said that there would be a windfall for universities and colleges from this provision. What about the local authorities? It is not clear how the sums that local authorities will lose in rates on university buildings and reduced poll tax for students will be made up. In north-east Fife, St. Andrew's university is a major contributor to the rating system. Who will pay the difference there? Will the Government make supplementary grants to local authorities to take account of their loss? There are about 30,000 full-time students in Glasgow. If they were not students, they would either pay the full amount, or part of it would be paid by the Government and they would make a minimum payment. The amendment does not make it clear who will pay the supplement.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman cannot have the argument both ways. He cannot argue both that students will be worse off and that local government will be worse off. Either students will pay more, or they will pay less. If they pay more the local authority will be better off, and if they pay less the local authority will be worse off. He seems to be pursuing two parallel arguments which are mutually exclusive.
    Mr. Maxton: My arguments are not mutually exclusive. It is typical of the hon. Gentleman's rather small brain that he fails to grasp the point. The Government's original proposals were that most students would be paid up to 80 per cent. extra on their grant in order to pay the full poll tax to their local authority. The local authority was to receive the full sum and the students were to pay 20 per
    328
    cent. of it. Under these proposals, it is clear that students will pay 20 per cent., but it is not clear how the Government will pay the 80 per cent. which they were originally to pay through additional grant to the local authority. Does the hon. Gentleman understand that now?
    Mr. Michael Forsyth indicated assent.
    Mr. Maxton: Good. I am glad about that.
    I hope that the Minister will respond briefly to my three points.
    Mr. Maclennan: I had hoped that the Minister would take the opportunity to explain to the Scottish public who will be affected by this changed provision in respect of liability for the personal community charge.
    Clause 8 does not define those who are in full-time courses of education, which is why the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) referred to student nurses. Nor is it clear whether other people who are in full-time courses of education, such as those on youth training schemes, might conceivably be affected by the change. When the Minister replies to the debate he may wish to make the ambit of this change clearer than hitherto.
    It is clear from what the Minister said that students, however wide that category may be defined subsequently, will not be better off as a result of the change if what he said about offsetting the burden of the community charge through an adjustment in grants is the case. What has been portrayed as a concession seems to have been made solely with foreign students coming to Scottish universities in mind and with no intention to alleviate the burden on Scottish students.
    In a parliamentatry answer to a question that I tabled about the incidence of the poll tax in different authority areas the Minister drew attention to the wide differences in the level of the poll tax that will exist to replace domestic rates at 1985–86 levels. In Strathclyde, for example, the community charge will be £229, whereas in Grampian, where Aberdeen university is located, it will be £157. Does the Minister expect students to take that factor into account when deciding which university to attend?
    It is astonishing that foreign students should have to pay this impost. I attended university in New York, and no one there suggested that I should be made to pay a poll tax. Such reciprocity seems to be the least that a civilised country, such as Scotland, should offer visiting foreign students. Furthermore, I wonder whether what is proposed conforms to European Community policy. I wonder how many other EC countries levy poll taxes on our students who study abroad, as I expect they will do increasingly. Is the Minister suggesting that our Scottish students would do better, financially, to study abroad?
    Mr. Henderson: Can the hon. Gentleman give me a good sound reason why overseas students, who are frequently well off, should not pay a contribution to local government services, of which they are beneficiaries like everyone else? In the United States, where the hon. Gentleman had the benefit of being a student, he would have paid state and local taxes if they had arisen as sales taxes or in any other form.
    Mr. Maclennan: The state of New York, where I had the good fortune to study, had a sensible system of local income tax, which I commend to the hon. Member for

    329
    Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson). There was never any suggestion that it should be paid for by students, and nor would there he under an alliance Government.
    There are many students who are living pretty close to the bread line who have to eke out their all too exiguous grant by working during the vacations. This poll tax will be an additional charge which, no doubt, will influence the thinking of some of them as to whether it is appropriate to spin out their higher education, as they should do: whether, as the poll tax rises to take account of increases in the cost of running local government and providing services which are necessary and which Parliament has entrusted to it, they can afford to continue in full-time education. The inhibitions on going into higher education in this country under a Conservative Government are great enough, in all conscience, and it is astonishing that the Government are seeking to increase the burden.
    Mr. Henderson: I shall be very brief. I want to point out that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) did not give a single reason why he felt that overseas students should be exempt from paying the community charge. That is the only point that I wish to make at this stage.
    Mr. Hugh Brown: I should like to ask the Minister a couple of questions. It seems to me that the amendment is no concession, although for administrative reasons it is tidier and better. I suspect that the bulk of Scottish students will continue to be out of pocket to the same extent as they were under the previous arrangements, based on the 80–20 per cent. proposals. I am not trying to be clever, as the Minister knows. If he says that there will be a loss of revenue to local authorities, has he made any estimate of the loss to each affected authority? Does this mean that some compensation will have to be built into the formula for the revenue support grant for that loss of revenue?
    Mr. Ernie Ross: There are approximately 7,000 full-time students in Dundee attending a college of education, a college of technology, university or a college of art. Can the Minister tell those 7,000 students that under his legislation they will not pay more than they pay at present? That is a simple question. How does the hon. Gentleman respond to the 970 student nurses in Dundee who will have to pay more, bearing in mind the miserable rise that was given to them by the Government a few weeks ago? What will he say to them?
    6.15 pm
    Mr. David Lambie: I should like to take up the point that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown). This amendment is not a concession. The majority of students in my constituency in Ayrshire will be paying 20 per cent. of the poll tax when the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament. At present, they pay nothing.
    Recently, I visited the two major further education colleges in my area — Ayr technical college and Kilmarnock technical college. The students at those colleges were incensed that the value of their grant had been reduced by 19 per cent. since 1979 and that now they are to he hit by this poll tax charge.
    The Minister said that there will be a rebate up to 80 per cent. of the poll tax. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), I do not accept that
    330
    that is the figure on which the Government will finally settle; otherwise no Government who have made up their mind on the rebate would subject themselves to the justifiable criticism that they are getting now. If the Government have fixed the rebate at 80 per cent., why do they not put it in the Bill? I am always suspicious of any Government, irrespective of party and despite what they say in the House or in Committee. At the end of the day it is what is in the legislation that applies. If the figure of 80 per cent. is not in the legislation when it leaves this House, I believe that, after the general election, the Government will take the opportunity to do what the Secretary of State for the Environment wants. Instead of the rebated element being up to 80 per cent. there will be a rebated element of up to 20 per cent. so that everyone, irrespective of their background, will be forced to pay 80 per cent. of the tax.
    If the Minister is honest and sincere about this change, he should state clearly that none of the students at either Ayr technical college or Kilmarnock technical college, who currently are not paying rates, will pay either 20 per cent. or 80 per cent. of the poll tax. If he does that, I might vote for him. If not, I shall vote against him.
    Mr. Foulkes: The more I sit through these discussions, the more concerned I become about the implication; of the poll tax for students, student nurses and other young people, but we are particularly dealing with students tonight.
    During Education and Science Question Time a few weeks ago the Minister of State, when dealing with universities, admitted under questioning from myself and others that the student grant is not enough to cover all the costs that students must pay. When I asked how he expected students from poor families to be able to make ends meet, he said that they should find a job in their spare time. In an area such as mine, where there is 28 per cent. unemployment, that is quite impossible. It is wrong to suggest that people should moonlight in order to get themselves through college. This poll tax will add to their burden, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) knows only too well. As my hon. Friend from Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie) said, where will students get this extra 20 per cent.? It is impossible for the ordinary poor family in a council house in my constituency who are already facing this additional poll tax to find this extra 20 per cent., so it will be much more difficult for the students who are struggling to get through college.
    The hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), who annoys me almost to the point of hatred, is the architect of this vicious little measure and the father of this bastard, because that is what this poll tax is. He is one of the people who will benefit from it. He is one of the people who will be better off, as will the Minister and many others.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: And the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes).
    Mr. Foulkes: Exactly. The only difference between Conservative Members and myself is that I am against this measure because I do not think that I should be better off. I can afford to pay my property tax. Conservative Members are voting for their own windfall. We are voting against getting it because we can afford to pay; but there are people who will have to pay more who cannot afford it.

    331
    The hon. Member for Stirling, that vicious little Member, the architect of this measure——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. the hon. Gentleman does not help debate by using such extravagant language.
    Mr. Foulkes: Even if it is true? The hon. Member for Stirling talks about a windfall to universities. He knows damn fine that the Treasury will make sure that the universities never see any of that windfall.
    The only people who will get windfalls out of this provision are, as usual under a Tory Government, the rich. In my constituency, people such as the Marquess of Ailsa, the Marquess of Bute and the Duke of Wellington are likely to benefit. Fortunately, none of them has a vote. They will benefit, but the poor in the council houses, the people I represent, and their sons and daughters, who are desperately trying to get through university to better themselves, will suffer. Those are the people who will make sure that the Tories are not re-elected and that this provision is not enacted.
    Mr. Ancram: The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) is a past master of black propaganda and we have heard it all again tonight. His remarks do not deserve a reply.
    I am aware that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie) likes to rely on reliable sources for his information. However, what the hon. Gentleman had to say about the 20 per cent.——
    Mr. Lambie: That is why I go to the colleges.
    Mr. Ancram: That may well be, but with regard to what he had to say about the 20 per cent. and 80 per cent., I do not believe that his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) is a reliable source. I do not know from what reliable source the hon. Member for Cathcart received his information, but I believe that he should go out and find another source.
    Right from the start of the debates we have had on the rebate scheme I have made it clear that the likely figure —I have used that word over and over again—was a 20 per cent. minimum requirement.
    Mr. Lambie: Put that figure in the Bill.
    Mr. Ancram: I have explained on many occasions, but I am prepared to do so again, that the reason why that figure is not in the legislation is that we are basing the rebate scheme on the housing benefit scheme that will be introduced in April next year. We believe that it does not make sense to have two different schemes—that would cause all sorts of confusion in the constituency of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South—but to have two schemes that are, as far as possible, the same as each other.
    In all the illustrations that have been created in draft, the figure for the housing benefit regulation has been set at 20 per cent. It is likely to be 20 per cent., but we have to await those regulations to discover that figure. It is for that reason that the legislation we are discussing does not contain the figure of 20 per cent. I suspect that if that 20 per cent. figure had been included, Opposition Members, who find an argument against anything, would have said that that was like writing the figure into tablets of stone. No doubt they would have argued that such a percentage figure should be left to statutory instruments or
    332
    regulations so that it could be altered in the light of changing circumstances. I believe that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South is doing himself a disservice by relying too much on his hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart. I believe that he has been misled.
    The hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) asked whether students will be better off. I must say that those students who pay nothing at the moment towards local government, although they receive the benefit of local government services, will obviously have to pay for the first time. By definition they will not be better off. I believe that there are strong arguments for claiming that those who benefit from services should be prepared to contribute to them. I see no reason for saying that those who are not students, but possibly on low incomes, should be prepared to pay 20 per cent., but that students should be exempt. I see no justification for that, and I suspect that the public would agree with me.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) has said that students who find themselves paying rates with no support may find that they are better off as a result of this legislation. Their financial standing will depend precisely on the contribution that they make to local government and the support that they receive.
    Mr. Henderson: At the moment, does not the University Grants Committee pay universities substantial sums, which they then pay in rates to local authorities? That sum amounts to 10 per cent. of the moneys made available by the Government to support the university system. The Opposition talk about cuts in funding for universities, but here is a wonderful way of obtaining more funds for universities by reducing the demands that local authorities make upon them in rates.
    Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point, because it is also valid regarding future provisions for non-domestic rates.
    The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) kept on referring to the fact that the poll tax will rise. The only reason why the poll tax will rise — [HON. MEMBERS: "Poll tax!"]—is if high-spending local authorities decide to continue to increase their expenditure. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) also made that prediction. If that is his prediction for Labour authorities in Scotland, it is about time that Scottish ratepayers understood that. We believe that once the community charge is in place — [HON. MEMBERS: "Poll tax."]—I was quoting the words used by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland.
    Once the community charge is in place, I believe that many authorities, which at the moment see nothing wrong in increasing expenditure when they know that only a minority of their electorates must pay, will think twice before they impose the type of increases predicted by the Opposition.
    The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) questioned whether the concession that I have announced is a true concession. Obviously, it is a concession for those who, until this amendment was made, were to pay the full community charge — those who are not eligible for grant, foreign students, and so on. I believe that those groups will view the amendment as a concession. It is a further concession that I am sure people in the hon. Gentleman's area will appreciate because the original proposal that we made was that the support given through

    333
    the grant system would attach to a figure, likely to be 80 per cent. of the average poll—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!".] — the average community charge in Scotland. At that time it was pointed out, quite rightly, that that proposal would impose heavier liabilities on those who live in high-community charge areas as opposed to those who live in low-community charge areas——
    Mr. Maclennan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it possible to ensure that, when recording this debate, Hansard makes it clear that, for the first time, the Minister has at last admitted that we are debating a poll tax?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Ancram.
    Mr. Ancram: We had a long debate in Committee on the question of poll tax. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Garscadden looks so tired, but it is his hon. Friends and allies who are raising this question. In Committee we discussed the definition of poll tax and agreed that a poll tax was a charge per head. At that stage it was made clear that, in terms of that definition, this community charge could fit the definition of a poll tax. We never made any secret about that. However, it was emphasised in Committee, and I wish to repeat, that the Opposition want to attach the term "poll tax" to this measure not because it is a charge per head, but because it creates a totally dishonest impression that this is a tax on the right to vote. That is the only reason why the Opposition get so excited —I appreciate that it is the end of term — about the question of a poll tax.
    If I may return to the question raised by the hon. Member for Provan I believe that the concession that I have announced will be a concession even in the high-community charge areas.
    The hon. Member for Cathcart questioned the implications of this measure on local government finance. The requirement that students should pay only 20 per cent. of the personal community charge will mean that the community charge will be less than it would otherwise have been. In that sense it resembles the various rating reliefs that are presently taken into account in the distribution of rate support grant. Similarly, under the proposed future arrangements for revenue support grant it will be possible to take account of the effect of the concession for students. The mechanism must be the subject of consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. However, I believe that the point made by the hon. Member for Cathcart will be met.
    With regard to the definition of "students", it is the Government's intention that those paying the reduced community charge should be students undertaking full-time courses of education. The definition will be in line with that applied by the Department of Health and Social Security for the purpose of determining students' access to benefits. The mechanism of the reduced charge applies instead of the possibility of access to rebate.
    The arrangements will be specified in regulations after consultation with local authorities and education interests. Within the provisions of this legislation we are making sure that there is protection for students. If they do not fall within the category of students, they will fall in the category within which rebates can be applied where justified.
    I believe that this amendment is a good, sound concession. I am surprised that it has received such a dusty
    334
    response from the Opposition. I believe that those who have always pretended at least to have the interests of students at heart will welcome it, and I ask the House to do so.
    Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]
    Lords amendments Nos. 29 and 30 agreed to. [Special Entry.]
    Lords amendment: No. 31, in page 7, line 42, at end insert—
    "(aa) persons who are severely mentally handicapped within the meaning of subsection (8) below;".
    Read a Second time.
    6.30 pm
    Mr. Dewar: I beg to move amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, leave out 'severely'
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we may take the following : Amendment (b) to the Lords amendment, at end insert 'and registered disabled persons'.
    Lords amendment: No. 33, in page 7, line 47, at end insert—
    "(8) In subsection (7)(aa) above, "persons who are severely mentally handicapped" has the following meaning, that is to say, persons suffering from a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind which includes severe impairment of intelligence and social functioning, or such other meaning as may, in substitution, be prescribed."
    Amendment (a) thereto, leave out from 'above' to end and insert—

    `(i) All registered disabled people;

    (ii) All students in full-time education;

    Amendment (b) thereto, leave out 'severely'.
    Amendment (c) thereto, leave out 'severe'.
    Mr. Dewar: I have no complaint about the amount of time that we took on the earlier matters. They were important. Normally, we would have taken a great deal more time over them. I accuse no one of delaying progress. I merely make the point that the guillotine motion has left us in the uncomfortable position in which there are some important matters concerning definitions in connection with the concession to the handicapped. It is unfortunate that they will be squeezed into a few minutes of debate. I hope that the Minister has a little bit of conscience about that.
    The issue is the deep concern that has been expressed to almost every hon. Member—certainly to those on the Opposition side — by constituents and organisations dealing with those who are handicapped or disabled, about the impact of the poll tax on them. Let me make it perfectly clear that we will be invited to agree concessions shortly. I welcome such concessions, however small they are. They are a step in the right direction and they represent continuous pressure by my hon. Friends and my colleagues in another place. I take ten seconds warmly to thank Lord Ross of Marnock, Lord Morton of Shuna, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove and their colleagues who put up a splendid, spirited fight in the other place. We have got a concession.
    Our concern and the point of the amendments is whether the concession is wide enough and whether, responsibly and sensibly, it could be widened and made even more generous. Very shortly, the exemption from the poll is for some persons who are severely mentally handicapped within the meaning of a definition that appears in the Bill. The definition is:

    335
    "persons suffering from a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind which includes severe impairment of intelligence and social functioning, or such other meaning as may, in substitution, be prescribed."
    The simple effect of the first amendment is to take out the word "severely". That will leave "mentally handicapped" as the criterion. It will leave the definition still referring to a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind, but makes it a little more flexible by making it clear that there must be an impairment of intelligence and social functioning but not necessarily a severe impairment, as the Government are demanding.
    There are other amendments on which I shall spend no time at all. We must stick to the essentials. The amendments that take out the word "severe" seem to be reasonable and do something significant and useful. It is not a matter of professional ingratitude from Opposition Benches when I suggest that some widening would be welcomed in almost every quarter of the community. I hope that the Minister will seriously address the problem.
    The other amendment to which I draw attention is that which would add an important addition, I admit, but one that I hope the Minister will view sympathetically. It is a separate amendment, so they do not stand or fall together. It is suggested not only that we should try to help those who suffer from a mental handicap, but that we should also try to include those who are registered disabled. I accept that that would greatly increase the scope of the concession, but it seems to be a reasonable request.
    If we leave "severe" as a criterion of mental handicap, how many people in Scotland will benefit from the concession? I fear that it will be few indeed. Can the Minister lay to rest the genuine fear that the criterion "state of arrested or incomplete development" means that the concession will apply only to those who have been handicapped from birth by some happening at or before birth? There are those who, through illness or tragedy at a later stage, may have a severe handicap. It has been suggested — I put it no higher — that they may be excluded. We should put that fear to one side if it is unjustified. Will the Minister also say a word or two about who decides? Clearly, all the definitions are subjective. The matter comes at a late stage. It is important. It may be the registration officer. It may ultimately be decided in the courts. It is important to know what the machinery is.
    The Minister may say that, after all, to remove "severe" or "severely" will widen the scope and lead to a rather ill-defined concession. All such judgments are subjective. We should leave the person who has to use his judgment subjectively in the public interest, with room for compassion and room to look, in a fairly generous way, at cases that are brought to his attention.
    I do not think that I need to labour the point about the concession for the disabled. I am sure that the Minister, in his personal capacity at least, will have some sympathy with the fact that many disabled people do not have an easy financial time. All right, they will get a concession and may have to pay only 20 per cent. of the poll tax, but even that will be something of a burden. I remind the Minister —he is aware of it— that, at the moment, under the rating system there is a concession that is at least of some use to them. They get a rating concession on that part of their house that is adapted for the special needs of the
    336
    disabled. It seems that for many of them there should be some exemption that takes them out of even the 20 per cent. residue that I suspect may affect many of them.
    From my own constituency, I know that the handicapped are hard-pressed. I know that they would appreciate a widening of the concession. I commend the amendments to the Minister. I know that he will want to be helpful, as I hope every hon. Member would. I believe that removing severe criteria from the test that is to be applied by whomever decides who among the mentally handicapped will qualify for the exemption would he a sensible loosening of an over-tight definition. Perhaps it will allow many deserving cases to be included. I hope that the Minister will recognise that there will be widespread disappointment if he is not prepared to look at the disabled and include them in the proposed scheme.
    Mr. Ancram: It may be helpful if I set out the Government's position in relation to the amendment passed in another place and that tabled by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). First, in responding to the amendments to the two amendments that we are considering, which exempt the severely handicapped from the personal community charge, I should make clear the Government's basic approach to exemptions from personal community charge liability.
    To be effective in creating accountability, the personal community charge must, as far as possible, be payable by the whole adult population. In this respect, the new system will differ crucially from the domestic rating system, in which the tax base covers less than half the population and in which a complex pattern of reliefs and exemptions has built up over a period. We do not propose to reproduce that pattern of exemptions and reliefs. However, we have proposed an exemption for the severely mentally handicapped on the grounds that people in that category cannot be expected to understand the concept of local authority accountability, and therefore should be excluded from liability.
    After consideration of that policy in the other place, we announced our intention also to exclude people resident in nursing homes and residential care homes, such as people resident in hospitals and prisoners in custody, on the grounds that they too, in effect, are removed from the local democratic process. We are creating a consistent position within the Bill that is welcomed by those affected by it.
    The hon. Gentleman asked how many severely mentally handicapped people will be affected by the exclusion. Between 5,000 and 6,000 people would fall within the category of severely mentally handicapped.
    The amendments relating to severe mental handicap were brought forward by the Government in fulfilment of an undertaking given in Committee in the other place, that we would look very carefully at the question whether mentally handicapped persons living in the community should be exempted from the personal community charge. This question had indeed been raised during the passage of the Bill, in particular by my hon. Friends the Members for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) and for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart). Arguments were put forward that the severely mentally handicapped should be exempt on the grounds that such persons do not have the mental capacity to take part in the local democratic process.
    That is the principle that we have accepted in the amendment, but the amendments also provide—this is

    337
    the point raised by the hon. Member for Garscadden—that the definition of what constitutes "handicapped" may be revised by subordinate legislation. This provision draws on section 1(2) of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984, but we think that it would be prudent to provide for the subsequent amendment of the definition of severe mental handicap to take account of any suggestions that are put to us by interested professional bodies in the course of consultation on the implementation of the provision, and of possible future changes in the clinical assessment of such conditions.
    This, as the hon. Member for Garscadden realises, is a difficult area. It is important to have a definitional benchmark against which we can operate the exemption. The provision within the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 allowed for that. The hon. Gentleman mentioned one or two possible areas about which it might be advisable to consult further. However, we have built in this flexible provision, which allows us to alter the definition should circumstances require that. But that is different from what the amendments propose. They would broaden the scope of exemptions for the mentally handicapped, by providing that all of them, and not only the severely mentally handicapped, shall be exempt. I cannot accept that, for two reasons. First, many handicapped people play an active part in the life of their communities, and are quite capable of appreciating the issues of local authority accountability.
    Mr. Home Robertson: The hon. Gentleman would say that, would he not?
    6.45 pm
    Mr. Ancram: If the hon. Gentleman talked to some people who were not severely mentally handicapped he would find that the idea that they are not capable of taking part in the local democratic process, and should therefore be excluded, would be regarded by them as insulting. The hon. Gentleman should watch what he says.
    Mr. Home Robertson: I said what I said because the Minister is illustrating the intentions underlying the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) said, the legislation will make a number of people better off. I, my hon. Friend and the Minister will be better off. Someone will have to pay more, and the Minister will happily inflict this additional tax burden on handicapped and mentally handicapped people. He is proud of that, and it makes me sick.
    Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman supports a rating system under which many mentally handicapped people pay rates——
    Mr. Home Robertson: Go to hell.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) must withdraw that remark immediately.
    Mr. Home Robertson: I withdraw it, but I think that the Minister knows what I mean.
    Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman has not thought before speaking, because the system that he supports equally requires these categories of people to pay contributions to local government finance through the rates. The Government's policy is, as far as possible, to
    338
    treat mentally handicapped people as ordinary members of society, and an exemption of the scope proposed by the hon. Member for Garscadden goes too far.
    Mr. Douglas
    rose——
    Mr. Ancram: Apparently the hon. Gentleman does not agree with the exemptions that we are proposing. He must make up his mind. If he wishes to intervene, I shall be glad to give way.
    Mr. Douglas: I shall wait until I make my own speech.
    Mr. Ancram: Secondly, the omission of the word "severely" from the description of those to be exempted raises potential difficulties of definition that would represent a considerable administrative burden for the personal community charge system. For that reason also, I cannot accept the amendments. To the hon. Member for Garscadden, I say that the flexibility is built in deliberately.
    The hon. Member for Garscadden asked how the machinery works, and it is right to examine how the registration officer will handle the identification of those who qualify for exemption on the grounds that they are severely mentally handicapped. We envisage that the registration officer will in most cases rely on a simple certificate from an appropriate doctor that the individual in question meets the criteria. The steps in the process will be simple and straightforward. Where a responsible person has indicated on a canvass form or in response to other inquiries made by the registration officer that someone resident at the address in question is severely mentally handicapped, the registration officer will follow up the matter by asking the responsible person for a certificate by an appropriate doctor and its return to the registration officer.
    We shall in due course be consulting the professional bodies involved in this process, and in the light of those consultations will prepare guidance for registration officers on the handling of these cases.
    Mr. Douglas: This is absolutely nauseating.
    Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman obviously believes that the procedure for exempting the mentally handicapped is nauseating. That is a depressing view, which will be noted by those organisations that have to deal with the problems of the mentally handicapped. I am confident that the procedure that I have explained will ensure that all, or virtually all, cases of exemption on the grounds of severe mental handicap are handled swiftly and with the minimum of fuss.
    The hon. Member for Garscadden also moved amendments that would exempt all registered disabled people. That, too, would go much too wide: many registered disabled people hold down responsible jobs and play a full part in society. There is no possible justification for a blanket exemption of this kind. Lord Glenarthur, speaking in another place, recognised that many people next year would, for the first time, be making a contribution towards their rates, and thereafter to the community charge. He accepted that that was one factor that could affect the setting of the income support levels, and said that, in setting income support levels, we shall take into account the impact of this on the most vulnerable groups.
    The Government plan to make their intentions clear reasonably soon, at the same time as issuing the draft

    339
    housing benefit regulations to local authorities. It would obviously be wrong of me to pre-empt those announcements but I am sure that Opposition Members will agree that Lord Glenarthur's remarks show a clear commitment to assist the most vulnerable groups, including the disabled; so I hope that the House will accept that the Government are aware of the sort of problems that the hon. Member for Garscadden has raised. Thus, while I cannot accept the amendments moved by the hon. Gentleman, I commend the Lords amendments to the House.
    Mr. Douglas: As many hon. Members know, I must declare a personal interest in these matters. I resent the strictures that the Minister tried to place on me in relation to what might be called severely mentally handicapped people. Under the system that he has outlined, for the first time, people will be asked to say, through a registration mechanism, that their child, husband or wife is severely mentally handicapped in a way which entirely lacks privacy, secrecy or confidentiality.
    Mr. Ancram: That is not so.
    Mr. Douglas: The Government said nothing about such secrecy. Now, the Minister says that it exists. The task will be that of the registration officer.
    Mr. Ancram
    rose——
    Mr. Douglas: I shall not give way.
    The Minister did not answer the question about how many more people would get through the narrow gateway if the deletion were accepted. How many more people would be encompassed by the Bill if the deletion were made—10,000 or 20,000? The Minister should make no mistake: when the Labour Government come to power we shall have no truck with this. This is a poll tax—a head tax. We do not resent the register, but we should reject any system that identifies for taxation purposes people who are severely mentally handicapped. What a nauseating system.
    The hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) played his part in this matter above all others by voting against our amendments on the Floor of the House. I make no apologies for being emotional about this issue. Physically and mentally handicapped people have enough to put up with in their households without having to fill in damn forms saying that their husbands or wives are severely mentally handicapped. This is a nauseating provision, and Conservative Members should be ashamed of themselves for introducing it.
    Mr. Henderson: I understand the passion of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) on this matter, but when he is speaking as a Member of Parliament he should not allow his passion to cloud his judgment of the facts. My hon. Friend the Minister sought to intervene to make those facts clear to him. [Interruption.] I want to be brief so that Opposition Members can speak in the debate. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene?
    Mr. Foulkes: Sit down.
    Mr. Henderson: The amendments about which the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West spoke in earlier debates in the House cover a whole raft of possible exemptions. I supported the Minister throughout on the idea that one
    340
    should resist the sweeping amendments that the Opposition seek to introduce in all sorts of situations. I am grateful to the Minister for recalling that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) and I raised this matter on Third Reading before the Bill went to the Lords. I am grateful to the Minister for taking fully on board what we said at that time — that we hoped that the Government would treat mentally handicapped people as a specific category of exemption in the Bill.
    I am not legally equipped to say whether the definition is right or wrong, but I am sure that the opportunity given by the clause to change the definition by prescription will in practice be inadequate. I am sure that the amendment strikes the right kind of balance. I am grateful to the Government for carrying through this sensible precaution. On a less emotional occasion, that move would be welcomed by the whole House. It is unfortunate that the Labour party is showing a rattled performance before we even start the election. I shudder to think what it will be like before the end of it.
    Mr. Maclennan: No humane person, in the House or outside, could believe that the severely handicapped should be required to make a contribution to local taxation. It is astonishing that the Government, in their desire to bring forward a tax that is universal in its application, did not take that into account when deciding that we should debate this provision at this late stage. The principle that should be applied to the basis of the exemption is not that enunciated by the Minister, that there must be some test of the ability to take part in the democratic process by those who are subjected to local taxation. The proper test, and the one that would have exempted severely mentally handicapped and, indeed, almost all mentally handicapped people from paying this tax, is the ability to pay.
    The Government are asking for the introduction of procedures like those that operated in Nazi Germany. It is wrong to ask people to make judgments about whether other people are able to participate in the democratic process. It is a nauseating way to achieve an end that ought to have been achieved by the simple test of the ability to pay, which is inherent in a local income tax.
    Mr. Hugh Brown: I am sorry that we have only a few minutes to discuss what is obviously a subject that deserves a full debate. Hasty legislation is never good legislation, and this Lords amendment is an example of that. Our amendments highlight the practical difficulties that will face the administrators of this system. I can only guess at the reasons for the Lords amendment. Was it panic? In a mood of slight rebellion, did the Lords have to be bought off? Were their consciences bothering them because they would benefit from the Bill and needed to give some public appearance of caring?
    Where did the words in the amendment come from? Who thought them up? There must be a precedent somewhere, although I know that the Minister will not have time to tell me where it is. How on earth will a local authority official administer this provision? As the Minister knows, I had bother in the Committee. If I were a Minister, I would not accept this Lords amendment. It is a phoney amendment and injects a new principle into a concession that has been given for some kind of disability.
    What is the difference between mental disability and physical disability? Both are a loss of facility to enjoy life.

    341
    A severely mentally handicapped person should not, presumably, need a medical test. If a claim is to be made, someone else should he appointed to act for such people. The idea that there should be a curator bonis or some sort of examination is abhorrent to our whole system, and it follows from that that perhaps our amendments are also illogical. Does the Minister really believe that a medical certificate from a general practitioner will be acceptable? If he does, he must be joking. Housing authority walls are papered with thousands of medical certificates and we all know that they do not mean a damned thing.
    This is the last speech that I shall make in the House, and I ask hon. Members to be practical. This system will be an administrator's nightmare, because of some of the personal reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas). I always understood that there was a strong degree of severe mental handicap among our noble families and, indeed, in the royal family. I do not know whether that was why the Lords passed the amendment. If we are elected, this legislation will be abolished. If we do not return to government, at least the Minister has the power to make regulations to try to improve this ridiculous attempt to present a caring image.
    Mr. Foulkes: In what he said, the Minister gave clear and categorical proof that a poll tax is proposed. If we are talking about services that each person received, obviously, handicapped people of all kinds would participate and benefit from those services. The Minister said that for some reason a mentally handicapped person is unable to participate in the domocratic process. By saying that he immediately, clearly and categorically linked the payment of a poll tax, pseudonymously called a community charge, to the right to vote. Thankfully, and once and for all, he has shown the House that we are talking about a poll tax. Therefore, we ought to have an amendment making it clear in all the legislation that it is a poll tax.
    The phrase "community charge" is a kind of euphemism thought up by the civil servants to make the measure sound reasonably attractive, sensible and painless. In reality it is a poll tax linked to voting, and is meant to discourage disabled people from voting. It is meant to give something of an electoral advantage to the Conservatives and that is one of the principal reasons for their introducing it. We know that only too well.
    Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that nothing that I said today was new. I have said it before and I shall say it again.
    Mr. Foulkes: It is certainly new to me. If the Minister did not call it a poll tax, he has given clear proof that that is what it is.
    It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the allocation of time motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put the Question already proposed from the Chair.
    The House divided: Ayes 115, Noes 227.

    Division No. 165]

    [6.58 pm

    AYES

    Alton, David

    Beckett, Mrs Margaret

    Anderson, Donald

    Beith, A. J.

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Bell, Stuart

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Boothroyd, Miss Betty

    Barnes, Mrs Rosemary

    Boyes, Roland

    342

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    McCartney, Hugh

    Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

    McGuire, Michael

    Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

    McKay, Allen (Penistone)

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

    MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

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

    Maclennan, Robert

    Bruce, Malcolm

    McNamara, Kevin

    Buchan, Norman

    McTaggart, Robert

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Madden, Max

    Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Cartwright, John

    Maxton, John

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Maynard, Miss Joan

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Meacher, Michael

    Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

    Michie, William

    Conlan, Bernard

    Mikardo, Ian

    Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

    Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

    Craigen, J. M.

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

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

    Nellist, David

    Dewar, Donald

    O'Brien, William

    Dixon, Donald

    O'Neill, Martin

    Dormand, Jack

    Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

    Dubs, Alfred

    Parry, Robert

    Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)

    Pike, Peter

    Faulds, Andrew

    Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

    Forrester, John

    Prescott, John

    Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

    Radice, Giles

    Freud, Clement

    Randall, Stuart

    Garrett, W. E.

    Robertson, George

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

    Gould, Bryan

    Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

    Hamilton, James (M'well N)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

    Shields, Mrs Elizabeth

    Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Haynes, Frank

    Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

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

    Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Home Robertson, John

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

    Hoyle, Douglas

    Snape, Peter

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Spearing, Nigel

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Janner, Hon Greville

    Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Straw, Jack

    Kennedy, Charles

    Taylor, Matthew

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Lambie, David

    Wareing, Robert

    Lamond, James

    Wilson, Gordon

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Litherland, Robert

    Livsey, Richard

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Mr. George Foulkes and Mr. Dick Douglas.

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Loyden, Edward

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

    Bruinvels, Peter

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Bryan, Sir Paul

    Alexander, Richard

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

    Amery, Rt Hon Julian

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Amess, David

    Budgen, Nick

    Ancram, Michael

    Bulmer, Esmond

    Ashby, David

    Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam

    Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

    Butterfill, John

    Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

    Carlisle, John (Luton N)

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Baldry, Tony

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

    Bellingham, Henry

    Carttiss, Michael

    Best, Keith

    Cash, William

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Chapman, Sydney

    Biggs-Davison, Sir John

    Chope, Christopher

    Blackburn, John

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Clegg, Sir Walter

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Conway, Derek

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Coombs, Simon

    Bright, Graham

    Cope, John

    Brinton, Tim

    Corrie, John

    Brooke, Hon Peter

    Couchman, James

    Browne, John

    Cranborne, Viscount

    343

    Critchley, Julian

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    Crouch, David

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Lord, Michael

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    McCrindle, Robert

    Dicks, Terry

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Dorrell, Stephen

    MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

    MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

    Durant, Tony

    Maclean, David John

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Madel, David

    Eyre, Sir Reginald

    Major, John

    Fallon, Michael

    Malins, Humfrey

    Farr, Sir John

    Marland, Paul

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Marlow, Antony

    Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Mather, Sir Carol

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Forth, Eric

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    Mellor, David

    Franks, Cecil

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

    Miller, Hal (B'grove)

    Galley, Roy

    Mills, Iain (Meriden)

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

    Gorst, John

    Moate, Roger

    Grant, Sir Anthony

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Greenway, Harry

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Gregory, Conal

    Moore, Rt Hon John

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

    Hannam, John

    Moynihan, Hon C.

    Harris, David

    Mudd, David

    Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)

    Neale, Gerrard

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Neubert, Michael

    Hayward, Robert

    Newton, Tony

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Henderson, Barry

    Norris, Steven

    Hickmet, Richard

    Onslow, Cranley

    Hicks, Robert

    Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

    Hirst, Michael

    Osborn, Sir John

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Ottaway, Richard

    Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

    Page, Richard (Herts SW)

    Holt, Richard

    Patten, Christopher (Bath)

    Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

    Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abgdn)

    Irving, Charles

    Pawsey, James

    Jackson, Robert

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

    Pollock, Alexander

    Jones, Robert (Herts W)

    Portillo, Michael

    Kershaw, Sir Anthony

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Knowles, Michael

    Powley, John

    Knox, David

    Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Price, Sir David

    Lang, Ian

    Proctor, K. Harvey

    Latham, Michael

    Raffan, Keith

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Rathbone, Tim

    Lee, John (Pendle)

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Lightbown, David

    Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

    Lilley, Peter

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    344

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

    Rowe, Andrew

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Rumbold, Mrs Angela

    Thurnham, Peter

    Ryder, Richard

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Sackville, Hon Thomas

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

    van Straubenzee, Sir W.

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Viggers, Peter

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    Waldegrave, Hon William

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Walker, Bill (T'side N)

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Wall, Sir Patrick

    Shersby, Michael

    Waller, Gary

    Silvester, Fred

    Walters, Dennis

    Sims, Roger

    Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Warren, Kenneth

    Speed, Keith

    Watts, John

    Spencer, Derek

    Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Wheeler, John

    Stanley, Rt Hon John

    Whitfield, John

    Steen, Anthony

    Whitney, Raymond

    Stern, Michael

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

    Wilkinson, John

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)

    Wood, Timothy

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Yeo, Tim

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

    Mr. Gerald Malone and Mr. Francis Maude.

    Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

    Question accordingly negatived.
    MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
    Lords amendment No. 31 agreed to. [Special Entry.]
    Remaining Lords amendments agreed to. [Some with Special Entry.]

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 54(1) (Consolidated Fund Bills) and the Order [12 May], and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Consumer Protection Bill [Lords]
Considered in Committee.
[MR. ERNEST ARMSTRONG in the Chair]
Clause 4, as amended in the Standing Committee, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 5 to 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Consumer Protection Bill [Lords]
  Clause 9

    APPLICATION OF PART I TO CROWN
    7.13 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 6, line 37, after 'tort', insert `or in reparation'.
    The amendment adapts clause 9(2) for Scotland. The clause refers to the Crown's liability in tort under the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. However, the word "tort" is an English legal term of art. The 1947 Act defines it for Scotland as
    "any wrongful or negligent act or omission giving rise to liability in reparation".
    The amendment reflects the terms of this definition by adding a reference to the Crown's liability in reparation under the 1947 Act.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 10

    THE GENERAL SAFETY REQUIREMENT
    Mr., Alan Williams: I beg to move amendment No. 42, in page 7, line 10, leave out 'any person' and insert
    `the British Standards Institution or the European Committee for Standadisation'.
    This amendment is purely exploratory. The Minister and I have had an exchange of correspondence on this matter. I thought that it would be useful for it to be written into the Official Report.
    Mr. Howard: The amendment attempts to restrict those standards of safety which will be considered in deciding whether consumer goods fail to comply with the general safety requirement to standards approved by either the British Standards Institution or the European Committee for Standardisation. The Opposition fear that some traders might attempt to write their own standards of safety to ensure that their goods comply with the general safety requirement. Those fears are groundless.
    The purpose of clause 10(2) is to ensure that all the circumstances are considered when deciding whether consumer goods fail to comply with the general safety requirement. Along with all the qualifications in the preceding subsection (1)(a), which concern the manner in which goods were marketed or used and in any instructions or warnings given with the goods, and in the subsequent subsection (1)(c) concerning the existence of any means by which it would have been reasonable for the goods to have been made safer, we also have to consider any standards of safety published by any person. Consideration of those standards will include the question whether the particular standard of safety which applies to the goods is suitable. If the published standard does not
    346
    reach the level of safety which in all other circumstances is necessary, compliance with that standard will not necessarily be enough to outweigh consideration of these other circumstances.
    There is a specific reference in subsection (3)(b)(ii) to "approved" standards of safety. These standards are more than likely to be British standards or, possibly, European standards, or may be suitable safety standards from any part of the world. But, for the purposes of clause 10(3), compliance with an approved safety standard will ensure that goods comply with the general safety requirement in relation to matters covered by that standard. No other fact then needs to be taken into account. Compliance with that approved standard will be sufficient.
    For the purposes of clause 10(2), where all the circumstances are to be taken into account, any standard of safety will be taken into account, although, as I have just said, only if the level of safety provided by those standards is sufficiently high. There is, therefore, a distinct difference between the role of safety standards for the purposes of subsections (2) and (3). The amendment would seek to limit the generality of subsection (2) and, as I have sought to explain, compliance with approved standards of safety relates to subsection (3). I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) will see that there is no need for his amendment and will withdraw it.
    Mr. Williams: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Williams: I beg to move amendment No. 40, in page 7, line 36, leave out paragraph (a).
    Various organisations have expressed concern that, although we are establishing standards of safely of products in our country, we waive any such requirement for goods to be exported. Concern has been expressed by various lobbies that that would mean that many Third-world countries will sell products that would be regarded as substandard and unacceptable in this country. I should like the Minister to place his defence on record.
    Mr. Howard: I remind the Committee of the genesis of this provision, which was in the White Paper, "The Safety of Goods", which was published in July 1984. In that White Paper the Government proposed that the general safety requirement would not apply to goods intended for export. It was explained at that time that a distinction had to be drawn between regulation-making powers and a general requirement such as the general safety requirement. While with a regulation-making power each case could be considered on its merits, that is not possible for a general requirement of this kind. The White Paper therefore concluded that it would be preferable, on balance, for the general safety requirement not to apply to goods for export. In these cases, it would be preferable to allow manufacturers flexibility to meet the safety requirements of the overseas market concerned. For example, an electric hair drier manufactured for use in a country which operated on a 110 volt electricity supply and used a two-pin unearthed plug might very well comply with the safety regulations of that country. It would clearly be unsafe here. If the amendment were passed, a United Kingdom manufacturer would be unable to make such a drier.

    347
    Moreover, I think that it is quite right to argue that other countries should have the right to set different safety standards from our own. Safety standards in any country tend to increase with its wealth. It is for the Government of the country concerned to decide what is acceptable, not for us. It has been suggested that our approach is in some way inconsistent with the White Paper "Standards, Quality and International Competitiveness". That could hardly be further from the truth. A crucial part of international competitiveness for our manufacturers is to allow them flexibility to compete with their foreign competitors. That will not be achieved if we impose standards upon them which might be quite irrelevant for foreign markets.
    Therefore, it would be inappropriate to apply such a general requirement for goods intended for different export markets. We should allow manufacturers the flexibility to compete in foreign markets where the safety standards are properly set by the foreign Governments. For those reasons, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will seek to withdraw the amendment.
    Mr. Williams: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 11 to 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 14

    SUSPENSION NOTICES
    Mr. Williams: I beg to move amendment No. 48, in page 13, line 12, leave out 'that person' and insert 'any such person'.
    The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this we may take the following amendments: No. 35 in clause 34, page 30, line 8, leave out `and'.
    No. 36, in page 30, line 10, at end insert
    `; and
    (c) it is shown that the officer did not have reasonable grounds for exercising the power'.
    Mr. Williams: The Minister will appreciate that amendment No. 48 is purely exploratory, to give him a chance to put in the Official Report certain exchanges that we have had, to which other people should have access.
    Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 have been tabled because of the concern of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. The Minister will be well aware that the compensation arrangements in the Bill are so wide that the authorities feel that they will constitute a disincentive to enforcement. They have suggested legitimate amendments to try to establish that the liability for compensation should lie where an enforcement authority has acted improperly. It seems to me that this is a fair and legitimate narrowing of the provisions. I hope that the Minister will look sympathetically at the amendment.
    Mr. HowardThe circumstances in which local authorities should he liable to pay compensation have been much debated, both on the present Bill in another place and on its predecessor, the Consumer Safety (Amendment) Act 1986, for which we are indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory). The
    348
    present Bill does nothing more than consolidate the provisions of that earlier Act. In the light of their history, it is useful to recall why the provisions are in their present form, since they represent the outcome of considerable earlier debate and a change in the provisions in favour of enforcement authorities.
    The new powers of suspension and forfeiture were suggested in the White Paper, "The Safety of Goods", published in 1984. That suggested that, because of the sweeping nature of these powers, compensation should be payable to traders wherever there was no conviction under the safety legislation. Compensation would not be paid when there was a conviction.
    During the passage of the Consumer Safety (Amendment) Act 1986, it was suggested that such a compensation provision did not sufficiently reflect the practical difficulties that trading standards officers might face. We listened to those representations, with the result that the circumstances in which compensation would not be paid were substantially widened. Those new circumstances were enacted in the earlier Act and they have been consolidated in the present Bill.
    It would be wrong to suggest that compensation will almost always be paid; that is simply not the case. Two conditions must be satisfied. They are that the goods have not contravened any safety provision—that is, that the goods are safe—and that the exercise of the relevant power of seizure is not attributable to any neglect or default by the person seeking compensation. The second condition is very important. It includes not just specific failures to meet obligations under safety legislation, but any act or omission which, in the circumstances, is blameworthy. It could include, for example, an unreasonable unwillingness to provide an enforcement officer with information about or access to the goods. In the light of this, I suggest that the circumstances in which compensation will be paid are relatively narrow.
    The amendments put forward by the right hon. Gentleman, although expressed differently from the amendments to clauses 14 and 34, in practice would have a similar effect. The important question is what should happen in those unfortunate circumstances where goods are seized and nobody is to blame—the goods are safe; the trader has acted reasonably; and so has the enforcement officer. Such circumstances could arise where the enforcement officer relied quite reasonably on information supplied by a third party.
    The effect of both amendments is that, in those circumstances, the trader should bear the loss. The Bill, as it stands, provides that the enforcement authority should bear the loss, and that is quite right. It is surely wrong that in providing powers for enforcement authorities to halt the supply of unsafe goods, we should do so at the expense of the innocent trader. We are simply not prepared to create a new burden of this kind on business.
    Similar provisions concerning suspension of the supply of goods were enacted in the Consumer Safety (Amendment) Act 1986, which has been in force for eight months. It would appear that not one practical example is available to the right hon. Gentleman of a case where a local authority has been inhibited from taking action because of its concern over compensation. Yet, as is well known, the powers of suspension have been used.
    We have moved from the position in the White Paper, but we do not believe that it could ever be right not to compensate the innocent trader. There does not seem to

    349
    be any evidence of a practical problem here. I hope that, in the light of that explanation, the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.
    Mr. Williams: I am disappointed by the Minister's reply. While I can see the substance of many of his arguments, it remains that there may be a serious impediment to the import of modern, highly technical products, particularly new products.
    Mr. Conal Gregory: I press my hon. and learned Friend a little further on this matter. He was well briefed in connection with my Bill, the Consumer Safety (Amendment) Bill, as it then was. I put great pressure on the fact that local authorities, if they wished, would be empowered to take action against goods that they considered to be within the remit. My hon. and learned Friend challenged the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) to produce evidence. The cases are far too numerous to bring to the attention of the Committee this evening. Many people, adults as well as children, will suffer this year and have suffered hitherto, not only because of the restrictions in the Consumer Safety (Amendment) Act 1986, but if this Bill goes on to the statute book in its present form.
    The budgets of local authorities are limited and there are limitations in the Consumer Safety (Amendment) Act. Regulation 5(1) states that it shall be the duty of each weights and measures authority to enforce— these are the three key words—"within its area" the provision of the safety regulations.
    If a product is considered to fall within the limits of this Bill my hon. and learned Friend has suggested that the goods must be found and tested in the local authority's area. If they are found and tested in another area, that does not comply with the consolidated legislation being proposed to the Committee. That is a serious defect and loophole in the legislation which will be pursued.
    I invite the Minister to answer the substantive criticism about the amount of insurance that local authorities will need to take out, because trading standards departments Would have to put forward a sizeable amount of money. I feel that the Minister is unduly favouring manufacturers, particularly those who promote look-alikes. We are not talking about the good and bona fide products which have been tested properly; the Minister is championing the shoddy, poor products, particularly those from the far east and the Third world, which is not honourable.
    Mr. Williams: I endorse the point made by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory). Two thirds of the toys sold in Britain are imported and there is a vast influx at a time such as Christmas. As we have to make progress, for reasons that everyone well understands. As it is not our wish to delay the Bill in the limited circumstances available to us this evening, although the Minister has it wrong, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 15 to 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 24

    DEFENCES
    7.30 pm
    Mr. Williams: I beg to move amendment No. 54, in page 21, line 47, at end insert
    350
    'and it shall be a defence, if the misleading indication is given in a printed catalogue, circular or price list, for that person to show that he informed the consumer in writing of the manner in which the indication was misleading before the consumer became legally bound to purchase the goods, service, accommodation or facility in respect of which the misleading indication has been made.'.
    The Minister and I have had discussions within the past few days on the Bill's impact on mail order traders. He said that he was willing to give certain guarantees rather than to amend the legislation, and, as we are compacting the Bill's proceedings, it is proper that any such undertakings that he is willing to give should be clearly stated. Therefore, the amendment is intended not to be pressed, but to be a vehicle for him to state to the Committee what he has already stated to me.
    Mr. Howard: I do not consider it appropriate to include a defence of the kind contemplated in the amendment in the Bill. As the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) said, the amendment is directed at special difficulties which might be faced by mail order traders. That seems to me a relatively narrow and detailed matter. The provisions of the Bill itself are meant to be of general application. The Bill already makes provision for codes of practice and for regulations, which are the proper means to deal with such matters of detail.
    The proposed defence also goes much wider than can be justified. It could put consumers who make purchases through mail order catalogues in a rather worse position than those who buy goods in shops. For example, where goods in a shop are marked with one price but the customer is asked to pay a higher price at the checkout till, the trader has committed an offence under both the existing law and the Bill, even though the customer can simply decide to leave the goods at the till. The proposed defence would allow a mail order trader in similar circumstances to avoid committing an offence by sending a revised price indication to the customer with the goods, even though the consumer would be required to go to the effort of posting the goods back if he did not want them at the new price. That does not seem to me to be an acceptable outcome.
    If genuine mistakes are made, the mail order trader will, as will any other trader, be able to make use of the due diligence defence in clause 39. However, I accept that mail order traders may face particular difficulties with the requirement in clause 20(2) to take all reasonable steps to ensure that consumers do not rely on a price indication which becomes misleading after it has been given. Therefore, my Department is considering with representatives of mail order traders what would be an appropriate definition of "reasonable steps" in those circumstances and I hope that it will be possible to reach an agreed solution. But I am confident that any solution can, and should, be reflected in the code of practice, or, if necessary, regulations.
    I hope that with that explanation and assurance the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
    Mr. Williams: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 25

    CODE OF PRACTICE
    Mr. Howard: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 22, line 49, at end insert—
    '(1A) A contravention of a code of practice approved under this section shall not of itself give rise to any criminal or civil liability, but in any proceedings against any person for an offence under section 20(1) or (2) above—

    (a) any contravention by that person of such a code may be relied on in relation to any matter for the purpose of establishing that that person committed the offence or of negativing any defence; and

    (b) compliance by that person with such a code may be relied on in relation to any matter for the purpose of showing that the commission of the offence by that person has not been established or that that person has a defence.'

    The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 15.
    Mr. Howard: As it stands, clause 25 makes provision for the Secretary of State to approve codes of practice for the purpose of giving traders practical guidance on the requirements of this part of the Bill and promoting desirable practice in the giving of price indications. It also provides for the approval of such codes to be subject to parliamentary procedures. However, as a result of amendments made in another place, it does not at present provide for an approved code to have any legal effect.
    As introduced in another place, the Bill provided that compliance with the code should provide a complete defence to a charge of giving a misleading price indication. There were a number of reasons for proposing such an arrangement.
    Clause 20 creates a wide general offence of giving a misleading price indication. That approach was adopted because the prohibition of specific practices — the approach followed in the existing legislation —allows rogue traders to invent new misleading practices not subject to the prohibition.
    It does, however, have a potential disadvantage— that it may leave some uncertainty for the honest trader who wants to advertise that he is offering a bargain about whether a particular indication complies with the law. One way of overcoming this uncertainty is to provide that compliance with the code should be a complete defence. A trader could thus follow the relevant provisions of the code and be certain that he could not be convicted.
    Against this, it has been suggested that making compliance a defence would allow rogue traders to exploit loopholes in the code. That argument is misplaced for two reasons. First, a trader could rely on the code only so far as it was relevant. He could not, for example, comply with the code in one respect, adopt an additional practice not addressed by the code and claim a defence in respect of that latter practice. He would have to argue that the practice was not misleading on its own merits with no reference to the code.
    Secondly, should it transpire that any practice sanctioned by the code is open to abuse, there is a procedure for amending the code which could, if appropriate, be operated very quickly.
    While the Bill was passing through the other place, we were presented with a package of proposals having the agreement of many of the main interests involved. The package included a proposal that compliance with the
    352
    code should not be a complete defence. Instead, it was proposed that contravention or compliance should tend to establish guilt or innocence.
    Clearly, proposals having the agreement of those interests must be taken seriously, but there were others not represented by the Condordat, as the group came to be known, whose views had to be heard. Therefore, we consulted widely and undertook to reflect the outcome of the consultation in the Bill. The consultation revealed a consensus in support of the status proposed by the Concordat. I therefore informed the House on Second Reading that I intended to lay the amendments now before the Committee.
    The amendments that I have laid achieve what the Concordat sought; that is, that contravention of or compliance with the code will tend to establish that an offence has or has not been committed but will not be conclusive of either.
    The amendment also has another effect. If a court is satisfied that a misleading price indication has indeed been given, the defences provided by the Bill may arise. The code may, in some circumstances, be relevant to some of those defences, in particular the due diligence defence provided by clause 39. In those circumstances, the amendment will enable compliance with or contravention of the code to be used in evidence as tending to establish or negative the defence.
    Thus, a trader who complied with the code would not have a certain defence, but he would be very unlikely to be convicted of an offence. I believe that it will be in very unusual circumstances only that an enforcement authority will bring a prosecution against a trader who has complied with the code's relevant provisions.
    In the light of these considerations, I believe that the status given by the amendment would give honest traders almost the degree of confidence that would have followed from the Government's original proposals. However, should rogue traders find any loophole in the code, which they can exploit to give a misleading price indication, the courts will now have the opportunity to convict in appropriate circumstances. There will, therefore, be powerful incentives for traders to comply with the code, which I am sure we can all agree is the desirable outcome.
    Given the extent of support for this alternative in both Houses of Parliament and outside, I therefore think that the amendment is the most appropriate way to proceed.
    Mr. Michael Shersby: First, I wish to declare an interest. I am a member of the council of the Food and Drink Federation. As I understand it, the amendment will change the status of the code of practice so that it will be of evidential weight only in legal proceedings. Both the food and drink industry and the confectionery industry supported the original drafting of the clause, and, for reasons that I should like briefly to explain to the House, they are concerned about the clause as it will be if the amendment is carried.
    The Concordat, which is comprised of retail, consumer and enforcement associations, has made representations about the status of the proposed code of practice and it argued that some provisions should be covered by regulations. The Minister has said that he proposes to accept the Concordat's proposal on the status of the code of practice and I assume that that is why he has tabled the amendment. If the amendment is carried, the code of

    353
    practice will no longer constitute an absolute defence, as he has mentioned, but will merely be of evidential weight in legal proceedings.
    Originally, as the clause was understood widely by those in the food and drink industry, the code's status as a defence meant that it set out what was good practice. Therefore, traders could see clearly what action they could take to remain within the law. Enforcement officers would also have the certainty that practices endorsed by the code were within the law. Disputes about whether particular practices were misleading or not therefore would be confined to those actions by traders who fell outside the provisions of the code, thus considerably narrowing the scope of such disputes to arise in the first place.
    Furthermore, traders would have considerable flexibility in the use of price indications, and scope to develop new pricing practices that were not misleading. Consumers' interests would have been served by the widest possible adoption by traders of pricing practices in the code of practice which would set a standard of behaviour that would prevent consumers being misled. It would facilitate consumers comparing price claims by competing traders, and price comparisons would be more transparent than at present.
    The original absolute defence status of the code of practice was, in the view of many people in the food industry, preferable in that it added a degree of flexibility. The person giving the indication still had the option of being able to show that, despite non-compliance with the code, he had not misled in practice. This would have avoided the arbitrary and rigid rules that are a feature of the present Bargain Offers Order. The fear that rogue traders could get around the provisions of the code and give misleading price indications while still being able to show that they had complied with the code, does not stand up. If there are practices which are endorsed by the code but which are misleading, I understand that so far none have emerged in the Department of Trade and Industry's consultations to date. Furthermore, the Bill contains provision to enable an amended version of the code to be approved at a subsequent date.
    Given that my hon. and learned Friend the Under Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, has taken this Concordat proposal on hoard, it seems clear that the House will not reinstate the original status of the code of practice; that is to say, the absolute defence if the amendment is carried. However, while manufacturers and traders will be able to live with the amended status, there is a feeling that this route will introduce rigidity into the system, whereas the original proposal would have allowed greater flexibility in interpretation to ensure that action is taken only when there is a genuine concern that a price comparison or promotional offer is misleading to the consumer.
    I am not clear whether my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary has accepted the Concordat's proposals for regulations on specific provisions. Will he clarify his intentions a little further on these points: the 28-day rule; recommended retail prices; introductory offers; worth and value claims; and substantiation? In the view of the food industry, it is not necessary to regulate on those provisions. Traders and consumers will benefit from having the requirements covered in a comprehensive code of practice rather than the rigidity and relative technicality of regulations.
    354
    Price indications cover a wide range of circumstances and in the past have not been easy to regulate in specific statutory controls. The code of practice approach offers greater flexibility for traders than an approach which involves specific requirements in regulations. Regulations would lay down requirements that must be followed, giving rise to a number of specific offences rather than a single general offence, and would give rise to potential difficulties for enforcement authorities in identifying the appropriate charge to bring.
    The Bill does not make it a legal requirement to follow the provisions of the code of practice in respect of the 28-day rule. Therefore, provided that the price indication is not misleading, it is open to traders to adopt a different basis for their price comparisons and, if they so wish, to indicate that they have done so. This allows flexibility for traders within the constraints of the general prohibition on misleading price indications. I hope, therefore, having explained to my hon. and learned Friend some of the worries that still exist in the food and drink industry and in the confectionary industry, that he will take those matters into account. Even if the amendment is carried, I hope that he will keep the matter under review.
    Mr. Howard: The observations of my hon. Friend demonstrate convincingly the impossibility of pleasing everyone. We responded to the views expressed by the Concordat which represented an overwhelming consensus that our original proposals should be revised. My hon. Friend has advanced many cogent reasons in support of the original provisions in the legislation, but in the view of those whom we consulted, those advantages were outweighed by the disadvantages to which I referred when I moved the amendment.
    The answer to the questions raised by my hon. Friend in relation to the regulations is that no final decisions have yet been taken as to which areas will be covered by regulations. However, he can rest assured that we will consult widely on those matters. It may be that the interests that he has represented this evening will be more fortunate in the context of those consultations and representations than they may have been in the context of the ones that led to the amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment made: No. 15, in page 23, line 6, leave out 'this Part' and insert 'subsection (1 A) above'.—[Mr. Howard.]
    Clause 25, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 26 and 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 28

    TEST PURCHASES 7.45 pm
    7.45pm
    Mr. Williams: I beg to move amendment No. 39, in page 25, line 28, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b), and insert
    'be carried out by or at the expense of the authority in a manner prescribed by or determined under the regulations'.
    The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 38, in page 28, line 4, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert
    'be carried out by or at the expense of the authority in a manner prescribed by or determined under the regulations'.
    Mr. Williams: I simply press the point made by the local authorities that, if the amendment is agreed to, by being allowed to choose the testing place that they prefer and by not being inhibited, as the Bill would otherwise do, they would have greater flexibility and also better cost benefits. Since the Government have been arguing that local authorities should try to be more efficient, local authorities feel that there is a case where they are arguing for efficiency and where the Government are limiting them. The Minister should take the opportunity to state his case.
    Mr. Howard: The amendment would remove an essential power of the Secretary of State to prescribe by regulation that tests should be carried out only by specified test houses. This is not by any means a new power. It has been available for many years under both the Consumer Protection Act 1961 and the Consumer Safety Act 1978. It is important to appreciate the purpose of the powers in clauses 28(3) and 30(7). They are designed for a specific purpose, to restrict the choice of test house where the test concerned is of such a technical nature that it is necessary to require the appointment of a particular testing laboratory or laboratories to carry out the test under strictly controlled conditions. This may be necessary, for example, to achieve uniformity in the quality of technical evidence.
    Some of those tests—for example, those relating to fire resistance and electrical safety —require expensive, specialised equipment and experienced, qualified people to operate it. The equipment and those people are to be found in only a limited number of test houses. Therefore, it is prudent in those cases to require that the tests be carried out only by establishments specified by the Secretary of State. If this were not stipulated — it would be impossible, if the amendment were adopted, for such a stipulation to be included in safety regulations — the enforcement authorities would be inclined to have the tests carried out by whatever laboratory, consultant, local technical college or similar body offered to carry them out on the most attractive terms. That would mean that the test results would be open to challenge in court, with expert witnesses disputing whether the specified test method had been followed or not.
    The absence of any restricted lits of competent test houses would lead to uncertainty, dispute, and wasted effort and resources. It is far better for the legality or illegality of those products to be established beyond doubt and the only way of avoiding such doubt is to require that the hightly technical tests involved be carried out by only those establishments, relatively few in number, that are competent to do so, and are recognised by all experts in the field as being the only such establishments.
    I assure the right hon. Gentleman that it has been and will continue to be our policy to use the power sparingly and to make every effort to mitigate any possible restrictive effect by approving as many test houses or laboratories as are technically competent to carry out tests. I hope that, with that assurance, the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendments.
    Mr. Williams: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 29 and 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 31

    POWER OF CUSTOMS OFFICER TO DETAIN GOODS
    Mr. Howard: I beg to move amendment No. 49, in page 28, line 27, leave out 'forty-eight hours' and insert 'two working days.'.
    The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendment No. 50.
    Mr. Howard: These provisions have been the subject of considerable debate. The purpose of the amendments is to extend the period during which Customs and Excise can detain imported goods. The question how long it should be able to detain goods was debated extensively during the passage of the Consumer Safety (Amendment) Act 1986. The Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) originally provided for 72 hours. The Government considered that 24 hours was sufficient and a compromise of 48 hours was eventually agreed.
    Local authorities consider that, particularly over weekends and bank holidays, 48 hours does not allow sufficient time for them to form a view on whether to exercise their powers. The local authority associations have wanted the detention period to be used as a time when they can make rather more extensive examination of the goods concerned without having to use their formal powers to seize or suspend the goods, powers which would attract liability to pay compensation in the event that the goods turned out to be safe.
    This issue has been a major bone of contention. It was raised on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report in another place and on Second Reading in this place. Having listened carefully to the points that have been raised in the many discussions on the subject, and having given further consideration to the potential difficulties of enforcement, I accept that significant difficulties may arise where the 48-hour period encompasses a weekend or a bank holiday. To overcome those difficulties, I propose that the period during which the Customs and Excise may detain imported goods should he altered to two working days. That will make no difference in the majority of cases, and therefore minimises the risk of challenge from the Community institutions. It will allow the enforcement authorities much greater flexibility in those cases where real difficulties may arise. I hope that the House will agree that this allows an adequate time for the limited purposes of the provision.
    Mr. Williams: I welcome this change. It gives effect to amendments that we asked the Minister to make. I can only observe that it takes a long time to persuade the Minister to make even the most minor concessions. We have spent over a year trying to do that, and it has taken a general election to squeeze this concession from him. I am glad that he now recognises that the arguments that some of his hon. Friends, as well as Opposition Members, put forward about the Consumer Safety (Amendment) Act 1986 were valid and it leaves me with a grave suspicion that his stubbornness on so many other amendments that have been moved in the other place and here is something that he and the enforcement officers may come to regret. However, it would be churlish to make a sour point on a concession. It improves the Bill, and in those circumstances we welcome it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment made: No. 50, in page 28, line 30, at end insert—
    '(2A) In subsection (1) above the reference to two working days is a reference to a period of forty-eight hours calculated from the time when the goods in question are seized but disregarding so much of any period as falls on a Saturday or Sunday or on Christmas Day, Good Friday or a day which is a bank holiday under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 in the part of the United Kingdom where the goods are seized.'—[Mr. Howard.]
    Clause 31, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 32 to 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 42

    REPORTS ETC.
    Mr. Williams: I beg to move amendment No. 34, in page 34, line 21, leave out subsections (3) and (4).
    This amendment also arises from a request from the local authorities, which feel that the requirements built into the Bill are cumbersome and costly. They ask whether such a wide-ranging requirement needs to be part of the Bill. This is to give the Minister than opportunity, hopefully, to have second thoughts on this issue.
    Mr. Howard: This clause provides that a report on the functions relating to safety in the Bill should be submitted to Parliament at least once every five years. It would seem right that Parliament should he informed of the extent to which the powers in this Bill are being used and of the extent to which non-complying goods are found on the market. Basically we want to know whether the Bill is effective.
    In order for the Secretary of State to prepare such a report, he needs information from the enforcement authorities. This clause therefore requires the enforcement authorities to report to the Secretary of State, as and when he directs, on how they have exercised their functions under this Bill.
    These provisions arc not new and are not an unnecessary additional burden on the enforcement authorities. Similar provisions are already contained in section 8(2) of the Consumer Safety Act 1978, which will be consolidated in this Bill. The House may recall that the Secretary of State submitted a report to Parliament in October 1986 on the working of that Act. The report to Parliament was based on the annual reports submitted by the enforcement authorities. This clause provides that the first report on the Bill before us shall be laid not more than five years after the October report to Parliament. I hope that that information will suffice to persuade the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) to withdraw his amendment.
    Mr. Williams: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 43 and 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 45

    INTERPRETATION
    Amendment made: No. 28, in page 37, line 7, at end
    insert—
    '(5) In Scotland, any reference in this Act to things comprised in land by virtue of being attached to it is a reference to moveables which have become heritable by accession to heritable property.'.—[Mr. Howard.]
    Clause 45, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 46

    MEANING OF "SUPPLY"
    Amendments made: No. 16, in page 37, line 12, leave out
    ',or a contract for work and materials,'
    No. 17, in page 37, line 13, at end insert—
    ',( ) the performance of any contract for work and materials to furnish the goods;'.
    No. 18, in page 37, line 36, at end insert—
    `(2A) Subject to subsection (3) below, the performance of any contract by the erection of any building or structure on any land or by the carrying out of any other building works shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as a supply of goods in so far as, but only in so far as, it involves the provision of any goods to any person by means of their incorporation into the building, structure or works.'.
    No. 19, in page 38, line 15, at end add—
    `(7A) A ship, aircraft or motor vehicle shall not be treated for the purposes of this Act as supplied to any person by reason only that services consisting in the carriage of goods or passengers in that ship, aircraft or vehicle, or in its use for any other purpose, are provided to that person in pursuance of an agreement relating to the use of the ship, aircraft or vehicle for a particular period or for particular voyages, flights or journeys.'.[Mr. Howards]
    Clause 46, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 47

    SAVINGS FOR CERTAIN PRIVILEGES
    Amendment made: No. 20, in page 38, line 16, leave out from 'requiring' to end of line 20 and insert
    'any person to produce any records if he would be entitled to refuse to produce those records in any proceedings in any court on the grounds that they are the subject of legal professional privilege or, in Scotland, that they contain a confidential communication made by or to an advocate or solicitor in that capacity, or as authorising any person to take possession of any records which are in the possession of a person who would be so entitled.'.—[Mr. Howard.]
    Clause 47, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 48

    MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS AND REPEALS
    Mr. Williams: I beg to move amendents No. 55, in page 38, leave out line 29.
    The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will, be convenient to consider Government amendments Nos. 51, 52 and 53.
    Mr. Williams: We had a dispute over this issue on Second Reading and would undoubtedly have had quite a lengthy discussion on this had the Bill been proceeding in the normal manner, because hon. Members on both sides object to what the Government are doing. The import of the Bill is that it will no longer be possible legally

    359
    to require origin marking on goods in this country. Many organisations, particularly those concerned about South Africa and apartheid and so on, are deeply concerned that in the future there will be no possibility of imposing requirements on imported goods.
    On Second Reading the Minister suggested that he was responding to a requirement of the EEC. We well understand the difficulties which he faces, but he went on to say also that further processes had been open to the Government: for example, they could have appealed, but they decided not to. Instead, they have capitulated at the first squeak from the EEC on this matter.
    It is unfortunate that they have taken that course of action, particularly since, as yet, although it is many months since they first stated their intention, the promised form of a replacement for this protection has not been forthcoming. The Minister said on Second Reading that he was still looking for an alternative form of words. It has been a great many months. He said that one of the reasons for putting this provision in the Bill was that if we were good boys and showed the Common Market that we were willing to come to heel every time it scowled at us even slightly, it will no doubt be kinder to us when the Minister goes forward with his eventual proposal for an alternative. That is a dubious argument. It would be better to tell the EEC that, until we have an agreement, we are not willing to make any statutory concessions. We must have agreement on what is to replace the provision.
    I have moved the amendment not to initiate discussion at this stage of parliamentary proceedings, but to give the Minister a last opportunity to reconsider. I notice that, instead of doing that, the Minister has tabled his own amendment to require at least an affirmative resolution. That takes up a point that I made on Second Reading or in Committee. The Minister's amendment is at least helpful. However, I still believe that the Bill would be better and our negotiating position stronger if the Minister accepted the amendment to withdraw the subsection.
    8 pm
    Mr. Howard: May I begin by outlining briefly the background to the amendments. The Trade Descriptions Act 1972 requires imported goods bearing a United Kingdom name or mark to be accompanied by an indication of the country of origin. It does not impose general origin marking requirements. It is intended to protect consumers against being misled by goods that are presented in certain potentially misleading ways. The Commission has said that it considers the 1972 Act to be incompatible with the treaty of Rome and has taken the first step in infraction proceedings that will lead fairly rapidly to a case in the European Court of Justice if we are not to repeal the 1972 Act.
    In 1985, the European Court of Justice ruled against the United Kingdom's 1981 origin marking order in a case which the United Kingdom had vigorously contested. After careful study of that judgment, the Government reluctantly concluded that there was little prospect of successfully defending a case against the 1972 Act and that an unsuccessful United Kingdom defence could well have been counter-productive, since the terms of an adverse judgment might well have inhibited the scope for successful arrangements.
    360
    I am conscious of the widespread and strong feeling about origin marking. I am aware that many people feel that it would be wrong for the House to settle important changes in the law in this area without fuller debate than the present position allows. With that in mind, I have tabled an amendment which provides that the commencement order giving effect to the repeal of the 1972 Act will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
    Although that is a somewhat unusual procedure, I believe that it meets the present situation. It will relieve the next Parliament from the burden of repeating the primary legislative process while at the same time ensuring that the implications of repeal can be properly debated before it takes effect and by reference to proposals for successor arrangements.
    Our latest exchanges with the Commission lead us to believe that it is likely to be possible to introduce a successor regime acceptable in Community law. That would provide a valuable degree of continuing protection to consumers in the form of an obligation to provide a sign of origin in any case where goods are presented in such a way that they can reasonably be expected to create the impression in the mind of the consumer that they were manufactured or produced in a different place from where they were produced or manufactured. Arrangements on those lines could be introduced by order under section 8 of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 and the making and entry into force of such an order could be synchronised with the order bringing into force the repeal of the Trade Descriptions Act 1972.
    Mr. Williams: I am glad to hear that at last some form of words has been arrived at, but I am afraid that it does not sound adequate to me. For example, where goods carry no marking, they will escape the provisions envisaged by the Minister. Therefore, for the reasons that I have put forward, I still believe that the Minister should have accepted the amendment. However, in this evening's circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
    Clauses 48 and 49 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 50

    SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISION
    Amendments made: No. 51, in page 39, line 14, at end insert—
    '(2A) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under subsection (2) above bringing into force the repeal of the Trade Descriptions Act 1972, a repeal of any provision of that Act or a repeal of that Act or of any provision of it for any purposes, unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.
    No. 22, in page 39, line 36, leave out subsection (8). —[Mr. Howard.]
    Clause 50, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Schedule 1

    LIMITATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PART I
    Amendments made: No. 29, in page 42, line 40, leave out from 'unless' to 'and' in line 41 and insert—
    'a relevant claim was made within that period and has not been finally disposed of.
    No. 30, in page 42, line 42, at end insert—

    361
    '(IA) If, at the expiration of the period of 10 years mentioned in subsection (I) above, a relevant claim has been made but has not been finally disposed of, the obligation to which the claim relates shall be extinguished when the claim is finally disposed of.'.
    No. 31, in page 42, line 43, at end insert—
    `a claim is finally disposed of when—

    (a) a decision disposing of the claim has been made against which no appeal is competent;

    (b) an appeal against such a decision is competent with leave, and the time limit for leave has expired and no application has been made or leave has been refused;

    (c) leave to appeal against such a decision is granted or is not required, and no appeal is made within the time limit for appeal; or

    (d) the claim is abandoned'.

    No. 32, in page 43, line 31, after 'him', insert 'in all the circumstances'.
    No. 23, in page 45, line 4, leave out '(g)' and insert '(gg)'—[Mr. Howard.]
    Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
    Schedule 2 agreed to.

  Schedule 3

    AMENDMENTS OF PART I OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK ETC. ACT 1974
    Amendments made: No. 52, in page 52, line 20, leave out
    `forty-eight hours' and insert 'two working days'.
    No. 53, in page 52, line 23, at end insert—
    `(3) In subsection (1) above the reference to two working days is in a reference to a period of forty-eight hours calculated from the time when the goods in question are seized but disregarding so much of any period as falls on a Saturday or Sunday or on Christmas Day, Good Friday or a day which is a bank holiday under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 in the part of Great Britain where the goods are seized.'.—[Mr. Howard.]
    Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

  Schedule 4
    MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
    Amendments made: No. 25, in page 55, line 41, at end insert—
    MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

      'The Insolvency Act 1986
      12. In section 281(5)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (discharge from bankruptcy not to release bankrupt from liability in respect of personal injuries), for the word "being" there shall be substituted the words "or to pay damages by virtue of Part I of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, being in either case".'.
      No. 43, in page 55, line 41, at end insert—

      The Motor Cycle Noise Act 1987
      For paragraphs 3 to 5 of the Schedule to the Motor Cycle Noise Act 1987 (enforcement) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
      "3. Part IV of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 (enforcement), except section 31 (power of customs officer to detain goods), shall have effect as if the provisions of this Act were safety provisions within the meaning of that Act; and in Part V of that Act (miscellaneous and supplemental), except in section 49 (Northern Ireland) references to provisions of the said Part IV shall include references to those provisions as applied by this paragraph.".'.—[Mr. Howard.]
      Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
      Schedule 5 agreed to.
      Bill reported, with amendments; as amended, considered.

  Clause 2

    LIABILITY FOR DEFECTIVE PRODUCTS
    Mr. Williams: I beg to move a manuscript amendment, in page 2, line 50, leave out "industrial" and insert "initial".
    This amendment returns to an issue that we discussed at some length in Committee. I do not intend to delay the House for long now. However, the Minister will recollect that there was some support from the Conservative Benches for our argument that the Bill missed the opportunity to extend protection to the consumer with regard to the supply of foodstuffs. We regret that the Minister has narrowed the protection afforded by the original directive whereby the only exemptions would be for foodstuffs that had not undergone initial processing. The Minister has limited protection and included the term "industrial process".
    We have had extensive discussions on this point and we believe that the Minister has missed an opportunity. We have given an undertaking that we will facilitate the progress of the Bill, and we do not want to delay it for this item. However, had this been a normal Report stage, we would have had a considerable debate and probably a vote on this issue. Although we are not hopeful, we want formally to make the effort to give the Minister the opportunity to recant even at this, the last moment.
    Mr. Howard: The preamble to the directive explains why we have chosen the words that are in the Bill. Perhaps it would be for the benefit of the House if I quoted the relevant passage in the third recital:
    "Whereas a liability without fault should apply only to movables which have been industrially produced; whereas, as a result, it is appropriate to exclude liability for agricultural products and game, except where they have undergone a processing of an industrial nature which cause a defect in these products".
    That makes it clear that the reason why we have chosen to use the words "industrial process" in clause 2(4) is that they more accurately represent the intentions of the directive.
    Perhaps I could begin by dealing with the use of those words and then say why I recommend the House to reject the amendment to line 50. We have departed from the words of the directive only when it has been important either to clarify the intentions of the directive or to use words which are more readily understood in the United Kingdom. In this case there are two reasons for us to use the words that we have used. The first is the intention of the directive as set out in the preamble which I have just read. I should also remind the House of the overall intention of the directive which is to harmonise the law for defective products that have been industrially produced. If we had used the word in the directive — that is, agricultural produce which had not undergone an "initial" process— we would not have conveyed the intentions of the directive that it is the industrial nature of the process which is important, not its place in the sequence of processes.
    The second reason for using the words "industrial process" is that the words "initial process" could easily be interpreted to mean that, while the initial processing of agricultural produce might put that produce outside the exemption, subsequent processing—that is, the second and third process to which the produce may be subjected

    363
    —might not be caught by the exemption. Although this was obviously not the intention of the directive, it could be so argued on a strict interpretation of the wording of article 2. We have avoided that potential lack of clarity by using the words that we have. They have the additional advantage of reflecting the intentions of the directive.
    For those reasons, I hope the House will reject the amendment.
    Mr. Williams: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Order for Third reading read.
    8.11 pm
    Mr. Howard: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    I am glad that we have been able to complete consideration of the Bill in such an expeditious manner, no doubt having something to do with the rather unusual circumstances in which this takes place.
    I pay tribute to the co-operation of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), who has confirmed the welcome that he gave the Bill on Second Reading by the way that he has assisted its passage. This legislation has been welcomed by both sides of the House and has been enthusiastically greeted by consumers and producers alike. I have great pleasure in commending it to the House.
    8.12 pm
    Mr. Williams: May I repeat our welcome to the Bill? We regret that one or two improvements that we and other hon. Members suggested have not been included, but it would not have been our wish to see the Bill fall because of those differences.
    As I observed earlier, it is good that we have managed to continue a consensus approach on consumer issues, as we have done over a great many years. It has meant that the public have benefited from consumer legislation which is not continually threatened with repeal and alteration for political reasons. Therefore, we welcome the Bill. It could have been better but we are glad that it is completing its proceedings.
    8.13 pm
    Mr. Michael Shersby: I should like to record my welcome for the Bill on behalf of my constituents. I believe it to be a very important and valuable piece of legislation and I am glad that it has been possible to carry it in this Parliament.
    I am glad also that my hon. and learned Friend has taken account of some concerns expressed by those engaged in research in the pharmaceutical industry. They are particularly happy with the provisions of clause 4(1) (e)dealing with the state of scientific and technical knowledge. If this so-called state-of-the-art defence had been deleted, many companies in the pharmaceutical industry, three of which are in my constituency, would have been deterred from marketing potentially valuable novel products, whether intended to treat currently lethal conditions such as AIDS or lung cancer, or painful or disabling states such as arthritis, schizophrenia or senile dementia. I am glad that my hon. and learned Friend has responded to those legitimate concerns. Because of the
    364
    consumer protection which the Bill provides in so many ways, there will still be every encouragement to develop new medicines for the benefit of the health of the people.
    8.15 pm
    Mr. Clement Freud: I would also like to welcome the Bill. On behalf of my constituents, I have one broad question which I would like to ask the Minister. I have in my constituency, in Wisbech, a prestigious printer by the name of Balding and Mansell which is concerned that it may be blamed for textual errors in its printing. The British Printing Industries Federation wrote to the Minister and received a reply which said:
    "It seems to us reasonably clear that the Directive does not apply to mis-statement."
    I would simply like the Minister to make it clear that it is not the intention of the Bill to do so.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman may remember that, in 1979, Longman published a chemical textbook in which it got wrong a proportion between two totally unpronouncable chemical elements; it printed that the proportion should be 2:30 instead of 2:3. A school had a major explosion as a result. Of course Longman, who printed the book, would be responsible. I would simply like the Minister to say that it is not an intention of the legislation to hold a printer responsible for textual errors.
    8.16 pm
    Mr. William Cash: I simply wish to raise a point to which I referred on Second Reading. I had tabled amendment No. 26 for consideration in Committee, but in view of the circumstances with which we are faced and the knowledge that we would not divide on it, it seemed inappropriate to press it.
    The foundry industry made it clear that it was not satisfied with the wording of clause 4(1) (f). I have had a letter from my hon. and learned Friend, in which he has explained that he thinks that the concern of the industry can be dealt with under the terms of his letter. We hope that the interpretation which is placed on those words by the Minister will prove to be correct. This is an important and serious matter. If the Minister's interpretation were to turn out not to be correct, and if the matter proceeded to court, no doubt we would have an opportunity to correct the position in subsequent legislation.
    8.18 pm
    Mr. Conal Gregory: I heartily welcome the Bill and praise the work of my hon. and learned Friend at this late hour in this Parliament in seeking a dialogue with the Opposition and other parties in bringing the legislation to fruition. The Bill will be in the interests of consumers, including my constituents. We should not lose sight of the cardinal point, that each year some 7,000 people die in Great Britain in home accidents, a greater number than are killed on the roads. In addition, more than 3 million people sustain injuries which require medical attention. Clearly, with those devastating figures before the House, we must address ourselves to consumer safety.
    In many ways, this is a blockbuster Bill because we are dealing with the entire concept of safety at the stage of purchase. Furthermore, we have given greater resources to local authorities in England, Wales and Scotland. I note the response from my hon. and learned Friend that that greater provision has increased from £60.9 million in the financial year 1983–84, to about £72·6 million in 1985–86. However, notwithstanding those extra financial

    365
    provisions, there are still some remaining doubts and queries. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will consider them in the time that remains to us.
    The new power of suspension of the threat of compensation is still a worry, especially where the tests can be carried out only by designated test houses. I understand that it can take three weeks for the official test reports to be received. The House has not had a full chance to examine the ramifications of that. So that the enforcement authorities are not discouraged, the strict rules on compensation need to be relaxed, either by an exemption from the compensation provisions, if an authority can demonstrate that it had acted reasonably, or for a limited period. I recommend a time limit of seven days during which an authority can arrange its confirmatory tests. In other words, compensation would not be available during the initial period if the goods were later found to comply.
    I am not clear from the Bill who should receive the suspension notice. Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend can advise us. Is it the importer, the haulier or the warehouse owner? Can suspended goods be moved to another warehouse without any breach? In such a situation, there is no requirement for the local authority to be informed in advance of such a move, but vital goods can be properly supervised. These and other matters would, had the normal legislative process taken its course, have been examined week upon week and no doubt into the midnight hours. However, it has all been concertina-ed into a few days. The period of 48 hours is inadequate to determine whether goods might be suspect and whether that amounts to time for seizure and detention.
    For a long time, I have felt that improvements in consumer safety are overdue. However, in this Parliament and with this major Bill, we have taken a step forward, not
    366
    only for the consumer but also for the bona fide producer and retailer. I believe that that will be widely welcomed, and I commend it to the House.
    8.22 pm
    Mr. Howard: I am grateful for the remarks that have been made and for the welcome that the Bill has received from hon. Members of all parties. Two specific points have been made which call for a reply from me.
    The hon. Member for Cambridge, North-East (Mr. Freud) asked for an assurance that it was not intended that the type of printing error to which he referred would give rise to liability under the Bill. I am happy to give him that assurance, although that may be rather less useful than the observation that I made in the letter to which he referred— that it is reasonably clear from the language of the legislation that that should not be its effect. Having regard to the attitude of the courts to the deliberations of this House, the clarity of the language, rather than any statement of intention, is likely to be of greater assurance to those who might be affected by such provisions.
    In answer to the specific question posed by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory) as to whether suspension notices should be served on hauliers, shopkeepers or importers— I believe that those were the three categories that he identified — it depends on the circumstances, and especially on who had possession of the goods at the relevant time. It would be possible to serve a suspension notice on any or all of those categories, i f they were the people in possession of the goods.
    Naturally, I am delighted that we have been able to make progress and to complete the Bill's consideration in this House and I am grateful to all those hon. Members who have contributed to its speedy passage.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Parliamentary and other Pensions Bill
Considered in Committee
[Mr. HAROLD WALKER in the Chair]
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill

Parliamentary and other Pensions Bill
  Clause 2

    POWER TO PROVIDE FOR PENSIONS
    8.24 pm
    The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Harold Walker): I understand that amendment No.1 is not to be moved. Therefore, we shall consider amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 21, at end insert—
    '(aa)may provide, in the case of a person who ceases to be a Member of the House of Commons in any year between the ages of 55 and 60, having completed 20 years' service, for the payment of an unabated pension to him from the age of 60.'.
    With this it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 3 in page 2, line 21, at end insert—
    `(aa) may extend the entitlement to full and unabated pension to a person who, having reached the age of 60 and after completing 20 years of service as a Member of the House of Commons, has stood as a candidate and been defeated at a parliamentary election.'.
    No. 4, in page 2, line 21, at end insert—
    '(aa) may provide for the payment of a lump sum to a person on his ceasing to be a Member of the House of Commons at the age of 65 or over, calculated on the same basis as the resettlement grant payable to a Member who has left the service of the House before attaining pensionable age.'.
    Mr. John McWilliam: I beg your pardon, Mr. Walker. I thought that amendment No. 9 was to be moved by the Government.
    The Chairman: No. That amendment now goes into what would be its proper place in the sequence of our proceedings. Therefore, it will come after Government amendments Nos. 5 and 6.
    Mr. McWilliam: I do not wish to detain the House for any longer than is necessary. It is not our intention to press amendment No. 2. However, we expect to hear from the Leader of the House something about the subject that we are discussing.
    The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I am grateful for that great constitutional innovation. I am unable to comment on what I know would have been powerful speeches delivered on behalf of amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4.
    The merits of these amendments are almost self-evident. They would specify a change that could be made by regulations under the power in clause 2. That power is already wide enough to allow regulations dealing with each of the proposed changes to be made. Therefore, it is not necessary to specify, in this way, individual matters that regulations might cover. Indeed, I do not believe that it is desirable to do so. However, it is clear that the amendments are intended to create the presumption that the scheme will be changed in these ways.
    The first amendment would allow regulations to be made to extend the facility for early retirement with a full pension paid at the age of 60 to all Members with 20 years' service, who retire after the age of 55. The intention of the
    368
    present rule, which allows Members with long service to retire at a general election at the age of 60, or after, without abatement of their pension, is to allow them to retire at the general election before their 65th birthday, rather than waiting until the next election or causing a by-election.
    Although I recognise that the rule can cause some hard cases, changing the scheme as envisaged in the amendment would create a whole new set of anomalies. Those who retire at 55 with 194½ years of service, for example, would complain that the new rules were unfair to them. Furthermore, that would exaggerate the distinction between two classes of Member, those who can take their pension at 60 and those who must wait until they are 65.
    The second amendment is intended to extend eligibility for immediate payment of a full and unabated pension to a Member who is aged at least 60, with at least 20 years' service, who stands for re-election, but is defeated, at a general election. That point can be dealt with briefly, because the scheme was amended to allow that during the passage of the Parliamentary Pensions etc. Act 1984. However, the fact that confusion has arisen about that provision is a good example of why the Bill is needed. This part of the existing legislation is so complicated, after the series of amendments, that it is not surprising that hon. Members have found it difficult to follow.
    The third amendment would allow regulations to be made to provide for payments from the pension fund to Members retiring at the age of 65 and over, which would be equivalent to the resettlement grant paid from the Consolidated Fund to younger Members on leaving the House. In considering this point, I am sure that the Committee will wish to take account of the fact that the scheme already provides for Members to receive by commutation of part of their pension the maximum tax-free lump sum permitted by the Inland Revenue rules in similar private sector schemes.
    I recognise that that is not directly comparable with the resettlement grant, which is a straight payment from the Consolidated Fund and is a benefit over and above what is provided by the pension scheme. Nevertheless, the commutation arrangements have clear tax benefits and should not be discounted when considering the means available to Members to secure a lump sum on retirement.
    8.30 pm
    I remind the Committee that resettlement grants are intended to tide over Members who leave the House before normal retirement age and need to re-establish themselves in alternative employment. Paying resettlement grants to Members past normal retirement age would be a new departure and I am not convinced that it would be justified.
    However, I acknowledge that there are anomalies in the area where eligibility for immediate pension and for resettlement grants overlaps. I recognise that the area dealt with in the first amendment is also one where anomalies arise. Taking into account this point and the others raised during the Second Reading debate, I now believe that we should refer the scheme as a whole to the Top Salaries Review Body for an early review. In particular, I envisage that the review body would be asked to consider the early retirement arrangements and the anomalies caused by the availability of both a resettlement grant and an immediate and full pension to those who retire between the ages of 60 and 65 with 20 years' service.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: May I express the hope, which I trust the Leader of the House

    369
    will endorse, that if the TSRB finds in favour of changing the existing arrangements, those of our colleagues over the age of 65 who are leaving the House now will not be excluded from benefit.
    Mr. Biffen: I am sure that that is a factor which the TSRB will almost certainly consider in its judgment of what adjustments might have to be made to our scheme. Certainly its attention will be drawn to the right hon. Gentleman's intervention when the terms of reference are resolved at the beginning of the next Parliament.
    The precise terms of reference for the TSRB would be a matter for discussion through the usual channels. That, again, covers the right hon. Gentleman's point. It would be helpful to set that in hand at an early stage in the next Parliament so that the House and the Government may have an opportunity to consider the TSRB's comments and possible changes to the scheme sufficiently in advance of April 1988 for Members to make an informed choice about whether to opt out of the parliamentary pensions scheme, as they will then able to do.
    I do not believe that it is sensible for us to consider piecemeal the anomalies thrown up by the present rules of the scheme in advance of the TSRB's review of the scheme as a whole. To do so would merely create further anomalies. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel that that is a reasonable response to his formal moving of the amendment.
    Mr. Peter Shore: I had hoped that the minor changes which are embodied in the amendments and which would have a negligible impact on the finances of the parliamentary pension fund, which is in robust health, could be agreed and accepted by the Government.
    The anomalies are clearly established. I had an exchange of letters with the Minister of State, Treasury, which entirely satisfied me that my anxiety on the second of the amendments was misplaced so I do not see why that should be pursued or referred to the TSRB. However, I am worried about the two remaining anomalies. The first concerns a person who ceases to be a Member of the House of Commons in any year between the ages of 55 and 60, having completed 20 years of service, and who will not receive an unabated pension at the age of 60. The second anomaly is that while all other hon. Members are entitled to severance pay or resettlement grant if they lose their seats at a general election, the only hon. Members who are not entitled to a lump sum are those who have reached or passed the normal age of retirement. Those anomalies are small, but they so disfigure the features of our parliamentary pension fund arrangements that they should be removed.
    While I accept that major changes in the parliamentary pension scheme should await a further report by the TSRB, I am disappointed that the Government take the view that even those minor anomalies should first be considered by the review body. May I at least suggest to the Leader of the House that there should be a two-stage reference to the TSRB? The first stage, which we hope would lead to a swift, short report, would cover precisely the anomalies that have been identified. The second stage, which would deal with more fundamental features of the scheme, would be the subject of a more considered report.
    I echo my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) when I say that
    370
    it is my strong hope that any benefit flowing from the removal of anomalies in the present scheme will be made available to our colleagues in the present Session who will not be with us when the new Parliament assembles.
    Mr. Jack Dormand: I wish to add my disappointment to that of my right hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) in relation to the resettlement grant. The reference of that and the other matters to the TSRB is a stalling exercise. I would have thought that the House could decide those matters. As has been said, the sum involved is negligible and, moreover, the fund is healthy.
    It is generally recognised that the term "resettlement grant" is something of a misnomer. This has been taking place for many years in both the private and public sectors and is usually referred to as a lump sum on retirement. To designate it as a "resettlement grant" to help hon. Members to obtain alternative employment is a misuse of words. We are talking about hon. Members who have served many years, enduring the usual disadvantages of parliamentary life, such as long hours, and that should be recognised by what should be called a "lump sum", not a "resettlement grant". That is the basic difficulty facing the House.
    We have had helpful private talks with the Leader of the House, who has a reputation for listening carefully. In view of what has been said by three hon. Members tonight, and as many right hon. and hon. Members have approached me as the chairman of the parliamentary Labour party, I hope that the Leader of the House will recognise that this is an annoying and frustrating position. I hope that he will take cognisance of what we have said and see whether we can proceed differently from the way in which he has proposed.
    Mr. Biffen: I shall respond briefly to the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) about the terms of reference that will govern the consideration of the TSRB early in the next Parliament. Naturally, they must be the subject of widespread consultation through the usual channels. He will appreciate that I cannot say now, indeed it would be a gross presumption to say now, what those terms of reference will be. Certainly they will not be concluded merely by whoever happens to be in Government arid holding the post of Leader of the House. They will be the subject of proper consultation, but the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes is a perfectly fair one, because there should be a two-stage consideration of these matters. I am sure that that will be borne in mind.
    I say to the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) that the term "resettlement grant" is not an invention of the Treasury Bench. It was suggested by the TSRB in its report, which sought to make clear the purpose of the grant — the payment to an hon. Member who had left the House but who had not reached the age of retirement. It was clearly intended not just to be a supplement to one's position on leaving the House. It was specifically meant for someone who left the House in anticipation of having reached full retirement age.
    I have noted what the hon. Gentleman said and he knows perfectly well that what he says, although he will not be here to grace us in the next Parliament, will echo

    371
    on to inspire those who have to consider the terms of reference for the TSRB, and I hope that he will be consoled by that thought.
    Mr. McWilliam: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Peter Brooks): I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 3, line 8, after 'instrument', insert
    'subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.
    The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 6, in page 3, line 12, leave out from 'them' to end of line 14.
    Mr. Brooke: On Second Reading several hon. Members expressed concern that the change from primary to secondary legislation, which the Bill proposes, would mean that the House of Commons would have fewer opportunities to debate and amend the scheme.
    I agreed to consider that point and I am happy to give an undertaking on behalf of the Government that time will be made available for a debate on an amendable motion before any regulations amending the scheme are made under clause 2. This would allow, for example, the sort of debate that we had in July 1983 on the recommendations of the TSRB which led to the changes to the scheme that were made in the 1984 Act. The arrangements will be similar to the procedure for determining hon. Members' pay and allowances.
    In accordance with the procedure which I hope we will shortly enact, through amendment No. 9, the trustees' comments on the Government's proposals will be available to hon. Members for debate. The views of hon. Members expressed in the debate will be taken into account when the regulations are subsequently introduced. If such a debate is always to be held, it will usually be unnecessary to hold a debate on the regulations themselves. This amendment, therefore, substitutes the negative procedure for the affirmative procedure currently provided for in clause 2(7).
    Mr. Shore: On Second Reading on 27 April I expressed my anxieties, which were widely shared, about the central purpose of the Bill, which is to enable further changes in the parliamentary pension scheme to be made not by amending legislation but by regulations issued by the Leader of the House. I think that the House took the point that if we were limited to debates on regulations we could not amend them, we could only vote them down, which is a considerable restriction on our normal freedom of debate and, furthermore, debates on regulations normally take one and a half hours. I thought that that was not a satisfactory way of proceeding and I suggested that changes should be introduced so that proposed changes could be put to the House in the form of an amendable motion.
    That was where we left matters at the end of that debate and I was glad to receive a letter from the Leader of the House informing me:
    "We intend to give an undertaking that there should be an opportunity for Members to make their views clear, in a debate on an Amendable motion, before regulations are finalised."
    372
    That is the background to the Government amendments to clause 2 that are now before us. Having heard the Minister of State say quite categorically that the House will be able to debate an amendable motion before regulations are finalised, I consider that adequate assurances have been given and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister of State. I agree that we no longer need the affirmative resolution procedure and that we can be content with the negative resolution procedure which is the subject of the amendments.
    Mr. Cranley Onslow: I should like to add the thanks of Conservative Members for the way that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and my hon. Friend the Minister have responded to the sentiments that were expressed in our debate on Second Reading and in the subsequent discussions. It seems that it has been a very constructive process and that the Bill has been much improved as a result.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment made: No. 6, in page 3, line 12, leave out from 'them' to end of line 14.
    8.45 pm
    Mr. Brooke: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 3, line 14, at end insert—
    '(7A) Where the Leader of the House of Commons has made any proposals for the making of regulations under this section, a copy of any representations made to him by the trustees of the Fund about the proposals shall be laid before the House of Commons.'.
    Amendment No. 1, which the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) did not move, sought to give the trustees a more active role in the process of amending the scheme by regulations. We appreciate the knowledge and expertise of the trustees, which equip them for such a role. We are committed to allowing the House an opportunity to debate the proposals for amendments to the scheme, and it seems right that the trustees should advise the House at that stage, while leaving the final decision to the House. Amendment No. 9 would allow that by providing for the trustees' comments on proposals for amendments to the scheme to be laid before the House so that they can be available for debate. I described the arrangements for this debate when we debated amendments Nos. 5 and 6.
    Mr. McWilliam: I am grateful to the Government for their response. I think that I went over the top on Second Reading. I think that the Government have understood perfectly the point that I was making and it has been incorporated in their amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 3

    EXCHEQUER CONTRIBUTIONS TO FUND
    Mr. Alfred Morris: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 3, line 44, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
    '(4) If it appears from the report of the Government Actuary under this section that there is a deficiency or surplus in the operation of the scheme, then, subject to the following provisions of this section, the rates of contribution under this section may be increased, or, as the case may be, reduced in accordance with those provisions or all or any of the rates of benefit may be reduced or, as the case may be, increased in accordance with those provisions.

    373
    (4A) An alteration of the rate of contributions may be made by Resolution of the House of Commons.'.
    As the House knows, I speak as chairman of the managing trustees of the parliamentary contributory pension fund. My amendment reflects the concern that I expressed when the Bill had its Second Reading about the amendment in 1972 to the 1965 Act, under which benefits and/or Members' contributions could be varied in the light of any surplus or deficiency revealed by an actuarial review of the fund.
    The 1972 Act, by contrast, left the Exchequer contribution to the fund to be determined by the Government Actuary at the level necessary to balance assets and liabilities. This means that the fund can never go into surplus, no matter how well the investments perform. At the same time, it means that our prospects of improving the pension scheme, based on successful investment management, are effectively vetoed since the Exchequer contribution to the fund falls in proportion as that management succeeds. That penalises good management and puts the trustees, in the view of some who have commented on the working of the 1972 Act, in the unenviable position of being incapable of acting in the best interests of the members no matter how successful they are in increasing the fund's assets. This, we must all recognise, is the other side of the coin to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) referred when he spoke of the fund being in such robust health.
    Following a meeting that I attended in the office of the Leader of the House yesterday, he was prepared to amend the Bill so that there would always be a debate on the Government Actuary's report when it was laid before the House. That would have enabled the trustees and other hon. Members to suggest changes in the fund in the light of its assets and liabilities. I now understand that, unfortunately, parliamentary counsel has advised that an amendment on these lines would not be practicable under the existing Standing Orders. Instead of amending the Bill in the way in which the Leader of the House was prepared to do yesterday, I am informed that the Minister will give an undertaking tonight to provide time for a debate on every report from the Government Actuary. I appreciate the Minister's difficulty, just as I know that he understands both my reasons for tabling the amendment and that it is strongly based. I regard the Minister's undertaking as constructive and helpful and will not, therefore, press the amendment.
    Mr. Brooke: The amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) seeks to provide a mechanism for benefits and Members' contributions to be adjusted in the light of the performance of the fund. It suggests a new procedure for amendments to he made to the scheme by resolution of the House. That would cause conflict with the object of the Bill, which is to enable the scheme to be set out, as far as possible, in consolidated form in regulations.
    Nevertheless, I recognise the concern expressed by hon. Members, both tonight and on Second Reading, that the performance of the fund should be reflected in their contributions or benefits. I recognise that they would welcome the opportunity to consider the scheme from time to time, in the light of the state of the fund. On behalf of the Government, I am happy to undertake— as the right
    374
    hon. Member for Wythenshawe foreshadowed—that a debate will be held on each future report from the Government Actuary.
    In considering whether to go further we should remember that in the past Members have benefited from the arrangement— common to all public service schemes and many private sector schemes — whereby their contributions are fixed as a percentage of salary while the Exchequer meets the balance of the cost, which will therefore vary with the performance of the fund's investments. We should be cautious about proposing alternative systems linking Members' contributions to the state of the fund. That might offer benefits in the short term, but it would, in the longer term, shift the risk of fluctuating contributions from the Exchequer to Members. Such an arrangement may also hinder improvements to the scheme at times when the fund was not performing well.
    I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe for stating that he will not press his amendment in the light of the undertaking that I have given on behalf of the Government. I know that hon. Members greatly appreciate the knowledge, expertise and services of the trustees, of whom the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe is so distinguished a chairman. I hope that that is a suitably happy note on which to conclude the Committee stage.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 4

    AMENDMENT OF MR. SPEAKER KING'S RETIREMENT ACT 1971
    Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
    Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I wish to make known something that is not generally appreciated by hon. Members.
    In 1968, shortly after I was elected, I won first place in the ballot for private Members' motions and chose as a subject for debate the protection of the pension rights of early leavers. Mr. Speaker King, as he then was, asked me to talk to him before I made my maiden speech. I was glad to do that for the benefit of his advice. I told him that I had suffered the loss of my pension rights after 14 years' service in the company in which I was first employed. In exchange I had received only a small return on my contribution. I told Mr. Speaker King that, in due course, I hoped to be able to persuade the House to amend the law in relation to the rights of early leavers so that early leavers received fair compensation for their pension rights. Unfortunately, I have not yet been successful in that.
    Mr. Speaker King told me that his circumstances were worse than mine. At the time of his election he had completed nearly 20 years' service and contributions to the teachers' pension fund. However, because he had not quit; completed those 20 years' service when he was elected to the House. he lost the whole of the benefit of those years of service. I believe that circumstances would be different now. However, I recall very well the statement he made to me as to his personal loss when he became a Member of the House.

    375
    I suggest that that is a particular reason why the House should view with sympathy the circumstances of Lord Maybray-King and make suitable provision for his surviving spouse.
    Mr. Brooke: I said, prematurely, that we had finished the Committee on a happy note, but, by the remarks he has made, my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) has provided an even happier note.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 5 to 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Schedules 1 to 4 agreed to.
    Bill reported, with amendments; as amended, considered. Order for Third Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time—[Mr. Biffen.]
    8.56 pm
    Mr. Dormand: The nature of this evening's debate and indeed all other debates on pensions have shown us all how complicated pensions matters are. That applies to all previous debates on pensions. In those circumstances, and in view of the fact that I shall not be returning to the next Parliament, that demonstrates the difficulties of administering the scheme.
    Tonight, I should like to pay tribute to the accountant, Mr. Dobson, his deputy, Mr. Lewis, and all the staff of the Fees Office for the splendid way in which they administer the scheme. If I may stray slightly out of order, that praise is not only for the way in which they administer the fund but for the way they deal with Members' allowances, expenses, and so on.
    I know I speak for the whole House when I say that the service we receive from the Fees Office is extremely efficient. We receive unfailing courtesy from all the members of the Fees Office. It gives me great pleasure to place that tribute on record tonight.
    Mr. Shore: I am sure that the whole House will wish to endorse the generous sentiments that my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) has expressed in relation to the work that the Fees Office does on the complicated matter of the parliamentary pensions fund. I think it is also right for me to thank my hon. Frienf for his intervention and to say how greatly we shall miss him in the future. Tonight, we have listened to him with interest, as we have listened over many years to his many remarkable contributions to the proceedings of the House.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

Lord Chancellor's Salary
Motion made and Question proposed,
That the draft Lord Chancellor's Salary Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 29th April, be approved.—[Mr. Biffen.]
9 pm
Mr. Peter Shore: In this election year, the Government have been careful, with their pay awards to the public sector. Two years ago, the House was outraged when the Lord Chancellor's salary order allowed for an increase of 16·6 per cent. not only for the Lord Chancellor but for those employed in the highest levels of the public service.
That was in the same year that the Government were officially pursuing a 3 per cent. a year public sector pay policy and were reluctantly forced to concede 5·6 per cent. for nurses. This year, by contrast, the Lord Chancellor's and other top salaries will be increased by 4·5 per cent., while nurses are to receive 9 per cent. that is progress. Nevertheless, we should look more carefully at the absolute levels of pay and not just at the percentages.
The increase of 4·5 per cent. may appear to be modest, but it appears to be much less so when we recall that the Lord Chancellor's salary presently starts at £79,400 and, as a result of the order, will rise to £83,000 in October 1987. An extra £3,600 is a substantial increase. It appears to be all the more so when we consider the only other order affecting pay that the House has approved this week. I refer to the Employment Subsidies Act 1978 (Renewal) (Great Britain) Order 1987 that was approved last night. That order authorised the continuation of the Department of Employment's scheme to pay employers £15 a week subsidy to take on 18, 19 and 20-year-old employees, provided only that they are not paid more than £65 a week.
The contrast between yesterday's order and today's illustrates yet again not only the Government's resolute pursuit of income inequality but the totally contradictory view that the Government appear to hold about the working of incentives. For the poor, low pay is an incentive to hard work, and indeed the only means of gaining employment. For the well-to-do, high pay is a necessary incentive to hard work and a proper reward for talent. I do not accept that view— nor, I believe, do the great majority of people. Nor am I convinced in any way by the assertion that the Lord Chancellor's salary is immovably fixed in relation to that of the Lord Chief Justice. The doctrine that the Lord Chancellor must have whatever the LCJ receives, plus £2,000, is simply unconvincing.
I must warn the Government about future Top Salaries Review Body awards and top salaries in the public sector. In many instances, top salaries are set by what is considered to be comparable work and comparable responsibilty in the private sector. In the past two years, and particularly since the big bang in the City, there has been a veritable explosion of top rewards and top pay in the private sector, If that is to be reflected in future TSRB reports on pay in the top echelons of the public service, we shall see a massive increase in public sector pay at the top level. I do not believe that that will be acceptable to the great bulk of public sector employees, far too many of whom are among low-paid workers.
I shall say no more, but it is right to alert the House and the TSRB to what may become a major concern in the near future.
9.3 pm
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): It would be a courtesy if I respond, albeit briefly, to the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). He has used the occasion to broaden the consideration of the Lord Chancellor's salary into a wider economic policy discussion. If, over the next few weeks, we are confronted by claims from him and his political colleagues that we need policies in terms of income determination and publicly influenced income determination that will squeeze differentials and if we are to have taxation policies that will squeeze differentials, we should be able to have an open and clear debate about what kind of society our respective economic policies are designed to produce, the right hon. Gentleman and I will engage in an argument with relish. I have a suspicion that, at the end of the day, there will be a better public appreciation and understanding of the argument for differentials than there would be for the argument for compressing them through either the mechanism of an incomes policy or taxation. However, I have no wish to broaden the matter unnecessarily.
However, I remind the House why the order is needed. The requirement stems from the link between the salaries of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice. That link derives from the Top Salaries Review Body recommendation—again, not some thought emanating from the Treasury Bench, but a response to the 1983 TSRB recommendation that, in recognition of his position as head of the judiciary and his responsibility as a whole, the Lord Chancellor should be paid more than the Lord Chief Justice. I commend that attitude to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Lord Chancellor's Salary Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 29th April 1987 be approved.

Channel Tunnel Bill
9.5 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): I beg to move,
That further proceedings on the Channel Tunnel Bill shall be suspended until the next Session of Parliament;
That if a Bill is presented to this House in the next Session in the same terms as those in which the Channel Tunnel 13111 stood at the last stage of its proceeding in this House in this Session—

(a) the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first, second and third time; and

(b) the Standing Orders and practice of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with or (in the case of the Standing Orders relating to Private Business) dispensed with in this Session or in the Session 1985–86, shall be deemed to have been complied with or (as the case may be) dispensed with in the next Session;

That this Order be a Standing Order of the House
The purpose of the motion is straightforward: it is to preserve the work already done in the House on the Channel Tunnel Bill to enable the Bill to recommence its passage through Parliament promptly in the new Session. Hon. Members will know that it is normal practice to carry over private and hybrid Bills from one session to the next and from one Parliament to the next. The Channel Tunnel Bill has already been carried over by both Houses from the 1985–86 session to the present one, and a further carry-over will, once again, enable work to continue without duplication and without imposing further burdens on the House and on the petitioners.
The effect of the motion is that, upon reintroduction to the new Session in the form in which it has been passed by this House in the present Session, it will be deemed to have passed all its stages in the new Session and will forthwith move straight to the other place. The House will then, in due course, receive the usual opportunity to consider amendments made in the other place before the Bill receives the Royal Assent. I commend the motion to the House.
9.7 pm
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: The hour is getting on and I shall not detain the House to an unreasonable extent, but, at the same time, at the risk of disturbing the end-of-term euphoria, the motion must have some critical scrutiny before we allow it to pass. It is a somewhat unusual constitutional device. A carry-over motion is known, but still relatively rare, for private Bills, but it is extremely rare for hybrid Bills. I wish to ask my hon. Friend the Minister to tell us what precedents there are for carrying over an important hybrid Bill with such enormous public policy implications as this one has. He will have to dig almost as deep as the Channel tunnel and the last Channel Tunnel Bill to find such precedents.
It would have been wiser to allow the new Parliament to decide whether to prolong the agony of the Channel tunnel by means of the reviving motion, which is an alternative option, rather than to keep the patient alive by means of the artificial life support machine that we are debating tonight. Now that the Government have decided to table the motion, there is a need to ask certain questions and seek certain assurances, because, at the very least, there are markers to he put down for the next Parliament and lessons to be learnt from the unhappy progress of the Bill so far.

379
I call it unhappy progress because anyone who is neither on the payroll of Eurotunnel nor on that of the Government would have to admit that the saga of the tunnel so far has been a mutual disappointment. Even those who support the Channel tunnel in principle must regret the extremely slow progress of the Bill and be critical of the Government and Eurotunnel for losing their way so often in recent months. After all, the project in its present form was introduced to Parliament nearly two years ago and in the intervening months there has been a great deal of fumbling and bungling, and still the Bill is less than two-thirds of the way through its legislative stages.
Outside Parliament, there is a conspicuous lack of national enthusiasm about, or even interest in, the project, and there is deep hostility in east Kent, manifested by some worrying local election results in the affected areas last week. There has been a continuously poor public relations reception for the management upheavals and mistakes that have bedevilled the Eurotunnel consortium, and there is rising scepticism in the financial and investment community as to how on earth the missing 96 per cent. of the funding for the project will be raised—especially the £750 million of equity, which has been postponed three times so far.
Against that background, I should have thought that the Government would approach the carry-over motion with some caution and humility. Instead, the wording of the motion seems to suggest an atmosphere of complacency and self-satisfaction that the project and the legislative structure surrounding it are in such perfect shape that we should automatically rubber-stamp it and send it on to the new Parliament without a doubt or a second thought.
Not for the first time in these proceedings, I take a different view from that of the Government. Before we pass the motion, I wish to highlight three main, continuing areas of unhappiness about the Bill on which I seek reassurances.
The first area of unhappiness lies in our cumbersome parliamentary procedures on the Bill. These procedures have been tested almost to destruction as a result of the Channel tunnel proceedings and have failed badly. That is because they have caused considerable dissatisfaction to promotors and petitioners alike, to specialist investors and to the general public. Perhaps above all they have been a source of considerable dissatisfaction for the parliamentarians, who were lumbered with the unwelcome task of sitting on the various Committees. Perhaps only the well-paid lawyers are satisfied, but even some of them in their quieter, private moments will have thought that they were taking part in nothing more than a lucrative charade.
The hybrid Bill procedure and its accompanying Select Committee hearings simply do not stand the test of being a fair way of hearing objectors and petitioners. Nor do they stand the test of being an efficient and thorough way of assessing a giant construction project from all angles within a reasonable time scale. With an eye on the next Parliament we should ask ourselves why the hybrid Bill procedure failed and what alternative procedures should be put in its place. First, the hybrid Bill procedure failed because everyone was surprised by the number and quality of the objectors.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman is going very wide of the motion before the House. He should address himself to the motion rather than seek to initiate a debate about our procedures.
Mr. Aitken: I think that it is relevant, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I shall show in a minute that there is a strong possibility that the Bill will have to go back to square one, with the possibility of a new treaty in view of the financing arrangements. Therefore, it is highly germane to look for a moment or two at why the hybrid Bill procedure did not work and could not work again. One reason why it did not work is that a Committee consisting of laymen Members of Parliament picked on the recommendation of the Whips Office, inevitably turns out to be partisan, with no great expertise, and much whipping. It gave an impression of impatience and. at times, intolerance, and that was one reason why there was a haemorrhage of public confidence.
To illustrate that point I can do no better than quote from a speech made in Kent by the distinguished director of the Council for the Protection of Rural England, Mr. Robin Grove-White, who said:
"Last year ministers promised repeatedly that all objectors would be given a fair hearing — an important promise, given the range of impacts expected from the tunnel.
At the bill's committee stages objectors were badgered again and again by impatient select committee members, reflecting the strict instructions of Government whips that the committee meet the Government's absurdly short timetable.
Witnesses like the CPRE found themselves required to give evidence higgledy-piggledy, in no logical sequence or order, making it all but impossible for them to deploy coherent cases in the fashion they felt necessary.
Lots of objectors found their supposedly sacrosanct rights of appearance under Parliament's standing orders bent and twisted, simply to speed the procedures along."
If a neutral body like the Council for the Protection of Rural England claims that it has seen its rights of audience in the House bent and twisted, before we pass the motion we should seek an assurance for the future that we will review these procedures, especially if, for example, there is a collapse of funding— I shall speak about that in a moment— and the need for a new treaty in view of a confidential report from the French Government. If we are asked to go back to square one in the new Parliament, we must have different procedures from those that we have in place. I notice that the Government are thinking of using the hybrid Bill procedure for things like nuclear power stations and coal mines. In future it would be much better to have a shortened form of public inquiry with time limits.
I shall now turn to area of unhappiness No. 2. Before we are confident about passing the motion, we should ask the Government if they have confidence in Eurotunnel. Eurotunnel was the Government's selection as the group to be given what is, in effect, a quasi-monopoly of one form of cross-Channel transport. However, the consor-tium is in a different shape today from the shape that it was in when it originated. The Eurotunnel consortium has turned out to be an unhappy ship. It is already on its third captain, or rather chairman, and a distinguished journalist, Mr. Kenneth Fleet, recently described it as rudderless, leaderless and penniless.
Many executives and directors have jumped ship or been thrown overboard. The first chairman of the Eurotunnel consortium, Sir Nicholas Henderson. has written a most illuminating book, "Channels and Tunnels", which has given us all an insight into the boardroom rows at Eurotunnel. It refers to construction

381
companies shouting at each other across the table, directors who thought that their only function was to carp, and bankers who fell out with one another.
To judge from Sir Nicholas Henderson's revelations, he simply could not wait to step down from the chairmanship. He was succeeded by Lord Pennock, who seemed to have the Midas touch in reverse when it came to raising money or influencing the public. Then we had an attempted coup on the chairmanship from Sir Nigel Broackes, followed by Sir Nigel's noisy exit, accompanied by one or two others, such as the deputy chief executive, Michael Julian. Then, after pressure from the Bank of England, we had Lord Pennock's departure. He was criticised for being a part-timer, but he was replaced by Mr. Alastair Morton, presumably another part-timer, as he has retained his chairmanship of a well-known City bank, Guinness Peat and, indeed, his role as an industrial adviser to the Social Democratic party. The change to Mr. Morton from Lord Pennock was rather like replacing Uncle Podger with Flashman, because Mr. Morton was quick to get headlines such as,
"Tunnel tough guy puts the squeeze on railways".
That brings me to my third area of concern— the latest news on the financing arrangements for the tunnel which seem to have two dimensions of public interest which need to be looked at before we pass the motion. I have referred many times to the unsatisfactory financial structure of the Channel tunnel, and I have prophesied that, instead of having a Franco-British Channel tunnel, we shall end up having a Franco-Arabian-Japanese Channel tunnel.
Can my hon. Friend the Minister give an assurance that the national quotas for investment will remain sacrosanct? Originally, it was promised that the investment in the Channel tunnel would he 40 per cent. British money. 40 per cent. French money and 20 per cent. from overseas. That is a subject to which we shall have to return a great deal in the new Parliament, but I am encouraged by the fact that two able business men, now parliamentary candidates, one for Dover and one for Canterbury —respectively, Mr. David Shaw and Mr. Julian Brazier—have been voluble in their criticisms of the financial non-viability of the Channel tunnel, not least in letters to the Financial Times and, indeed, in a pamphlet that one of them is in the process of writing. I am glad that in future I shall be reinforced, rather than be the lone voice criticising these extremely dodgy financial arrangements and financial structure, by two such able parliamentary representatives on the Conservative Benches.
Having asked about the national quotas, I should like to refer to the second and more important dimension of the financing, which might loosely be called the story of Flashman and the railways. You will recall from your reading of "Tom Brown's Schooldays", Mr. Deputy Speaker, that Flashman was a prefect and something of a bully, one of whose tricks was to hold small boys upside down in front of a fire, roasting them until their pocket money fell out of their trousers. A similar technique seems to have been employed by Mr. Alastair Morton to extract extra revenue from British Rail.
The story went something like this. Mr. Morton arrived at Eurotunnel and found, like everyone else who could read a balance sheet and prospectus, that the sums did not add up. He had to get some extra revenue from somewhere, so he decided that the best place to get extra money was the railways, although they had already agreed
382
prices with Eurotunnel. Then the world watched with fascination as Mr. Morton made a series of pre-emptive announcements through the press to the effect that the tunnel would be cancelled by the end of last month unless British Rail was prepared to amend its original agreement and come up with more cash. Then we had a series of threats through the press, which were deeply resented, according to journalists' soundings of British Rail, and in the debate that took place on the front page of the newspapers, British Rail issued its statements on the financing. It said——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. These historical recollections and reminiscences are interesting, but they do not seem to have much to do with the motion before the House.
Mr. Aitken: They are extremely relevant, because there was an announcement only this morning of the brand new financing arrangements. My case, which I stress will not take me long to put forward, is simply to argue that the House should not pass the motion until it has full details of the financing arrangements, which have been given to the press but not to Parliament, and which deserves some scrutiny.
British Rail answered this curious debate in the newspapers. On 26 April an article in The Sunday Times stated:
"BR, led by Sir Robert Reid, its chairman, is determined not to give in to Eurotunnel demands for higher tariffs and large guaranteed payments as a principal user … BR has been incensed by his"—
Mr. Morton's—
"efforts to amend the terms of a provisional agreement signed last September. Morton wants BR to pay up to 80 per cent. of its projected tariff on a monthly basis in advance. BR interprets this as an attempt to gain public funding for the project by the back door and says it will not accept this."
Who intervened, and what changed British Rail's mind? The Observer last Sunday gave the story under the headline——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Member that the Bill has been through all its stages in the House and is now before another place. Doubtless, if these matters are relevant, they will be considered in the other place at the appropriate time, but they do not seem to have much to do with the matter before the House.
Mr. Aitken: The matter before the House is whether the House should approve the carry-over motion. I argue that it should not approve the carry-over motion until we have received assurances about taxpayers' money which, as I shall reveal, may be being spent through a back door subsidy. I submit that that is highly relevant to whether we should allow the whole parliamentary process to be carried over to the next Parliament.
I was saying, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you will follow me closely for a moment, that, under the headline
"Channel Tariff Solution in Sight",
The Observer last Sunday printed the story that British Rail was going to come up with more cash, and it has now done so. The Observer— this is a relevant quotation — said:
"Despite the Government's public position of non-intervention in the affairs of Eurotunnel the Department of Transport is thought to have brought pressure to bear on BR to increase the level of advance payments the company was prepared to make."
If true, that is a dramatic and serious revelation. I have little doubt that the story in The Observer was correct. I

383
should like to know from my hon. Friend the Minister whether Treasury as well as Transport Ministers were involved in this extraordinary effort to force more cash out of British Rail. I must ask my hon. Friend for a clear statement on what is going on.
If it is true that the Government, in the shape of Treasury and Transport Ministers, have been getting more money out of British Rail for Eurotunnel, contrary to BR's original commercial plan, the Government have broken their assurances to Parliament and are in danger of breaching the terms of the Anglo-French treaty, which specifically prohibits back-door subsidies with taxpayers' money. I am sure that you will be the first to agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that assurances are required.
We shall return again and again to this subject in the next Parliament. I think that the financial structure of Eurotunnel has been given a temporary reprieve. It is being kept alive on an artificial life support machine, now fed by the one kind of medicine that it was promised would never be used — a back-door subsidy of taxpayers' money via British Rail. Actually, in pure financial terms, I do not think that the subsidy is all that significant, as the Financial Times said this morning. But whether British Rail is giving a back-door subsidy or not, other storm clouds are gathering over Eurotunnel on the financial front.
I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Minister about the Rohan report, which was written by a French senator, Senator Rohan, and which has raised doubts on the French side about the financing of the Channel tunnel.
On 26 April, under the headline,
"French raise new doubts on finance for Channel Tunnel", a story in the Sunday Telegraph said:
"Renewed doubts about the financial viability of the £5 billion Channel Tunnel project are raised in a confidential report commissioned for the French Government.
The report, ordered by Mr. Chirac, the French Prime Minister … reaches damaging conclusions about the ability of private enterprise to fund the tunnel without the backing of public money.
It advises that all construction work on the French side be delayed until a 'truly reliable financing arrangement has been obtained.' "
The story goes on to say that the French Government are coming to the conclusion that they will have to intervene and commit themselves to the project. I should like to know what is going on. Have the British Government seen the French report? What is the position of the French Government in the light of the report, since Mr. Chirac was here for talks recently? Where are we going in relation to French confidence and involvement in the financing of the Channel tunnel?
I have thrown one or two brickbats at the Government, but before I conclude I offer one bouquet. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, who has been guiding the Bill through the House and outside it, has been most courteous and considerate and a highly effective communicator in his efforts to deal with many of the micro problems of Kent,such as roads, the environment and so on. The Mitchell committee, which carries his name, has done a good job with the Kent county council and other local authorities and interests. I take this opportunity to pay a genuine tribute to him. I am sure that he would be the first to wish to share some of that credit with our hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who, behind closed doors, has fought and won
384
many a good fight for his constituents. The re-routing of the access road was the finest of his many achievements. Many people in Kent, including his constituents, are grateful to him.
Those successes are welcome, but they are solutions to the micro problems, while the macro problems of the Channel tunnel and Eurotunnel simply will not go away. The biggest and most insoluble problem of all is that, as a result of well-meaning misjudgments and muddled compromises, we have the wrong scheme at the wrong price, headed by the wrong consortium of businessmen who cannot raise the money. The local community and financial investment community have no confidence in it and the public could not care less about it and do not believe that it will happen. Only the Government plough serenely on, full of blind optimism. The political and parliamentary legs have been made to run far ahead of the financial head of sense and logic. The day of reckoning will come, but in the next Parliament. I look forward to being there at the kill.
9.26 pm
Mr. Dennis Skinner: I would not like the carry-over motion to be agreed. I do not deny that carryover motions have been accepted in the past, but we are against the content of the motion, not the procedure. It would be wrong to argue that we are against carry-over motions in principle, when this matter has had much opposition throughout this Parliament.
We heard from the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) about the problems of the financiers of the company and their failure to attract sufficient money for the project. I was reminded by the presence of the lone Liberal, who is now absent, that this project is very much like the economic policies of the SDP and the Liberals. If the financiers of this project were checked over by Coopers and Lybrand, we might find them as faulty as the policies trotted out today by those parties for the election campaign.
One thing which worries me and ought to worry all Tory Members is that the Government have been saying for the past few years, not just before the elections, that they believe in an entrepreneurial society based upon market forces; the philosophy of Friedman, that the Government do not intervene. One of the cries of Ministers and the Prime Minister in the course of the campaign to get the tunnel has been that no public money will be used. It now seems apparent, from what we have heard and read, that British Rail will be asked to provide funds to keep the project alive, to provide it with an oxygen cylinder.
Everybody who has studied the facts and figures knows that the Channel tunnel is starved of cash and cannot raise money. Unlike the hon. Member for Thanet South, I doubt whether any of the consortia that made the propositions that were put forward at the time of that intense lobbying through Members of Parliament, some of whom had not declared their interest on the Register at the time, could have come up with a project that would have attracted the necessary money. I suspect that when Chirac came over here to meet the Prime Minister, they had a few cosy words suggesting that they would find ways and means of providing the extra money.
This matter cannot be discussed purely on the basis of whether the Bill should be carried over into the next Parliament. It should be debated on the basis of whether

385
this project should go forward at all. I remember the Labour party campaigning against the project because it wanted an inquiry. To some extent, that was a genuine proposition, but there was no inquiry. There will not be an inquiry if the Bill is carried over, but there should be. The project merited an inquiry.
You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, like me, coming from the north of England, have been concerned. I am not putting you on the spot, but most Members of Parliament from the north of England would argue that the Channel tunnel has nothing for them. We all know that——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the House has dealt with the Bill at all its stages and has approved it. It is now in another place. We cannot have a re-run of the Second Reading debate that the hon. Gentleman thinks might have taken place.
Mr. Skinner: But the issue is whether this Parliament should approve this carry-over motion. This is not a guillotine motion. There is a difference. A debate on a guillotine motion is about whether we should provide a limited amount of time to discuss a Bill. This is about one Parliament, at its fag-end, handing over powers to another Parliament which will be comprised of a different number of Members on different sides of the House. We have a duty to use all possible means to try to prevent this carryover motion being approved.
During the election campaign, my constituents will want to know what I did about the carry-over motion. They will want to know whether I opposed it. If I am to be guided by your intervention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would have to say that as a matter of fact, I did want to discuss the fact that British Rail was to be starved of finances for its midland line and the line used by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and others. I would have to say that I was sorry, but I could not, because in this quaint old Parliament, in this quaint old club, we were not allowed to discuss the merits of the matter. My constituents will say, "You what, Dennis? You had to discuss the procedure?". I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
This is an important issue. It is apparent to those in the financial community that here is a so-called entrepreneurial project that is not getting off the ground. It is coming with the begging bowl to a Tory Government to be bailed out, and British Rail, with its starved finances, is to do that bailing out.
386
The number of ships built in the past eight years has fallen by 54 per cent., yet this Parliament will allow a carry-over motion to go through in order to wreck the shipping industry even further. Yet I am supposed to say, "Well, it is only a matter of procedure." If there is money in British Rail, it should go towards extra wages for those who work for British Rail. If there is any money over, it should be used to improve the lines up and down Britain.
In the past few weeks, the Government, in their helter-skelter dash towards the electorate, have been characterised by a number of U-turns. We have all heard them trotted out in the past few weeks. The nurses have been given the full award recommended by the review body—although even that is not enough. There was the U-turn about the nuclear dumps and other bits and bobs where the Government have suddenly found money out of the contingency fund in order to improve their chances in a few marginal seats.
The Government should stand by their faith and by the ideas for which they are supposed to argue throughout the rest of the Parliament. If people decide to use their money to build a tunnel they should be made to do so. If that entrepreneurial exercise is financially risky, those people should not say that they are not prepared to put their own money into it because it might fail and they might lose their money.
The hon. Member for Thanet, South knows all about failure in the business community. He had to get out. He was not able to go to the Government and say that breakfast television, which he was running, had not been able to get off the ground, and could they channel him some money from the BBC. That would have been ludicrous, although it might have been different if it had been a marginal seat.
The whole thing stinks. There is a smell about this project that anybody who has read about its finances would know. Ninety-six per cent. of the money has not been found. What other project in Britain would get past first base if it could only find 4 per cent. of the money needed? The developers have come with their begging bowl to the Government. I am not prepared to give the carry-over motion a smooth passage and I hope that others will join me in opposing it.
9.35 pm
Mr. Robert Hughes: We have heard two interesting speeches on the carry-over motion. I want to make two or three points clear. First, I would have preferred this motion not to be made, as it is quite unnecessary. If the Government were lucky enough to win the forthcoming election, they could quite easily have this or a similar motion after the election, as it would have precisely the same effect.
Mr. Skinner: They are frightened of losing.
Mr. Hughes: It makes no difference. If they lose, a different Government would look at it. I do not know why it is necessary to have the motion. In Kent, in the financial markets and in the House, the fact that there has not been a proper inquiry to test the viability and strategic importance of the scheme has caused difficulties. Had there been an inquiry, and had it recommended in favour of a tunnel, we might well have found that the project would have done better financially than it has.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) at one stage referred to the Labour party's policy as being, I think he said, "partly genuine". I do not know what he meant, but I assure him that it was not a partially genuine policy to have a public inquiry. When the next Labour Government come to power after the election, there will be an inquiry into the Channel tunnel scheme. The fact that the Bill will still be available in the new Session will make no difference to that commitment.
During the various stages of the Bill, we were told that it was an historic project, how many jobs would be involved and of the great enthusiasm of the Government for the scheme. There was a great fanfare of trumpets, both in France and here, at the signing ceremony. However, the Government have chosen to go to the country now rather than wait until October. The Bill could have finished all its stages in the Lords and the treaty been ratified, which would have been an occasion of great historic importance. During the election, therefore, I hope that we will not hear how the Government are committed to the Channel tunnel and how they have undying faith in it. If the Government were serious, instead of a continuation motion the Prime Minister would have been persuaded otherwise when she held her Chequers meeting on Sunday, and she would have put the election off until October.
I do not mind if the continuation motion is carried, because we all know that, should the Government be returned, they will have their way if they have a majority. If, as I suspect and believe, we are the Government, we will have our way and our policy. Therefore, the continuation motion is of no importance. It is purely technical and I do not know why the Government have bothered with it.
9.39 pm
Mr. David Mitchell: The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) raised a number of serious points. The first question he asked was why we are laying this motion and not choosing revival after an election. Looking hack at precedent, in 1974 this Bill went through two Parliaments. On one occasion it was carried forward and on the other occasion it was revived. It was revived because Parliament was in recess at the time, and, therefore, the opportunity of carrying it forward was not available. In effect, we have followed precedent where it was available.
388
The hon. Gentleman referred also to a public inquiry. I simply remind him that a large number of petitioners have incurred a great deal of expenditure and have spent much time and trouble. There would still have been all those Select Committee stages to go through, even if there had been a public inquiry, and that would have meant all those people facing double expense and double time. I do not think that they would have thanked the hon. Gentleman for that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet South (Mr. Aitken) claimed that the Select Committee had been harried by the Whips. That is a disgraceful suggestion. I do not know of any member of the Select Committee of either House who would have allowed himself to be treated in that way. The House of Commons Select Committee met for 36 sitting days, had to deal with 4,845 petitions, made a 220-paragraph special report and made 70 amendments. The Lords Select Committee sat for 30 days and made 109 amendments, and its special report is awaited eagerly. In the final stages, one of the voluntary parliamentary agents, Mr. Beckett, said:
"My Lords, we have been very impressed by your impartiality, your understanding and concern for our problems, especially on the matter of roads. I want to thank you on behalf of my petitioners for the kindness you have shown them in the last two months. Thank you, my Lords."
That does not sound like the sort of harrying that my hon. Friend is trying to portray, or misportray, to the House.
Mr. Aitken rose——
Mr. Mitchell: I have not finished with my hon. Friend yet.
Far more effective has been the persistent hand of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). who has quietly and effectively, behind the scenes, put the interests of his constituents in a way that has made a number of effective changes to what would otherwise have been the way in which matters have been dealt with.
Mr. Aitken: I did not refer to the House of Lords Select Committee in any way. I am well aware that there were no Whips operating in the Lords. So, although I totally share my hon. Friend's tribute to the Lords, his response has nothing to do with my speech.
Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said that one of the things that worried him and ought to worry Conservative Members—we are most grateful for the solicitous approach of the hon. Gentleman about matters which worry Conservative Members—was that British Rail was going to be asked to supply certain funds to provide an oxygen supply to Eurotunnel. The usage agreement is a commercial deal. British Rail has acquired the right to 50 per cent. of the pathways through the tunnel and in return it will undertake to pay 65 per cent. of the tolls on Eurotunnel's traffic forecast. That is a straightforward commercial transaction.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South expressed a worry that Eurotunnel will not raise the large amount of money that it needs. Perhaps I should tell him that today Eurotunnel acquired £1,000 million-worth of loans from the European Investment bank. Before my hon. Friend starts another scare story, I should say that that money is in no way public money, funded by the

389
public sector or by any Government. It is funded by the European Investment hank, backed by banks in the private sector, with no public commitment at all.
Mr. Skinner: It is interesting that the Minister said that the money is coming from European Investment bank and that it will be financed totally by banks. Will he take on board the fact that, when ventures of this sort are entered into by banks, there is a caveat that allows banks, where money has been lost and ventures have not been successful, to offset certain amounts of tax against liabilities of that sort? That would have the result that if, for example, this failed, the banks that have taken part in the exercise, just as with rescheduling debts, would be able to offset part of the losses against tax. That will mean that the taxpayer will be helping to finance that failed venture.
Mr. Mitchell: I know a red herring when I see one, and the hon. Gentleman will excuse me if I do not follow him down that pipeline.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South raised a series of questions on what he described as the Anglo-Iranian-Japanese financing. None of my hon. Friend's questions were relevant to the procedural motion before the House tonight. He asked for an assurance that there was no back-door subsidy for Eurotunnel from British Rail, and I give him that assurance.
Finally, I was fascinated by the complaint voiced by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South at the beginning of his speech about the slowness of the progress of this legislation. If I have allowed myself to be led into any delay at any time during the passage of this legislation, it is only because my hon. Friend played the role that ancient mariners always feared—of the wrecker on the shore who put the harbour lights in the wrong place to mislead the crew. We have not been misled on this occasion, and I commend the motion to the House.
Question put:—
The House proceeded to a Division:—
Mr. Michael Portillo and Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, and Mr. Dennis Skinner was appointed Teller for the Noes, but no Member being willing to act as a Second Teller for the Noes, MR. SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Ordered,
That further proceedings on the Channel Tunnel Bill shall be suspended until the next Session of Parliament;
That if a Bill is presented to this House in the next Session in the same terms as those in which the Channel Tunnel Bill stood at the last stage of its proceeding in this House in this Session—
390

(a) the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first, second and third time; and

(b) the Standing Orders and practice of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with or (in the case of the Standing Orders relating to Private Business) dispensed with in this Session or in the Session 1985–86, shall be deemed to have been complied with or (as the case may be) dispensed with in the next Session;

That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

DARTFORD-THURROCK CROSSING BILL
9.48 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): I beg to move,
That further proceedings on the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Bill shall be suspended until the next Session of Parliament;
That if a Bill is presented in the next Session which is the same in every respect as the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Bill when it was presented in this Session—

(a) the Bill shall be ordered to be printed and shall be deemed to have been read the first time; and

(b) the Standing Orders of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with or dispensed with in this Session, shall be deemed to have been complied with or (as the case may be) dispensed with in the next Session;

That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.
If this motion is passed, the work that mainly concerns the authorisation of the new crossing will not have to be repeated as soon as the new Parliament meets.
Question put and agreed to.
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK BROADS BILL
Ordered,
That further proceedings on the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Bill be suspended until the next Session of Parliament;
That if a Bill is presented in the next Session in the same terms as those in which the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Bill stood when proceedings on it were suspended in this Session—

(a) the Bill so presented shall be ordered to be printed and shall be deemed to have been the first and second time, to have been reported from a Select Committee and to have been re-committed to a Standing Committee; and

(b) the Standing Orders and practice of the House applicable to that Bill, so far as complied with in this Session, shall be deemed to have been complied with in the next Session;

That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[Mr. Maude.]
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Roads and Pavements (Maintenance)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Maude.]
9.49 pm
Mr. Colin Shepherd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for coming to reply to the debate. These may be almost the last moments of this Parliament, but the problem that I wish to explore will not go away because there is a change of one Parliament for another. It relates very much to the way in which the care and maintenance of highways is dealt with as a consequence of the Highways Act 1980 and earlier legislation.
The particular problem has been created by the arrangements contained in the 1980 Act, whereby district councils can exercise a right to do maintenance of unclassified roads in their territory. On that basis, a district council, in seeking to do its best, is not unnaturally perhaps inclined to develop a champagne taste but with only a beer income to satisfy it. Whereas we would all like authorities to have a champagne income, the problem of where it comes from cannot be put to one side. Authorities have to work within the constraints of what the rates will stand and what is granted by central Government from tax receipts.
In the present system, even though at professional officer-to-officer level there is co-operation, when there is a difference in political control, that co-operation may be undermined or lost by party politicking. That is highly unsatisfactory and cannot be good for the consumer. Similarly, the mechanism allowed for in schedule 7 to the Act is in theory a reasonable way of settling any dispute, but only on a professional level. An officer-to-officer dispute can reasonably be settled by the Secretary of State, acting in the role of professional arbiter rather than as a political person. A comparison can be made with the Secretary of State for the Environment acting in the same capacity over planning appeals.
When the Secretary of State wears a party hat different from that of one of the parties to the dispute, a reasonable professional judgment may be rejected on a purely political basis. Of course, the rejection would come from the party that felt it had been done down. All this can be viewed as nothing but the normal cut and thrust of party politics, but at the bottom of it the consumer cannot and must not be forgotten.
I have in mind the elderly lady lying in the orthopaedic ward, having broken a hip by tripping over a displaced paving slab. She finds no consolation in the thought that it is normal party politicking or even in the possibility of financial compensation; she feels only acute frustration when told by the district council and the county council that it is the fault of the other. That unfortunate person is justified in her anger. She just wants someone to whom to complain and who will carry the can.
My hon. Friend will be aware that the problem exists in my part of the country between Hereford city council — a district council — and Hereford and Worcester county council. Hereford exercised its right in 1974 — when both councils were formed — and ever since to carry out its own maintenance on unclassified roads and pavements within the city boundaries. I use this case as an example to underline my unhappiness with the present position and the way it can be exploited for the wrong
392
reasons. My concern is not just that the roads and pavements of Hereford should be safe for constituents who walk, ride bicycles and drive motor cars—I do all three —but also that there should be full value for money. I have yet to meet a constituent who feels that he pays too little in rates.
There should also be accountability. The present system, as it is capable of being used when there is a difference of political control between the various bodies, does not provide that accountability. In Hereford, for example, no one can claim that the city council has been relatively disadvantaged in respect of similar authorities, such as Worcester, Kidderminster, Stourport, Bromsgrove and Redditch. Every year, for the past six years, Hereford has been, and is now, top of that league in terms of pounds per kilometre of unclassified roads to maintain. In 1986–87, the Wyre Forest estimate was £2,113 per kilometre, Bromsgrove £2,266, Redditch £1,814, with Hereford in the lead at £2,527.
If I read correctly the figures from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, they compare with the average for maintenance of other roads in the county—the category given by CIPFA is "other county roads"—of £1,427 per kilometre. It is also worth noting that Hereford and Worcester have one of the highest figures per kilometre per capita of roads to maintain in the country.
From my discussions with city and county professional officers, it would appear that the degree of mutual understanding and co-operation has been improving steadily of late, and I welcome that. If it will help to achieve the best value for money, so much the better. There appears to be a consensus that the backlog of problems is being reduced. I think that that comes about as a consequence of that co-operation, and it is encouraging. However, all of us who live or work around Hereford know that there are still areas where the pavements and roads are quite deplorable. Some have not been properly maintained in living memory.
On the political side, the position is different. Surely it is wrong for there to be a situation whereby a district council can demand expenditure without having to worry about the consequences of raising it. The expectations of electors are raised for political expediency, with local politicians secure in the knowledge that electorally they will not have to bear the brunt of the increased taxation if they succeed, and that they can pass on the blame if they fail. That is a marvellous position for them, but I am sure that it is unacceptable.
If there is to be accountability, and hence value, surely the lines of responsibility should be cleared away to obviate that problem. Either the county council should do the lot, on the basis that it is the rate precepting authority for that function, or the responsibility for action and funding should be passed over lock, stock and barrel to the district council. There should not be this curious position whereby we can have the one without the other.
In the former case, the professionals of the county councils would argue that they can deploy a level of expertise and scale of approach to the problem that is not available to district councils and that, because district council officers perforce must carry out many other functions as well, they cannot carry the specific expertise to achieve the most effective utilisation of financial resources.

393
In the latter case, the district council professionals would argue that there is local accountability and an improved opportunity for co-ordination with other district council responsibilities. They would argue that not having that function would jeopardise the viability of their technical service organisations and that the lines of communication for the public would be the shortest.
Both of those arguments have their attractions. However, the present arrangements seem to lead to the worst of all worlds, especially when one moves out of the realm of the professional and into the political.
My hon. Friend will have the vast experience of the Department of Transport at his fingertips and will have access to a far wider scope of examples and experience than I have. The problem is exercising both the Association of County Councils and the Association of District Councils. I should be grateful for any advice or evidence that my hon. Friend can give me that would point to a size of district council above which perhaps the economies of scale and the facility and expertise of local knowledge and organisations would come together in harmony and achieve palpable value for money without giving rise to this split personality.
I also believe that the Audit Commission is doing a special study on the matter. Can my hon. Friend tell the House when he expects it to publish its findings?
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without question put.
Motion made, and Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Maude.]
Mr. Shepherd: The Audit Commission report will give valuable pointers as to how the problems may be resolved and, indeed, when we may expect to know positively whether or not we are getting full value for money.
As I said earlier, I am anxious that there should be full visible accountability and full auditable value, and the sooner the better. We are not necessarily best served by the present arrangements.
10.1 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) for raising this issue. I wish to pay more than the usual tribute to him, because he has raised an issue which is not the common currency of Parliament, but which, as he put his finger on it, raises the questions of effectiveness and visible accountability.
My hon. Friend has not gone in for press-release politics. For all I know, he may not have put out a press release on this in the past. Instead, he has taken the matter up with the city and county officers and tried to bring them together; with the Audit Commission and put forward his own view for its consideration; in parliamentary questions; and in letters to the Department of Transport. No constituency could ask its Member to do more on this type of issue, which may not have the glamour of wet-fish politics — hitting one's opponent over the head with a wet fish just to wait for him to hit back. He has raised an issue which, sadly, has not attracted the attention of the alliance parties tonight and he has made the case for clearing up what appears to be unclear responsibility over the function and effectiveness of spending, and who should determine the outcome of a dispute between two authorities.
394
I intend to be fairly serious and detailed, because this debate will be of interest to county councils and district councils throughout the country. We recognise that the condition of roads and pavements is always a matter of great local concern and that there has been particular distress about the state of pavements in Hereford Maintenance of local roads is for local authorities, but we in the Government attach high priority to maintenance and have given clear signals about priorities.
Our determination that the county council had not acted unreasonably did not imply any judgment about the state of the roads in Hereford or the efficiency with which the city council is carrying out their maintenance. That is primarily a matter for the city council and the county council to examine. I have no other powers to intervene or to terminate a district council's powers to maintain urban unclassified roads. I hope that Hereford city council and the county council will continue to make every effort to accommodate maintenance needs and resources. Both the city council and county council exist to serve the people.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is the highway authority for motorways and all-purpose trunk roads. County councils act as his agents in non-metropolitan areas. Local authorities are responsible for the rest of the road network. Outside the metropolitan areas the county council is the highway authority for local roads. The county council may make arrangements under section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972 for a district council to act as its agent in respect of some or all its highway functions. Alternatively, district councils can carry out certain duties by claiming the right to maintain footpaths, bridleways and urban unclassified roads in its area under section 42 of the Highways Act 1980. I confirm my hon. Friend's explanation of the position. In such cases the county council remains the highway authority and is responsible for funding the maintenance work that is carried out by a district council. The county council may withhold payment until it is satisfied that the works are properly executed.
About two-thirds of the 333 district councils in England and Wales possess a section 101 agency for at least some highway functions, but arrangements vary greatly. In general, agents deal with the cyclic and routine tasks rather that with the major capital works. In contrast, only about 12 district councils have claimed the right under section 42 to maintain minor local roads. I hope my hon. Friend will understand that I shall not be able to give him the information on how that number varies, because only a small number of councils use section 42.
A district council which is claiming section 42 maintenance powers is required to submit a detailed estimate of costs to the county council each year. Under schedule 7 to the Highways Act 1980, the county council must not unreasonably withhold approval of the estimate. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has powers under section 7 to determine whether approval of a district council's maintenance estimate has been unreasonably withheld by a county council. He may also determine whether a particular road falls within the relevant powers, whether any maintenance works have been properly executed, and the liability of a county council to make a payment to a district council.
A highway authority is responsible for determining maintenance standards and, where work is delegated to agents, ensuring that standards are complied with and that

395
adequate funds are provided. I think that that makes it plain that there is unlikely to be a similar dispute when there is an agency agreement. The responsibility is tied to one pair of hands, and although people look to their agents for advice and professionalism the responsibility lies with one authority. District councils which are claiming section 42 maintenance powers are responsible for deciding standards, subject to funds being made available by the county council as the highway authority. The House will understand how Hereford city council and Hereford county council have fallen into disagreement in the past.
Highway maintenance standards should reflect a range of factors, including engineering judgment, availability of resources and value for money. Standards for routine repairs for national roads, for which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is the highway authority, are laid down in the Department's code of practice for routine maintenance. Standards for local roads are a matter for local highway authorities.
In 1983 the local authority associations published a code of good practice for highway maintenance. That recommended standards and warning levels, while acknowledging the need for flexibility to meet local conditions. The associations are currently reviewing their code, and the relationship between the local authorities' and the Department's code is being jointly considered.
We have continued to give high priority to maintaining the local road network. Public expenditure provision has been generous in recent years, with a 13 per cent. increase in 1987–88, most of which feeds into authorities' grant-related expenditure. There was a 15 per cent. increase in 1986–87, and earlier years' increases were well above inflation.
Local authorities must determine their own spending priorities. We hope that they will act in accordance with the increased provision and give highway maintenance high priority. The national increase in provision should enable authorities to halt the trend of deterioration that was revealed by the recent national road maintenance condition surveys. It should also allow authorities to start work on bridges that are overdue for repair or in need of upgrading.
The position in Hereford and Worcester, as I do not have to explain to my hon. Friend, is that the county council is the highway authority. It directly maintains most of the classified roads and all local roads outside the principal urban areas.
The county council has an agency with the city of Worcester covering all classes of county roads and agencies with three other district councils for the maintenance of unclassifed urban roads. Hereford city council declined a formal agency agreement. Instead, it claimed the right, under section 42 of the Highways Act, 1980 to maintain urban unclassified roads.
The Government have increased Hereford and Worcester county council's grant-related expenditure for highway maintenance by 30 per cent. between 1985–86 and 1987–88. Spending priorities are a matter for the authority to decide. In recent years the county council has chosen to spend below grant-related expenditure.
Part of the county council's highway maintenance expenditure is allocated to Hereford city council for the maintenance of its urban unclassified roads. I understand
396
that there was a significant increase in the funds made available between 1985–86 and 1986–87. However, I am aware that the allocations were substantially lower than the estimates for those years submitted by Hereford city council. I regret that I do not have the figures for 1986–87.
Hereford city council has consistently claimed that the funding provided by the county council for unclassified roads in the city is markedly insufficient. As my hon. Friend said, the failure on the part of both sides to agree resulted in the city council asking my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to determine whether the county council had unreasonably withheld approval of the city council's maintenance estimates for 1985–86 and 1986–87.
The city council argued that once it had claimed the right to maintain its urban unclassified roads the county council was under an obligation to meet the reasonable costs, irrespective of the county's spending plans. It said that "reasonableness" should be judged in the context of the condition of the city's roads. The city council argued that its roads were heavily trafficked and in an unacceptable condition.
In response, the county council argued that the city council was adopting standards that were unachievable in the present economic climate. The county council said that it had set its standards in the context of the national codes of practice and that Hereford city had consistently received the highest allocation per kilometre, or per mile if that is an appropriate standard for my hon. Friend, of all districts in the county. Most important, the county did not accept that the city council was failing in its statutory duty to maintain the highway.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State concluded that the county council had had regard to the relevant considerations and had not acted unreasonably. He took the view that the county council, as highway authority and provider of funds, could reasonably weigh maintenance standards and priorities against the available finance and, if necessary, reduce the city council's estimate in the light of that.
I appreciate that the points I have made concerning our determination that the county council had not acted unreasonably does not imply a judgment about the state of the roads in Hereford. My hon. Friend has rightly concentrated attention on questioning how one can have visible accountability and determine that the system is effective and that roads are effectively maintained. The Hereford case raises broader issues of the optimum arrangements for the maintenance of local roads. My right hon. Friend and I have both said that the Audit Commission is currently undertaking a special study of highway maintenance including agency and section 42 arrangements. The commission expects to publish its interim report dealing with this matter in late summer. That answers one of my hon. Friend's questions.
I am certain that the commission's findings will help local authorities and their auditors to examine and improve their efficiency. I know that many hon. Members would like to pay tribute to the work of the Audit Commission on this and other matters. The solicitor who recently transferred from the borough of Greenwich to the Audit Commission will add to its professionalism. The commission has a tradition of recruiting people who know their job and can work with local authorities to produce useful reports.

397
I look forward to receiving the commission's report. The Government will consider the role of district councils with regard to highway maintenance as a result of that report. I believe that my hon. Friend would agree that it is premature to reach any conclusions on agency and section 42 powers while the Audit Commission study is still under way.
I hope that my answer in this relatively short debate is helpful. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising a matter that is clearly of concern at least to the 12 district councils that use section 42 powers. I suspect that it will also be of interest to the two thirds of the district councils which have an agency role with the local county council highway authority. It is the kind of matter that is best dealt with by a Member of Parliament who is responsible for a constituency rather then a multi-Member system, whereby people may not bother to pick up points of such a nature.
I hope that you will not judge me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I turn my remarks rather more to you. I came to the House in 1975 when you had already served for 11 years. It will be accepted on both sides of the House that it has been an honour to serve with you as a colleague, as a Minister and as Deputy Speaker. There are relatively few countries in which someone can move from being a teacher to being an Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, as you did, followed by years of distinguished service in the Department of the Environment.
Speaking for hon. Members who sit below the Gangway on the Front Benches, as well as for those who
398
sit on ministerial Benches and on the Opposition Front Bench, may I say that your presence in the Chair has led to rather better behaviour, rather better debates and a great deal more affection for the occupant of the Chair than we could say has occurred in years past, although I do not wish to cast any reflection on Mr. Speaker or your fellow Deputy Speakers. You are held in great affection, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by the leaders of all parties, There are many who cannot be here this evening but who would like to join me in wishing you a happy retirement and the hope that your memories of this place will be as good as our memories of you.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I thank the Minister for his kind remarks. It has been a great privilege and honour to serve the House. I have been particularly fortunate in having been a Minister and then a Deputy Speaker. As Deputy Speaker, I have enjoyed my service in the House. I have listened to a great number of speeches to which I would not otherwise have listened. It has been interesting. It is a great honour to sit in the Chair. Labels no longer matter. Every right hon. and hon. Member is an individual and personality. This is a moving occasion. I am grateful for what the Minister said. I am privileged to have served this honourable House. I have grown more proud of the House as the years have gone by.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes past Ten o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  MV Earl William (Detainees)
  Mr. Dubs
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what access will be made available to legal advisers to persons detained on the Earl William;

  (2) what exercise facilities will be made available for persons detained on the Earl William;

  (3) what is the estimated cost of (a) acquiring and (b) refitting the Earl William.

  Mr. Waddington
  All reasonable requests for access to persons detained on the Earl William by legal advisers, friends and relations will be met. There are good facilities on board for interviews to take place. There are adequate exercise facilities on board. The cost of hiring the vessel is the subject of a commercial contract, the details of which it would not be proper to reveal.

  Mr. Madden
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how much the ferry Earl William is costing to hire; how long will it be moored at Harwich; what regulations it is subject to; how many and what categories of detainees will be detained there; what will be the total weekly cost of keeping detainees on the ferry; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) from which detention centres those detainees to be detained on the ferry, the Earl William moored at Harwich, are to be transferred; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waddington
  [pursuant to his reply, 8 May 1987, c. 549]: The cost of hiring the MV Earl William is the subject of a commercial contract with its owners, the details of which it would not be proper to reveal. It has been hired initially for a period of three months, during which it will be moored at Harwich. It will be subject to standard safety and fire regulations and those concerning the way detainees are housed will be the same as other Immigration Service detention centres. The ship is expected to he used principally for passengers awaiting removal or further examination whose cases are not appropriate for temporary admission. The number will depend on the pressure on this and other immigration service detention centres and the continued availability of prison department resources. The total weekly cost of keeping detainees on board will also depend on the number detained.

  Neighbourhood Watch Schemes
  Mr. Wheeler
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has received about the success of neighbourhood watch schemes in the Metropolitan police district.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There are some 7,000 neighbourhood watch schemes in the Metropolitan police district. As my right hon. Friend stated in his reply to my hon. Friend 184
  the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) on 8 May, at column 550, the results of the evaluative research of two of these schemes by the Cambridge Institute of Criminology indicated some success in reducing fear of crime and increasing social cohesion but not in reducing levels of crime. There are, however, schemes where a reduction in recorded crime has followed the introduction of neighbourhood watch. For example, on the Ferry Lane estate in Tottenham burglaries were reduced from 30 during the six months preceding the introduction of the scheme to 18 in the six months following its introduction. In the last six months of 1986 no burglaries were reported. In the London borough of Wandsworth an increase in the number of neighbourhood watch schemes from 375 in 1985 to 558 in 1986 coincided with a reduction in residential burglaries from 4,119 to 3,514.

  Computers
  Mr. Coombs
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list those companies to which his Department has awarded contracts for the supply of word processing hardware and software in each year since 1984; and what was the value of each contract;

  (2) how much his Department has spent on (a) word processing hardware and (b) word processing software in each year since 1984; and what is the projected expenditure for the financial years 1987–88 and 1988–89;

  (3) if he will list those companies to which his Department has awarded contracts for the supply of desktop publishing hardware and software in each year since 1984; and what was the value of each contract;

  (4) how much his Department has spent on (a) desktop publishing hardware and (b) desktop publishing software in each year since 1984; and what is the projected expenditure for the financial years 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Hurd
  Since 1984 the Home Office has awarded contracts for the supply of computer hardware and software intended wholly or mainly for word processing or for desktop publishing to the following companies:

  AES

  British Olivetti

  British Telecom

  Digital

  Ferranti

  IBM

  ICL

  NCR

  Sentinel Software (software only)

  UNISYS

  Wang

  For reasons of commercial confidentiality it would not be right to provide details of the value of individual contracts. However, total expenditure since 1984 by financial years is as follows:

  1985–86 (out-turn)

  1986–87 (estimated outturn)

  £

  £

  Hardware

  177,657

  659,953

  Software

  26,754

  18,207

  Planned expenditure for word processing hardware and software in 1987–88 is £703,000 and for 1988–89 is 1,243,000.

  National and Local Elections
  Mr. Peter Bruinvels
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking to issue guidance to returning officers for national and local elections about (i) the provision of training for polling clerks and (ii) monitoring compliance by polling clerks with electoral regulations.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The training of polling clerks and any monitoring of their compliance with the law governing the conduct of parliamentary and local government elections is the responsibility of the returning officers concerned. If my hon. Friend has a particular incident in mind, I should be glad to have the details so we can consider whether any guidance should be issued to returning officers.

  Crime (Clear-up Rates)
  Mr. Kaufman
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, pursuant to his answer of 7 May, Official Report, column 510, he will give comparable clear-up rates for each police force area in England and Wales for 1978.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The clear-up rates for police force areas in 1978 are given in the following table:

  Ratio of notifiable offences1 recorded to notifiable offences cleared up by the police, 1978

  Police force area

  Percentage cleared up

  Avon and Somerset

  42

  Bedfordshire

  46

  Cambridgeshire

  55

  Cheshire

  59

  Cleveland

  55

  Cumbria

  54

  Derbyshire

  45

  Devon and Cornwall

  46

  Dorset

  47

  Durham

  51

  Essex

  43

  Gloucestershire

  51

  Ratios of offences cleared up to offences recorded by the police

  England and Wales

  Percentages

  Police Force area

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  Fraud and forgery

  1Criminal damage

  1978

  1986

  1978

  1986

  1978

  1986

  Avon and Somerset

  38·7

  26·6

  92·5

  75·0

  38·8

  28·7

  Bedfordshire

  45·2

  28·3

  90·6

  56·3

  26·6

  21·2

  Cambridgeshire

  53·0

  35·4

  92·2

  61·6

  36·9

  28·9

  Cheshire

  58·6

  41·3

  92·6

  83·7

  52·9

  40·6

  Cleveland

  55·8

  34·8

  81·7

  52·3

  35·1

  24·7

  Cumbria

  54·1

  42·4

  93·6

  77·2

  43·9

  37·5

  Derbyshire

  43·2

  48·7

  90·3

  87·7

  26·4

  34·4

  Devon and Cornwall

  42·7

  37·2

  88·3

  80·1

  32·9

  29·9

  Dorset

  44·1

  29·3

  94·5

  81·8

  38·2

  29·9

  Durham

  51·8

  38·1

  95·7

  87·1

  35·7

  31·9

  Essex

  42·0

  36·4

  90·6

  57·5

  25·8

  23·2

  Gloucestershire

  49·8

  30·6

  87·4

  50·7

  45·3

  24·4

  Greater Manchester

  45·0

  24·8

  96·4

  84·0

  41·1

  19·1

  Hampshire

  43·5

  32·2

  92·2

  67·2

  34·9

  25·5

  Hertfordshire

  47·7

  46·0

  97·0

  90·4

  26·3

  27·9

  Humberside

  46·1

  31·1

  83·6

  54·7

  31·8

  19·3

  Kent

  37·1

  31·5

  89·7

  55·3

  34·2

  26·0

  Lancashire

  54·2

  41·8

  95·4

  88·9

  48·8

  39·6

  Leicestershire

  55·2

  41·4

  96·0

  77·0

  39·2

  31·6

  Lincolnshire

  57·3

  38·5

  77·5

  58·9

  46·3

  22·6

  186

  Police force area

  Percentage cleared up

  Greater Manchester

  46

  Hampshire

  46

  Hertfordshire

  51

  Humberside

  45

  Kent

  40

  Lancashire

  55

  Leicestershire

  57

  Lincolnshire

  57

  London, City of

  23

  Merseyside

  43

  Metropolitan Police

  21

  Norfolk

  49

  Northamptonshire

  50

  Northumbria

  51

  North Yorkshire

  52

  Nottinghamshire

  49

  South Yorkshire

  53

  Staffordshire

  55

  Suffolk

  55

  Surrey

  49

  Sussex

  56

  Thames Valley

  43

  Warwickshire

  46

  West Mercia

  48

  West Midlands

  34

  West Yorkshire

  49

  Wiltshire

  44

  Dyfed-Powys

  64

  Gwent

  59

  North Wales

  58

  South Wales

  46

  England and Wales

  42

  1 Excluding offences of "other criminal damage" value £20 or under.

  Mr. Kaufman
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish for 1978 and 1986, for each police force area in England and Wales, the clear-up rate for (a) violence against the person, (b) burglary, (c) theft, (d) fraud/forgery and (e) criminal damage.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The readily available information is given in the following tables.
  187

  Police Force area

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  Fraud and forgery

  1 Criminal damage

  1978

  1986

  1978

  1986

  1978

  1986

  London, City of

  16·3

  8·8

  58·1

  41·9

  32·8

  18·5

  Merseyside

  44·3

  39·0

  87·9

  72·8

  27·3

  17·0

  Metropolitan Police

  20·1

  14·9

  63·8

  52·8

  14·6

  9·2

  Norfolk

  47·0

  37·4

  90·5

  74·0

  40·7

  24·1

  Northamptonshire

  49·0

  29·3

  88·7

  64·1

  34·9

  18·0

  Northumbria

  52·6

  44·1

  91·0

  58·0

  33·0

  19·1

  North Yorkshire

  51·2

  32·4

  94·6

  53·6

  54·5

  26·7

  Nottinghamshire

  46·8

  31·3

  77·1

  55·9

  34·5

  19·4

  South Yorkshire

  53·9

  44·3

  92·0

  71·7

  30·6

  27·0

  Staffordshire

  53·7

  43·2

  88·8

  71·8

  42·0

  31·6

  Suffolk

  54·1

  44·7

  89·4

  65·5

  40·3

  30·1

  Surrey

  46·2

  31·9

  93·8

  66·6

  40·8

  29·7

  Sussex

  53·6

  31·0

  94·5

  59·9

  49·9

  25·1

  Thames Valley

  40·0

  36·5

  85·5

  65·2

  32·2

  23·7

  Warwickshire

  42·7

  33·3

  93·9

  67·1

  31·6

  24·2

  West Mercia

  45·8

  39·4

  89·8

  68·2

  36·8

  31·6

  West Midlands

  33·3

  27·3

  85·0

  51·9

  23·0

  16·1

  West Yorkshire

  46·2

  36·1

  86·8

  65·5

  31·8

  23·5

  Wiltshire

  43·0

  35·8

  86·2

  60·1

  21·7

  26·9

  Dyfed-Powys

  58·7

  43·9

  94·6

  90·2

  58·2

  41·4

  Gwent

  57·6

  46·8

  95·6

  92·4

  51·0

  42·8

  North Wales

  55·2

  33·3

  94·2

  67·7

  45·8

  25·4

  South Wales

  46·7

  38·7

  92·0

  77·2

  34·2

  26·2

  England and Wales

  40·3

  30·8

  84·0

  66·6

  30·0

  20·7

  1 Excluding offences of "other criminal damage" value £20 or under.

  Ratios of offences cleared up to offences recorded by the police in England and Wales

  Police Force Area

  Violence against the person

  Burglary

  1978

  1986

  1978

  1986

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Avon and Somerset

  84·6

  78·8

  30·9

  15·5

  Bedfordshire

  74·4

  75·7

  30·1

  16·7

  Cambridgshire

  84·8

  81·6

  40·7

  30·2

  Cheshire

  92·3

  85·4

  48·0

  32·8

  Cleveland

  81·9

  74·1

  43·5

  27·6

  Cumbria

  87·8

  89·6

  37·9

  31·1

  Derbyshire

  84·1

  86·9

  30·4

  32·6

  Devon and Cornwall

  87·8

  83·7

  34·9

  31·7

  Dorset

  72·0

  77·4

  26·8

  25·5

  Durham

  83·7

  84·0

  37·1

  27·9

  Essex

  79·8

  78·8

  33·4

  32·4

  Gloucestershire

  82·3

  71·5

  42·1

  19·9

  Greater Manchester

  79·6

  69·7

  31·4

  22·0

  Hampshire

  76·1

  76·2

  32·5

  23·2

  Hertfordshire

  80·2

  81·1

  38·8

  27·7

  Humbcrside

  82·2

  70·2

  31·7

  20·4

  Kent

  78·3

  79·2

  31·3

  29·3

  Lancashire

  90·9

  83·7

  41·7

  39·3

  Leicestershire

  84·0

  80·4

  49·5

  41·5

  Lincolnshire

  92·3

  76·6

  44·3

  26·4

  London, City of

  60·1

  61·2

  21·9

  12·1

  Merseyside

  70·1

  51·5

  35·7

  36·9

  Metropolitan Police

  55·6

  48·8

  10·5

  9·6

  Norfolk

  87·6

  87·1

  37·6

  23·9

  Northamptonshire

  88·9

  69·6

  36·5

  31·7

  Northumbria

  80·3

  74·9

  45·5

  36·5

  North Yorkshire

  91·0

  76·1

  33·6

  21·6

  Nottinghamshire

  78·3

  72·1

  46·1

  26·6

  South Yorkshire

  88·5

  82·4

  42·3

  35·6

  Staffordshire

  86·5

  88·9

  39·0

  34·4

  Suffolk

  90·3

  84·3

  36·6

  23·7

  Surrey

  88·4

  85·3

  31·3

  22·5

  Sussex

  87·3

  69·0

  41·6

  17·8

  Thames Valley

  77·3

  75·9

  33·4

  21·7

  Warwickshire

  90·6

  83·4

  41·6

  34·3

  West Mercia

  89·6

  87·5

  34·9

  34·1

  West Midlands

  64·7

  61·9

  27·5

  31·2

  West Yorkshire

  82·2

  68·3

  47·9

  38·1

  Wiltshire

  74·3

  83·8

  31·3

  24·0

  Dyfed-Powys

  96·7

  95·4

  50·4

  40·4

  Gwent

  92·1

  89·4

  45·0

  33·0

  North Wales

  84·3

  71·9

  41·1

  19·7

  188 189

  Police Force Area

  Violence against the person

  Burglary

  1978

  1986

  1978

  1986

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  South Wales

  86·4

  83·2

  34·9

  33·2

  England and Wales

  77·2

  71·3

  31·3

  26·0

  Prevention of Terrorism
  Mr. Warren
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he intends to make improved arrangements for police units at ports to assist enforcement of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  I have decided to establish a national co-ordinator of port policing, who will provide advice and assistance to chief officers of police on police work at ports, co-ordinate the work of police units, and represent them in liaison with other services involved in ports. The post of national co-ordinator will be at assistant chief constable rank.

  The new arrangement adopts recommendations made by Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary on the work of police operating the port controls provided by the

  School leavers—England

  Boys

  Girls

  Number (thousands)

  Per cent.

  Number (thousands)

  Per cent.

  Leavers who had attempted

  GCE O-level or CSE in Mathematics

  302·51

  80·8

  299·78

  82·9

  Physics

  191·15

  51·0

  70·90

  19·6

  GCE A-level in Mathematics

  38·30

  10·2

  17·76

  4·9

  Physics

  30·51

  8·1

  8·44

  2·3

  Computers
  Mr. Cartwright
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many computers are provided per 100 pupils in each local education authority in (a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools; and how many staff trained to teach computing there are in each local education authority.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The 1985 survey of microcomputers in English schools, a copy of which is in the Library, found that there were on average 0·9 microcomputers per 100 pupils in primary schools and 1·7 per 100 pupils in secondary schools. Since then LEAs have purchased many more microcomputers for their schools both from their own resources and from funds available under the DTI IT Equipment for Schools offer. About 60 per cent. of teachers have received some training in the use of microcomputers in schools. No figures are available for individual local education authorities.

  Mr. Coombs
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will list those companies that his Department has awarded contracts for the supply of word processing hardware and software in each year since 1984; and what was the value of each contract;
  190
  Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984. The new arrangements will operate initially for a trial period of two years.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Mathematics and Physical Sciences
  Mr. Cartwright
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many (a) girls and (b) boys took one or more mathematics or physical science subject at (i) O-level and (ii) A-level in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Dunn
  Information is not available in the precise form requested. The number and percentage of boys and girls leaving English schools in 1984–85 who had attempted(a) mathematics, and (b) physics in CSE and/ or GCE examinations is shown in the table.

  (2) how much his Department has spent on (a) word processing hardware and (b) word processing software in each year since 1984; and what is projected expenditure for the financial years 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The value of contracts awarded by my Department for word processing hardware and software for the financial years in question is as follows:

  Wordplex Ltd.

  AES Ltd.

  £

  £

  1984–85

  Hardware

  29,000

  32,000

  Software

  —

  —

  1985–86

  Hardware

  106,000

  18,000

  Software

  1,000

  —

  1986–87

  Hardware

  47,000

  —

  Software

  15,000

  —

  For future years, it is the Department's intention to provide word processing facilities as part of its wider office systems strategy, and it is not possible to identify such expenditure separately.
  191
  Mr. Coombs
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will list those companies that his Department has awarded contracts for the supply of desktop publishing hardware and software in each year since 1984; and what was the value of each contract;

  (2) how much his Department has spent on (a) desktop publishing hardware and (b) desktop publishing software in each year since 1984; and what is projected expenditure for the financial years 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Department is undertaking a study into the extent to which desktop publishing systems would be useful in helping to meet its publication requirements. It has not purchased any such systems in the past, and currently has no plans for such expenditure.

  Schools (Expenditure)
  Mr. Steen
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish figures for 1985–86 and 1986–87 relating to (a) local authority expenditure in nursery, primary and secondary schools at (i) current prices and (ii) at 1984–85 prices using the Government gross domestic product deflator and (b) pupil numbers in nursery, primary and secondary schools.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Net institutional recurrent spending on maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools in 1985–86 was as follows:

  1985–86 provisional actual spending £ million (rounded)

  At 1985–86 outturn prices

  At 1984–85 prices

  At 1987–88 prices

  Nursery schools

  40

  40

  45

  Primary schools

  2,940

  2,765

  3,165

  Secondary schools

  4,050

  3,810

  4,360

  Comparable information for 1986–87 is not yet available. Financial year average pupil numbers for 1985–86 and

  1986–87 are as follows:

  1985–86 (actual)

  1986–87 (projected)

  Pupils, thousands, full-time equivalents

  Nursery schools

  31

  31

  Primary schools

  3,651

  3,667

  Secondary schools

  3,434

  3,306

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Radice
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the schools participating in the assisted places scheme and the fees charged by each school.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I shall reply as soon as possible.

  Schools (Decoration)
  Mr. Radice
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish his Department's review of the internal decoration of schools.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  My Department has not undertaken such a review. The results of a general investigation on maintenance provision and practice in a sample of 16 local education authorities was reported in DES A and B Paper No. 7, published in 1984, copies of which are in the Library.
  192
  Mr. Radice
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what has been the average fee increase at schools participating in the assisted places scheme in each year since the scheme was introduced.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Since the assisted places scheme was introduced in 1981 the estimated average fee increase for assisted pupils at participating schools has been as follows:

  Percentage increase over preceding year

  School Year

  per cent.

  1982–83

  11

  1983–84

  12

  1984–85

  7

  1985–86

  7

  1986–87

  12

DEFENCE

  Civil Defence
  Mr. Redmond
  asked the Secretary of State for Deence if he will make available in the Library those parts of the United Kingdom Commander in Chief's committee home defence plan which would not compromise natonal security; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stanley
  This is a classified document and it is not our general practice, in response to specific queries, to break up documents in the way that would be entailed. The hon. Member may, however, find it helpful to refer to the "Home Office Emergency Planning Guidance to Local Authorities", a copy of which is in the Library. Although this is not in itself concerned with military Home Defence planning, the hon. Member may find it useful in the general context of his inquiry.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Dubs
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average per capita contribution to defence expenditure by the United Kingdom in (a) the United Kingdom, (b) the Isle of Man, (c) Jersey and (d) Guernsey.

  Mr. Stanley
  The original provision for defence expenditure in 1986–87 was the equivalent of some £327 per capita in the United Kingdom.

  The annual contribution made by the Isle of Man towards the cost of defence and other common services provided by the United Kingdom Government was equivalent to some £16 per capita in 1985–86, the last year for which figures are available. The island also provides military training facilities and a bombing range for the RAF.

  No regular contributions to the costs of defence have been made by either Jersey or Guernsey, but I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) on 1 April 1987, at column 516, for details of the agreements that have been reached with the islands over future contributions.

  Computers
  Mr. Coombs
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those companies that his Department has

  193
  awarded contracts for the supply of word processing hardware and software in each year since 1984; and what was the value of each contract.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ministry of Defence procured, primarily through Her Majesty's Stationery Office, dedicated word processing hardware and associated word processing software software from the following companies:

  Year and Company

  Total expenditure

  £

  1984–85

  Exxon/Vydec

  1,566,000

  AES

  CPT

  Phillips

  Rank Xerox

  Data Logic

  Olivetti

  Diamond (OTL)

  1985–86

  AES

  1,184,000

  CPT

  Phillips

  Rank Xerox

  Olivetti

  Logica

  Data Logic

  ICL

  Canon

  1986–87

  AES

  2,106,000

  CPT

  Phillips

  Amstrad

  ICL

  Wordplex

  Olivetti

  OEM

  Rank Xerox

  GEC Reliance

  Canon

  Wang

  General purpose hardware and word processing software with which it may be used are excluded.

  Only the figures for total expenditure are readily available, but for reasons of commercial confidentiality it would in any case be improper for me to give details of individual contract value.
  194
  Mr. Coombs
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department has spent on (a) word processing hardware and (b) word processing software in each year since 1984; and what is projected expenditure for the financial years 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Expenditure on hardware dedicated to word processing, and word processing software, is not separately identifiable. Total expenditure was:

  £

  1984–85

  1,566,000

  1985–86

  1,184,000

  1986–87

  2,106,000

  Projected expenditure for 1987–88 is about £1,200,000 and for 1988–89 about £1,320,000. General purpose hardware and word processing software with which it may be used are not included.

  Mr. Coombs
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those companies that his Department has 1,184,000 awarded contracts for the supply of desktop hardware and software in each year since 1984; and what was the value of each contract.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Since 1984 the Ministry of Defence has procured desktop publishing hardware and software through Her Majesty's Stationery Office, from Apple Macintosh and Rank Zerox. For reasons of commercial confidentiality it would be improper for me to ive details of individual contract values.

  Mr. Coombs
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department has spent on (a) desktop publishing hardware and (b) desktop publishing software in each year since 1984 and what is projected expenditure for the financial years 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Expenditure on hardware and software dedicated to desktop publishing is not separable. Total expenditure was:

  £

  1984–85

  Nil

  1985–86

  37,800

  1986–87

  17,000

  Projected expenditure for 1987–88 is about £48,000 and for 1988–89 about £65,000.

ATTORNEY GENERAL

  Computers
  Mr. Coombs
  asked the Attorney-General if he will list those companies to which the Lord Chancellor's Department has awarded contracts for the supply of word processing hardware and software in each year since 1984; and what was the value of each contract.

  The Attorney-General
  The suppliers of word processing equipment to the Lord Chancellor's Department in the years 1984–85, 1985–86, 1986–87 have been as follows:

  International Business Machines Ltd.

  Rank Zerox (UK) Ltd.

  Wildings Office Equipment PLC

  The value of each contract is a matter of commercial confidentiality.

  Mr. Coombs
  asked the Attorney-General how much the Lord Chancellor's Department has spent on (a) word processing hardware and (b) word processing software in each year since 1984; and what is the projected expenditure for the financial years 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  The Attorney-General
  The cost of word processing equipment purchased by the Lord Chancellor's Department since 1984 is as follows:

  Hardware

  Software

  £

  £

  1984–85

  31,000

  5,000

  1985–86

  106,000

  25,000

  1986–87

  12,000

  4,000

  Projected expenditure for the financial year 1987–88 is £50,000, and for 1988–89, £125,000.

  Mr. Coombs
  asked the Attorney-General if he will list those companies to which the Lord Chancellor's Department has awarded contracts for the supply of desktop publishing hardware and software in each year since 1984; and what was the value of each contract.

  The Attorney-General
  There has only been one set of desktop publishing equipment supplied to the Lord Chancellor's Department and this was purchased from Rank Xerox in the financial year 1985–86. For reasons of commercial confidentiality the value of the contract cannot be disclosed.

  Mr. Coombs
  asked the Attorney-General how much the Lord Chancellor's Department has spent on (a) desktop publishing hardware and (b) desktop publishing software in each year since 1984; and what is the projected expenditure for the financial years 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  The Attorney-General
  As there has only been one set of desktop publishing equipment supplied to the Lord Chancellor's Department since 1984 I am unable, due to the commercial confidentiality, to disclose the value of the contract.

  There are no firm plans for any other system to be purchased in the financial years 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Michael Delaney
  Mr. Shore
  asked the Attorney-General, further to his written answer of 6 May, and in the light of the 10 to one verdict of the coroner's court in the case of Michael
  196
  Delaney, whether he will consider further the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions not to prosecute the driver; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The Director of Public Prosecutions has reconsidered the decision made in the case referred to by the right hon. Member. However. the evidence given at the inquest into the death of Michael Delaney did not disclose any basis upon which a prosecution could be brought. The Director cannot, therefore, alter his original decision.

  Unlawful Killing
  Mr. Shore
  asked the Attorney-General in how many cases where a jury at a coroner's court has returned a verdict of unlawful killing the Director of Public Prosecutions has decided not to prosecute on the grounds of insufficient evidence since 1979.

  The Attorney-General
  Records are not kept of the information requested by the right hon. Member.

  Crown Prosecution Service Staff Commission
  Mr. Franks
  asked the Attorney-General whether he has received a report from the Crown Prosecution Service Staff Commission; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  I have recently received the Report of the Crown Prosecution Service Staff Commission upon its work during the establishement of the new Service. Copies of the report are being discributed to interested parties, and I have arranged for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House.

  The Chairman of the Staff Commission and his two commissioners have produced a most comprehensive and helpful report and I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude for their endeavours.

ENVIRONMENT

  London Docklands
  Mr. Mikardo
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of houses and flats built on London Dock lands Development Corporation owned land between January 1986 and December 1986 were sold to those on the waiting lists of the London boroughs of Newham, Tower Hamlets and Southwark.

  Mr. John Patten
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West on 1 April 1987 at column 553.

  Computers
  Mr. Coombs
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those companies that his Department has awarded contracts for the supply of word processing hardware and software in each year since 1984; and what was the value of each contract.

  Mr. Ridley
  For reasons of commercial confidentiality it is not possible to provide the names of companies to which such contracts have been awarded or the values of the contracts.

  Mr. Coombs
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how much his Department has spent on (a)

  197
  word processing hardware and (b) word processing software in each year since 1984; and what is projected expenditure for the financial years 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Ridley
  The Department's expenditure on word processing hardware and software, which is delivered as one piece of equipment, was:

  Year

  £

  1984–85

  180,274

  1985–86

  243,862

  1986–87

  664,452

  Estimated expenditure in 1987–88 is £500,000. No projections have been made for 1988–89.

  Mr. Coombs
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those companies that his Department has awarded contracts for the supply of desktop publishing hardware and software in each year since 1984; and what was the value of each contract.

  Mr. Ridley
  For reasons of commercial confidentiality it is not possible to provide the information in the form and level of detail requested by my hon. Friend.

  The Department purchased one desktop publishing software package in 1986–87.

  Mr. Coombs
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how much his Department has spent on (a) desktop publishing hardware and (b) desktop publishing software in each year since 1984; and what is the projected expenditure for the financial years 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Ridley
  The Department has spent £2,000 on desktop publishing software (in 1986–87). No specialised hardware has been purchased. No details are available for financial years 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Planning Permission
  Mr. Dykes
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will examine possible ways of limiting the opportunities for developers to submit fresh applications for planning permissions for new developments in residential areas after their appeals against local authority decisions are dismissed by inspectors' inquiries.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No. Such a limitation would unjustifiably restrict development which might reasonably be permitted if, for example, circumstances chanhed following the dismissal of an appeal or the developer revised his scheme to take account of objections. An appellant who unreasonably persists in taking a second appeal to inquiry may be at risk of having cost awarded against him.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations were carried out with the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee and what representations were received from it (a) before his decision to abandon research on four possible low-level waste dumps and (b) subsequently.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee's views on shallow disposal of nuclear waste have been made clear in all of the committee's annual reports submitted to Ministers since 1983. There was no consultation with the Committee 198
  before my right hon. Friend's statement on 1 May, but I wrote to the Committee about the decision on the day of the statement. No representations have been received from the Committee since 1 May.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will tabulate the calculations made by (a) his Department, (b) the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee and (c) NIREX on the costs of disposal of low-level waste in shallow trenches.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  On calculations made by the Department, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Assessment of Best Practicable Environmental Options for Management of Low and Intermediate-level Solid Radioactive Wastes published by HMSO in March 1986. On the calculations by NIREX, I have nothing to add to the letter from the chairman of NIREX to my right hon. Friend dated 1 May, which is in the Library of the House.

  The Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee has made no calculations on the costs of disposal.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if there have been any changes in the composition of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee since his decision to cancel research for low-level nuclear sites.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No.

  Green Belt
  Mr. Adley
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if non-statutory green belt is included as applicable land in references to Government statements about its policy on protection of green belt land.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Green belt policies apply to land which has been identified as green belt in approved structure plans. In most areas the detailed boundaries have been identified in local plans or in old development plans. Some non-green belt land situated between the urban area and the approved green belt boundary may be kept open for the time being through the normal process of development control.

  Planning Inquiries
  Mr. Adley
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what instructions he has given, or intends to give, to his planning inspectors to ensure that their decisions in planning inquiries are cognisant of current ministerial speeches and statements on planning policy.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  As a matter of course, the Department's planning inspectors are informed of all statements of policy which could be a material consideration in reaching decisions in planning cases.

  Departmental Achievements
  Mr. Shersby
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list his principal achievements in the field of improving the environment; and what plans he has for the future.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 9 May 1986 at column 265 and my own

  199
  statement of 4 February 1987 at column 726. Since those statements we have continued to act to protect and enhance the environment.

  The Govermnent have endorsed the Central Electricity Generating Board's plans to install low nitrogen oxide burners at its largest power stations, and at all future fossil-fuel fired power stations.

  The Department has continued to promote the introduction of unleaded petrol, which is currently available at 260 service stations.

  We sponsored the international pollution abatement fair and conference as a contribution to European Year of the Environment. At the conference I launched the environmental protection technology scheme, which aims to encourage innovation in the fields of pollution abatement and cleaner technologies.

  Research on antifouling paints containing tributyl tin has increasingly shown them to be responsible for damage to marine life. Regulations were laid before the House on 7 May which will ban the retail supply of antifouling paints and treatments containing triorganotins, including TBT, from 28 May.

  On 10 March the Government issued the Farming and Rural enterprise package which set out our policies for agriculture and for encouraging enterprise and development in rural areas.

  On 8 May the Department issued the circular Development Involving Agricultural Land which stresses the importance of considering together the agricultural, environmental and economic aspects of planning proposals affecting agricultural land.

  Blood Lead Monitoring Programme
  Mr. Rathbone
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will publish the preliminary results of the blood lead monitoring programme for 1986.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Preliminary analysis of results from the surveys carried out in 1986 as part of my Department's blood lead monitoring programme shows a continuing fall in levels. Compared with 1985 the blood leads of children surveyed fell by about 1·5 ug/100ml (16 per cent.); those of police officers on traffic duties by about 2 ug/100ml (18 per cent.); and those of other adults sampled by about 1 ug/100m1 (10 per cent.).

  Individually, the local surveys of children all showed falls in levels but these varied from 8 per cent. to 22 per cent. For exposed adults local changes varied from a fall of around 20 per cent. to a slight increase in one of the surveys. More detailed results will be made available in due course.

  Housing Expenditure
  Mr. Nellist
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what was Coventry city council's bid to central Government for housing expenditure, and what was his Department's allocation, for each year since 1979 expressed in 1987 prices.

  Mr. Tracey
  [pursuant to his answer, 12 May 1987]: The position has changed since 1979, in that local housing authorities nationally now fund more than half their capital expenditure from capital receipts, rather than from housing investment programme allocations made by the
  200
  Department. The proposed capital programmes shown by authorities in the HIP submissions cannot therefore be compared directly with their HIP allocations.

  Since 1979 the final HIP allocations made to Coventry city council, and their total capital expenditure on housing, have been as follows:

  £ million 1987–88 prices

  HIP allocation

  Expenditure

  1979–80

  23·908

  27·137

  1980–81

  15·482

  14·427

  1981–82

  10·260

  12·340

  1982–83

  15·257

  16·738

  1983–84

  9·624

  11·893

  1984–85

  10·223

  12·747

  1985–86

  8·295

  20·099

  1986–87

  8·660

  118·396

  1987–88

  26·166

  —

  1 Estimated by the authority on form HIP2 in July 1986

  2 Initial HIP allocation.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Teachers' (Pay and Conditions)
  Mr. Cartwright
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will place in the Library details of the composite package of proposals for pay and conditions of service of teachers in Northern Ireland referred to in his answer to the hon. Member for Woolwich of 27 April, Official Report, column 41.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Yes, copies have been placed in the Library today.

  Advertisements
  Mr. Hanley
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on how many occasions his Department sponsored advertisements in national newspapers in the last three years; which newspapers were chosen for these campaigns; which local newspapers were used in these campaigns; and which newspaper publishing groups received payment for advertising space.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested in respect of specific promotional campaigns is as follows:

  Number of occasions

  National newspapers

  Financial Times

  50

  Times

  7

  Daily Telegraph

  2

  Guardian

  2

  Local Newspapers

  Belfast Telegraph

  71

  Derry Journal

  50

  Sentinel (Londonderry)

  50

  News Letter

  25

  Coleraine Chronicle

  6

  Irish News

  4

  Sunday News

  2

  Newspaper Publishing Groups receiving paid advertising

  Pearson Group

  News International

  Daily Telegraph PLC

  Guardian Newspapers Ltd.

  Thompson Newspapers Ltd.

  201

  Number of occasions

  Century Newspapers Ltd.

  Irish News Ltd.

  Northern Newspaper Group

  Ulster Associated Press Group

  Morton Newspaper Group

  Routine advertising such as job advertisements, contracts and statutory notices have been excluded.

  Computers
  Mr. Coombs
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he will list those companies to which his Department has awarded contracts for the supply of word processing hardware and software in each year since 1984; and what was the value of each contract;

  (2) how much his Department has spent on (a) word processing hardware and (b) word processing software in each year since 1984; and what is projected expenditure for the financial years 1987–88 and 1988–89;

  (3) if he will list those companies to which his Department has awarded contracts for the supply of desk top publishing hardware and desk top publishing software in each year since 1984; and what was the value of each contract;

  (4) how much his Department has spent on (a) desk top publishing hardware and (b) desk top publishing software in each year since 1984; and what is projected expenditure for the financial years 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Scott
  I shall reply to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

  Job Release Schemes
  Mr. Maples
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether parity is being maintained between job release schemes in Northern Ireland and Great Britain.

  Mr. Viggers
  Participants in the Northern Ireland full and part-time job release schemes will continue to receive allowances at the rates payable, in corresponding circumstances, under the parallel schemes in Great Britain. As from 6 April 1987 the new rates are:

  Full-Time Scheme

  For disabled men aged 60, 61, 62 and 63 who are married with a dependent wife whose net income from all sources does not exceed £13 a week, £74·50 a week, taxable; for all others £61·15 a week, taxable.

  For women aged 59 and men aged 64 who are married with a dependent spouse whose net income from all sources does not exceed £13 a week, £67·55 a week, tax free; for all others £53·90 a week, tax free.

  Part-Time Scheme

  The part-time job release scheme closed on 30 May 1986. However, the rates of allowance for those who entered the scheme on or before that date will be as follows:

  For disabled men aged 60 and 61 aged 62 and 63 who are married with a dependent wife whose net income from all sources does not exceed £13 a week, £43 a week, taxable; for all others £35.80 a week, taxable.

  For women aged 59 and men aged 64 who are married with a dependent spouse whose net income from all sources does not exceed £13 a week, £38·05 a week, tax free, for all others £31·15, tax free.

EMPLOYMENT

  Advertisements
  Mr. Hanley
  asked the Paymaster General on how many occasions his Department sponsored advertisements in national newspapers in the last three years; which newspapers were chosen for these campaigns; which local newspapers were used for these campaigns; and which newspaper publishing groups received payment for advertising space.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  My Department in the last three years has advertised extensively in the national and local press to publicise its range of employment programmes as listed. Figures for the number of occasions on which the Department sponsored advertisements and a breakdown by newspaper publishing groups could only be produced at disproportionate cost.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Bruce
  asked the Paymaster General if he will publish in the Official Report the percentage level of unemployment in each travel-to-work area for the latest available date and the number of community programme places in the nearest corresponding area in 1986–87 and 1987–88.

  Mr. Lee
  Figures showing the numbers of unemployed claimants in the travel-to-work areas of the United Kingdom expressed as a percentage of employees in employment plus the unemployed on 12 March 1987 were published in table 2.4 of the May 1987 issue of the Employment Gazette, a copy of which is in the Library. Unemployment rates incorporating new employment estimates which take account of the 1984 census of employment results will be published on Thursday 14 May 1987. At that time revised unemployment rates will be available in the Library. Information about the number of community programme places is collected at community programme area office level. The following table shows the number of filled places in respect of each area office as on 31 March 1987, the latest date for which statistics are available, and the average number of filled places planned for 1987–88 in respect of the same offices.

  Region/community programme area office

  Filled places as at 31 March 1987

  A verage planned for 1987–88

  South-east region

  Kent

  3,292

  2,800

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  2,049

  1,980

  Sussex

  1,960

  1,850

  Reading

  1,473

  1,400

  Surrey

  476

  490

  High Wycombe

  1,915

  1,750

  Essex

  2,534

  2,600

  Total

  13,699

  12,870

  London region

  North London

  3,432

  3,050

  East London

  3,074

  3,080

  Inner London north

  5,091

  4,620

  Inner London south

  3,230

  3,540

  West London

  1,304

  1,220

  South London

  1,744

  1,590

  Total

  17,875

  17,100

  203

  Region/community programme area office

  Filled places as at 31 March 1987

  Average planned for 1987–88

  South-west region

  Devon east

  2,066

  2,035

  Avon

  4,640

  4,240

  Cornwall

  2,395

  2,272

  Dorset

  1,472

  1,500

  Gloucester

  1,632

  1,570

  West Devon

  2,023

  1,953

  Wiltshire

  1,149

  1,160

  Somerset

  1,076

  1,020

  Total

  16,453

  15,750

  West midlands region

  Worcester

  3,656

  3,655

  Coventry

  3,784

  3,674

  Dudley/Sandwell

  3,706

  4,233

  Wolverhampton

  4,592

  4,625

  Birmingham

  8,383

  8,418

  Staffordshire

  4,067

  3,945

  Total

  28,188

  28,550

  East midlands and eastern region

  Ipswich

  1,570

  1,485

  Luton

  2,171

  2,101

  Norwich

  2,089

  1,808

  Derby

  3,104

  3,174

  Leicester

  2,432

  2,404

  Nottinghamshire

  3,996

  3,987

  Lincoln

  1,942

  1,863

  Northamptonshire

  1,809

  1,824

  Total

  19,113

  18,646

  Yorkshire and Humberside region

  Leeds

  4,617

  4,550

  Bradford

  5,510

  5,500

  Sheffield

  6,152

  6,100

  Hull

  2,387

  2,449

  North Yorkshire

  1,397

  1,450

  Grimsby

  2,109

  2,151

  Barnsley/Doncaster

  3,941

  4,050

  Total

  27,815

  27,900

  North-West Region

  Cumbria

  1,944

  1,926

  South Lancs

  3,157

  2,922

  Manchester North

  2,609

  2,639

  Manchester City

  3,287

  3,539

  Manchester East

  2,759

  2,830

  Middleton

  2,163

  2,175

  Manchester West

  2,653

  2,865

  Merseyside Inner

  5,538

  5,565

  Wirral

  2,608

  2,650

  Lancs North

  2,718

  2,578

  St. Helens

  4,898

  4,790

  Cheshire

  3,875

  3,590

  Total

  38,209

  38,069

  Northern Region

  North Tyne

  5,963

  6,288

  County Durham

  7,135

  6,516

  Teeside

  8,003

  8,300

  South Tyne

  7,722

  8,000

  Total

  28,823

  29,104

  Wales Region

  Gwent

  3,848

  3,630

  Mid and South Glamorgan

  7,372

  7,075

  West Wales

  6,366

  5,900

  Clwyd/Powys

  5,011

  4,730

  204

  Region/community programme area office

  Filled places as at 31 March 1987

  Average planned for 1987–88

  Total

  22,597

  21,335

  Scotland Region

  Central/South Glasgow

  3,214

  3,668

  North Glasgow

  3,866

  3,960

  Hamilton

  3,628

  3,700

  Paisley

  2,480

  2,639

  Ayr

  3,630

  3,500

  Highlands and Islands

  1,092

  993

  Tayside and Grampian

  2,972

  3,110

  Central and Fife

  3,437

  3,300

  Lothian and Borders

  3,938

  3,770

  Clydebank

  2,415

  2,250

  Total

  30,672

  30,890

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Paymaster General how many redundancies were notified to his Department in the Grimsby travel-to-work area in each year since 1977.

  Mr. Lee
  Information relating to confirmed redundancies is given in the following table:

  Redundancies confirmed as due to occur in Grimsby travel-to-work area

  Year

  Number

  1977

  188

  1978

  806

  1979

  0

  1980

  1,005

  1981

  1,886

  1982

  880

  1983

  1,436

  1984

  1,081

  1985

  332

  1986

  517

  Note: The figures are based on notifications of redundancies confirmed as due to occur in the Grimsby jobcentre area which equates very closely to the Grimsby travel-to-work area.

  Computers
  Mr. Coombs
  asked the Paymaster General if he will list those companies to which his Department has awarded contracts for the supply of word processing hardware and software in each year since 1984; and what was the value of each contract.

  Mr. Lee
  For reasons of commercial confidentiality it is not possible to answer this question in the detail requested. However the following companies have supplied word processing equipment to the Department of Employment since 1984:

  British Olivetti

  Digital Equipment Company Ltd.

  Rank Xerox

  IBM

  Wang UK

  AES

  ICL

  Amstrad

  Canon

  Information Technology (UK)

  OEM

  Thorn—EMI

  Lexisystems

  Quest International

  Hewlett Packard

  Vistec

  Mr. Coombs
  asked the Paymaster General how much his Department has spent on (a) word processing

  205
  hardware and (b) word processing software in each year since 1984; and what is the projected expenditure for the financial years 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Lee
  For those parts of the Department for which figures are readily available, the figures are as follows:

  £

  1984–85

  226,000

  1985–86

  474,000

  1986–87

  662,000

  1987–88

  795,000

  1988–89

  710,000

  Mr. Coombs
  asked the Paymaster General if he will list those companies to which his Department has awarded contracts for the supply of desktop publishing hardware and software in each year since 1984; and what was the value of each contract.

  Mr. Lee
  For reasons of commercial confidentiality it is not possible to answer this question in the detail requested. Since 1984, one contract to the value of £6,000 has been placed.

  Mr. Coombs
  asked the Paymaster General how much his Department has spent on (a) desktop publishing hardware and (b) desktop publishing software in each year since 1984; and what is the projected expenditure for the financial years 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Lee
  The figures are as follows:

  £

  1984–85

  Nil

  1985–86

  Nil

  1986–87

  6,000

  1987–88

  20,000

  1988–89

  Nil

  Restart
  Mr. Hawksley
  asked the Paymaster General how many people were invited to attend jobcentres in Telford for the restart programme up to 31 March; how many attended; and if he will categorise the offers made.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [pursuant to his reply, 11 May 1987, c. 28]: The information requested is available only for the Shropshire restart area. By 9 April 10,873 people had been invited for a restart interview of which 9,683 had already attended. The interviews provide a means of gaining access to the wide range of opportunities available to help people return to employment. A total of 88 per cent. of people interviewed were offered at least one of the following opportunities:

  an interview for a job vacancy or a place on the community programme;

  a place in a jobclub;

  a training course;

  an introduction to the enterprise allowance scheme;

  a place on a restart course;

  a chance to undertake voluntary work;

  a referral for specialist help.

  Job Training Scheme
  Mr. Nellist
  asked the Paymaster General what is the advertising budget, split by type of media, for the promotion of the job training scheme; what proportion is aimed at potential trainers, and what proportion aimed at potential employers.
  206
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [pursuant to his reply, 11 May 1987, c. 28]: In 1987–88 planned expenditure on advertising the new job training scheme is £5·3 million. Half the sum will be used to encourage employers to become involved in the scheme and half to draw the existence and objectives of the scheme to the attention of potential participants. Around 70 per cent. of the budget has been committed to TV and the remainder to other media. The expenditure represents around 2½ per cent. of the overall programme costs of the job training scheme in the first year.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Development and Disarmament
  Mr. Best
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what correlation exists in Her Majesty's Government's foreign policy between development and disarmament.

  Mr. Renton
  We believe that there is no automatic link between the process of disarmament, the reallocation of resources which may result from such a process, and the provision of development aid. The search for disarmament, improved international security, and development are equally important, and we remain committed to pursuing each of these aims.

  Mr. Best
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what ministerial and parliamentary representatives from the United Kingdom will attend the United nations conference on the relationship between disarmament and development in New York between 24 August and 11 September; what proposals Her Majesty's Government will make to the conference; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  A decision on the level of any United Kingdom participation at the conference, and on United Kingdom proposals, will be taken nearer the time.

  Computers
  Mr. Coombs
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will list those companies that his Department has awarded contracts for the supply of word processing hardware and software in each year since 1984; and what was the value of each contract;

  (2) how much his Department has spent on (a) word processing hardware and (b) word processing software in each year since 1984; and what is the projected expenditure for the financial years 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Eggar
  For reasons of commercial confidentiality, details of individual contracts cannot be given. However, total annual expenditure for financial years 1984 to 1987, and companies to which contracts have been awarded have been:

  Total expenditure

  £

  Financial year 1984–85

  249,037

  Her Majesty's Stationery Office

  City Information Systems

  Financial year 1985–86

  262,101

  Her Majesty's Stationery Office

  AT Computer World

  207

  Total expenditure

  £

  Wordnet International

  Ol Computers

  Financial year 1986–87

  261,267

  Her Majesty's Stationery Office

  Nexel

  West End Business Machines

  Ryman

  ICL

  Ol Computers

  Santiki Ltd.

  Estimated expenditure 1987–88

  118,500

  Estimated expenditure 1988–89

  50,600

  The figures include expenditure by both the diplomatic and aid wings of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and by overseas posts. For the latter, there is no central record of companies to which contracts have been awarded.

  Mr. Coombs
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will list those companies that his Department has awarded contracts for the supply of desktop publishing hardware and software in each year since 1984;and what was the value of each contract;

  (2) how much his Department has spent on (a) desktop publishing hardware and (h) desktop publishing software in each year since 1984; and what is the projected expenditure for the finanical years 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Eggar
  The diplomatic wing of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office placed one contract through Her Majesty's Stationery Office in 1986, at an approximate cost of £29,000. This was the price for the complete integrated system. £380 was spent on hardware update in 1987, and £12,000 to £13,000 is likely to be spent on the expansion and updating of this system in 1988.

  Departmental Achievements
  Mr Shersby
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list his principal achievements in the field of Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs; and what plans he has for the future.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answers given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) on 19 February 1987 at column 801–9, and in particular to the foreign policy aspects of these answers. Since then our efforts to establish a more stable relationship between East and West culminated in the successful visit by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and myself and myself to the Soviet Union in March. Our talks with the Soviet leaders were candid and wide-ranging and demonstrated the value of frank and constructive discussion between us. At the end of April I visited Thailand, Australia and New Zealand to demonstrate our continuing interest in Asia and the Pacific. Overall, I have since February pursued our major objectives in the foreign policy field listed in the answer to the second of the questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley. These objectives will continue to guide our policies in the future.

  Hong Kong (Survey Office)
  Dr. Marek
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, pursuant to his answer of 7 May, Offical Report, column 528, he will make it his policy to include in the terms of reference for the independent survey office the possibilty for oral representations to he made by those Hong Kong citizens who either cannot, or are not confident of being able to, make written representations.

  Mr. Renton
  Within the Survey Office's terms of reference arrangements will be made to ensure that those who are unwilling or unable to submit written representations are able to have their oral representations recorded.

WALES

  Computers
  Mr. Coombs
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list those companies to which his Department has awarded contracts for the supply of word processing hardware and software in each year since 1984; and what was the value of each contract;

  (2) how much his Department has spent on (a) word processing hardware and (b) word processing software in each year since 1984; and what is projected expenditure for the financial years 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Nicholas Edwards
  Word processing hardware and software has been purchased to the following values:

  £

  1984–85

  9,750

  1985–86

  29,011

  1986–87

  13,400

  Most of the equipment was purchased from Her Majesty's Stationery Office. The manufacturers of the equipment purchased were information Technology Ltd. (ITL), Hermes Precisa Ltd. and International Business Machines (IBM). To disclose details of individual contracts would be a breach of commercial confidence.

  Current estimates provide for expenditure on word processing equipment of £103,500 in 1987–88 and £160,000 in 1988–89.

  Mr. Coombs
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list those companies to which his Department has awarded contracts for the supply of desktop publishing hardware and software in each year since 1984; and what was the value of each contract;

  (2) how much his Department has spent on (a) desktop publishing hardware and (b) desktop publishing software in each year since 1984; and what is projected expenditure for the financial years 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Nicholas Edwards
  My Department has not yet purchased any desktop publishing hardware or software. Sums of £75,000 and £40,000 have been provisionally earmarked in 1987–88 and 1988–89 respectively, for:he purchase of such equipment.

  National Health Service Estate
  Mr. Meacher
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the annual expenditure, in 1987 prices, from

  209
  1975–76 to date on repair, maintenance and improvement work on the Welsh National Health Service estate; what is his Department's estimate of the expenditure needed to bring the condition of the Welsh National Health Service estate to a fully reconditioned and repaired state, complying with up to date building standards, not including the reconditioning of parts of the estate for which there is no intention to recondition or repair, but where the proper course is demolition or disposal, or the expected depreciation of the estate in this financial year; what is his Department's estimate of the annual expenditure to prevent the Welsh National Health Service estate's condition from deteriorating, excluding those parts of the estate for which there is no intention to recondition or repair, but where the proper course is demolition or otherwise disposal; and what is the capital value of National Health Service buildings in Wales.

  Mr. Mark Robinson
  I shall reply to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. John Morris
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales what were the unemployment figures for April and May, in 1979 and 1983, and at the most recent available date for the Port Talbot and Neath travel-to-work areas.

  Mr. Nicholas Edwards
  In March 1987 there were 6,664 persons unemployed in the Neath and Port Talbot travelto-work area. This is equivalent to an unemployment rate of 13·1 per cent. The earliest data available for this travel-to-work area for a corresponding month for March 1984, when the figures were 8,241 and 16·3 per cent. respectively. These figures are not directly comparable because of a change in the method of compiling the statistics in March 1986.

PRIME MINISTER

  Computers
  Mr. Coombs
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list those companies to which her office has awarded contracts for the supply of word processing hardware and software in each year since 1984, and what was the value of each contract.

  The Prime Minister
  A contract for word processors for my office was awarded in 1984 to International Computers Limited in the order of £35,000. No other contracts have been awarded.

  Other information technology systems which provide word processing facilities but which were intended primarily for other tasks, were purchased in 1984 and 1987 from ICL and Software Sciences Ltd.

  Mr. Coombs
  asked the Prime Minister how much her office has spent on (a) word processing hardware and (b) word processing software in each year since 1984; and what is projected expenditure for the financial years 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  The Prime Minister
  The following table represents the past and projected expenditure on word processing hardware and software for my office for the years 1984 to 1988–89. Figures are given to the nearest £1,000.
  210

  Year

  Hardware

  Software

  £

  1984

  35,000

  Nil

  1985

  Nil

  Nil

  1986

  Nil

  Nil

  1987–88

  Nil

  Nil

  1988–89

  Nil

  Nil

  Mr. Coombs
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list those companies to which her office has awarded contracts for the supply of desk top publishing hardware and software in each year since 1984; and what was the value of each contract.

  The Prime Minister
  My office has not awarded any contracts for desk top publishing hardware or software.

  Mr. Coombs
  asked the Prime Minister how much her office has spent on (a) desk top publishing hardware and (b) desk top publishing software in each year since 1984; and what is projected expenditure for the financial years 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  The Prime Minister
  My office has not incurred any expenditure on desk top publishing hardware or software since 1984. There is no specific provision to acquire such systems in the financial years 1987–88 or 1988–89.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

  Perth Prison
  Mr. Fairbairn
  asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many, and what, offences alleged to have been committed in Her Majesty's prison, Perth, have been prosecuted against prisoners in Her Majesty's prison, Perth, during the last year for which figures are available and for the previous 10 years, respectively.

  The Solicitor-General for Scotland
  The information which is sought is not available from the Crown Office or prisons group, Scottish Home and Health Department.

  Commissioner for Northern Lights
  Mr. Henderson
  asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many official engagements he has carried out as ex-officio Commissioner for Northern Lights during the last 90 days.

  The Solicitor-General for Scotland
  I have attended two meetings as ex-officio Commissioner for Northern Lights within the last 90 days.

  Project Zircon
  Mr. Bill Walker
  asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if he has given any advice to procurators fiscal in relation to matters arising from police inquiries into Project Zircon.

  The Solicitor-General for Scotland
  No.

TRANSPORT

  Microlight Flying (Insurance)
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will bring forward legislation to make compulsory third party insurance cover for microlight flying.
  211
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Owners of microlight aircraft are strictly liable, under section 76 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, for damage or injury caused to persons or property on the ground. It is up to individual owners to decide on the appropriate levels of third party insurance to meet their potential liabilities.

  Advertisements
  Mr. Hanley
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport on how many occasions his Department sponsored advertisements in national newspapers in the last three years; which newspapers were chosen for these campaigns; which local newspapers were used in these campaigns; and which newspaper publishing groups received payment for advertising space.

  Mr. Moore
  My Department has inserted advertisements in national newspapers on 14 occasions in the last three years.

  The newspapers chosen were as follows:

  Daily Express

  Daily Mail

  Daily Mirror

  Daily Telegraph

  Financial Times

  Guardian

  Independent

  Star

  Sun

  Times

  Today

  Mail on Sunday

  News of the World

  Observer

  People

  Sunday Express

  Sunday Mirror

  Sunday Telegraph

  Sunday Times

  Local newspapers used to support these campaigns were as follows:

  Standard ( London)

  Sunday Mail (Scotland)

  Sunday Post ( Scotland)

  Birmingham Post

  Manchester Evening News

  Newcastle Journal

  Table 1—Road taxation revenue and roads costs in 1987–88: by vehicle class

  Thousand £ million at 1987–88 prices/ratio

  Vehicle class

  Number of vehicles

  Road taxation revenue and road costs (£ million at 1987–88 prices1)

  Taxes to costs ratio

  Fuel tax

  Road taxes VED

  Total

  Road costs

  Taxes less costs

  thousand

  Cars, light vans and taxis

  19,608

  5,475

  2,075

  27,550

  2,335

  5,215

  3·2:1

  Motorcycles

  1,107

  40

  15

  60

  25

  35

  2·3:1

  Buses and coaches

  72

  180

  5

  3185

  215

  -30

  0·9:1

  Goods vehicles over 1,525 tonnes unladen:

  Not over 3·5 tonnes gvw and non-plateable vehicles

  143

  50

  20

  70

  25

  45

  2·7:1

  Over 3·5 tonnes gvw

  441

  960

  440

  1,405

  1,095

  310

  1·3:1

  Other vehicles4

  1,185

  105

  10

  115

  55

  65

  2·2:1

  All vehicles

  22,556

  6,820

  2,570

  9,385

  53,750

  5,640

  2·5:1

  1 Rounded to the nearest five.

  2 Excludes car tax, expected to raise £1,100 million in 1987–88.

  3 Fuel tax rebate (£130 million) not deducted.

  4 Haulage, machines, 3-wheeled motor vehicles, crown, disabled and other vehicles exempt from VED; Previously, other vehicles were included with the main classes.

  5 Excludes £306 million allocated to pedestrians.

  212

  Nottingham Evening Post

  Western Daily Press

  Western Mail

  Yorkshire Post

  Aberdeen Press and Journal

  Glasgow Herald

  Scotsman

  Belfast Telegraph

  Folkestone Herald/Dover Express

  Kent and Sussex Courier

  Kentish Express

  Kent Messenger Group

  Sevenoaks Chronicle

  South Kent Newspapers

  South London Press

  Surrey Mirror Series

  Other advertising in local newspapers was undertaken but not in support of campaigns in national newspapers. The newspaper publishing groups receiving paid advertising space were as follows:

  Express Newspapers

  Sun Group Newspapers

  Mirror Group Newspapers

  Times Newspapers

  D. C. Thompson Ltd

  Thomson Regional Newspapers

  Kent Messenger Group

  South Kent Newspapers Group

  East Surrey Newspapers Group

  Recruitment and statutory notice advertising is not included in the above.

  Roads (Expenditure)
  Mr. Snape
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for 1987–88 taxation revenue and public road cost figures and also a table showing taxation revenue, attributed costs, revenue to costs ratio and the number of vehicles, including in the calculation the increased road maintenance expenditure announced at the time of the current year's Budget statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The information requested is given in the following two tables. Further information on motor tax revenue and track costs will be given in the Department's annual paper "The allocation of road track costs", due to be published shortly.
  213

  Table 2

  Taxation revenue, attributed costs, revenue to cost ratios and numbers of vehicles in selected categories

  GVW (tonnes) over

  not over

  Taxation revenue per vehicle

  Attributed costs, per vehicle2

  Taxes minus costs

  Revenue to costs ratio

  Estimated number of vehicles at September 1987

  £

  £

  £

  000s

  Rigid vehicles

  2 axle

  3·5

  490

  180

  310

  2·7:1

  143

  3·5

  7·5

  770

  410

  360

  1·9:1

  154

  7·5

  12

  1,120

  650

  470

  1·7:1

  27

  12

  13

  1,490

  920

  570

  1·6:1

  20

  15

  17

  2,780

  2,470

  310

  1·1:1

  82

  3 axle

  23

  25

  4,140

  3,950

  190

  1·1:1

  26

  4 axle

  29

  31

  6,460

  6,100

  360

  1·1:1

  18

  Articulated vehicles

  3 axle

  23

  25

  4,280

  3,120

  1,170

  1·4:1

  2

  4 axle

  31

  33

  7,540

  6,000

  1,540

  1·3:1

  37

  5 axle (2+3)

  36

  38

  10,300

  7,730

  2,570

  1·3:1

  24

  (3+2)

  36

  38

  10,080

  7,450

  2,620

  1·4:1

  10

  6 axle

  36

  38

  8,590

  6,060

  2,530

  1·4:1

  3

  Figures for costs and taxes are rounded to the nearest £10, so taxes minus costs may not equal the difference of the figures shown for taxes and costs.

  LRT (Consultants Reports)
  Mr. David Marshall
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many reports from consultants have been commissioned by London Regional Transport; what were the subjects; what effect the findings will have in services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  No central record is kept in the Department of reports commissioned from consultants by London Regional Transport. This is a management matter for LRT. The hon. Member may care to write to the chairman.

  LRT (Conditions of Service)
  Mr. David Marshall
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what changes in conditions of service have been introduced in London Regional Transport during the last two years.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Changes in conditions of service are managerial matters for London Regional Transport and their subsidiary companies.

  Computers
  Mr. Coombs
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those companies to which his Department has awarded contracts for the supply of word processing hardware and software in each year since 1984; and what was the value of each contract.

  Mr. Moore
  For reasons of commercial confidentiality it is not possible to provide the names of companies to which such contracts have been awarded or the values of the contracts.

  Mr. Coombs
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport how much his Department has spent on (a) word processing hardware and (b) word processing software in each year since 1984; and what is projected expenditure for the financial years 1987–88 and 1988–89.
  214
  Mr. Moore
  The Department's expenditure on word processing hardware and software, which is delivered as one piece of equipment, was:

  £

  1984–85

  117,162

  1985–86

  77,881

  1986–87

  14,958

  Estimated expenditure in 1987–88 is £200,000. No projections have been made for 1988–89.

  Mr. Coombs
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those companies to which his Department has awarded contracts for the supply of desktop publishing hardware and software in each year since 1984; and what was the value of each contract.

  Mr. Moore
  For reasons of commercial confidentiality it is not possible to provide the information in the form and level of detail requested by the hon. Member.

  The Department has purchased two desktop publishing software packages, one in 1986–87 and one in 1987–88.

  Mr. Coombs
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport how much his Department has spent on (a) desktop publishing hardware and (b) desktop publishing software in each year since 1984; and what is projected expenditure for the financial years 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Moore
  The Department has spent £5,000 on desktop publishing software (in 1986–87). No specialised hardware has been purchased. No details are available for financial years 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  M25-M23 Interchange (Signs)
  Mr. Peter Bruinvels
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport why replacing signs and sign gantries on the M25-M23 interchange is likely to take six months; and whether he will consider a lane rental scheme for this work.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The installation of new signs and gantries has to be carried out in stages if traffic flow is to be maintained. A shorter period would require further traffic restrictions.

  A change to a lane-rental scheme now would involve additional cost and delay.

  AIDS
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has any plans to arrange for staff of his Department to be screened for antibodies to human immunodeficiency virus.

  Mr. Moore
  [pursuant to his reply, 30 March 1987, c. 373]: No.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether any current or former staff of his Department have been found to have developed AIDS or antibodies to human immunodeficiency virus.

  Mr. Moore
  [pursuant to his reply, 30 March 1987, c. 373]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Health on Wednesday 22 April at column 628.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he has taken to ensure that staff of his Department are warned about those homosexual and other activities which are deemed to involve a high risk of AIDS infection.

  Mr. Moore
  [pursuant to his reply, 30 March 1987, c. 373]: In April 1986 the Management and Personnel Office, after consulting the Chief Medical Officer, DHSS, circulated all Departments with guidance to managers and model notes for staff. My Department drew on those notes in providing notes for staff. I understand that copies of the guidance and model notes are available in the Library of the House. I expect to issue further guidance, drawing on the Department of Employment/HSE book "AIDS and Employment" shortly.

  Drink-driving
  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many road users, including pedestrians, pedal cyclists and children, were killed or injured on the roads by drivers with a raised blood alcohol level, and if he will provide distributions of casualties and rates by hour of day, for 1975 and 1985 separately, for (a) Scotland (b) England and Wales.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [pursuant to his reply, 28 April 1987, c. 71]: The requested information has been tabulated. Because of its bulk, I have asked for it to be placed in the Library. Where the tables refer to "drink-drive" accidents, this means accidents where one or more drivers have failed a breath test or failed to provide a breath specimen.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Semiconductors and Circuit Boards
  Mr. Richard Page
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the current position over the different import duties on semiconductors and built-up circuit boards.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The United Kingdom has long pressed for a reduction in the excessive level of import duty on semiconductors, with some success; the Community tariff on individual components was reduced from 17 per cent. to 14 per cent. during 1986. We hope to secure a further reduction during the Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations.

  Riding Hats (Korea)
  Mr. Greenway
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he is taking to stop the importation of substandard riding hats from the Republic of Korea and other countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  We have introduced the Consumer Protection Bill which is now before the House, and which contains provisions to enable the extension of sound modern standards of safety to all consumer goods, whether imported or not, through a general safety requirement.

  English Estates
  Mr. Couchman
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about English Estates' investment plans in the current financial year and the provisional outturn for 1986–87.

  Mr. Giles Shaw
  I am pleased to announce that in this financial year English Estates should be able substantially to increase its investment in the assisted areas compared with last year. The precise amount to he invested by the corporation will be determined by how much it can generate from factory sales and rents, but the Government will be contributing grant-in-aid of £13 million towards the total. I have told English Estates that on this basis I will require them to generate sufficient resources to fund at least £37 million of investment in the assisted areas. In practice I expect the corporation to exceed this figure and I have given the board permission to invest up to £47 million if it can generate the necessary funds from its own resources. English Estates will need to be satisfied that there is a real demand for this increased investment, that it satisfies its customary value-for-money requirements and that it will not crowd out similar investment that could have been undertaken by the private sector.

  Last year English Estates invested £33·5 million in the assisted areas, which was £1·5 million more than I had required. The corporation spent a further £2 million on the redevelopment of Chatham dockyard. The momentum of the Chatham development will be maintained in the current year without affecting the programme in the assisted areas, but I expect that the private sector will play an increasing part in funding this project over the next few years.

  United Kingdom Engineering Contracts (Switzerland)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list such information as is available to him on the number of British firms which have obtained major engineering contracts with: (a) the Swiss Government and (b) the Swiss National Railways in the last three years.

  Mr. Giles Shaw
  This information is not readily available within my Department, and could be obtained in the form requested only at disproportionate cost. Nor has it been possible for our consulate general in Zurich to obtain figures for purchases by the Swiss Government or the Swiss National Railways.

  Computers
  Mr. Coombs
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list those companies to which his

  217
  Department has awarded contracts for the supply of word processing hardware and software in each year since 1984; and what was the value of each contract.

  Mr. Butcher
  The main suppliers of dedicated word processing hardware and software to the Department of Trade and Industry, central purchasing organisation since 1984 have been: BT (Merlin), GEC Reliance, ICL, Logica VTS, Olympia and Thorn EMI. The details of contracts placed are subject to commercial confidentiality.

  Mr. Coombs
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much his Department has spent on (a) word processing hardware and (b) word processing software in each year since 1984; and what is the projected expenditure for financial years 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Butcher
  Expenditure by the central purchasing organisation of the Department of Trade and Industry on word processing hardware and software since 1984 has been, or is estimated to be, as follows:

  £

  1984–85

  556,000

  1985–86

  361,000

  1986–87

  234,000

  1987–88

  300,000

  1988–89

  350,000

  The cost of word processing software is normally included in the price of dedicated word processors. The Department has also purchased microcomputers and other hardware for other applications. A small but unspecified amount of word processing is carried out as a secondary function on some of this hardware.

  Mr. Coombs
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list those companies to which his Department has awarded contracts for the supply of desktop publishing hardware and software in each year since 1984; and what was the value of each contract.

  Mr. Butcher
  The central purchasing organisation of the Department of Trade and Industry did not purchase any desktop publishing hardware or software in the years 1984–85 or 1985–86. Limited purchasing took place in 1986–87 but the names of the companies concerned cannot be disclosed because of commercial confidentiality.

  Distribution of total income1 in 1987–88 for taxpaying single people and married couples with investment income of more than £500 per annum

  Numbers of incomes (thousands)

  Total income1 (lower limit)

  Tax units2 aged under 653

  Tax units2 aged 65 and over3

  £ per annum

  Single people

  Married couples with no wife's earned income

  Married couples with wife's earned income

  Single people

  Married couples with no wife's earned income

  Married couples with wife's earned income

  2,000

  160

  negligible

  negligible

  180

  negligible

  negligible

  5,000

  90

  30

  20

  130

  110

  20

  7,000

  110

  60

  60

  130

  80

  70

  10,000

  40

  50

  60

  50

  30

  30

  12,000

  60

  50

  110

  50

  30

  40

  15,000

  80

  60

  270

  40

  30

  50

  20,000

  60

  90

  310

  30

  30

  60

  30,000

  30

  70

  210

  10

  20

  20

  50,000

  10

  30

  60

  10

  10

  10

  1 Gross income for income tax purposes.

  2 Counting each married couple as one unit and combining the partners' incomes.

  3 A married couple is taken to be aged 65 or over if at least one partner is aged 65 or over.

  218
  Mr. Coombs
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much his Department has spent on (a) desktop publishing hardware and (b) desktop publishing software in each year since 1984; and what is projected expenditure for financial years 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Butcher
  Expenditure by the central purchasing organisation of the Department of Trade and Industry on desktop publishing hardware and software since 1984 has been, or is estimated to be, as follows:

  £

  1984–85

  Nil

  1985–86

  Nil

  1986–87

  28,000

  1987–88

  70,000

  1988–89

  50,000

  The cost of desktop publishing software was included in the price of the hardware purchases and is not separately identifiable in the projected expenditure.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Unearned Income
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, further to the reply dated 8 April, Official Report, columns 267–9, concerning the income distribution of those of working age with unearned income, whether he will provide figures for the tax yield in the case of those with unearned income of more than £500 a year; and if he will provide like figures for those over working age.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The tables provide provisional estimates for 1987–88 of single people and married couples with investment income of more than £500 per annum, and their total income tax liabilities. Estimates for ranges other than the higher income ranges are likely to be incomplete as tax offices do not need to have comprehensive information about individuals' investment income on which the liability to basic rate tax has been satisfied at source.
  219

  Total income tax liabilities in 1987–88 for single people and married couples with investment incomes of more than £500 per annum

  (£ million)

  Total income1 (lower limit)

  Tax units2 aged under 653

  Tax units2 aged 65 and over3

  £ per annum

  Single people

  Married couples with no wife's earned income

  Married couples with wife's earned income

  Single people

  Married couples with no wife's earned income

  Married couples with wife's earned income

  2,000

  40

  negligible

  negligible

  40

  negligible

  negligible

  5,000

  70

  20

  10

  100

  40

  negligible

  7,000

  160

  50

  40

  190

  90

  50

  10,000

  80

  80

  60

  110

  50

  50

  12,000

  170

  110

  190

  150

  80

  70

  15,000

  280

  190

  690

  170

  120

  150

  20,000

  340

  470

  1,450

  200

  180

  260

  30,000

  300

  760

  1,910

  160

  180

  180

  50,000

  410

  1,190

  1,640

  180

  260

  230

  1 Gross income for income tax purposes.

  2 Counting each married couple as one unit and combining the partners' incomes.

  3 A married couple is taken to be aged 65 or over if at least one partner is aged 65 or over.

  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will provide an estimate of the saving to the Exchequer in a full year at the proposed rates of tax for 1987–88 of offsetting investment income against mortgage interest payments for relief from income tax.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The extent of any saving would depend upon the precise rules proposed for offsetting investment income against payments of mortgage interest and, in particular, on the way in which this restriction would impinge on the system of mortgage interest relief at source (MIRAS).

  Mortgage Advances by Building Societies

  Year

  Advances for all purposes net of repayments

  Gross advances for all purposes

  of which: Gross advances for purchase of dwellings

  Total estimated purchase price of dwellings on which advances in C were made

  C as A percentage of D

  (A)

  (B)

  (C)

  (D)

  (E)

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  per cent.

  1983

  10,928

  19,263

  17,197

  25,119

  68·5

  1984

  14,572

  24,034

  21,537

  31,522

  68·3

  1985

  14,711

  26,491

  23,275

  33,405

  69·7

  1986

  19,072

  36,619

  31,407

  45,055

  69·7

  Sources:

  Financial Statistics—Tables 7·6 and 7·8.

  Housing and Construction Statistics—Tables 1·9 and 1·13.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. McTaggart
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration is being given to ensure that sufficient facilities exist for customs clearance in Glasgow in relation to the Channel tunnel.

  Mr. Peter Brooke
  By using the normal transit procedures available for imports or exports, Channel tunnel freight traffic will be able to obtain Customs clearance at any approved inland clearance depot. Such depots are provided by commercial operators subject to approval by Customs who take into consideration the expected volume of business, the availability of other clearance facilities in the vicinity and the effective and economical use of Customs staff. There is an approved inland clearance depot in the Glasgow area.
  220
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will bring up to date the information on mortgages and the price of dwellings referred to in the reply of 26 July 1985, Official Report, column 873; and if he will add a forecast for 1987.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [pursuant to his reply, 5 May 1987, c. 327]: Information for 1983 to 1986 is in the table. A forecast for 1987 is not available.

  On the assumption that mortgage interest rates remain at 11·25 per cent. for the rest of 1987–88, the cost of mortgage interest relief in 1987–88 is forecast to be £4,750 million, equivalent to about £570 per mortgagor

  Advertising
  Mr. Hanley
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many occasions his Department sponsored advertisements in national newspapers in the last three years; which newspapers were chosen for these campaigns; which local newspapers were used in these campaigns; and which newspaper publishing groups received payment for advertising space.

  Mr. Brooke
  In addition to ongoing recruitment advertising, the Treasury has sponsored an advertising campaign on two occasions in the last three years. These were for the Britoil 1985 and Cable and Wireless 1985 Government share sales. Tables giving the newspapers used, and the respective publishing groups, are as follows:
  221

  Recruitment Advertising

  Name of Newspaper

  Name of Publishing Group

  National newspapers

  Nil

  Nil

  Local Newspapers

  Kentish Times

  Westminster Press

  South London Press

  South London Press Ltd.

  Manchester Evening News

  Guardian and Manchester Evening News Plc.

  Brentford Chiswick and Isleworth Times

  Dimbleby and Sons Ltd.

  South Essex Recorder

  Recorder Group

  South Yorkshire Times

  Doncaster Free Press Group

  Waltham Forest Guardian

  Electrical Press Group

  Economist

  Economist Newspaper Ltd.

  Barnsley Chronicle

  Barnsley Chronicle Ltd.

  Westminster and Pimlico News

  London Newspaper Group

  Girl About town

  Girl About Town Magazine Ltd.

  Western Evening Herald

  n.a.

  Western Morning News

  n.a.

  Yorkshire Evening Post

  Yorkshire Post Newspapers

  Fulham Chronicle

  London and Westminster Newspapers

  Richmond and Twickenham Guardian

  n.a.

  Ealing and Chiswick Guardian

  South London Guardian Group

  Camden New Journal

  n.a.

  Camden and St. Pancras Chronicle

  Hackney Gazette Ltd.

  Hackney Gazette and North London Advertiser

  Hackney Gazette Ltd.

  Kensington and Chelsea Times

  Metropolitan Communications Ltd.

  Gloucestershire Echo

  Cheltenham Newspaper Ltd.

  Biggleswade Chronicle

  Bedford County Press

  Surrey Advertiser

  LA Cade Partnership

  The Citizen

  Gloucestershire Newspapers Ltd.

  Bicester Review

  Bucks and Herts Newspaper Ltd.

  Basingstoke Gazette

  Bird Bros. Ltd.

  Edinburgh Evening News

  n.a.

  Bicester Advertiser

  Oxford and County Newspapers

  Caterer and Hotelkeeper

  Consumer Industries Press

  Scotsman

  Scotsman Publications

  Glasgow Herald

  George Outram and Co. Ltd.

  Bristol Evening Post

  n.a.

  Bath and West Evening Chronicle

  Wessex Newspapers

  The News

  Portsmouth and Sunderland Newspapers Ltd.

  Liverpool Echo

  Liverpool Daily Post and Echo Ltd.

  Evening News and Star

  n.a.

  Worcester Evening News

  n.a.

  Malvern Gazette

  Berrows Newspapers Ltd.

  Berrows Journal

  Berrows Newspapers Ltd.

  Borehamwood Elstree and Edgeware Post

  n.a.

  Buckingham and Winslow Advertiser

  Bucks and Herts Newspaper Ltd.

  Oxford Star

  Oxford and County Newspapers

  Cheltenham and Gloucester Echo

  n.a.

  Falkirk Herald

  Johnston (Falkirk) Ltd.

  Fulham Guardian

  South London Guardian Group

  West London Guardian

  n.a.

  West London Recorder

  n.a.

  Basingstoke Gazette Extra

  Bird Bros. Ltd.

  Wandsworth and Putney Advertiser

  n.a.

  Glasgow South and Eastwood Extra

  n.a.

  Lancashire World

  n.a.

  Hamilton Advertiser

  Scottish and Universal Newspapers

  222

  Name of Newspaper

  Name of Publishing Group

  Glasgow Evening Times

  n.a.

  Liverpool Daily Post

  Liverpool Daily Post and Echo Ltd.

  Sevenoaks Chronicle

  Sevenoaks Chronicle Ltd.

  Bromley Times

  London and Westminster Press Ltd.

  St. Albans and District Observer

  Westminster Press Ltd.

  London Standard

  Express Newspapers

  Cable and Wireless Share Sale 1985

  Name of Newspapers

  Name of Publishing Group

  National Newspaper

  Sunday Times

  News Group Newspapers

  Observer

  Observer Ltd.

  Sunday Express

  Express Newspapers

  Sunday Telegraph

  Sunday Telegraph plc

  Financial Times

  FT Ltd. (Pearsons plc)

  Daily Telegraph

  Daily Telegraph plc

  Times

  News Group

  Daily Mail

  Associated Newspapers Group

  Daily Express

  Express Newspapers

  Guardian

  Guardian and Manchester Evening News Ltd.

  Local Newspapers

  Standard

  Express Newspapers

  Scotsman

  Scotsman Publications

  Glasgow Herald

  George Outram & Co. Ltd.

  Belfast Telegraph

  Belfast Telegraph Newspapers Ltd.

  Birmingham Post

  Birmingham Post and Mail Group

  Daily Post

  Liverpool Daily Post and Echo Ltd.

  Aberdeen Press & Journal

  Aberdeen Journal Ltd.

  Dundee Courier

  D. C Thomson & Co. Ltd.

  Morning Telegraph (Sheffield)

  n.a.

  Yorkshire Post

  Yorkshire Post Newspapers

  Western Mail

  Western Mail and Echo Ltd.

  Periodicals

  Economist

  Economist Newspapers Ltd.

  Investors Chronicle

  Financial Times Business Publishing Ltd.

  Financial Weekly

  Financial Weekly Ltd.

  Britoil Share Sale 1985

  Name of Newspaper

  Name of Publishing Group

  National Newspapers

  Daily Telegraph

  Daily Telegraph plc.

  Financial times

  FT Ltd. (Pearson plc.)

  The Times

  News Group Newspapers

  Guardian

  Guardian and Manchester Evening News Ltd.

  Daily Express

  Express Newspapers

  Daily Mail

  Associated Newspapers Group

  Sunday Express

  Express Newspapers

  Sunday Telegraph

  Sunday Telegraph plc.

  Sunday Times

  News Group Newspapers

  Observer

  Observer Ltd.

  Mail on Sunday

  Associated Newspapers Group

  Local Newspapers

  Standard

  Express Newspapers

  Aberdeen Press and Journal

  Aberdeen Journals Ltd.

  Glasgow Herald

  George Outram and Co. Ltd.

  Scotsman

  Scotsman Publications

  Dundee Courier

  D. C. Thomson and Co. Ltd.

  223

  Name of Newspaper

  Name of Publishing Group

  Belfast Telegraph

  Belfast Telegraph Newspapers Ltd.

  Birmingham Post

  Birmingham Post and Mail Group

  Yorkshire Post

  Yorkshire Post Newspapers Ltd.

  Belfast newsletter

  Century Newspapers Ltd.

  Manchester Evening News

  Manchester Evening News Ltd.

  Western Daily Press

  Bristol United Press Ltd.

  Periodicals

  Investors Chronicle

  FT Business Publishing Ltd.

  Economist

  Economist Newspaper Ltd.

  International Newspapers

  International Herald Tribune

  n.a.

  Wall Street Journal (Europe)

  n.a.

  Computers
  Mr. Coombs
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those companies that have been awarded contracts for the supply of word processing hardware and software in each year since 1984 by (a) Her Majesty's Treasury, (b) the Board if Inland Revenue and (c) Her Majesty's Customs and Excise; and what was the value of contract.

  Mr. Brooke
  Her Majesty's Treasury has not purchased any dedicated word processing hardware since 1984, other than a small number of portable text processors and associated printers from Thorn EMI. Total : value in :

  £

  1984–85

  —

  1985–86

  30,000

  1986–87

  25,000

  Word processing software has been purchased from Casu, Comart, IBM and International Software Ltd. Total value in:

  £

  1984–85

  1,000

  1985–86

  500

  1986–87

  1,000

  For reasons of commercial confidentiality, details of individual contracts cannot be given.

  The Board of Inland Revenue awarded contracts for word processing equipment to IBM(UK) Ltd (directly and via various dealers), and ICL, in the years mentioned. In year 1986–87 contracts were also awarded via HMSO to Amstrad and Olivetti. Total value in:

  Hardware

  Software

  £

  £

  1984–85

  214,000

  12,000

  1985–86

  208,200

  13,500

  1986–87

  89,200

  22,700

  For reasons of commercial confidentiality, details of individual contracts cannot be given.

  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise awarded contracts for word processing software and hardware as follows:
  224

  Companies (purchased via HMSO)

  Total Amount

  £

  1984–85

  Olivetti, AES, Exxon, Rank Xerox.

  103,000

  1985–86

  Olivetti, AES, Rank Xerox, Ferranti, Facit, Silver Reed.

  165,620

  1986–87

  Olivetti, AES, Rank Xerox, Ferranti.

  262,500

  Hardware and software were purchased together on one contract and it is impossible to show them separately.

  For reasons of commercial confidentiality, details of individual contracts cannot be given.

  Mr. Coombs
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much (a) Her Majesty's Treasury, (b) the Board of Inland Revenue and (c) Her Majesty's Customs and Excise have spent on (i) word processing hardware and (ii) word processing software in each year since 1984; and what is the projected expenditure for the financial years 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Brooke
  Her Majesty's Treasury's spend on word processing hardware and software is as follows:

  Hardware

  Software

  £

  £

  1984–85

  Nil

  1,000

  1985–86

  30,000

  500

  1986–87

  25,000

  1,000

  The Treasury has no plans to purchase any dedicated word processors in 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  The Board of Inland Revenue's spend on word processing hardware and software is as follows:

  Hardware

  Software

  £

  £

  1984–85

  214,000

  12,000

  1985–86

  208,200

  13,500

  1986–87

  89,200

  22,700

  Projected spend:

  1987–88

  138,900

  24,500

  1988–89

  200,000

  20,000

  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise spend on word processing hardware and software is as follows:

  £

  1984–85

  103,000

  1985–86

  165,620

  1986–87

  262,500

  Projected spend:

  1987–88

  160,000

  1988–89

  160,000

  Hardware and software were purchased together on one contract and it is impossible to show them separately.

  Mr. Coombs
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those companies that have been awarded contracts for the supply of desk top publishing equipment in each year since 1984 by (a) Her Majesty's Treasury, ( b) the Board of Inland Revenue and (c) Her Majesty's Customs and Excise; and what was the value of each contract.

  Mr. Brooke
  Her Majesty's Treasury has placed contracts with Apple Computers (UK) Ltd., Gestetner
  225
  Ltd., Compel, Action Data, Artificial Intelligence Ltd., Computerland, Jarrold Office Equipment and Rank Xerox for desk top publishing equipment in the years mentioned. Total value in:

  £

  1984–85

  20,900

  1985–86

  220

  1986–87

  54,880

  For reasons of commercial confidentiality, details of individual contracts cannot be given.

  The Board of Inland Revenue placed contracts with ICL, Norsk Data, Scandata, Linotron and Apple for desk top publishing equipment in the years mentioned. Total value in:

  Hardware

  Software

  £

  £

  1984–85

  21,000

  4,000

  1985–86

  1265,800

  —

  1986–87

  13,300

  1,000

  1Including software.

  For reasons of commercial confidentiality, details of individual contracts cannot be given.

  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise placed contracts with Gestetner via HMSO. Total value in:

  £

  1984–85

  0

  1985–86

  0

  1986–87

  1742,400

  1Including software.

  For reasons of commercial confidentiality, details of individual contracts cannot be given.

  Mr. Coombs
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much (a) Her Majesty's Treasury, (b) the Board of Inland Revenue and (c) Her Majesty's Customs and Excise have spent on (i) desk top publishing hardware and (ii) desk top publishing software in each year since 1984; and what is the projected expenditure for the financial years 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Brooke
  Her Majesty's Treasury spent the following on desk top publishing hardware and software:

  £

  1984–85

  20,900

  1985–86

  220

  1986–87

  54,880

  The Treasury has no firm plans to purchase any desk top publishing equipment in 1987–88and 1988–89.

  The Board of Inland Revenue spent the following on desk top publishing hardware and software:

  Hardware

  Software

  £

  £

  1984–85

  21,000

  4,000

  1985–86

  1265,000

  —

  1986–87

  13,300

  1,000

  Projected spend:

  1987–88

  197,100

  18,600

  1988–89

  1450,000

  —

  1Including software

  A study is currently taking place which may have an effect on the totals shown in 1987–88 and 1988–89.
  226
  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise spent the following on desk top hardware and software:

  £

  1984–85

  0

  1985–86

  0

  1986–87

  142,400

  Projected spend:

  1987–88

  150,000

  1988–89

  150,000

  1Including software

  Earned Income
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, further to his reply dated 8 April, Official Report, columns 264–66, showing the distribution of total incomes by tax category and income range, he will publish in the Official Report a table showing on the same basis the number of tax units with earned income.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Nearly all single people and married couples who pay tax have some source of earned income (including pensions). The estimates by range of total income provided in the earlier reply would not therefore change if restricted to tax units with earned income.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, pursuant to his reply dated 6 April, Official Report, column 74, showing the average unearned income and average amount of mortgage interest relief in each income band at higher rates, he will publish in the Official Report the number of incomes in each of these two categories in the same detail.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I shall let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as possible.

  Private Schools
  Mr. Radice
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much tax revenue it is estimated his Department loses as a result of the charitable status enjoyed by private schools.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I shall let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as possible.

  Consignments (Customs Clearance)
  Mr. Tim Smith
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will amend the Customs requirements for express parcels services to reflect the transit times demanded by the international business community.

  Mr. Brooke
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 May 1987, c. 433]: There are no plans to amend the Customs requirements so as to provide exceptional treatment for express parcels services.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will instruct Her Majesty's Customs and Excise to review its treatment of express parcels.

  Mr. Brooke
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 May 1987, c. 433]: Customs already reviews its procedures when necessary, especially in the light of any international proposal for change. I have no plans to ask Customs to carry out a special review.
  227
  Mr. Tim Smith
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received regarding the Customs treatment of express parcel services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 May 1987, c. 433]: I have received very few representations about the Customs treatment of express parcels. Customs has regular meetings with the trade associations concerned and it is aware of the importance of the rapid and efficient clearance of this traffic.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to support the principle of rapid Customs clearance for urgent consignments in meetings of the Customs Co-operation Council.

  Mr. Brooke
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 May 1987, c. 433]: At meetings of the Customs Co-operation Council and elsewhere, the United Kingdom supports the principle of rapid clearance for all goods, consistent with the need for adequate Customs control and the efficient use of resources.

  Express Mail (Customs Duties)
  Mr. Tim Smith
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received a copy of the recent survey conducted by Peat Marwick. McLintock into the Customs collection of duty and value added tax on items shipped by expressed mail; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 May 1987, c. 433–34]: Customs received a copy of the survey recently. Its contents are being considered.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Health Care Research
  Mr. Raynsford
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services in which specific areas of health care research reductions in expenditure have been planned in the financial year 1987–88.

  Mrs. Currie
  We have no such plans.

  Chiropodists (West Essex)
  Mr. Hayes
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has to improve the provision of chiropodists in the West Essex health authority.

  Mr. Newton
  The provision of chiropody services is a responsibility of the West Essex health authority and my hon. Friend may care to write to its chairman about the authority's plans. However, I understand that the West Essex health authority plans to recruit a number of chiropodists to improve the service provided to the district in the near future.

  Hepatitis
  Mr. Simon Hugh
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey of 23 March, Official Report, column 82, what advice he has issued or intends to issue to health authorities on the vaccination of their staff against hepatitis; and if he will make a statement.
  228
  Mr. Newton
  I cannot add to the reply I gave the hon. Member on 23 March at column 82. We shall issue advice as soon as we are in a position to do so.

  Advertisements
  Mr. Hanley
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services on how many occasions his Department sponsored advertisements in national newspapers in the last three years; which newspapers were chosen for these campaigns; which local newspapers were used in these campaigns; and which newspaper publishing groups received payment for advertising space.

  Mr. Newton
  The information is not readily available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, the selection of media used in the Department's campaigns is on the basis of the most cost-effective means of reaching target audiences. For some local campaigns, local newspapers can play an important role and are included in the schedule. Examples of such campaigns include blood donors, the latest phases of the AIDS campaign and the winter campaign to publicise the extra help available towards heating costs.

  AIDS
  Mr. Greenway
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what allowances are being authorised for dentists to equip themselves suitably to deal with AIDS and potential AIDS sufferers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  Simple procedures such as the use of fresh disposable needles, proper sterilisation of all non-disposable instruments and the wearing of gloves by the dentist and all staff assisting at the chairside, should he routinely employed for all patients seeking dental treatment. Guidance to this effect was issued to all dentists in April of last year by the chief dental officer. The costs of these procedures, like all other practice expenses, are reimbursed indirectly through the fees paid to dentists for the treatment they provide.

  Mr. Meacher
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish in the Official Report the percentage of households which have received the Government's AIDS leaflet to date.

  Mr. Newton
  [pursuant to his reply, 7 May 1987, c. 504]: Research carried out for the Department has shown that 93 per cent. of households received the AIDS leaflet by direct delivery. This figure is recognised as a very high level of performance and was only achieved through the excellent co-operation of the Post Office and its staff.

  The greatest delivery problems for the Post Office related to dwellings over shops and to conversions where occupier contact was difficult to establish.

  To ensure the widest access to the leaflet, additional copies were made available through main post offices, citizens advice bureaux and other organisations.

  Computers
  Mr. Coombs
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will list those companies that his Department has awarded contracts for the supply of word processing hardware and software in each year since 1984; and what was the value of each contract;
  229
  (2) how much his Department has spent on (a) word processing hardware and (b) word processing software in each year since 1984; and what is the projected expenditure for the financial years 1987–88 and 1988–89;

  (3) if he will list those companies that his Department has awarded contracts for the supply of desk top publishing hardware and software in each year since 1984; and what was the value of each contract;

  (4) how much his Department has spent on (a) desk top publishing hardware and (b) desk top publishing software in each year since 1984; and what is projected expenditure for the financial years 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Lyell
  The companies awarded contracts for the supply of systems procured principally or exclusively for word processing for each year since 1984 are:

  1984–85

  OEM

  Wordplex

  Data Recall

  Xerox

  British Olivetti

  CPT ITL

  Philips

  ICL

  1985–86

  Wang

  OEM

  Wordplex

  Canon

  Keyword System

  British Olivetti

  Kalle Infotec

  Thorn-EMI

  Microvitec

  1986–87

  IBM

  Sumlock

  Wang

  Diamond

  Thorn-EMI

  Ferranti Olivetti

  Wordplex

  Canon

  ITL

  GEC Reliance

  1987–88

  Adler

  GEC Reliance

  ICL

  Wang

  IBM

  Olivetti

  Thorn-EMI

  The value of each contract is not disclosed. It would be improper for reasons of commercial confidentiality to do so. The overall expenditure with all companies for each year is:

  £

  1984–85

  273,910

  1985–86

  676,458

  1986–87

  669,641

  11987–88

  232,549

  1Thus far.

  Separate figures for hardware and software cannot be given as contracts were generally placed for integrated packages.

  The projected expenditure on word processing is:
  230

  £

  Remainder of

  1987–88

  959,000

  1988–89

  1,009,000

  No contracts have been awarded in the period since 1984 for desk top publishing hardware and software, though we have allocated approximately £22,000 for hardware and £1,000 for software purchasing during the remainder of this financial year. No further estimates of projected expenditure for 1988–89 have been made.

  Health Authorities
  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give for each area health authority the district health authorities into which it was divided in 1982.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information requested by the hon. Member is set out in schedule 1 part 2 and schedule 3 of the National Health Service (Determination of Districts) Order 1981; Statutory Instrument 1981 No. 1837. A copy is available in the Library.

  Benefit Overpayment (Wick)
  Mr. Maclennan
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services why, in view of the recommendation which the social security appeal tribunal held in Wick on 20 November 1986, made in the case of a constituent of the hon. Member for Caithness and Suntherland (Tribunal Registration No. 2/06) that he should not recover an overpayment which had arisen, his Department is seeking to do so; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lyell
  Questions as to whether an overpayment of benefit has occurred and whether the overpayment is recoverable are for the independent adjudicating authorities to decide. Once they have decided that an overpayment is recoverable, it is for the Secretary of State to decide whether recovery should be pursued. In the case to which the hon. Member refers the tribunal decided that his constituent had been overpaid and that the amount was recoverable. I have written to the hon. Member further to my letter of 27 April about his constituent's case.

  Benefits
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will provide his latest available figure for the numbers of people claiming social security benefits for each Department of Health and Social Security office in Scotland.

  Mr. Lyell
  I shall let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as possible.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will publish details of the changes in total statutory sick pay and sickness benefit expenditure on short-term sickness in each year from 1983–84 to 1986–87 that resulted from the introduction of statutory sick pay and the April 1986 changes showing, as far as possible (a) expenditure changes that resulted from the replacement of sickness benefit rates with a different structure of statutory sick pay rates, (b) expenditure changes that resulted from administrative changes,

  231
  (c) estimated revenue from statutory sick pay tax and national insurance liability and (d) the expenditure effects of other changes;

  (2) if he will publish details of total expenditure on short-term sickness in each year from 1979–80 to 1986–87 showing, as far as possible (a) a breakdown of expenditure between sickness benefit and statutory sick pay, (b) a breakdown between administrative costs and actual payments of the two types of support, (c) the average weekly payment made under the two types of provision and (d) supplementary benefit and related housing benefit expenditure on the short-term sick;

  (3) if he will publish details of claims for statutory sick pay and expenditure on statutory sick pay for each year

  Expenditure on Short-term Sickness

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Sickness benefit expenditure (£m)

  660

  650

  680

  550

  270

  280

  280

  160

  Statutory sick pay expenditure (£m)1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  440

  520

  560

  680

  Expenditure on supplementary benefit and housing benefit to the short-term sick (£m)2

  20

  40

  40

  60

  80

  100

  110

  100

  Total expenditure (£m)

  680

  690

  720

  610

  790

  900

  950

  940

  Average weekly payment of sickness benefit (£)

  25·62

  28·81

  29·28

  26·88

  29·87

  29·70

  33·06

  31·67

  Standard rate weekly payment of SSP (£)3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  40·25

  42·25

  44·35

  46·75

  Number of SSP payments4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5M

  5·7M

  5·9M

  —

  Overpayments of SSP5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  400,000

  450,000

  430,000

  Underpayments of SSP (£)5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  190,000

  200,000

  160,000

  1The expenditure figures are for benefit only. The 1986–87 figures are estimates.

  2Estimated.

  3Information is not available of the average weekly payment of SSP, but it is estimated that about 85 per cent, are paid at the standard rate. These are the amounts shown.

  4These figures relate to the number of individual tax documents showing SSP as having been paid. They do not therefore take account of more than one spell of SSP by a person with the same employer in a tax year.

  5Information about the extent of overpayments and underpayments of SSP was not collected prior to September 1984. The 1984–85 and 1986–87 figures relate to only three quarters.

  Overseas Doctors Association
  Mr. Peter Bruinvels
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he last met the Overseas Doctors Association: what was discussed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  Ministers from this Department have met the Overseas Doctors Association on several occasions. My right hon. Friend has not yet met the association but is scheduled to do so shortly.

  Mr. Peter Bruinvels
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received from the Overseas Doctors Association about its financial position.

  Mr. Newton
  The Department provides an annual grant to the Overseas Doctors Association under section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968. The level of the grant is periodically reviewed. We are not aware of having received any representations from the association about its financial position.
  232
  of its operation showing, as far as possible (a) the total number of claims and payments made, (b) the extent of overpayment and underpayment by employers, (c) total expenditure on the scheme, (d) a breakdown of this expenditure between statutory sick pay payments and administrative costs and (e) an estimate of the costs of statutory sick pay payments net of tax and national insurance revenue.

  Mr. Lyell
  [pursuant to his reply, 5 May 1987, c. 370]: Information to enable an analysis to be provided in :he detail requested is not readily available and could be produced only at disproportionate cost. The available information is shown in the table.

  Institute of Transcultural Health Care
  Mr. Peter Bruinvels
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will seek to meet representatives of the Institute of Transcultural Health Care, Leicester, to discuss its aims for health care.

  Mr. Newton
  We are aware of the welcome initiative taken by the Overseas Doctors Association in establishing this Institute and any request for a meeting would be considered sympathetically.

  X-ray Screening Units
  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many mobile X-ray screening units are operating within the National Health Service; and if he will list them by region.

  Mrs. Currie
  This information is not available centrally.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the total number of beds in each area health authority in 1979.
  233
  Mrs. Currie
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Average daily number of available beds by area health authority, England, 1979

  Area Health Authority

  Number

  Northern RHA

  Cleveland

  3,830·7

  Cumbria

  3,575·6

  Durham

  5,139·8

  Northumberland

  3,995·8

  Gateshead

  1,368·2

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  3,479·2

  North Tyneside

  719·0

  South Tyneside

  770·7

  Sunderland

  2,426·3

  Yorkshire RHA

  Humberside

  6,119·0

  North Yorkshire

  5,105·8

  Bradford

  4,249·6

  Calderdale

  1,370·2

  Kirklees

  3,401·8

  Leeds

  6,238·8

  Wakefield

  3,460·4

  Trent RHA

  Derbyshire

  5,930·2

  Leicestershire

  5,140·2

  Lincolnshire

  4,708·5

  Nottinghamshire

  6,597·9

  Barnsley

  962·1

  Doncaster

  1,808·4

  Rotherham

  1,331·1

  Sheffield

  5,233·3

  East Anglian RHA

  Cambridgeshire

  3,522·4

  Norfolk

  5,609·9

  Suffolk

  3,961·3

  North West Thames RHA

  Bedfordshire

  2,885·8

  Hertfordshire

  7,350·2

  Barnet

  2,840·7

  Brent/Harrow

  3,224·0

  Ealing/Hammersmith/Hounslow

  4,397·0

  Hillingdon

  1,627·5

  Kensington and Chelsea/Westminster

  5,579·3

  North East Thames RHA

  Essex

  9,749·0

  Barking/Havering

  3,283·2

  Camden/Islington

  4,483·3

  City and East London

  4,492·2

  Enfield/Haringey

  2,469·6

  Redbridge/Waltham Forest

  4,965·5

  South East Thames RHA

  East Sussex

  4,674·9

  Kent

  11,725·2

  Green wich/Bexley

  3,430·1

  Bromley

  2,590·8

  Lambeth/Southwark/Lewisham

  5,986·9

  South West Thames RHA

  Surrey

  10,891·5

  West Sussex

  3,763·7

  Croydon

  3,191·8

  Kingston/Richmond

  2,104·7

  Merton/Sutton/Wandsworth

  6,290·3

  Wessex RHA

  Dorset

  3,830·2

  Hampshire

  8,724·5

  Wiltshire

  5,520·5

  Isle of Wight

  946·0

  234

  Area Health Authority

  Number

  Oxford RHA

  Berkshire

  4,760·7

  Buckinghamshire

  2,649·8

  Northamptonshire

  2,965·5

  Oxfordshire

  3,288·4

  South Western RHA

  Avon

  7,419·6

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  2,670·2

  Devon

  7,715·1

  Gloucestershire

  3,173·7

  Somerset

  3,477·7

  West Midlands RHA

  Hereford and Worcester

  5,397·6

  Salop

  2,602·5

  Staffordshire

  6,377·3

  Warwickshire

  3,605·6

  Birmingham

  9,960·7

  Coventry

  1,871·3

  Dudley

  1,491·8

  Sandwell

  747·2

  Solihull

  904·8

  Walsall

  1,761·9

  Wolverhampton

  1,542·6

  Mersey RHA

  Cheshire

  9,356·0

  Liverpool

  5,573·7

  St. Helens with Knowsley

  1,183·6

  Sefton

  3,078·8

  Wirral

  2,789·4

  North Western RHA

  Lancashire

  13,193·5

  Bolton

  1,360·8

  Bury

  716·2

  Manchester

  5,585·0

  Oldham

  1,044·9

  Rochdale

  953·1

  Salford

  3,097·6

  Stockport

  1,677·1

  Tameside

  868·9

  Trafford

  835·9

  Wigan

  1,478·5

  Special Health Authorities

  The Hospital for sick children

  517·4

  National Hospital for Nervous Diseases

  356·5

  Royal National Throat, Nose and Ear Hospital

  116·0

  Moorfields Eye Hospital

  207·7

  Maudsley Hospital

  471·9

  St. Johns Hospital for Diseases of the skin

  54·7

  National Heart and Chest Hospitals

  602·9

  Royal National Orthopaedic Hospitals

  330·6

  St. Peter's Hospital Group

  122·7

  Royal Marsden Hospital

  360·7

  Queen Charlotte's Hospital for Women

  277·5

  Eastman Dental

  0·0

  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give (a) the number of acute beds and (b) the total number of beds in hospitals in (i) inner London and (ii) Greater London in both 1979 and in the latest year for which the figures are available.

  Mrs. Currie
  I shall let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as possible.

  Brook Advisory Centre
  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what proposals he has to finance the Brook Advisory Centre, Tottenham Court road, W.C.I.
  235
  Mr. Newton
  We have no such proposals. The Tottenham Court road Brook Advisory Centre receives funding from Bloomsbury health authority and the level of grant is for it to determine.

  Bethlem Royal and Maudsley Special Health Authority
  Ms. Harman
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how much has been made available in the recent allocation to the Bethlem Royal and Maudsley special health authority;

  (2) what is the percentage change between 1986 and the current year in the allocation to the Bethlem Royal and Maudsley special health authority.

  Mrs. Currie
  The Bethlem Royal and Maudsley special health authority was notified on 31 March that its revenue cash limit for 1987–88 was £20,202,000. This sum, which includes £119,000 from the £15 million special fund, represents an increase over 1986–87 of 5·6 per cent. The SHA will be notified shortly of its share of the additional resources we have made available following my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's announcement on the 1987 review body awards.

  Ms. Harman
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will grant an additional allocation for the inherited overspend in the special health authority for the Bethlem Royal and Maudsley.

  Mrs. Currie
  No. Health authorities are required to contain expenditure within their cash limits, and I understand action has been taken by the health authority to enable them to keep within their budget by 31 March 1988.

  Maudsley Hospital
  Ms. Harman
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the terms of the allocation of £200,000 for upgrading and decoration of the wards at Maudsley hospital; and if this sum will be made available annually.

  Mrs. Currie
  The Maudsley hospital is managed by a postgraduate special health authority funded directly by the Department. In light of particular pressures associated with delay in the start of construction of replacement wards, on which work has now begun at a cost of some £3 million, it was possible to allocate an additional £100,000 to effect limited upgrading last year. I understand a similar sum will be found from the authority's "small schemes allocation" this year. Routine maintenance and redecoration are the responsibility of health authorities and must be budgeted within allocated resources.

  NHS Estate
  Mr. Meacher
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the annual expenditure, in 1987 prices, from 1975–76 to date on repair, maintenance and improvement work on the English National Health Service estate; what is his Department's estimate of the expenditure needed to bring the condition of the English National Health Service estate to a fully reconditioned and repaired state, complying with up to date building standards, not including the reconditioning of parts of the estate for which there is no intention to recondition or
  236
  repair, but where the proper course is demolition or disposal, or the expected depreciation of the estate in the current financial year; what is his Department's estimate of the annual expenditure to prevent the English National Health Service estate's condition from deteriorating, excluding those parts of the estate for which there is no intention to recondition or repair, but where the proper course is demolition or otherwise disposal; and what is the capital value of National Health Service buildings in England.

  Mrs. Currie
  I shall let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as possible.

  Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital (Replacement)
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  asked the Secretary of Slate for Social Services when the £40 million for the replacement royal Devon and Exeter hospital, Wonford, will be released to the South-West regional health authority; and what decisions or action, and by whom, has to precede that release.

  Mrs. Currie
  Payment of the Department's contribution of £40 million (1986–87 cash) towards the cost of replacing the royal Devon and Exeter hospital (Wonford) will be phased over a period of eight years commencing in 1988–89 when the main contract is expected to be let. An application from South Western regional health authority for approval in principle to the scheme is currently under discussion. As soon as agreement is reached a formal announcement will be made.

  London Postgraduate Health Authorities
  Mr. Dorrell
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps are being taken to enable the London postgraduate special health authorities to improve their process of strategic planning.

  Mr. Newton
  Our officials will shortly be embarking on a series of special studies with the active co-operation of the special health authorities to see how their planning processes might be improved.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he now expects sections 5, 6 and 7 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 to come into effect; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Major
  I cannot add to my reply to the hon. Member for Caenarfon (Mr. Wigley) on 10 March at column 157 about implementation of sections 5, 6 arid 7 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986.

  Dr. Kevin Browne
  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what post with Cape Industries plc was held by Dr. Kevin Browne subsequent to his appointment as medical officer to the Medical Boarding Centre (Respiratory Diseases) in London;

  (2) whether Dr. K. Browne is still a part-time medical officer to the Medical Boarding Centre (Respiratory Diseases).
  237
  Mr. Major
  Dr. Browne is currently employed as a part-time medical officer to the London Medical Boarding Centre (Respiratory Diseases), working approximately half a day every two weeks. He also holds a part-time post as medical adviser to Cape Industries PLC where I understand he works 1½ days a week.

  National Health Service (Staff)
  Mr. Pike
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what proportion of (a) secretarial and (b) clerical staff in the north-west region of the National Health Service are women.

  Mr. Newton
  [pursuant to his reply, 28 April 1987, c. 107]: At 30 September 1985 the proportion of all National Health Service secretarial and clerical staff employed in the North Western regional health authority who are female was 95 per cent. It is not possible to separately identify secretarial and clerical staff as requested without incurring disproportionate cost.

ENERGY

  Advertisements
  Mr. Hanley
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy on how many occasions his Department sponsored advertisements in national newspapers in the last three years; which newspapers were chosen for these campaigns; which local newspapers were used in these campaigns; and which newspaper publishing groups received payment for advertising space.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  My Department spent the following on press advertising over the period requested :

  National Press

  Regional/Local Press

  Magazine

  Total

  £

  £

  £

  £

  11986–87

  1,045,539

  150,000

  316,000

  1,511,539

  1985–86

  1,336,671

  28,000

  103,000

  1,467,671

  1984–85

  1,315,539

  1Provisional.

  Further breakdowns of these figures could only be achieved at disproportionate cost.

  Pit Closures
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list by name and area all pits which have closed since 1960.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information requested is as follows :

  1960

  Scottish

  Auchincruive Nos. 1, 2 and 3

  Balgonie

  Balmore

  Carberry

  Cowdenbeath No. 7

  Devon

  Greenrigg

  Meadowmill

  Zetland

  North East

  Backworth "Maude"

  Callerton Drift

  Dinnington (Northumberland)

  238

  Garesfield

  Morwood

  Seaton Delaval

  South Garesfield

  Ushaw Moor

  North Yorkshire

  —

  South Yorkshire

  —

  North Derbyshire

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  South Midlands

  Griff No.4

  Western

  Berry Hill

  Brereton

  Deanel

  Fence No.2

  Glasshouse

  Hawkins

  Landgate

  Mains

  Park(Lancs.)

  Reedley

  Sandwell Park

  South Wales

  Britannic

  Cannop

  Carwau

  Hendy Merthyr

  North Rhondda

  Tylorstown No.9

  Kent

  —

  TOTAL

  35

  1961

  Scottish

  Beaton's Lodge

  Bellyford

  Brucefield

  Gilmerton

  Harviestown

  Northfield

  Pennyvenie No.4

  Sundrum Nos.5 and 6

  Whitehill (Midlothian)

  North East

  Barlow Townley Drift

  Broomhill

  Hartford

  Malton

  North Seaton

  West Wylam

  Westerton Drift

  North Yorkshire

  —

  South Yorkshire

  Aldwarke Main

  North Derbyshire

  Stanley

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  239
  South Midlands

  Newtown

  Western

  Giants Hill

  Hoddlesden

  Standish Hall

  Walkmill

  Wheatsheaf

  South Wales

  Clydach Merthyr

  Graig Fawr

  Llanbradach

  Rock (Glamorgan)

  Kent

  —

  TOTAL

  29

  1962

  Scottish

  Arniston

  Baads

  Bardykes

  Barony Nos. 1, 2 and 3

  Benhar

  Blairenbathie

  Blantyreferme Nos. 1 and 2

  Boglea

  Coalburn

  Glencairn

  Glenochil

  Hassockrigg

  Knowehead

  Plean

  Polquhairn Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 6

  Prestongrange

  Rothes

  Westown Mine

  Winton

  North East

  Barmoor

  Beamish Second

  Eldon Drift

  Esperley Lane Drift

  Horton Grange

  Randolph (Durham)

  Ravensworth Shop

  Seghill

  Tanfield Lea

  Victoria Garesfield

  Wingate Grange

  North Yorkshire

  Grange (Yorkshire)

  Howroyd

  South Yorkshire

  —

  North Derbyshire

  Parkhouse (Derby)

  Nottinghamshire

  Bevercotes

  South Midlands

  Bretby

  Western

  Cannock Chase

  Dairy

  Moss

  240

  Parkhall

  Sandhole

  Scaitcliffe

  Wigan Junction

  South Wales

  Aberaman

  Blaenhirwaun

  East

  Gelli

  Great Mountain Nos.1 and 2

  Llanharan

  Onllwyn No. 3

  Princess Royal

  Kent

  —

  TOTAL

  52

  1963–64

  Scottish

  Aitken

  Ardenrigg

  Auldton

  Dumbreck

  Gateside and Tower

  Kingshill 2

  Lady Helen

  Pirnhall

  Prestonlinks

  Thinacres

  Woodmuir

  North East

  Addison

  Crookhall

  Fenhall Drift

  Haggs Lane

  Heworth

  High Marley Hill Drift

  Lanchester Towneley Drift

  Loughbridge

  Roddymoor

  Seaton Burn

  South Pelaw

  Stargate

  North Yorkshire

  —

  South Yorkshire

  —

  North Derbyshire

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  Cotes Park

  South Midland

  Binley

  Western

  Cleworth Hall

  Copy

  Gibfield

  Grime Bridge

  Harrington No. 11

  Kemball

  Lyme

  Mossfield

  Robin Hill Drift

  South Wales

  Bryn

  Cwmgwrach

  Ffaldydre

  241

  Harry Stoke

  New Rockwood

  Seven Sisters

  Kent

  —

  TOTAL

  40

  1964–65

  Scottish

  Bannockburn Mine

  Blantyreferme No. 3

  Bridgend

  Burghlee

  Canderside

  Dullatur

  Glentore

  Lindsay (Fife)

  Twechar No. 1

  Wester Auckhengeich

  North East

  Derwent

  East Tanfield

  Hole-in-the-Wall

  Lambton 'D'

  Pelton

  Phoenix Drift

  Stanley Burn

  Tudhoe Mill Drift

  Watergate

  North Yorkshire

  Lepton Edge

  South Yorkshire

  Upton

  North Derbyshire

  'B' Winning

  Mapperley

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  South Midlands

  Swadlincote

  Western

  Brackley

  Coppice (Cannock Chase)

  Fenton

  Hamstead

  Lea Green

  Walsall Wood

  South Wales

  Cwmgorse

  Garth Tonmawr

  Nine Mile Point

  Norchard Drift

  Onllwyn No. 1

  Pochin

  Rhigos

  Varteg

  Wern Tawr

  Daren

  Kent

  —

  TOTAL

  40

  1965–66

  Scottish

  Auchengeich

  Avonbraes

  242

  Bowhill (Fife)

  Cowdenfoot

  Fordell

  Houldsworth

  Nellie

  Ramsay

  Torry

  Whitehill (Ayr)

  Woodend

  North East

  Algernon

  Beamish Mary

  Bedlington 'F'

  Bradley Drift

  Choppington 'B'

  Clara Vale

  Dean & Chapter

  Harraton

  Isabella

  Lumley Sixth

  New Shildon

  North Tees

  Sherburn Hill

  Stobswood

  West Thornley

  Witton

  North Yorkshire

  Snydale

  South Yorkshire

  —

  North Derbyshire

  Morton

  Shirland

  Nottinghamshire

  Radford & Wollaton

  South Midlands

  North Warwick

  Stanhope

  Summersales

  Western

  Albert

  Clock Face

  Ellerbeck

  Fir Trees

  Fox field

  Hill Top

  Llay Main

  Nook

  South Wales

  Aberbeeg South

  Felinfran

  Fforchaman

  Garngoch No. 3

  Glyncastle

  Northern United

  Norton Hill

  Park (Glam)

  Pwllbach Wernos

  Kent

  —

  TOTAL

  52

  1966–67

  Scottish

  Argyll

  Garscube

  Glencraig

  Kinglassie

  243

  Knowetop

  Lumphinnans No. XI

  Mary

  Mauchline

  Rig

  Woolmet

  Wester Auckhengeich

  North East

  Barcus Close Choppington 'A'

  Chopwell

  Deaf Hill

  East Walbottle

  Greenside

  lauxley

  Middridge

  Ryhope

  Thrislington

  Waterhouses

  Weetslade

  North Yorkshire

  Barnsley Main

  Grange Ash

  New Monckton Nos. 1, 2 and 6

  New Monckton Nos 3 and 4

  Old Roundwood

  West Riding

  Wharncliffe Woodmoor Nos. 1, 2 and 3

  Wooley Edge

  South Yorkshire

  —

  North Derbyshire

  Coppice (Derby)

  Ramcroft

  Woodside No. 1

  Nottinghamshire

  Cossall

  South Midlands

  —

  Western

  Chanters

  Chisnall Hall

  Risehow

  St. Helen's

  South Wales

  Abercrave

  Albion

  Cambrian

  Dillwyn

  Duffryn Rhondda

  Glenrhondda

  Old Mills

  Risca

  Kent

  —

  TOTAL

  47

  1967–68

  Scottish

  Beoch

  Douglas

  Gartshore 9/11

  Killochan

  Knockshinnoch

  Lingerwood Michael

  Minto

  Overtown

  Wellesley

  244
  North East

  Bedlington 'D'

  Bowburn

  Brancepath

  Brandon Pit House

  Byermoor

  Chester South Moor Hamsterley

  Handen Hold

  Kimblesworth

  Newbiggin

  North Walbottle

  Ravensworth Park

  Staindrop Field House

  Trimdon Grange

  West Auckland

  North Yorkshire

  East Ardsley

  Hartley Bank

  Whitwood

  South Yorkshire

  Handsworth Firbeck

  North Derbyshire

  Alfreton

  Denby

  Nottinghamshire

  Bestwood

  South Midlands

  Arley

  Haunchwood

  Western

  Baggeridge

  Bedford

  Deerplay

  Hafod

  Huncoat

  Madeley Wood

  Mid Cannock

  Mosley Common

  South Wales

  Abergorki

  Crumlin

  Elliot

  International (Maesteg)

  Newlands

  Pontreclwydau

  Wyllie

  Yniscedwyn

  Kent

  —

  TOTAL

  50

  1968–69

  Scottish

  Auchlochan

  Auchmaddan Mains

  Blair

  Fauldhead

  Kames

  Kingshill 1

  Newcraighall

  Randolph (Fife)

  Riddochill

  Roslin

  North East

  Brusselton

  Burnopfield

  Cambois

  245

  Emma

  Esh

  Linton

  Longhirst

  Mainsforth

  Pegswood

  Stanley Cottage

  Washington 'F'

  Wheatley Hill

  Whitburn

  North Yorkshire

  Crigglestone

  Haigh (Yorkshire)

  Middleton Broom

  Monk Bretton

  Shaw Cross

  Waterloo (Yorks)

  South Yorkshire

  —

  North Derbyshire

  A' Winning

  Holmewood

  Swanwick

  Nottinghamshire

  Clifton (Notts)

  Kirkby

  South Midlands

  Kingsbury

  New Lount

  Western

  Bradford

  Harrington No. 10

  Highley

  Hilton Main

  Ifton

  Old Meadows

  Parkhouse (Staffs)

  Ravcnhead

  Stafford

  Thorny Bank

  South Wales

  Cefn Coed

  Cwmcarn

  Groesfaen

  Llanhilleth

  National

  New Rock

  Pontyffynon

  Pellwyngwent

  Kent

  —

  TOTAL

  54

  1969–70

  Scottish

  Bank

  Blairhall

  Easthouses

  Glentaggart

  Lochhead

  North East

  Craghead

  Harton

  Mill

  Rising Sun

  Thornley

  Tudhoe Park

  246

  North Yorkshire

  Primrose Hill

  Wombwell Main

  South Yorkshire

  —

  North Derbyshire

  Williamthorpe

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  South Midlands

  —

  Western

  Apedale

  South Wales

  Avon

  Mountain

  Waterloo (Mon)

  Kent

  Chislet

  TOTAL

  19

  1970–71

  Scottish

  —

  North East

  —

  North Yorkshire

  —

  North Yorkshire

  Water Haigh

  Wharncliffe Woodmoor Nos. 4 and 5

  South Yorkshire

  —

  North Derbyshire

  Ormonde

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  South Midlands

  —

  Western

  Astley Green

  Bank Hall

  South Wales

  Glyncorrwg

  Kent

  —

  TOTAL

  6

  1971–72

  Scottish

  —

  North East

  Bedlington 'A'

  Silksworth

  North Yorkshire

  —

  South Yorkshire

  —

  247

  North Derbyshire

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  South Midlands

  —

  Western

  Wood

  South Wales

  —

  Kent

  —

  TOTAL

  3

  1972–73

  Scottish

  Kennox

  Manor Powis

  Whitrigg

  North East

  Medowsley

  Shotton

  Washington Glebe

  North Yorkshire

  Smithy Wood

  Thornhill

  South Yorkshire

  —

  North Derbyshire

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  South Midlands

  —

  Western

  —

  South Wales

  —

  Kent

  —

  TOTAL

  8

  1973–74

  Scottish

  Achincruive

  Dollar

  Easton

  Lochlea

  Maxwell

  North East

  Bardon Mill

  Fenwick

  Fishburn

  Morrison Busty

  Netherton (Northumberland)

  North Yorkshire

  Gomersal

  St. John's (Yorks)

  Shuttle Eye

  248

  South Yorkshire

  —

  North Derbyshire

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  South Midlands

  —

  Western

  Cannock Wood

  Gresford

  Solway

  South Wales

  Coed Cae

  Kilmersdon

  Kent

  —

  TOTAL

  18

  1974–75

  Scottish

  Kingshill 3

  Littlemill

  North East

  Kibblesworth

  Nettlesworth

  Usworth

  Whitworth Park

  North Yorkshire

  Barley Hall

  South Yorkshire

  —

  North Derbyshire

  Glapwell

  Oxcroft

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  South Midlands

  —

  Western

  —

  South Wales

  Ogilvie

  —

  Kent

  —

  TOTAL

  10

  1975–76

  Scottish

  Minnivey

  North East

  Burradon

  Langley Park

  North Yorkshire

  —

  South Yorkshire

  —

  249

  North Derbyshire

  —

  South Midlands

  —

  Western

  —

  South Wales

  Beynon

  Glyntillery

  Kent

  —

  TOTAL

  5

  1976–77

  Scottish

  Cairnhill

  North East

  Havannah

  North Yorkshire

  —

  South Yorkshire

  —

  North Derbyshire

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  South Midlands

  —

  Western

  —

  South Wales

  Ammanford

  Kent

  —

  TOTAL

  3

  1977–78

  Scottish

  Dalquharran

  North East

  Dudley

  North Yorkshire

  —

  South Yorkshire

  —

  North Derbyshire

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  South Midlands

  —

  Western
  250

  Norton

  South Wales

  Bargoed

  Caerau

  Kent

  —

  TOTAL

  5

  1978–79

  Scottish

  Dalkeith

  Kinneil/Valleyfield

  Pennyvenie

  North East

  Metal Bridge

  Rainton (Adventure)

  North Yorkshire

  Wentworth Silkstone

  South Yorkshire

  New Stubbin

  North Derbyshire

  Langwith

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  South Midlands

  —

  Western

  —

  South Wales

  Graig Merthyr

  Kent

  —

  TOTAL

  9

  1979–80

  Scottish

  —

  North East

  Hylton

  North Yorkshire

  Rockingham

  Walton

  South Yorkshire

  —

  North Derbyshire

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  South Midlands

  —

  Western

  Granville

  South Wales

  Deep Duffryn

  Kent

  —

  251
  TOTAL

  5

  1980–81

  Scottish

  Lady Victoria

  Roger

  North East

  Eccles

  Eden

  Woodhorn

  North Yorkshire

  Peekfield

  South Yorkshire

  —

  North Derbyshire

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  Teversal

  South Midlands

  —

  Western

  —

  South Wales

  Blaenavon

  Cwmgwili

  Kent

  —

  TOTAL

  9

  1981–82

  Scottish

  Bedlay

  Kinneil

  Polmaise

  North East

  Blackhall

  Houghton

  North Yorkshire

  Lofthouse

  Manor

  Newmillderdam

  South Yorkshire

  Orgreave

  North Derbyshire

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  New Hucknall

  South Midlands

  Newdigate

  Western

  —

  South Wales

  Coegnant

  Kent

  —

  TOTAL

  12

  252

  1982–83

  Scottish

  —

  North East

  Boldon

  Marley Hill

  North Yorkshire

  Park Hill

  South Yorkshire

  —

  North Derbyshire

  —

  Nottighamshire

  —

  South Midlands

  —

  Western

  Hapton Valley

  Victoria

  West Cannock 5

  South Wales

  —

  Kent

  —

  TOTAL

  6

  1983–84

  Scottish

  Cardowan

  Highhouse

  Sorn

  North East

  East Hetton

  North Yorkshire

  Newmarket Silkstone

  Rothwell

  South Yorkshire

  Elsecar

  North Derbyshire

  Westthorpe

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  South Midlands

  Desford

  Western

  Cronton

  South Wales

  Blaengwrach

  Britannia

  Brynlliw

  Tymawr/Lewis Merthyr

  Wyndham/Western

  Kent

  —

  North East

  Beauspark

  TOTAL

  15

  253
  1984–85

  Scottish

  —

  North Yorkshire

  —

  South Yorkshire

  —

  North Derbyshire

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  South Midlands

  —

  Western

  —

  South Wales

  Kent

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  1

  1986–87

  Scotland

  —

  North East

  Bates

  Horden

  Herrington

  Sacriston

  Brenkley

  North Yorkshire

  Ackton Hall

  Emley Moor

  Fryston

  Glasshoughton

  savile

  south Yorkshire

  Brookhouse

  cortonwood

  Yorkshire Main

  North Derbyshire

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  Moorgreen

  Pye Hill

  south Midlands

  —

  Western

  Bold

  Haig

  Wolstanton

  South wales

  Aberpergwm

  Abertillery

  Bedwas

  Celynen South

  Garw

  Markham

  Penrikyber

  St. Johns

  Treforgan

  254
  Kent

  —

  ToTAL

  27

  1986–87

  Scottish

  Comrie

  Polkemmet

  North East

  Whittle

  North Yorkshire

  Kinsley Drift

  Ledston Luck

  South Yorkshir

  Cadeby

  North Derbyshire

  Whitwell

  Nottinghamshire

  Hucknall/Babbington

  Newstead

  South Midlands

  Birch Coppice

  Whitwick/South Leicester

  Western

  Bersham

  South Wales

  Cwm

  Nantgarw

  Kent

  Tilmanstone

  TOTAL

  15

  Mining Accidents
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy,if he will give figures for the number of fatal accidents which have occurred in British coal mines since 1957.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information requested is as follows:

  Fatalities in the Coal Industry 1957–1987

  Number

  1957

  391

  1958

  315

  1959

  343

  1960

  316

  1961

  234

  1962

  255

  1963–641

  308

  1964–65

  181

  1965–66

  217

  1966–67

  146

  1967–682

  130

  1968–69

  115

  1969–70

  82

  1970–71

  92

  1971–72

  58

  1972–732

  81

  1973–74

  60

  1974–75

  56

  1975–76

  59

  255

  Number

  1976–77

  38

  1977–78

  48

  1978–792

  72

  1979–80

  31

  1980–81

  39

  1981–82

  34

  1982–83

  44

  1983–842

  22

  1984–853

  12

  1985–86

  27

  1986–87

  15

  115 month period

  253 week period

  3affected by industrial dispute

  Source:British Coal Corporation

  Computers
  Mr. Coombs
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list those companies to which his Department has awarded contracts for the supply of word processing hardware and word processing software in each year since 1984; and what was the value of each contract.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  In the financial years 1985–86 and 1986–87 my Department purchased microcomputers from the Apricot Computers PLC range in association with software from Microsoft Ltd. for its word processing requirements. For reasons of commercial confidentiality I am unable to disclose the value of individual contracts.

  Mr. Coombs
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy how much his Department has spent on (a) word processing hardware and (b) word processing software in each year since 1984; and what is the projected expenditure for the financial years 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  My Department's expenditure on word processing systems is as follows;

  £

  Financial year 1985–86

  Actual

  40,000

  Financial year 1986–87

  Actual

  56,000

  Financial year 1987–88

  Forecast

  67,000

  In addition, my Department is using general purpose microcomputers for data processing as well as word processing. Plans for financial year 1988–89 have not yet been finalised.

  Mr. Coombs
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list those companies to which his Department has awarded contracts for the supply of desk-top publishing hardware and software in each year since 1984; and what was the value of each contract.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  My Department has not purchased any desktop publishing hardware or software.

  Mr. Coombs
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy how much his Department has spent on (a) desktop publishing hardware and (b) desktop publishing software in each year since 1984; and what is the projected expenditure for the financial years 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  My Department has not purchased any desktop publishing hardware or software, but it will keep the possibility under review.

  Layfield Inquiry
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy (1) how many of his officials were involved in the preparation and drafting of the Layfield report; and who paid them for their services in that period;

  (2) how many of his officials were seconded, and in what capacity, to the Layfield inquiry; and what was their role in assessing (a)his Department's evidence and (b)the evidence of protestors.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The conduct of the inquiry and the drafting of the report were solely the responsibility of the inspector. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, other Ministers and the Department had no knowledge of the content of the report before it was submitted by the inspector. Staff were seconded to the inspector in response to his requests for assistance. This is normal practice. The number of permanent departmental staff on secondment varied over the inquiry and report writing period but was typically about a dozen. They reported to the inspector alone and acted under his instructions. The Department met the costs of providing such assistance.

  Offshore Licensing
  Mr. Powley
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to announce licence awards under the 10th round of offshore licensing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Buchanan-Smith
  I have today announced the conditional award of petroleum production licences for 51 blocks in the tenth round of offshore licensing. These lie in the northern North sea, the Rockall trough and the Moray firth area, and in the central and southern North sea.

  "The objectives of' the round have been met in full: the award of these 51 blocks meets our target for the number of blocks we hoped to be able to award, and ensures continuity in exploration work. The licence awards will provide the potential for development of our oil and gas discoveries in the 1990s to replace existing fields as they become depleted.

  The technical quality of the successful applications was higher than ever before. The approach by applicants was, in many cases, innovative, particularly in seeking our new and less obvious locations for possible oil and gas reserves in areas which had previously been licensed but relinquished.

  This confirms that oil companies still recognise considerable potential in the mature oil province of the North sea: it also suggests that we are now on the threshold of a second generation of exploration it this area. The seismic and drilling work programmes proposed will in many cases exploit new exploration techniques now available. Those being awarded licences in the tenth round have committed themselves to drilling a higher average number of wells per block than in the very successful ninth round.

  I have taken care to ensure that the environment will be protected. When inviting applications last year I made clear that in certain blocks, particularly those close to the coast, there would be drilling restrictions or other special requirements imposed to reflect the sensitivity of the areas for fishing, wildlife and navigation. All applicants for these blocks have been informed of these conditions.
  257
  A copy of the list of awards has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses."

  Electricity Industry
  Mr. Orme
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy what plans he has to privatise the electricity industry, including nuclear power stations.

  Mr. Goodlad
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) on 26 March at column 238

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Aspinwall
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the average farm income for member states of the EEC for the latest year for which figures are available; and what the comparable figures have been over the previous three years.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The estimated average family farm income for member states of the EC for 1984–85 (provisional) and for the three previous years are shown below :

  ('000 ECU per farm)

  Country

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–851

  Belgium

  21·3

  24·2

  24·7

  23·2

  Denmark

  7·9

  10·3

  7·3

  14·5

  France

  11·2

  13·9

  11·9

  12·6

  Germany

  7·4

  10·7

  9·1

  11·7

  Greece

  5·8

  7·3

  6·4

  8·0

  Netherlands

  23·7

  25·3

  28·0

  26·2

  Ireland

  9·4

  10·6

  10·6

  11·2

  Italy

  8·1

  9·3

  10·8

  11·5

  Luxembourg

  17·8

  22·3

  16·6

  18·6

  United Kingdom

  17·0

  20·4

  23·3

  21·8

  EUR 10

  9·7

  11·8

  11·8

  12·7

  1 Provisional.

  Source: EC Farm Accountancy Data Network.

  Computers
  Mr. Coombs
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those companies that his Department has awarded contracts for the supply of word processing hardware and software in each year since 1984; and what was the value of each contract.

  Mr. Jopling
  For reasons of confidentiality it is not possible to divulge the value of individual contracts. Contracts for word processing hardware and software were awarded to the following suppliers in the years indicated:

  Years

  Years

  Years

  Access Data—

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  AES—

  1984–85

  1986–87

  —

  Amstrad—

  1986–87

  —

  —

  Data Logic—

  1986–87

  —

  —

  Intelligent Interfaces—

  1986–87

  —

  —

  ITT—

  1984–85

  —

  —

  ITT QUME UK

  —

  1986–87

  —

  —

  Nexos—

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Prime—

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  258
  Mr. Coombs
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much his Department has spent on (a) word processing hardware and (b) word processing software in each year since 1984; and what is projected expenditure for the financial years 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Jopling
  It is not possible to apportion expenditure between hardware and software. Total expenditure was as follows in the years indicated:

  £

  1984–85

  95,000

  1985–86

  53,000

  1986–87

  513,000

  Consultants are reviewing the Ministry's arrangements for office support systems. Until their report has been received in June, considered and decisions taken as regards implementation expenditure for 1987–88 and 1988–89 cannot be forecast.

  Mr. Coombs
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those companies that his Department has awarded contracts for the supply of desk top publishing hardware and software in each year since 1984; and what was the value of each contract.

  Mr. Jopling
  For reasons of confidentiality it is not possible to divulge the value of individual contracts. I am able to say, however, that since 1984 contracts with a total value of £30,000 were placed in 1986–87, with the following companies:

  SAMS Business Centres (2 × Apple Mackintosh)

  Rank Xerox (I × Xerox Documenter)

  Mr. Coombs
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much his Department has spent on (a) desktop publishing hardware and (b) desktop publishing software in each year since 1984; and what is projected expenditure for financial years 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Jopling
  No expenditure was incurred prior to 1986–87 when £30,000 was spent. It is not possible to apportion this between hardware and software. It is expected that the level of expenditure in 1987–88 and 1988–89 will not increase significantly compared with 1986–87.

  Agriculture Debate (Ministerial Reply)
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will be replying by letter to the points raised by the hon. Member for Tiverton in the debate on agriculture on Thursday 23 April, Official Report, column 838–39.

  Mr. Gummer
  I am writing to my hon. Friend.

  Grain
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will state the total amount of grain which is expected to be left in store at the end of July before the addition of the new season's grain; and how many day's supply this represents.

  Mr. Gummer
  There are likely to be some 1·4 million tonnes of feed quality common wheat and 0·8 million
  259
  tonnes of barley in intervention stores at 31 July, representing about 85 days' and 51 days' supply respectively to the animal feed sector.

  Environment
  Sir Peter Mills
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures the Government have taken since 1979 to balance the needs of agriculture and the environment.

  Mr. Jopling
  [pursuant to his reply, 8 May 1987, c. 565] Since 1979, the Government have taken a very wide range of measures in pursuit of their policy to balance the needs of agriculture and the environment.

  Among the many initiatives taken by my Ministry, we introduced in 1985 the agricultural improvements scheme which puts particular emphasis on investment in environmentally beneficial works in the countryside.

  We have also introduced the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, under part III of which the sale, supply and use of pesticides were brought under statutory control by the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986 and pesticide advertising from 1 January 1987.

  We have continued to advise and encourage farmers to take reasonable measures to ensure that farm practices do not result in pollution. We have encouraged the adoption of strengthened model byelaws on straw and stubble burning, issued guidelines on housed livestock and the control of odour, and given further publicity to the code of good agricultural practice.

  Following the early success with the Broads grazing marshes conservation scheme, I persuaded my European colleagues to support the new concept of environmentally sensitive areas under which farmers are encouraged to pursue farming practices which protect and enhance the conservation value of their land. In addition to the five areas already designated in England, I intend to announce further designations shortly. In collaboration with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, I launched the farm and countryside initiative in February 1986, through which the community programme of the Manpower Services Commission is used to provide work for long-term unemployed people on task of benefit to the rural environment.

  London Residuary Body
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what moneys are owed by his Department to the London Residuary Body in respect of Greater London council activities prior to abolition.

  Mr. Jopling
  [pursuant to his reply, 11 May 1987] I estimate that, in addition to the grant payments already made in respect of the Thames tidal flood defence scheme, a further sum in the region of £6·5 million is likely to become payable when full details of the costs of the scheme have been supplied to my Department.

  Butter
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why the Council of Ministers approved the extension of regulation 1341/86 to enable intervention butter to be transferred from Germany to Italy; and if the Council was informed regarding the purpose for which such butter was to be used.
  260
  Mr. Gummer
  [pursuant to his reply, 12 May 1987]: Regulation 1341/86 which was agreed as part of last year's agricultural price fixing, provides for the transfer of 20,000 tonnes of intervention butter from Germany to Italy. Its purpose is to facilitate the disposal of stocks by enabling Italian consumers and food manufacturers to benefit from measures such as regulations 3143/86 (concentrated butter for cooking) and 262/79 (reduced price butter for food manufacture).

  It was originally envisaged that the transfer would be completed by 1 April 1987. But since this did not prove possible in practice the Council agreed to extend the time limit by one year.

  CAP (Quotas)
  Mr. Jackson
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are his reasons for opposing the imposition of quotas on further agricultural commodities within the common agricultural policy.

  Mr. Gummer
  [pursuant to his reply, 12 May 1987] The Government do not favour the introduction of quotas. They tend to rigidify production patterns and inhibit enterprise. Unlike action on prices, quotas provide no benefit to consumers. Because of our farm structure, with average farms five times the EC average, quotas are also likely to disadvantage the United Kingdom.

  Cereals Land Diversion Scheme
  Mr. Jackson
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are his reasons for favouring a cereals land diversion scheme which is voluntary rather than compulsory.

  Mr. Gummer
  [pursuant to his reply, 12 May 1987] I have put forward the idea of a voluntary land diversion scheme because such a scheme, if coupled with a prudent price policy, would provide an alternative to those producers farming land least suited to cereals and least able to cope with lower prices, and so directly encourage them to take land out of cereals production, but would not discourage the most efficient producers of cereals farming land well suited to that purpose—many of whom are to be found in the United Kingdom.

SCOTLAND

  Drugs
  Mrs. McCurley
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the drugs education programme in Scottish schools.

  Mr. John MacKay
  Our drugs education programme aims to discourage drug misuse through the promotion of healthy lifestyles. We have provided for courses for teachers and for the preparation of teaching materials for pupils.

  Valleyfield Site, Penicuik
  Mr. Eadie
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has had a planning appeal amendment submitted to him to reschedule the Valleyfield site in Penicuik for housing purposes.

  Mr. Ancram
  No.

  Community Charge
  Sir Hector Monro
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss community charges.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I am looking forward to having my next regular meeting with the Convention on 3 July. My officials stand ready to discuss community charges with them at any time.

  New Towns (Employment)
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many jobs have been lost, and how many created, since June 1979 in each of the new towns in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  The available information on jobs created and lost in each of the new towns since 1979 is given in the table which will be published in the Official Report.

  Jobs created

  Jobs lost

  1979–1987

  1979–1987

  Cumbernauld

  5,378

  7,653

  East Kilbride

  8,965

  12,508

  Glenrothes1

  6,560

  7,852

  Irvine

  6,522

  9,190

  Livingston

  9,086

  6,675

  1 Figures for 1979–86.

  The figures are estimates provided by the new town development corporations relating to jobs created and lost on industrial estates in the manufacturing, service, office and distribution sectors and covering the period April 1979 to March 1987.

  Greater Glasgow Health Board
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet the Greater Glasgow health board to discuss the provision of speech therapists and other matters.

  Mr. John MacKay
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to meet the Greater Glasgow health board in the near future, but he notes that the speech therapists employed by the board have increased by over 26 per cent. since 1979.

  European Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Knox
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total value of grants which Scotland has received from the European regional development fund in each of the past three years.

  Mr. Lang
  Scotland has received grant commitment from the European regional development fund of £103 million in 1984; £69 million in 1985; and £84 million in 1986.

  Labour Statistics
  Sir Alex Fletcher
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will indicate the growth and trends of employment and self-employment in Scotland since 1983; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  In June 1983 seasonally adjusted adult unemployment in Scotland, based on the current coverage of the claimant count, was 308,500 compared with 344,600 262
  in March 1987. In the latest two months, however, there has been a fall of over 5,000. Self-employment in Scotland is estimated to have been 205,000 in June 1986; an increase of 26,000 or 14·5 per cent. on the June 1983 figure.

  The recent fall in unemployment together with the recent results of Scottish business surveys are welcome evidence of better economic performance in Scotland this year. The growth in self-employment is also a step in the right direction although we still have a long way to go in developing a culture and environment which adequately stimulates and rewards business enterprise.

  Mr. David Marshall
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the seasonally adjusted unemployment figures for Scotland as at (a) May 1979 and (b) the latest available date, compiled on the same basis; and to what factors he attributes the difference.

  Mr. Lang
  On a comparable basis, seasonally adjusted unemployment in Scotland was 150,400 in May 1979 and 344,600 in March 1987. Much of the increase in Scottish unemployment took place in the 1979–81 period, and reflected both the effects of the worst world recession since the 1930s and the high level of sterling brought about by the United Kingdom's new found status as a major oil producer. In 1979 we inherited a situation in which overmanning in British industry was chronic and hidden unemployment considerable.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the latest available figures for employment and unemployment in the Eastwood constituency; and if he will make a statment.

  Mr. Lang
  Information on employment is not available for parliamentary constituencies. In March 1987 there were 3,348 people unemployed in the Eastwood parliamentary constituency. Employment prospects in the Eastwood constituency, as elsewhere, are likely to benefit from the growth in output now under way in the Scottish economy.

  Mr. Willie W. Hamilton
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the current unemployment situation in Scotland, with particular reference to youth unemployment.

  Mr. Lang
  While the level of unemployment in Scotland still gives cause for concern, it is encouraging to see that there has been a decrease of over 16,000 in the number of unemployed claimants over the past 2 months.

  Youth unemployment is now falling and the extension of the YTS guarantee to include all school leavers under 18, the introduction last year of the New Workers Scheme and, more recently the new Job Training Scheme, will all further increase the opportunities available to unemployed young people in Scotland.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the Manpower Services Commission about the level of unemployment in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and I met the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission most recently on 4 March when we discussed the range of employment and training measures being undertaken by the Manpower Services Commission to reduce the level of unemployment in Scotland.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Henderson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the current performance of Scottish manufacturing industry, with particular regard to jobs, productivity, profitability and exports.

  Mr. Lang
  Scottish manufacturing industry has undergone a major transition in recent years. A stronger core of companies and sectors has emerged from the recession of the early 1980s which are able to compete more effectively with companies from other parts of the United Kingdom and from abroad. The rate of growth of manufacturing productivity has been considerably faster in Scotland than in the United Kingdom in most years since 1979. Recent evidence from the CBI "Industrial Trends Survey" suggests that export markets are more buoyant than they have been for some time, with the upward trend likely to continue and that the rate of job loss also appears to have been moderating.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest estimate of how many manufacturing jobs have been lost since June 1979.

  Mr. Lang
  On a seasonally adjusted basis, the number of employees in employment in manufacturing in Scotland is provisionally estimated to have fallen by 192,000 between June 1979 and December 1986.

  British Steel Corporation
  Mr. George Robertson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he intends to meet the chairman of the British Steel Corporation regarding the future of the Ravenscraig steel works and the Dalziel slate mine.

  Mr. Lang
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Mr. Hamilton) earlier today.

  Peterhead Prison
  Mr. Hugh Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has received the report from Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons of his inquiry into incidents in Peterhead prison announced on 17 November 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply given on 6 May 1987 to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie).

  National Farmers Union
  Mr. Pollock
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what subjects were discussed when he last met representatives of the Scottish National Farmers Union; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Bill Walker
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the president of the National Farmers Union of Scotland; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. John MacKay
  My right hon. and learned Friend and I attended the union's annual dinner on 12 March. I delivered the keynote address to the annual general meeting the following day and had further detailed 264
  discussions with the union's leadership and members. A wide range of agricultural matters was covered on both occasions.

  "Count Me In" Scheme
  Mr. Fairbairn
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what support the Scottish Office is proposing to give to Edinburgh's "Count Me In" scheme.

  Mr. Rifkind
  This is a local promotional initiative led by the Edinburgh business community. There are no plans for direct Scottish Office support, but my officials stand ready to offer any advice or guidance which may be sought. I wish the venture every success.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Strang
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will institute an inquiry into the numbers of homeless young people in Edinburgh.

  Mr. Ancram
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans for such an inquiry.

  School Closures
  Mr. Wallace
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the current criteria and practice relating to the closure of schools in the rural areas of Scotland.

  Mr. John MacKay
  Since 1981, most closures have been decided locally by education authorities, subject to statutory requirements to consult with parents and other local interests. Proposed closures of primary schools where the receiving school is five or more miles from the school to be closed and of secondary schools where the receiving school is 10 or more miles away require the approval of the Secretary of State. Each such case is considered in the light of all the local circumstances.

  Scottish Development Agency
  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairman of the Scottish Development Agency to discuss measures to alleviate unemployment.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend and I met the chairman and board of the agency on Friday 20 February 1987 to discuss a number of matters including the agency's role in improving employment opportunities in Scotland.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. MacKenzie
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for reducing unemployment and creating jobs in the manufacturing sector in Glasgow.

  Mr. Lang
  The best prospect for creating jobs in the manufacturing sector in Glasgow, as elsewhere, lies in continuing to improve industry's competitive position. Manufacturing companies in Glasgow, which is designated as a Development area, are eligible for a wide range of assistance under various schemes and initiatives. In particular, companies are eligible for assistance towards investment projects which create or safeguard jobs under regional selective assistance and the new regional
  265
  development grants scheme. In the financial year 1986–7 £2·2 million was offered under regional selective assistance towards manufacturing projects undertaken by companies based in Glasgow, and £15–8 million under the new regional development grants scheme. These offers were associated with 400 and 4,440 jobs respectively, but it should be noted that some projects receive awards of both RSA and RDG.

  In addition to direct assistance towards manufacturing industry, Glasgow benefits from the full range of the Government's employment and training measures, and also from the activities of the Scottish Development Agency.

  Green Pound
  Mr. McQuarrie
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the implications for agriculture in Scotland of the current progress of discussions on a devaluation of the green pound.

  Mr. John MacKay
  The current level of green pound places Scottish producers at a disadvantage relative to those in some other member states. My right hon. and learned Friend and I are well aware, from our frequent discussions with farmers and their leaders, that this is a major area of concern, particularly for the beef sector.

  Accordingly the Government are of the view that the 4 per cent. devaluation proposed by the European Commission as part of this year's CAP price-fixing proposals is not enough and we shall in the negotiations be aiming to improve on this figure. Our objective will be to secure a higher devaluation than, for example, France and Ireland whose monetary compensation amounts are already less than those for the United Kingdom.

  Job Creation
  Sir Russell Johnston
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has prepared of reductions in unemployment in Scotland over the next two years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  It has not been the practice of this or previous Administrations to forecast unemployment. Scottish unemployment fell substantially in February and March of this year. With the prospects for Scottish output, particularly manufacturing, better this year than last, employment prospects are now more favourable.

  Rating System
  Mr. Douglas
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the electorate indicating its support for his proposals to reform the rating system in Scotland.

  Mr. Ancram
  Most of the representations on rating reform received since the publication of the Green Paper "Paying for Local Government" (Cmnd. 9714) have included comments in favour of some of the detailed proposals and against others.

  "Glasgow Herald" and "The Scotsman"
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many copies of the Glasgow Herald and The Scotsman were taken at (a) New St. Andrew's House, Edinburgh and (b)Dover House, London on Wednesday 28 January 1986.
  266
  Mr. Ancram
  On Wednesday 28 January 1987 in New St. Andrew's House there were 30 copies of The Scotsman and 27 of the Glasgow Herald; at Dover House there were 12 and 10 respectively.

  Hospital Closures
  Mr. Kennedy
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the consultation procedures used by health boards proposing to close or change the use of a hospital.

  Mr. John MacKay
  Yes.

  Hunterston and Ardrossan
  Mr. Lambie
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has made any arrangements to meet the chairman of Clydeport to discuss the future of the ports of Hunterston and Ardrossan.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no current plans to meet the chairman of the Clyde Port Authority.

  Dundee Waterfront Project
  Mr. Wilson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what additional funding will be made available for the Dundee waterfront project.

  Mr. Lang
  The major part of expenditure on the Dundee waterfront project will be met by the, private sector developers concerned. Public sector contributions will be met from within existing allocations and approvals, which I consider adequate for this purpose.

  Management Consultancy
  Mr. Mates
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the contracts, with the subject of the assignment, awarded to management consultancy or accounting firms by his Department in 1986, with the names of the consultants concerned.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) on 19 February 1987, at column 615.

  Great Springburn Enterprises Ltd.
  Mr. Martin
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what public funds have been spent on Great Springburn Enterprises Ltd. since 1 April; and if he will make a statement regarding the company's future.

  Mr. Ancram
  Urban programme funding of Greater Springburn Enterprises Ltd. was withdrawn by Glasgow district council on 3 April 1987 following reviews of the company by the district council and Strathclyde Community Business Ltd. I understand that the company has now appointed a liquidator.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. McTaggart
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements have been made to house offenders under the age of 21 years following the transfer of prisoners from Barlinnie prison in Glasgow to Glenochil young offenders' institute and other young offenders' institutions.
  267
  Mr. Lang
  I refer to my reply of 12 May to my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mr. Pollock).

  In order to reduce pressure of overcrowding at Barlinnie prison and other local prisons, Noranside young offenders institution was converted to use as an adult open prison on 13 April and two halls of Glenochil young offenders institution have been used for adult prisoners since 4 March and 6 April, respectively. A group of 40 inmates from Glenochil young offenders institution who had been presenting management problems were transferred to B hall, Dumfries prison, on 15 April, where they are being kept out of association with adult inmates.

  Plans to complete the transfer of remaining under-21 inmates in Glenochil YOI to Dumfries prison and Greenock prison are now being drawn up (together with plans for transfer of adult inmates from Dumfries and

  Expenditure within the Secretary of State's responsibility in real terms (1987–88 base year)1

  £ million

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  21987–88

  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  160

  209

  224

  200

  187

  193

  205

  216

  196

  186

  Industry, Energy, Trade and Employment

  170

  173

  176

  166

  195

  189

  230

  310

  357

  257

  Other services:

  Tourism

  12

  12

  12

  12

  14

  13

  15

  14

  13

  13

  Transport

  608

  560

  567

  596

  595

  584

  570

  574

  604

  601

  Housing

  1,172

  1,269

  1,138

  953

  850

  849

  745

  664

  661

  696

  Other Environmental Services

  630

  681

  643

  620

  615

  616

  601

  586

  641

  610

  Law, Order and Protective Services

  392

  423

  447

  475

  494

  529

  551

  543

  587

  625

  Education

  1,970

  1,960

  2,020

  2,064

  2,024

  2,032

  1,990

  1,901

  2,032

  1,956

  Arts and Libraries

  69

  64

  80

  82

  78

  76

  78

  81

  83

  82

  Health and Social Work

  2,073

  2,131

  2,270

  2,347

  2,364

  2,411

  2,477

  2,473

  2,556

  2,605

  Other Public Services

  109

  104

  108

  106

  96

  114

  114

  112

  116

  118

  Local Authority Current Expenditure not allocated to services

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  124

  Total Other Services

  7,036

  7,244

  7,284

  7,255

  7,132

  7,225

  7,141

  6,948

  7,295

  7,430

  Nationalised Industries External Financing

  133

  244

  159

  126

  197

  328

  427

  249

  250

  87

  Total Expenditure within the Secretary of State's responsibility

  7,498

  7,868

  7,844

  7,747

  7,711

  7,936

  8,003

  7,723

  8,099

  7,960

  1The figures are the cash figures taken from the 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987 editions of "Public Expenditure: A Commentary on The Scot and Programme" adjusted for general inflation as measured by the GDP deflator at market prices.

  2The figures for 1987–88 are planned provision. Those for 1986–87 are based on provisional outturn figures, and those for earlier year are based on actual outturn.

  Note The individual figures for services may not sum to the totals due to roundings.

  Advertisements
  Mr. Hanley
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions his Department sponsored advertisements in national newspapers in the last three years; which newspapers were chosen for these campaigns; which local newspapers were used in these campaigns; and which newspaper publishing groups received payment for advertising space.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost to my Department.

  Forestry Grant Scheme Applications
  Mr. Kirkwood
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 29 April, Official
  268
  Greenock prisons to other adult establishments). Castle Huntly is continuing to operate as an open young offenders institution and Polmont young offenders institution will continue to house young offenders suitable for conditions of medium security.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Maxton
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide a detailed breakdown of expenditure within his responsibility for the years 1978–79 to 1987–88, inclusive, in a form similar to the table on page 151 of "Public Expenditure to 1989–90: Scottish Commentary", expressing this information at estimated 1987–88 prices.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The information is set out in the table.

  Report,column 147, how many forestry grant scheme applications made up the 49,895 hectares of land referred to; and what proportion of these contained land in LCA class 4.

  Mr. John MacKay
  A total of 315 forestry grant scheme applications was involved. I regret that identification of the quality of land involved could be done only at disproportionate cost.

  Computers
  Mr. Coombs
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those companies to which his Department has awarded contracts for the supply of word processing hardware and software in each year since 1984; and what was the value of each contract.
  269
  Mr. Rifkind
  Contracts for the supply of word processing hardware and software have been awarded to the following companies:

  Year and Company

  1984–85

  IBM (UK) Ltd.

  Information Technology Ltd.

  1985–86

  IBM (UK) Ltd.

  Olivetti

  AES Data

  Wordplex

  1986–87

  IBM (UK) Ltd

  Computerland

  Microcentre

  City Business Computers

  MBS Computer Services

  ICL

  Wordplex

  The total value of contracts awarded was £1,519,860.

  Mr. Coombs
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much his Department has spent on (a) word processing hardware and (b) word processing software in each year since 1984; and what is projected expenditure for the financial years 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Rifkind
  My Department has spent the following sums on word processing hardware and software since 1984:

  Year

  Cost

  £

  (a)Word processing Hardware

  1984–85

  494,725

  1985–86

  320,776

  1986–87

  595,035

  (b)Word Processing Software

  1984–85

  27,747

  1985–86

  35,337

  1986–87

  46,240

  Expenditure is projected for 1987–88 and 1988–89 as follows:

  Hardware

  Software

  £

  £

  1987–88

  200,436

  16,584

  1988–89

  29,951

  20,914

  Mr. Coombs
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those companies to which his Department has awarded contracts for the supply of desk top publishing hardware and software in each year since 1984; and what was the value of each contract.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Contracts for the supply of desk top publishing hardware and software have been awarded to Rank Xerox in each of the years 1984–85, 1985–86 and 1986–87 to a total value of £99,000.

  Mr. Coombs
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much his Department has spent on (a) desk top
  270
  publishing hardware and (b) desk top publishing software in each year since 1984; and what is projected expenditure for the financial years 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Rifkind
  My Deprtment has spent the following sums on desk top publishing hardware and software since 1984:

  Year

  Cost

  £

  (a)Desk top publishing hardware

  1984–85

  59,167

  1985–86

  17,168

  1986–87

  17,782

  (b)Desk top publishing software

  1984–85

  890

  1985–86

  1,780

  1986–87

  748

  Projected expenditure for the financial year 1987–88 is nil and for 1988–89 is £20,000.

  Speed Restrictions
  Mr. Maclennan
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications to impose speed restrictions have been submitted by Highland regional council over the past 15 months; how many of those applications have been rejected; and what have been the precise reasons for his Department having rejected each application.

  Mr. Ancram
  Nine applications have been received, of which two have been approved, five rejected and two are still being considered. Applications in respect of Bettyhill, Carrbridge, Dunnet, Kinlochewe and Thurso were rejected as the environmental criteria were not met. In addition the accident criteria were not met for Bettyhill, Carrbridge, Kinlochewe and Thurso, and the minimum length of road criteria for Dunnet, Kinlochewe and Thurso.

  Mr. Maclennan
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will give consideration to the introduction of different criteria for the imposition of speed restrictions in urban and rural areas to take account of the differing traffic patterns in the two types of area.

  Mr. Ancram
  The speed limit criteria and the guidelines set out in Scottish Development Department circular No. 18/80 are already sufficiently flexible to take account of the circumstances in each type of area.

  Crime (Clear-up Rates)
  Mr. Kaufman
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish, for 1978 and 1986, for each police force area in Scotland (a) the overall crime clear-up rates and (b) clear-up rates for (i) violence against the person, (ii) burglary, (iii) theft, (iv) fraud/forgery and (v) criminal damage.

  Mr. Lang
  The table sets out the requested figures on crime recorded as a percentage of those cleared up, using the best available approximations in the Scottish crime classification to the categories listed in the question.
  271

  Clear up rates by Police Force Area, Scotland 1979

  Crime

  Central

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Fife

  Grampian

  Lothian and Borders

  Northern

  Strathclyde

  Tayside

  Total Crimes

  37·6

  40·4

  43·4

  37·4

  29·3

  60·7

  25·6

  35·0

  Violence against the Person

  85·3

  90·9

  88·1

  86·6

  70·8

  98·7

  65·9

  85·5

  Burglary

  30·2

  26·9

  33·0

  25·6

  17·6

  41·8

  18·2

  22·5

  Theft

  38·0

  38·6

  39·7

  33·9

  25·6

  56·5

  23·2

  31·5

  Fraud and Forgery

  75·5

  90·1

  90·0

  70·2

  79·4

  95·6

  75·8

  79·1

  Criminal Damage

  24·3

  25·2

  34·2

  27·8

  20·4

  52·5

  15·5

  23·5

  Clear up rates by Police Force Area, Scotland 1986

  Crime

  Central

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Fife

  Grampian

  Lothian and Borders

  Northern

  Strathclyde

  Tayside

  Total Crimes

  47·6

  54·3

  41·5

  31·3

  38·2

  62·4

  28·4

  41·0

  Violence against the Person

  94·2

  91·6

  91·8

  82·1

  80·4

  99·0

  74·3

  88·4

  Burglary

  33·0

  46·0

  29·0

  15·8

  17·9

  38·4

  15·8

  24·0

  Theft

  43·9

  47·8

  35·0

  26·5

  28·7

  51·7

  23·8

  36·9

  Fraud and Forgery

  87·7

  89·3

  81·1

  72·4

  78·4

  94·2

  66·1

  87·6

  Criminal Damage

  34·9

  38·5

  28·4

  21·4

  24·4

  53·3

  17·7

  23·3

  Notes

  The categories listed above have been derived from the categories of the Scottish crime classification as follows:

  "Violence against the person": all non-sexual crimes of violence (Group 1 of the standard classification) apart from robbery, those crimes of indecency (Group 2) which contain a violent element, and certain crimes involving malicious and reckless conduct.

  "Burglary": housebreaking.

  "Theft": opening lockfast places and clandestine removal in addition to theft per se.

  "Fraud and Forgery": fraud, forgery and uttering, bankruptcy and currency offences.

  "Criminal Damage": fire-raising, vandalism and other crimes of malicious and reckless conduct not involving violence against the person.

  NHS Estate
  Mr. Meacher
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the annual expenditure, in 1987 prices, from 1975–76 to date on repair, maintenance and improvement work on the Scottish National Health Service estate; what is his Department's estimate of the expenditure needed to bring the condition of the Scottish National Health Service estate to a fully reconditioned and repaired state, complying with up-to-date building standards, not including the reconditioning of parts of the estate for which there is no intention to recondition or repair, but where the proper course is demolition or disposal, or the expected depreciation of the estate in this financial year; what is his Department's estimate of the annual expenditure to prevent the Scottish National Health Service estate's condition from deteriorating, excluding those parts of the estate for which there is no intention to recondition or repair, but- where the proper course is demolition or otherwise disposal; and what is the capital value of National Health Service buildings in Scotland.

  Mr. John MacKay
  The table shows expenditure on repair, maintenance and upgrading of the NHS estate in Scotland at 1986–87 prices for the years 1978–79 to 1985–86. Because of changes in the format of health board annual accounts, comparable figures are not available for earlier years.

  Financial years

  £ million at 1986–87 prices

  1978–79

  98·8

  1979–80

  84·5

  1980–81

  76·9

  1981–82

  93·9

  1982–83

  88·7

  272

  Financial years

  £ million at 1986–87 prices

  1983–84

  95·4

  1984–85

  109·7

  1985–86

  116·2

  1986–87

  Not yet available

  A survey into the physical condition of the NHS estate in Scotland, conducted in 1981, estimated that £205 million was then required over a 10-year period to raise the condition of the estate to an acceptable standard. As a result of the Scottish Home and Health Department introduced in 1983–84 a special allocation to health boards specifically for backlog maintenance work. The sums thus allocated since 1983–84 are included in the figures in the table. A further survey of the physical condition of the estate is now in progress.

  As regards the value of NHS buildings in Scotland, I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 6 February 1987 at column 711.

  A1 (Tower-Dunglass)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is yet in a position to determine the length of time necessary to deal with the objections which have been lodged to the revised trunk road orders on the A1 Tower to Dunglass diversion.

  Mr. Ancram
  Ninety-seven objections have been received to the draft trunk road orders and are being considered. I cannot estimate how long they will take to resolve. It may be necessary to hold a public local inquiry later this year.

  Caledonian MacBrayne Ltd. (Investment Proposals)
  Mr. Corrie
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will reach a view on the investment proposals submitted to him by the Scottish Transport Group for a new ferry for its subsidiary Caledonian MacBrayne Ltd.; and if he will make a statement.
  274
  Mr. Ancram
  My right hon. and learned Friend has today approved a recommendation from the Scottish Transport Group that it should be allowed to commission a new 60-car ferry for operation on its Oban-Barra/ Lochboisdale and Oban-Coll/Tiree services. Caledonian MacBrayne will now be able to invite competitive tenders for the new vessel.

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

Overseas Aid Projects: Women's Interests
Lord Hatch of Lusby: 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 how they intend to pursue their policy of integrating women more fully into their overseas aid projects.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, we recognise the importance of taking the role of women fully into account in all aid projects. Some of our projects include special components for women. We are prepared to contribute to projects specifically devoted to helping women.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the position of women as workers, as traders and as thinkers is crucial to the whole development exercise? Does she further agree that women in the third world are a disadvantaged group? Is she aware that the reputable organisation War on Want has publicly stated that the British aid programme is damaging the interests of some women in the third world and it is anxious that the Ministry should say specifically what it is doing to assist women in the use of development aid from this country?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the noble Lord will be glad to know that I agree very much about the importance of women as traders and thinkers. He will be glad to know that we are well aware that almost 90 per cent. of food for domestic consumption in Africa is produced by women. The ODA's method of keeping statistics makes it difficult to provide precise figures on the amount of aid going to women in the developing world. However, all aid benefits women and some projects have special components for women. We are considering ways to prepare statistics on the proportion of aid going to help women. We want to do more. We have produced a booklet, of which I am sure the noble Lord is aware, which sets out 18 projects designed specifically to help women.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, would the noble Baroness be surprised to learn that I also agree with my noble friend Lord Hatch on this point? Will she tell us whether steps are in hand not only to obtain statistics on our aid to these countries but also to monitor the effect of the special projects for women? Does she agree that if we are to give the most effective aid to these countries, it is important to monitor, and in the light of the monitoring perhaps to adjust, our assistance?
Baroness Young: Yes, my Lords. The noble Baroness makes a good point. It is important that we should use our aid effectively and I can assure her that we take steps to monitor how it is used in the developing world.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, will the noble Baroness take pains to ensure that in the course of our interference with the affairs of the third world we do not interfere with the established rights of husband and wife in third world families?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the noble Lord's question begs a great many other questions. It is not a matter on which I would want to pronounce this afternoon.
Lord Walston: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the role of the VSO in these matters is of great importance. Is she aware that the number of volunteers who are women is considerable and that the part they play is enormously important?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I can confirm the importance of NGOs in their work both at home and in developing countries. It is something that we appreciate and have supported.
Lord Oram: My Lords, as the welfare of women is involved in practically every aspect of life in developing countries, should not every project undertaken by the Overseas Development Administration be monitored to see that it takes account of the needs of women? I believe that to be the procedure in the ODA in respect of family planning projects. Every one is vetted from that point of view. Would it not be suitable to use the same procedure in relation to women's questions?
Baroness Young: Yes, my Lords, the noble Lord is quite correct in what he says. All aid affects women in one way or another. The booklet to which I have referred, a copy of which is in the Library, gives examples of 18 projects. A recent example is our major support for the Open University in Pakistan, which helps to educate people excluded from formal education, especially rural women. This has been helpful. I accept his point about recognising within our administrative arrangements the importance of monitoring the work that is being done.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, as the Government are abolishing many of the good things in life, can the noble Baroness give us a serious assurance that the Government have no plans to abolish women?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the short answer to the noble Lord is that I have always believed in the natural superiority of women over men and would not think of abolishing women.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her sympathy with the spirit behind this Question. Is she aware that in real terms overseas aid today is 20 per cent. less than it was in 1979, that only 20 per cent. of present overseas aid is spent in the interests of the poorest of the developing countries,

627
and that therefore the amount that goes to women must be very tiny indeed? Would she consider, in support of what she appeared to be sympathetic towards in the question of my noble friend Lord Oram, the setting up in the ODA of a women's unit to ensure that every development project funded by this country is vetted before it is put into practice to see what its effect on women in the third world country will be, as has been promised by the Labour Party?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I would not accept the remarks which prefaced the noble Lord's supplementary question. We do not believe that a women's unit would be helpful within the ODA. We believe that it would marginalise the issue and that women could be forgotten in many projects. It is much more important to integrate women's interests in all development issues and to ensure that they stay in the mainstream. That is our view about this matter, and this is something to which I personally attach great importance. I believe it is an effective way of helping women in the developing world.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, does my noble friend think that it is a good thing that Question Time should develop to a point where the questioner on the Order Paper seems to have the right to give a winding-up speech as though he is answering a debate?
Lord Diamond: My Lords, would the Minister be good enough to use her offices to encourage the policy of integrating women more fully into their inheritance rights in your Lordships' House?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the noble Lord will know that that is very wide of the Question on the Order Paper.

Zeebrugge Ferry Disaster: DHSS Help
2.45 p.m.
Baroness Lane-Fox: 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 that the DHSS took all necessary measures to help the survivors and the relatives of the victims of the "Herald of Free Enterprise" disaster.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am pleased to be able to report that the Department of Health and Social Security acted promptly to set up an advice centre at Zeebrugge to handle claims and inquiries. Additional DHSS staff were present at Gatwick Airport and Dover to help those returning from Zeebrugge, while all claims were dealt with speedily at one nominated office in Dover.
The Secretary of State for Social Services decided that all medical costs incurred in Belgium by victims of the disaster would be met from public funds.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for his reassuring reply and for his
628
account of the efficient service that has been provided by the DHSS in the face of that stark disaster, may I further ask whether the Government have expressed suitable appreciation and gratitude to the Belgian authorities for their invaluable assistance at that time?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, on 22nd May my noble friend the Minister hopes to visit the six Belgian hospitals which looked after the United Kingdom victims to present each of them with a specially commissioned plaque in recognition of the care and support that they gave to those involved.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I am sure that we would all wish to associate ourselves with the thanks of the House to the members of staff who had such difficult work to do in this terrible disaster. Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether there are any claims still outstanding, and also whether any money payments were in the shape of grants and not loans so that people will not be expected to repay any financial help that was given to them.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, first, I join with the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, in congratulating our staff on their efforts. I remind her of my first Answer, which showed the great lengths to which the department went in order to be able to help victims as soon as possible both in Belgium and at the port of entry in the United Kingdom. The victims of the disaster are spread throughout the United Kingdom and the department has not collated any special statistics relating to them after they passed into the United Kingdom. However, I can assure the noble Baroness that claims were given the prompt attention of the department, and as in any emergency we have endeavoured to expedite them as speedily as possible.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister also consider paying tribute to the many voluntary organisations which helped at that particular time?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to do so.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, has it been taken on board that the most important thing on this sort of occasion, and which ought to be made compulsory, is that there should be a complete and accurate list of the names of all those on board; and that this is most important not only for the relatives of those who die but also to make sure that the ship is not overloaded, which on this occasion seems to have been a bit marginal?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I feel that that is a question which has nothing to do with the department.

South Africa: Suggested Visit by PM
2.48 p.m.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

629
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Prime Minister will visit South Africa in order to express, as she did in the USSR, the British people's dedication to human rights by meeting at the British Embassy in South Africa representatives of dissident movements and visiting typical African locations in the company of black leaders.
Baroness Young: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has no plans to visit South Africa.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether it is not a fact that on the Prime Minister's visit to Moscow she carried out the activities which are described in my Question on South Africa? Historically is not South Africa far more important to us than the Soviet Union? Therefore should we not be active in South Africa, on behalf of those who are denied human rights, to the same degree at least that we are in the Soviet Union?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, would not in any way underestimate the great importance of relations between East and West at the present time. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has repeatedly made clear her total condemnation of apartheid. She has not visited South Africa during her term of office but she has met a number of black South African leaders, including Chief Buthelezi, Archbishop Tutu and Chief Mabuza. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State visited South Africa in July 1986 and visited Soweto. During his visit black opposition leaders refused to see him. Since that time we have noted that a number of ANC leaders have met FCO Ministers.
Lord Kinnaird: My Lords, will the Minister not agree that this is a clear case of fools rushing in where angels fear to tread?
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, will the noble Baroness agree that, in the light of the swing to the right in the white South African elections, and the deteriorating situation throughout southern Africa, it is of the greatest importance that Her Majesty's Government show sympathy for those who appear to speak for the oppressed people in southern Africa, of whom the African National Congress and SWAPO for Namibia are among the chief?
Baroness Young: My Lords, as I have indicated, my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary met Mr. Tambo in September 1986. He met Archbishop Tutu in March of this year. Perhaps I may remind the right reverend Prelate that since 1979 we have maintained a wide-ranging aid programme to South Africa and the neighbouring states. We have given £1 million for training 100 black South Africans in the United Kingdom and £250,000 for British Council activities in South Africa. We have recently announced an additional £15·75 million over five years for assistance in southern Africa.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, following the recent election in South Africa, is the Minister aware that Archbishop Tutu, to whom she specifically referred, said that South Africa had reached its darkest stage? To what extent has the situation there, following the election, been considered by Her Majesty's Government, and what steps do they propose to take to ameliorate the position and the appalling possibilities of a great crisis with much bloodshed in South Africa?
Does the noble Baroness not agree that Her Majesty's Government have an important responsibility to take positive steps to seek to achieve a settlement in South Africa? Is there any significance in the appointment of Mr. Robin Renwick as Ambassador to South Africa? We read his book with great interest. Finally, what attitude do Her Majesty's Government now have towards the imposition of economic sanctions?
Baroness Young: My Lords, as regards the election in South Africa, the outcome is a matter for the white electorate. It is disappointing that they have clearly voted against any major change of policy. We have made absolutely plain our position on apartheid. In answering the right reverend Prelate, I indicated what we have done to help black South Africans, the front line states and countries in South Africa. Our view on sanctions is well known. It is interesting that during his visit to London last week President Chissano from Mozambique said that he knew that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister shared the aim of eradicating apartheid in South Africa.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, did my noble friend see the article by Natan Sharansky in yesterday's Times? It pointed out the astonishing double standard which the West is taking in that 5 million Soviet citizens are in camps or prisons and that, as a percentage of the population, the position is 10 times more serious than the very serious position in South Africa. Is it not possible to make representations on account of those minorities as well as the minorities in South Africa?
Baroness Young: My Lords, yes. The answer to my noble friend is that Her Majesty's Government deplore the violation of human rights wherever they may occur.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept that two appalling and frightening aspects of inhuman behaviour do not make for good behaviour? In so far as she has clearly said that the Government have rightly expressed their detestation of apartheid, can we not on this occasion make it plain that we also support the United States of America? That country has not only expressed, with us, its detestation of apartheid, but is now beginning to inflict a form of industrial control leading to what it believes will make the South Africans think again. Can we not support our ally, the United States of America, in its endeavours?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware of the view of Her Majesty's Government as regards economic sanctions.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, in spite of the results of the election, there is at the moment a strong feeling for reform in South Africa and that it may be necessary to use a little more carrot to encourage them to set about achieving that? Is the Minister also aware that there are 14 different interests there? If we expect them to settle the problem with 14 different interests, should we not show them how to achieve that in Ireland, where we have only two?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the answer to my noble friend is that we totally condemn apartheid. In 1987 we shall continue our efforts to work with our partners in the European Community and other like-minded countries to promote dialogue towards peaceful fundamental change, and we reject violence on all sides. There is no easy solution. Punitive sanctions are a false panacea and some of its advocates are already having second thoughts. The South African election results show that the United States congressional sanctions were counterproductive with the white electorate.
Lord Kennet: My Lords—
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order, order!
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, I think that one noble Lord must sit down while the other speaks.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, will the noble Baroness agree that, since the days of Lord Palmerston, it has been a fundamental principle of British foreign policy not to interfere in the domestic affairs of other sovereign states? Will the Minister assure the House that that principle still applies?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I set out the policy of the British Government in respect of this matter in answer to my noble friend Lord Gisborough.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, perhaps the first intervention from these Benches will be in order after four from the Labour Opposition. While the House accepts that the Government have always made clear their detestation of apartheid, could they not now begin to make clear their admiration and respect for democracy, and point out to South Africa and the world that it will get nowhere by having elections among the small white minority while leaving the large black majority disenfranchised?
Baroness Young: My Lords, we support democracy. We have promoted the principle of peaceful dialogue within South Africa by talking to all the parties. We have implemented a programme of positive and restrictive measures which have been agreed with our 12 Community partners and the Commonwealth, and we have fulfilled all our undertakings. We have helped black South Africans: 80 young black South African students have recently arrived here on scholarships.
632
We have taken a firm line on abuses of human rights. Our ambassador made a major démarche on 19th December on behalf of the Twelve and we have assisted the front-line states in reducing their economic and transport dependence on South Africa. But at the end of the day I say to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and to those who think like him that it is the South Africans themselves who will achieve change. External influence is limited and the prime responsibility lies with the South African Government.
A noble Lord: There will be a civil war.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, may I thank the noble Baroness for her reply to me and ask her whether it would not highlight the coming general election if a statement were made during the campaign that Britain was not only opposed to apartheid in word but was prepared to take action, as suggested in my Question, to end it?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I appreciate the sincerity of the point that the noble Lord makes. I hope he will feel that in answer to his supplementary question I have made plain the steps we have taken in meeting leaders from all parts of South Africa and in our condemnation of violations of human rights wherever they occur.
Lord Monson: My Lords, reverting to the original Question, does the noble Baroness agree that there is no point in the Prime Minister, or indeed any overseas visitor for that matter, visiting South African black townships, as they are now called, without during the same visit seeing similar townships in other parts of Africa so as to be able to make a fair comparison?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I have no doubt there is much in what the noble Lord says, but I have nothing more to add as regards the policy of the Government.

Naval Rules of Engagement
3.2 p.m.
Lord Kennet: 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, in the event of war, NATO navies, including the Royal Navy, would fight under the New Maritime Strategy announced by the US Chief of Naval Operations in January last year, and whether in peacetime they will exercise under the present US rules of engagement.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, in the event of war, the Royal Navy and the navies of other NATO countries which had been assigned to NATO command would operate in accordance with the concepts developed by the NATO military authorities and agreed by alliance nations. In peacetime, the Royal Navy and the navies of other NATO countries operate and exercise under their own national rules of engagement or, if they have

633
been assigned to NATO command for a particular exercise, under NATO rules of engagement.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the point is, do the NATO rules of engagement coincide with the New Maritime Strategy? Since this says that during a conventional war Soviet ballistic missile-firing submarines might be sunk in order to change the nuclear balance and to persuade the Russians to sue for peace, is it not a clear example of a pre-emptive strategic first strike? Has it been discussed at political level in NATO?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the Alliance naturally reviews and updates its rules of engagement from time to time but it is not our practice to give details or to discuss operational matters of this sort.
Lord Hill-Norton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Question quite misunderstands the arrangements of the Royal Navy and other navies declared to NATO? The United States Chief of Naval Operations, I am sure the noble Lord would agree, has nothing whatever to do with NATO arrangements. Is he aware that the two supreme commanders concerned in NATO are SACLANT and CINCHAN? They obtain their instructions from the NATO Military Committee. There is no conceivable possibility of strategy being developed by any authority other than the NATO Military Committee, and endorsed by the NATO Council. Finally, does he agree that even if the Question were well advised, it would be quite wrong to give the information requested?
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord is quite right. The United States maritime strategy is a matter for the United States.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in the short time this Question has been on the Order Paper I have consulted several experts, including the editor of one of our defence journals, and no one has ever heard of the New Maritime Strategy? Will he tell us the essential difference between the New Maritime Strategy and the old maritime strategy, or will he need a longer period of notice?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, that question is one which should be addressed to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that he is quite mistaken in saying that the Government never discuss the rules of engagement? On 5th March this year his noble friend Lord Trefgarne sent to me a very helpful statement of the Government's policy on rules of engagement in the Gulf. Is he also aware that the previous supplementary question was based on ignorance and that I am prepared to send full details of the New Maritime Strategy to any noble Lord who is interested?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I can go no further than my original Answer. It is not our practice to give details or make known discussions on operational matters of the sort to which the noble Lord refers.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that at any rate some of us think this Question is absolutely barmy? I cannot believe that any of your Lordships would be expected to know what the strategy of our nation would be in the event of war. Who is going to tell what to whom—certainly not to the enemy. The question could not be more daft.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will have heard those remarks.

Business
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to say a word about the short debate standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman. It is customary in short debates that the mover is allowed approximately 15 minutes and that the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate. This means that all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of seven minutes. If any noble Lord should speak at greater length that would be at the expense of subsequent speakers in the debate.
Private Business Motion
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I regret to say that a minor defect has come to light in the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I do not therefore intend to move it this afternoon but to table an amended Motion for your Lordships' consideration tomorrow.

Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill
3.7 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell): My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged. —(Lord Lyell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 12th May):
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
I should like to refer briefly to four matters which were raised by noble Lords in our debate last week. The first of these issues is the question of the composition of the Crown Court for the trial of scheduled offences. The noble Lords, Lord Hampton, Lord Donaldson and Lord Hylton, expressed support for the idea that the court should consist of three judges. The case for such a change rests on two assumptions: first, that a three-judge court would result in an objectively better system of justice; and,

635
secondly, that a three-judge court would inspire greater public confidence in the administration of justice. The Government are not at present persuaded that either of these assumptions is justified.
I should like to say a few more words about the question of a code of practice for the exercise of emergency powers, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. Legislation for Northern Ireland is being prepared which will be equivalent to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, including provisions requiring the introduction of codes of practice for the exercise of police powers. The Government recognise the desirability of providing a clear statement of the powers available to the security forces and indicating clearly the ways in which those powers should be exercised, but codes directly equivalent to those issued under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act would not bite on the exercise of powers under the emergency legislation. My honourable friend the Minister of State in another place accordingly announced on 8th April the Government's intention of publishing and bringing into force a non-statutory code of practice for the exercise of emergency powers by the RUC and the armed forces.
Thirdly, I mentioned last week that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State was considering the appointment of an independent person of standing to review the operation of the emergency provisions legislation each year. I am glad to be able to tell the House that my right honourable friend has decided that such a review should be carried out and that the Government have asked my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross to undertake this task. My noble friend produced a thorough and helpful review of the operation of the Prevention of Terrorism Act throughout the United Kingdom earlier this year and has just undertaken to carry out a rather more substantial review of that Act. All that will put my noble friend in a strong position when separately reviewing the operation of the emergency provisions legislation to assess the whole package of emergency powers that applies in Northern Ireland.
Finally, I should like to cover the point raised by several noble Lords about the availability of remission to convicted prisoners in Northern Ireland. In most cases it is 50 per cent. remission of the original sentence. I stresss that the remission applies only to what we call determinate sentences; that is sentences that are not life sentences. Remission can be lost if the prisoner commits disciplinary offences and unlike what happens in England and Wales remission is conditional. The balance of the sentence may be reimposed by the courts if the person concerned is reconvicted. The 50 per cent. remission arrangements reflect the difficulty of establishing a parole system in Northern Ireland but I can assure noble Lords that the whole system is kept under review.
I and the Government were delighted with the welcome given to the Bill last week when we discussed it on Second Reading. I acknowledge that many noble Lords may be disappointed that we have not been able to have a fuller discussion of that particular legislation because, certainly, it is sensitive. We believe that further discussion would have merits but we are very encouraged by the support of this Chamber for the
636
Bill. We hope that its provisions will find their way onto the statute book at the earliest opportunity. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Lyell.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for the assurances that he has brought to the House this afternoon. Of course we are saddened that it is still necessary to have emergency provisions legislation in Northern Ireland. But the Bill, which amends the current legislation in a number of respects, will be an improvement on that legislation. It gives greater protection to the individual citizen without causing damage to the requirements of security.
In the Second Reading debate last Friday, the Bill was welcomed generally by the House. From these Benches we indicated about half a dozen areas that we should have wished to explore in Committee, believing that the Bill would have benefited from such discussion. However, we have been overtaken by events, as we had anticipated. We are pleased to support the Bill and to facilitate its passage before the dissolution of Parliament.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comments on some points that I raised at Second Reading and welcome the review planned by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. In the Official Report I was quoted as saying that we should be happy if the emergency provisions were in future removed annually. The passage should of course have read, "renewed annually". Quite a lot of hard work went into this Bill in the other place and we are grateful that it is in pretty good shape. I do not think that I can with advantage add further to the debate. We support the Third Reading but with some regret that more time has not been available to scrutinise such important legislation.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, perhaps I may utter a few words of deep gratitude to the two noble Lords who have spoken for all the work that has been done on the Bill in this Chamber as well as that done by colleagues in another place. I am sure that all that has been said this afternoon and during our discussions at an earlier stage will be read with encouragement by my colleagues in another place. I beg to move.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed.

Local Government Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Landlord and Tenant (No. 2) Bill
3.15 p. m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill before your Lordships implements the main findings of the committee chaired by Mr. Edward Nugee, QC, which examined the problems of management in privately

637
owned blocks of flats. The prime purpose of the Bill is to strengthen the rights of people living in privately owned flats, and it applies whether the flat is in a mansion block, in a more recent purpose-built development or in a conversion of a house or other premises. In some respects we have gone further than the committee recommended, but the core of the Bill is based firmly on the findings of the Nugee Report.
The Government set up the committee in 1984 because of our growing concern about the management problems which were emerging in private blocks of flats. The report, which was produced in November 1985, showed that there are indeed severe problems affecting the management of many blocks, although there are also many landlords and agents who undoubtedly achieve high standards of management and consumer satisfaction.
The proposals of the Nugee Committee reflected a wide spectrum of opinion. The committee consisted of members drawn from various professional bodies and representing the viewpoints of landlords and tenants. It is a remarkable achievement to have reached unanimous recommendations on so much, and I should like to pay tribute to the committee.
Turning briefly to the content of the Bill, Part I gives qualifying tenants a right of first refusal where the landlord wishes to dispose of his interest in a block of flats. The Nugee Report suggested a procedure based on offer and counter-offer which would give tenants the first refusal at a price to be negotiated between the parties within a set timetable. We have implemented those recommendations.
Part II enables any tenant of a flat, whether a long leaseholder or rack-renting tenant, to apply to the court for the appointment of a manager to take over the management of the premises where the landlord has failed to discharge his obligations under the terms of the lease.
Part III enables a majority of leaseholders of flats in a block let wholly or mainly on long leases to apply to the court for an order to acquire compulsorily the landlord's interest where the landlord has failed to discharge his obligations and the appointment of a manager would not be an adequate remedy or where a manager has been appointed for three years.
Part IV deals with the circumstances on which a court may vary the terms of a long lease of a flat. It also safeguards long leaseholders of houses against unsatisfactory provisions on insurance in their lease.
Part V deals with management of leasehold property. It strengthens the provisions in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 dealing with variable service charges and extends them to houses and other dwellings. It provides that contributions to service charges, including sinking funds, shall be held on trust for the benefit of the tenants; it adds important rights for tenants on the insurance of their property; and it gives a recognised residents' association the right to be consulted about the appointment of managing agents. Part VI extends a residential tenant's right to information about his landlord's name and address.
The Bill as a whole provides a framework for the orderly management of flats in private ownership. All residents, whether they are long leaseholders or renting
638
tenants, have a right to expect that their homes will be properly managed. The Bill strikes a balance between improving the position of tenants and safeguarding the proper interests of landlords. As my honourable friend the Minister for Housing has repeatedly made clear, good landlords have nothing to fear from the Bill. Its provisions should bring the general level of management of flats closer to the standards already achieved by the better landlords and managing agents.
The Bill has been widely welcomed and was given all party support in another place. I believe that there is a general wish that it should be implemented as soon as possible. I commend the Bill to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Hoope.)
3.20 p.m.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her brisk but clear gallop through the terms of this Bill. I am very pleased to welcome this Bill to its Second Reading. It follows, as my noble friend said, the report of the Department of the Environment's committee of inquiry established in February 1984 under the chairmanship of Mr. Nugee, to look into the problems arising from the management of privately owned blocks of flats.
These had for many years been a concern of many of us, particularly also of my honourable friend Sir Brandon Rhys Williams, whose frequent attempts to legislate in another place should not pass without respectful comment; of Mr. John Wheeler, who also served as a member of the Nugee Committee; and of Mr. John Fraser in another place, who strongly and effectively supported the Bill on behalf of an Opposition party during its speedy passage through all its stages in another place. It was my honourable friend Mr. Gow who commissioned the report and it fell to my honourable friend Mr. Patten to implement it, and he has steered it through another place with dash and some brio.
The decision to legislate most of Nugee's recommendations was made known to us 13 months ago in answer to a Question for Written Answer addressed to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, and it is clear that the Bill before us has been prepared with care by parliamentary counsel. What we have to consider is a substantial and considered measure of overdue law reform in the field of domestic landlord and tenant law, a corner of our law which your Lordships may not find immediately glamorous, though I know that many of your Lordships are long lessees of flats and well aware of the deficencies in the existing law.
Here I shall myself declare an interest, in that I am the tenant of a long-lease flat; and it may be called a lease at the sharp end because it has only 13 or 14 years remaining unexpired. It is also, I have to say, what would be called a defective lease. I may also say that in my practice as a solicitor I frequently have to advise clients on defective leases which they may own or which they may be contemplating buying. Advice in such circumstances is not given or received easily, because people who have seen a flat that they like do not like to be told by their solicitors that they should

639
not buy it because of some technicality which their solicitor sees.
I shall come back to the question of defective leases, but perhaps I may tell your Lordships now that the drafting of and advising on residential leases is boring and repetitive, and has perhaps never received the care and attention that all the possible pitfalls call for. On the basis that you only get what you pay for, and with the pressure for conveyancing costs to be reduced and reduced, we must surely expect many more defective leases being drafted today to return to vex us tomorrow. The use of word processors also does not help.
I was delighted to read the Nugee Report, delighted to learn that legislation would follow and delighted when this Bill passed through all its stages in another place. The provisions of the Nugee Report were generally welcomed, as my noble friend has pointed out, and it is worth noting, as she did, that the committee comprised, among other well-informed persons, members reflecting the interests of both landlords and tenants as well as members of the relevant professional bodies.
Having said all that, I have to say that a Bill of this nature needs the closest scrutiny, clause by clause, in this House. I am surprised that we are being asked today, with all-party agreement, to take the Bill through all its stages on the nod this afternoon. I expected, as I know a number of your Lordships did, that this Bill would fall with the Parliament. It has been pressed for and worked for for so long that it would he a shame if it were lost, but that does not make its provisions urgent—quite the reverse.
It passed quickly through another place—only three sittings in Standing Committee—but that is not an indication that we should deal with it so quickly; merely a reflection of the agreed general nature of the measure, and a clear invitation to us to scrutinise the Bill carefully if we can. Not to give the Bill the close consideration that it needs may well be seen as an abjuration of our role as a revising Chamber, which we may well come to regret at a later date if this Bill does itself prove to be defective.
My surprise that we were dealing with this Bill in one day is shared by others outside your Lordships' House. I had a telephone call this morning from a well-known firm of City solicitors, Linklaters and Paines. They saw what they thought were problems in the Bill and they have written to me at length about them. I shall not go into details about the problems that they saw, except that they run through the Bill and they deal with the question of the landlord's and tenant's right to pre-emption; they deal with the tenant's right to compulsory purchase of the landlord's interest in certain circumstances, and they deal with the provisions of the Bill relating to managing agents.
When I took up the Bill yesterday afternoon on learning what we were going to do today, I turned to the provisions of Part IV—that is, Clauses 35 to 40—dealing with the variation by the courts of defective leases. This had always seemed to me to be the area of the report which needed the closest probing. After a little while, I had eight amendments drafted in pectore, but looking at them now I see that
640
they are for the most part Committee amendments and I do not propose to worry your Lordships or my noble friend with them this afternoon. Nevertheless, I should like to address the question whether Part IV should, in an ideal world, pass into law now or whether its contents should be left to another occasion for proper consideration.
I have no difficulty in agreeing that the problem of defective leases is a serious one. Defective leases fall into three principal categories. This is at least the best analysis that I can produce at short notice. The simplest category to consider is the sort of case where the landlord or his solicitors have imposed on a tenant a covenant to pay a proportionate part of the expense of repairing the structure of the block, without themselves convenanting to carry out any repairs. Your Lordships will be aware that it is a well-known fact that landlords call the tune and effectively impose their leases on tenants, and if a tenant does not like what the landlord's solicitor suggests all the tenant can do is find another flat.
The second type of case is where, as a result of incompetent drafting by the landlord's solicitors, there are errors and inconsistencies and ambiguities in the lease. With the growing use of word processors, and for the other reasons that I have mentioned, I see this category of defective lease as likely to be on the increase in the future.
The final category I have in mind is a more harmless one, though very difficult to resolve. That is where what are largely social conditions have changed over the years and left old leases stranded like dinosaurs on a beach. Such leases were relevant to the days of the daily delivery of groceries by errand boys on bicycles into the hands of porters on duty in shifts for perhaps 18 hours a day; of coal stored in flat owners' cellars; of porters, again, who let in the guests through the front door of the block. Now we may want to install entry phones but the lease does not provide for that.
Then under this category there is the pressing problem of central heating, which I put in the same category. What about the old boiler in the cellar? It supplies the whole building through furred-up pipes, with boiling water to the radiators in some flats and cold water to others, eating up oil at prices which could never have been envisaged by the draftsman who drew up the lease.
If you have a communal system you may turn off your radiators to save fuel on a March morning, but you will probably find that you get very little financial saving yourself from doing that. Indeed, you may notice that your walls are warm because your neighbour has gone off to the West Indies and left his radiators running at his fellow tenants' expense. Nowadays, all the arguments are in favour of individual central heating. However, under the old leases, if tenants install an independent system in their flats they will also have to pay their share of the running and maintenance costs of the old guzzler in the basement.
All those are problems and we need new machinery to resolve them. The question is: is the right machinery to be found in Part IV of the Bill? I confess to the gravest reservations on that point. I also have grave reservations about the propriety of legislating on the

641
nod for the massive variation of contractual rights by the courts.
The Nugee Report states in paragraph 7.6.8:
"The evidence we have received of the unsatisfactory nature of some leases leads us to conclude that it should be possible in certain circumstances (which need to be carefully defined) to modify the existing terms of the lease in the interests of the well being of the block and its owners and occupants even in cases where no majority agreement can be reached. The procedure would entail application to the Court for the lease to be varied. Such intervention is by no means unprecedented in statute; for example under Section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925. Moreover, the recent history of legislation relating to variable service charges from the Housing Finance Act 1972 onwards (and in particular Schedule 19 to the Housing Act 1980) provides examples of obligations to supply information and consult and of rights to challenge charges all of which may go beyond the terms of the actual leases."
Section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925 allows the Lands Tribunal, not the courts, to discharge or modify restrictive covenants affecting land in clearly defined circumstances. Broadly, those are: where the restriction is deemed obsolete or impedes reasonable use of the land and does not benefit anybody, or is contrary to the public interest. That is a very limited interference with contracts.
The other reference in the Nugee Report—the reference to service charges—is to my way of thinking quite off the point. The provisions in recent legislation do not alter individual contractual rights. They alter the general law.
For all their expertise in their respective fields, I wonder whether the committee really paid proper attention to the legal problems involved in the interference with vested rights. We are dealing with the Nugee Report on major defects here, and I should point out that the James Working Party Report, which preceded it and which is set out as Annex 1 to the Nugee Report had considerable reservations as to the desirability of permitting leases to be varied as a general rule.
One type of case I have considered is where the landlord's and/or the tenant's interests in the property may have changed hands many times since a defect in the lease became apparent. It will have done so at prices which will have been augmented or reduced on account of the defect.
Clearly in those circumstances there is a case for compensation to be paid on a variation of the lease and the Bill contains provisions enabling compensation to be awarded by the courts. Nevertheless, I do not find them clear and unambiguous, as they should be where a Bill of this nature potentially affects literally thousands of laymen. I should have thought that such provisions should be scrutinised further.
I want to raise another point and here I shall refer to the Bill. Clause 35 provides grounds where an application may be made for a variation of a lease. That is where the lease fails to make adequate provision for one or more of various matters. I quote as one such matter Clause 35(2)(e) where it is stated that the lease makes inadequate provision for:
"the recovery by one party to the lease from another party to it of expenditure incurred or to be incurred by him, or on his behalf, for the benefit of that other party or of a number of persons who include that other party".
642
Why should a landlord who has covenanted to provide services for his tenant, and has not asked his tenant to pay for them, he presented with that invitation to apply for the lease to be varied? Of course, a right to apply does not mean that the court will grant the landlord the variation sought. However, the Nugee Report in effect says that in such circumstances the landlord should get his variation. I refer to paragraph 7.6.9(iii) of the report which states that,
the lease should be varied in various circumstances such as:
"where the service charges payable in respect of the fiats in the block are determined as a percentage of the landlord's expenditure and the aggregate of the percentages is either more or less than 100 per cent. of such expenditure".
I wish to look for a moment at the significance of the words "more or less". Where we are talking about "more" we are clearly talking about tenants in the building who are obliged under their leases to pay, shall we say, 110 per cent. in aggregate of the landlord's costs of repairing the building and providing the services. When those tenants entered into their leases, they were asked to pay some small percentage in respect of each flat. They will not have received any information as to what the total percentage recovered by the landlord would amount. The Nugee Report states, and correctly in my view, that in those circumstances it is wrong for a landlord to recover the final 5 or 10 per cent. of the aggregate amount of the service charges. However, if we look at a case where less than 100 per cent. is recovered, we see that the landlord—for reasons of his own which are unknown to the tenants—has told the tenants individually that their percentage will be such and such a figure and those percentages do not add up to 100 per cent.
For the life of me I fail to understand why in those circumstances it should be thought right for the landlord then to be able to go to court and ask for the percentages to be raised—which is what the subsection to which I have referred provides.
I shall now turn to a brief consideration of the court as a forum for applications for variations of lease. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will be well satisfied that the courts—I take it that we are primarily talking about the county courts—can deal with those various applications.
I must confess that I am not convinced either that the Bill gives satisfactory guidance on variations of leases to the judges who will be asked to operate it, or that, with present adversarial procedures, the county court judges should be given the jurisdiction or can exercise it satisfactorily.
This matter will be green fields for some years, and I fear that for some considerable time to come there will be a flood of expensive litigation, with appeals. It will for the most part be brought by landlords, because they are generally better able to afford the cost and they will, by the nature of their relationship with their numerous tenants, have more at stake.
Landlords will also seek to recover the costs of the litigation from their tenants and that litigation will, for the most part—except where leases have simply fallen out of date as a result of changed social circumstances—have resulted from defective leases for

643
which the landlord or a landlord was originally responsible.
While I welcome the Bill and wish it a safe Second Reading, I do not feel able to make any further comments on what happens to it after that.
3.39 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I had not originally intended to take part in the Second Reading debate on the Bill. I read the various summaries of the Nugee Report upon which the Bill is partially—I stress the word "partially"—based and, although I have had the pleasure of meeting the distinguished Mr. Nugee, I have no particular expertise on mansion blocks, apart from knowing a number of people who have at one time or another lived in such blocks.
However, when I heard only yesterday afternoon (because of the inefficiencies of the postal system) that this highly technical, complex and detailed Bill—which is 67 pages long and contains 62 clauses and five schedules and on which we would normally spend at least five and more likely six or even seven days—was, without good cause, being rushed through in its entirety in a single afternoon, I knew that I must come and vote against it on principle, not at Second Reading (for that is not our custom) but at a later stage. I say that despite the fact that I know a number of people personally who will benefit directly from the Bill when it is enacted and I know no one personally who will be disadvantaged by it directly. However, if the prediction made in a considered letter from the chairman of the Sussex Private Landlords' Association, published in the Daily Telegraph of 5th May, is correct and the Bill leads to a drying up of the supply of private rented accommodation, then a large number of people will suffer indirectly.
I say that also despite the fact that the intentions which underlie the greater part of the Bill are entirely admirable. Part VI of the Bill seems to be wholly uncontentious, while Part V of the Bill is almost wholly contentious. I should guess that the same goes for Parts II and III, in so far as I have studied them in the extremely short time available. However, Part IV, to which the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, has drawn our attention, and particularly Part I, which goes way beyond the Nugee recommendations, are a very different matter.
The noble Baroness, in introducing the Bill, spoke for a mere four or five minutes. Perhaps she can take time in her summing up to explain exactly why small detached or semi-detached houses with only two tenants in them are to be included in Clause 1. Mansion blocks owned by large impersonal institutions are one thing, but small houses owned by individuals or families are a different matter. Does she not think that the precedent thereby set will give the green light to a future Left-wing government to expropriate all private rented accommodation or to nationalise it for a relatively derisory sum?
Moreover, on previous form even the least contentious clauses are bound to be capable of further improvement in your Lordships' House. The Bill may be 90 per cent. right; it may possibly be 95 per cent. right. But it is highly unlikely to be 100 per cent. right.
644
It is not as if we face a really serious and unexpected crisis, such as the Argentinian invasion of the Falklands Islands, which would justify rushing through emergency legislation.
It is true that there is a much less grave Middle Eastern invasion of London which is said to be responsible for some of the abuses which Part VI of the Bill is designed to rectify. But the abuses could easily be dealt with by confining ourselves today to passing the uncontentious Part VI in the certain knowledge that the all-party support for the principles of the Bill will ensure that the balance of the Bill will receive top priority in a new Parliament, whichever party happens to be in power. People who have waited many years and indeed decades could hardly object to waiting another two to three months in order that the legislation could be got absolutely right.
After all, the Government cannot have thought that this Bill was particularly urgent. They did not give it a very high priority in their legislative programme this Session and a June general election has been an odds-on probability for several months now. Why then the new-found sense of extreme urgency? I suspect that the answer lies in the fact that the beneficiaries of the Bill are, to a large extent, articulate middle-class or upper middle-class people who live in marginal constituencies and who are sophisticated enough to know how to vote tactically. If those with similarly valid grievances had been inarticulate working-class people living in constituencies with rock-solid Labour majorities, I doubt very much whether a complicated, 62-clause Bill would have been rushed through in a single afternoon.
On 30th March Mr. John Patten, the Minister in charge of the Bill in another place, said, at col. 774 of the Official Report:
"such will be the excellence of the scrutiny that the Bill will receive in Committee, I am sure that it will pass rapidly through to law".
Doubtless the Minister was being flippant. The main constituential function of your Lordships' House is that of a revising Chamber. But we are being effectively denied the right to revise or even scrutinise. In other words, we are not being permitted to do our constitutional duty. For that reason alone, and not because I oppose the general principle of the Bill, I regret that I shall have to oppose its passage.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, I feel that I must add a few words in support of what has been said, even though what I wanted to say has been said much better from the Benches behind me. I yield to no one in my admiration for the work which has been done in this area by Sir Brandon Rhys Williams, who, as well as being my relative, is also my Member of Parliament. I have also had many years of admiration for the work of Mr. Nugee, who is in the chambers that I was in at Lincoln's Inn. I have followed the work of his committee with great care and enthusiasm.
No doubt the work of the committee is very good and is largely acceptable. Nevertheless, we are presented here with a major piece of legislation—almost a code of legislation—in an area so far untouched by the law. Your Lordships should not be deceived by the great clarity and simplicity with

645
which the Bill was explained by the noble Baroness. It is a very complicated measure, as has been said, of over 60 clauses with long subsections and schedules. Each of the parts requires careful study.
Your Lordships will be in no doubt, having heard the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, that there are areas of considerable potentiality for discussion, particularly in the areas of compensation, of compulsory acquisition and of variation of contractural terms. One can only repeat that this is essentially the sort of measure which ought to receive careful consideration by this House.
One feels that the noble Baroness, who occupies a somewhat isolated position on the Front Bench at the moment, is in a very difficult situation as regards agreeing to vary what is no doubt the agreement of a powerful coalition behind the scenes to the Bill coming forward. However, I feel that many Members of your Lordships' House on all sides, and even on the Benches behind the noble Baroness, in the light of what was said yesterday by the noble Lords, Lord Wigoder and Lord Mishcon, would feel very much relieved if this measure could be deferred and considered at greater leisure.
It is not a matter which requires urgent legislation. We want to look at it; we can make constructive amendments to it. The noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, made that perfectly clear. If there were some means by which the noble Baroness could agree to the postponement of Part IV, at any rate, I feel that many constitutionalists in the House, as well as those who care for getting the relation between landlord and tenant right (which is a very sensitive area and one which, once got wrong, is very difficult to correct), will be much relieved. I associate myself entirely with what has been said behind me and what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine.
3.48 p.m.
Lord Denning: My Lords, it seems to me very wrong to rush this complicated and legal piece of legislation through without its having progressed through the proper stages in this House. I have read the Bill. It is exceedingly complicated, exceedingly legal and exceedingly obscure. It is the sort of Bill on which this House repeatedly does a first-rate job in revising legislation. It is altogether wrong that it should be rushed through in one day when there is no urgency about it. It ought to be properly considered by the House in its proper stages before it is passed into law.
3.49 p.m.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I rise to intervene and to apologise for my lack of courtesy in not putting my name down to speak. Although we have heard some stringent comments about the lack of time in which to examine the Bill, I should like to add that this is a good Bill. It is a Bill which will help many tenants. It is perhaps long overdue and it has, as I understand it, received all-party consent through the usual channels to go forward. It has not been a government steamrolling measure.
I intervene because I wish to make what are really Committee points. I should like to thank the noble
646
Baroness for giving me time with her officials before this Second Reading to examine the points which have been raised outside the House. I should also like to thank those officials. Perhaps I may put four points to her briefly so that she can answer them for the benefit of those who are interested in the legislation.
My first point was raised under the many provisions of notices that come under the Bill in Clause 5, where the landlord proposes to dispose of his interest in premises and serves notice on the qualifying tenants. Although it may seem only a small point, it is a very serious matter and I believe there should be a statutory form of notice giving details of the regulations on the counter-notices. The Bill provides a new right for tenants which will not be easily understood. I believe there is a very strong case for publishing the statutory form of notice which is not provided for in the Bill at the moment. I hope that my noble friend will he able to make some helpful comment on that matter and will consider whether such a form of notice should be published.
My second point, again involving notices, concerns Clause 22. The clause provides that one tenant may serve a preliminary notice on the landlord for the appointment of a manager of the block of flats. Obviously such a matter affects every tenant and not merely the one who serves the preliminary notice. Under the present format of the Bill none of the other tenants needs to be served notice. I believe that they have a right to be served. They have just as much an interest in the management of the block of flats as the tenant who served the notice. Again, I hope that my noble friend will say something encouraging on that point. The Nugee Report emphasises that there should be full disclosure among the tenants, as well as to the landlord.
My third point concerns Clause 47, which refers to the information available for the tenants as a matter of right; namely, the landlord's name and address. I accept that that is a very important right. It is also important for tenants to be notified of other tenants names and addresses. Nowadays, particularly in London, there are many company lettings and foreign tenants. It would be very helpful for tenants to know who are the other tenants in the block. I hope my noble friend will consider this point and make the information available.
My final point concerns the valuation formula. Under Clause 31 the valuation formula, where the tenant is buying the landlord's interest, is based on the open market price, not taking into account the tenant's interest. This is a formula similar to that which, according to my recollection, came under the original Leasehold Reform Act 1967 and which was found to be basically unfair and to give rise to difficult and unhappy results, and it was subsequently amended. There, that principle of valuation stands.
I find it very strange that we do not have the same established principle under the present Bill. Although I know that we cannot do anything today to alter the principles of the Bill, I hope that my noble friend will take on board the fact that there are many people outside who feel that the principle contained in the Bill is basically unfair.
3.53 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I speak on the basis that my party supports the Bill and agrees with the provisions contained in it. Moreover, my party's policy goes somewhat further than the Government's proposals. However, I have a great deal of sympathy for noble Lords who spoke earlier and complained about the shortness of time. I remind your Lordships, without trying to score political points, that the shortness of time is not the fault of the Opposition. I do not know how we are supposed to organise your Lordships' House or whether the Government consider what they do to us.
This time last year we were swamped with legislation, when complex, detailed, long and intricate Bills were given insufficient time. Major amendments were down for complex Bills such as the Financial Services Bill and the Banking Bill. Noble Lords were complaining about the hurry that was forced upon them, which resulted in the fact that adequate time was not available to deal with important matters.
In order to deal with that legislation we were brought back earlier than ever before. Although I stand to be corrected, I believe it was the heaviest batch of legislation that your Lordships' House has carried in a Session. My noble friend on the Front Bench who has just come in was involved in having to drop and restrict debates on very important matters that your Lordships should have dealt with in detail.
For some reason known only to the Government, when we reassembled in November we had the lightest legislative programme that has been seen for a long time. It is now obvious why. Again, that was not the fault of the Opposition. I believe that as the Government have gone further than the recommendations contained in the Nugee Report, the Bill could have been before your Lordships earlier and therefore had a fuller debate. However, that is not to be.
I say, I think without contradiction, that had the election been called when most people thought it was to be called, namely, October, there would have been no complaints today as there would have been ample time to amend and scrutinise the Bill. As I do not have a legal background I am not too familiar with parts of the Bill, which is very complex. However, I like to hear the implications of such legislation when it is explained and examined in detail by noble and learned Lords. As has been said by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, the Bill has a great deal of good in it, tipping the balance slightly in favour of the tenant. However, my party would have gone further.
I was glad to hear noble Lords pay tribute to Sir Brandon Rhys Williams in another place, as I know how he has battled over the years. However, your Lordships will understand if I mention John Fraser, Member for Norwood, who, in conjunction with Sir Brandon Rhys Williams, represented a London borough with all its problems. He has done an outstanding job not only on behalf of my party but on behalf of tenants in general. He has made his expertise available both in a political and non-political sense, which has been of tremendous value. I do not know Mr. Nugee. However, I concur with the expressions of appreciation to him and his committee.
648
Having made those points, I should like to say that the Opposition in general were faced with a situation not of their making and would have been letting down a number of tenants if they had said, "Take the Bill away and bring it back later". There is so much good in the Bill—for example, the advances towards tenants' rights—that my party agreed to support it in its present form.
I took note of the fact that the Minister spoke only for four minutes and I shall try not to exceed that, because the Bill, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has had three sittings in Committee. However, there were extensive debates on some parts of the Bill during those sittings. I have read them. I believe in the later stages there was an attempt by Mr. Fraser to introduce a long, rather convoluted and legally binding clause which would have pushed the provisions further along the road towards the tenant.
I shall not detain your Lordships any longer on Second Reading because it has been made quite clear that what is before us now will go through in its present form. Further comment at this point is not the best way of dealing with the matter. On that basis, on behalf of my party I end by saying that we support the contents of the Bill and wish it well.
3.59 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, before the noble Baroness replies, may I ask her to make perfectly clear to those of us who are not part of the usual channels why there should be any objection to postponing the Bill until later, as other noble Lords have suggested. In the recent past I have had to complain about lawyers in the House. But, this afternoon, they have been first class. As most of us, it is fair to say, are not part of the usual channels, we need an explanation of why this serious warning from lawyers who have to deal with the matter and who are experts in it should be ignored. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to give that explanation.
4 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I regret that my noble friend Lord Coleraine was the first of a number of your Lordships who feel that the timing of the passage of the Bill leaves something to be desired. The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, suggested that the Bill should have been brought forward earlier. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, have said, it is a long and complex Bill. We recognise that.
It has been a major task for the Department of the Environment and parliamentary counsel to draft the Bill. There was a long gestation period. As I explained in opening, the committee sat for a lengthy period and made wide consultations. Because the Bill was to embody the recommendations of the committee, it was felt that time should be given to its drafting. Had we been able to introduce the measure earlier, we should indeed have done so. I am afraid that that was not possible because of the care taken in drafting and because of the parliamentary programme.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, added his comment on the suggestion that the Bill was being rushed

649
through. I must repeat that the committee, in carrying out wide consultations, found extensive evidence of problems in the management of blocks of flats. The Bill puts into effect the committee's recommendations.
The noble Lord was incorrect in suggesting that Part I departs from Nugee's recommendations. It does not. My honourable friend the Minister for Housing and other Ministers receive large numbers of letters from residents of blocks of flats who have serious problems. Indeed, we are well aware that Members of another place have made a point of drawing attention there to the size of their mail bags. As a result, I cannot accept that there is no urgency in the matter. Many tenants need the help that the Bill can provide. That is why it has received all-party support in another place. I am therefore grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, for his expression of support in this respect.
I should like to reiterate remarks that I made earlier. The Bill as a whole provides a framework for the orderly management of flats in private ownership. This is greatly to be desired and has been given a general welcome not only in another place but in the wider world outside. Therefore, we feel that it is important to pursue the Bill through its remaining stages now.
I turn to the references to Part IV made by my noble friend Lord Coleraine. Part IV deals with the provisions for variation of leases. A key element of the Bill, it implements one of the central recommendations of the Nugee Report.
The committee found dissatisfaction with leases a recurrent theme in many responses to its questionnaires both among residents and among landlords and managing agents. The report distinguished between complaints that stemmed from the realisation that the lease contained disadvantageous provisions which residents simply did not like and those that reflected a serious deficiency in the arrangemens for the satisfactory management or maintenance of the block.
Where a lease is badly drafted—this was referred to specifically by my noble friend Lord Coleraine—so that it does not make clear who is responsible for what or how any services or works should be paid for, we agree with the Nugee Committee's conclusion that there must be machinery to enable such matters to be put right. Again, where the lease fails to make satisfactory provision for the insurance of the property or where the proportions of the service charges add up to more than the total of the sums required, a mechanism is needed to deal with this. I do not think that there is any serious disagreement on the need for provisions on all of this, and Part IV was welcomed on both sides of the House in another place.
Clause 35 was specifically referred to. Clause 35(2) spells out circumstances in which an application can be made for a variation of a defective lease. The clause is a as precise as we could make it, although it is not of course possible in legislation such as this to deal with every conceivable variation or set of circumstances. However, I note the point made by my noble friend with reference to Clause 35(2)(e) in particular.
Clause 37 allows a majority of the parties to the leases of flats in a block to apply to the court for a variation of all the leases in the block. The court may
650
grant an order so long as the variation is not opposed by more than a prescribed minority. The purpose of the provision, again based on the Nugee Committee's recommendation, is to allow desirable changes such as the setting up of a sinking fund to be made.
We have thought it right, where the effect of a variation would be that one of the parties suffers financial loss, that the court should be able to order that compensation should be paid by the party getting the benefit of the variation. Where, however, the effect of a variation is to disadvantage a party to the lease and the award of financial compensation would not be an adequate way of recompensing him, then the Bill provides that a variation order should not be made. I hope that your Lordships will agree therefore that in this respect, as in others, the Bill is even-handed as between landlords and leaseholders.
Although the Bill is primarily concerned with the management of blocks of flats, we have thought it right to deal also in Part IV with the question of insurance provision in leases of other types of dwelling, because of the concern which has been expressed in some parts of the country, especially in South Wales and in the North-West of England about this issue. As I have said, the Bill is in response to problems raised directly with the department.
My noble friend was concerned about the impact of these provisions on the workload of the county court. I agree that if the new rights in this Bill are used by landlords and leaseholders, as we hope they will be, there will be some increase in the courts' workload, but we do not expect this to be large in relation to the total work of the county court—certainly not a flood of litigation, as my noble friend suggested. After all, we are talking about not more than 500,000 dwellings to which the Bill will apply. We believe that the existence of a statutory right to apply for the variation of a lease will, in many cases, encourage the parties to reach a satisfactory settlement out of court.
As I made clear, I hope, we regard Part IV as an important and, indeed, essential factor of the Bill. It will not, of course, be possible to bring it into operation for several months after Royal Assent because of the need to draft rules of court to deal with the handling of applications. Perhaps that will meet some of the concerns expressed by several noble Lords this afternoon.
I have already said to my noble friend, I think, that if he wishes to discuss in greater detail any of the points which concern him in this respect, certainly both I and my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale are very willing to do so. I refer briefly to the point that he made about service charges not adding up to 100 per cent. Where total service charges add up to more than 100 per cent. of the landlord's costs, he accepted the tenant's right to be able to apply to the court to vary the lease. In fact, Part IV of the Bill will facilitate that. We believe that the landlord should also be able to apply to the court to vary the lease where the service charges do not add up to 100 per cent. because we want to encourage well-maintained blocks of flats. That is in the interests of landlords and tenants, but if the landlord is to maintain the block, clearly, he must have the resources to do so.

651
Having dealt generally with one or two points made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, I refer specifically to his comment about small and semi-detached houses. The sort of problems this Bill is aimed at—bad management, neglect and lack of repair—can arise as often in houses which have been converted to new flats held on long leases as in purpose-built blocks of flats. We see no reason why the tenants of such converted buildings should not have the remedies provided by the Bill. We certainly do not agree that the Bill will harm the interests of good landlords or discourage investment in this sector.
My noble friend Lord Kinnoull was very helpful in raising various points. I was most interested in them. As he explained, we have already had some discussion about several aspects of the Bill. I hope that I was able to show that the Bill, as amended substantially in another place, already provides adequately for many of the points which were troubling him. In several cases I undertook to consider whether we could meet his concerns. In drafting the subordinate legislation and rules of court which will be needed, we will, of course, take into account the points raised by my noble friends and by all noble Lords who have spoken today.
I realise that I am speaking in somewhat unusual circumstances at this point in the parliamentary programme. I welcome the contributions and suggestions that have been made on all sides of the House and the general support both for the aims of the Bill and recommendations of the Nugee Committee. I hope your Lordships will agree that we should press ahead and give the important advantages which the Bill will provide to the people concerned.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 12th May), Bill read a third time.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved. That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Hooper.)
Lord Monson: My Lords, as I said at an earlier stage, I fear that for reasons of party political advantage, your Lordships' House has been deprived of its main constitutional function and, indeed, has been deprived of its right to fulfil its constitutional obligations. Effectively, the House has been asked to rubber stamp what has been decided behind the scenes, just like some puppet assembly behind the Iron Curtain. For that sole reason, I regret that I shall have to vote against the passing of the Bill.
On Question, Bill passed.

Black Country Development Corporation(Area and Constitution) Order 1987
4.16 p.m.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 8th April be approved. [18th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name. It may be for the convenience of the House if I speak at the same time to the second and third Motions in my name on the Order Paper.
I am pleased that we are able to consider these three orders together. All three are made under the provisions of Part XVI of the Local Government Act 1980. As noble Lords will be aware, there are two well-established UDCs for London Docklands and Merseyside. Two other UDCs have been established recently for Trafford Park and Cardiff Bay. The orders designate land respectively in Tyne and Wear, in the Black Country and on Teesside as urban development areas and set up urban development corporations.
These orders were judged to be hybrid, but I am glad to say that no petitions were received on any of the orders. They were debated yesterday in another place. Provided your Lordships are content to approve these orders, the three corporations will come into formal existence tomorrow. As your Lordships know, UDCs assemble, reclaim and service land, provide infrastructure and facilitate development. They are able to offer practical assistance and, in some cases, financial assistance to would-be developers. They bring a co-ordinated, single-minded, sustained and public sector-backed approach to the regeneration of their areas.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has power to confer certain functions on a corporation by statutory instrument. He intends to follow the pattern established for the other corporations for which he is responsible and give these corporations development control functions. He will bring forward orders to do this in due course and may vest certain public sector land in the corporations. He does not see the need at this stage to give these corporations housing, building control or public health functions.
Each of these areas has been studied by a team of consultants. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State drew on the advice of the consultants when he put forward boundary proposals for each area. He circulated those boundary proposals for comment and subsequently made the orders we have before us today. Each of the teams of consultants has produced reports on their areas. These have been placed in the Library. It will be for the corporations to decide on the strategies that they should adopt, but the studies indicate exactly what each corporation might achieve.
I shall now say something about each of the areas in turn. The proposed urban development area in Tyne and Wear covers something under 6,000 acres. In common with the other orders, detailed maps have been laid before the House and a sketch is provided at the back of the order. In the past, the area has provided sites for much traditional industry, particularly shipbuilding, heavy engineering and port-related activity. The task of the corporation will be to reclaim and service the derelict and empty sites along the rivers and to find new uses for them. These uses should diversify the economic base of the area and make use of the natural advantages of the rivers.
Mr. Paul Nicholson, chairman and managing director of the Sunderland firm Vaux Breweries, will be appointed as chairman, and the proposed board,

653
composed of other people with local roots, has already been announced.
The Black Country urban development area is also just under 6,000 acres. It encompasses much of the worst dereliction at the heart of the Black Country. The task of the corporation will be to reclaim and improve access to sites within the area, and to upgrade the environment generally. Mr. Bill Francis and Mrs. Jean Denton will be appointed chairman and deputy chairman respectively. Both are well known in the area.
The area proposed for Teesside is a good deal bigger than the other two—over 11,000 acres. The main body of land lies on both banks of the Tees, from Stockton to Langbaurgh, incorporating parts of Middlesbrough and Hartlepool. There is a separate area covering the south docks in Hartlepool.
The area around the Tees has supported chemicals, steelworks and heavy engineering. These have contracted rapidly in recent years, leaving a legacy of dereliction and unemployment. The consultants have suggested an investment strategy underpinned by major environmental work. Perhaps the most interesting example of this is the proposal to create an international nature reserve on the marshland between the mouth of the Tees and Hartlepool. Mr. Ron Norman, a Hartlepool man with considerable experience of worthwhile investment in inner city areas, will be appointed chairman of this corporation.
Your Lordships' House was involved in the first steps that led to these orders. My noble friend Lord Davidson made the first public announcement here of the Government's intention to set up four new corporations in England on 8th October last year. A few days later my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale introduced an amendment to the Housing and Planning Bill which made it possible to set up such corporations outside metropolitan areas, thus clearing the way for the Teesside order.
Your Lordships now also have the chance to take the final parliamentary steps in setting up these corporations. Once the orders have been approved here, the corporations will be able to get down to the task of regenerating their areas. That task should start without delay. I therefore commend each of these orders to the House.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 8th April be approved. [18th Report from the Joint Committee]—(Baroness Hooper.)
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation of the orders. I have one or two questions to ask her. I was slightly surprised to hear that the corporation members had already been settled, because one of the questions I was going to ask was whether the local authorities were to be well represented.
Schedule 26, paragraph 2(2) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act, states:
"In appointing members of the corporation the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of securing the services of people having special knowledge of the locality in which the urban development area is or will be situated."
The next sub-paragraph states:
"In relation to the possible appointment of people falling within sub-paragraph (2) above, the Secretary of State shall consult such
654
local authorities as appear to him to be concerned with the regeneration of the urban development area."
I should like to ask whether the local authorities have been consulted and whether local authority representatives have been appointed. It is an important point, because we know that there was a certain amount of trouble in Docklands. There were difficulties between members of the local authorities and of the corporation because the local authority members felt that they had been left out; whereas I know, having been a local authority representative on Peterborough Development Corporation, that having local people on it made a tremendous difference to the good will. I hope that there will be reassurance on that point.
The areas on the maps which are provided at the back of the orders are rather odd because they cover a great many local authority areas. One understands the reason for that. The areas of dereliction are where the old shipbuilding firms, and industries allied thereto, were. There are two areas. One is on the Tyne and one is on the Wear. They cover the boroughs of North Tyneside, South Tyneside, Sunderland, Gateshead and the city of Newcastle upon Tyne. That makes five authorities. The Teesside area includes the boroughs of Langbaurgh, Middlesbrough, Stockton-on-Tees and Hartlepool. The Black Country area has only two local authorities. Many local authority people will be involved. I should like some reassurance on that point, because I think that it is important.
One wished the corporations well. The Minister mentioned a marine reserve on the Tees. I was glad to hear about that. I am sure that it will be welcomed by those interested in such matters. It is an important point, because there were problems in Teesdale. The co-operation of all those interested in conservation is important. With those comments, we support the orders.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I should like to say a brief word in support of what my noble friend said about the care that must be taken over the composition of the boards. I can endorse what she said about the aggravation that took place in Docklands. However, that does not mean to say that we do not know and appreciate all that the Docklands Development Corporation has done since.
When the Minister introduced these matters I was interested to hear her say that people had been appointed who were well known in the area. I should like to know what they are well known for and what their connections are. I should like the Minister to satisfy the House that care will be taken before the boards are finally composed. When the Minister's ministerial colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, introduced the Trafford Park order, he named some people but said that there were vacancies and that any names proposed would be considered.
I know Tyneside and Teesside well. I hope that we can tap the local authorities, but there are other interests in the area. I acknowledge that, in part, political affiliation is a factor to be taken into account. We are talking about industrial regeneration. There are many ways in which we can satisfy the people that an area's history and traditions are being taken on board.

655
There is an interesting aspect to Tyneside, which has many former pit slagheaps. They are made up of minestone. I have raised with the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and others the subject of making better use of minestone in roadmaking. I live in the Lee Valley. A great deal of development is held up while gravel is extracted from the land before it is built upon. Much of the gravel is used as aggregate in road building. One of the aggravations is that we have minestone which is a national resource—it comes out of the earth and is left when the coal is extracted—but if not hideous, it needs to be beautified.
One of the best uses to which minestone can be put is for road filling. I am not asking the Minister to respond to this point except to say that she notes it. The heardquarters of the minestone executive is in Philadelphia, at Houghton-le-Spring, in Tyne and Wear. It may be within the broad catchment area here. Good advice would therefore be available through British Coal and the minestone executive which would guide these authorities in the future. As my noble friend said, we are anxious to see that the aspirations of the development corporations come to fruition as quickly and as satisfactorily as possible.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady David, and the noble Lord, Lord Graham, for their remarks and their welcome for these orders. On the question of membership, I recognise that this is an area of great interest and one that is most important if the urban development corporations are to carry out their work satisfactorily.
The Government try to learn from experience. The experiences that we have had with the two earlier development corporations have helped us to make decisions on these three. As I said in my opening remarks, only the Tyne and Wear corporation membership has been announced so far. The full membership, apart from the chairman, has not been finalised for the other two corporations. The Tyne and Wear Development Corporation has eight members other than the chairman and deputy-chairman; three of those are local authority members. The full membership can be greater—up to 11 members—and there is therefore space for additional members. The three local authorities that are represented are Newcastle City Council, South Tyneside Borough Council and Sunderland Borough Council. Perhaps I may point out to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that one of the members is Mr. Joe Mills, who is secretary of the local Transport and General Workers' Union.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: And a very good man too.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, that may go some way to reassure the noble Lord and the noble Baroness. Consultation with the local authorities has taken place and the Government aim to strike a proper balance between local authority and other membership. However, they have insisted that all members are people with local interests or roots. I am sure that everyone will argee that that is the most desirable aim.
With regard to nature reserves, the consultants have recommended a nature reserve and the appropriate
656
land has been included in the UDC area. However, it is for the UDC eventually to decide exactly what will happen. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that I am sure his previous words were not wasted on my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale. I have nevertheless taken note of his remarks about the use of minestone for roadmaking. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Tyne and Wear Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 1987
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 7th April be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee]
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Teeside Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 1987
Baroness Hooper rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 27th April be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Definition of Capital Expenses (Scotland) Order 1987
4.34 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 1st April be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move. The purpose of this order is to amend the definition of "capital expenses" contained in Section 94(2) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 to bring this more in line with the definition of "capital" used in the national accounts.
Section 94 was introduced to replace the previous system of issuing borrowing consent for projects. Its intention was to permit the Secretary of State to exercise overall control of the level of public expenditure in Scotland, while at the same time allowing individual local authorities more freedom and flexibility to determine their capital expenditure priorities within the broad limits set centrally. From both the government and the local authority viewpoint the system has by and large been successful, though there has been the need for minor improvement leading to amendments in 1975, 1981 and 1982. The order before us today is another such small improvement.
Neither the definition of capital expenses at present used in the 1973 Act nor the amendment the Government propose will reduce local authorities' accounting flexibility to decide whether an individual item of expenditure should properly be charged to a capital or a current account. This is a matter for an

657
authority's own decision, subject to the concurrence of its auditor. The Government have no wish to become involved in the complexities of trying to decide centrally on the appropriateness of capital or current treatment for everthing a local authority might buy. Nevertheless, a fundamental difficulty for the Government is that the present statutory definition of what we actually control through Section 94 does not quite match our view of what we ought to be controlling. Because of this we have had to make ad hoc arrangements which are not entirely satisfactory and we think the time has come to tidy up the statutory position.
This difficulty relates to so-called "capital from current revenue" spending—CFCR for short. This is expenditure on things which, in terms of the national accounts (and often also in terms of any reasonable layman's view), are capital assets but which the local authority is perfectly free to finance entirely out of current income in the year in question and to charge to a current account. For the purposes of the public expenditure survey and of the local authority capital cash limit reported to Parliament, this CFCR expenditure is regarded as truly capital and therefore the Secretary of State has no choice but to treat it as such. But because of the wording of the present Section 94 he has no statutory means of controlling it. In practice what happens is that we have to make a guess at authorities' likely use of CFCR for the year ahead and then hold back this amount from the public expenditure provision available to be shared out as consent allocations.
This rather cumbersome procedure does not present serious control problems provided authorities' use of CFCR does not vary greatly from year to year. Recently, however, authorities' use of CFCR has become much more unpredictable with the result that authorities' Section 94 allocations were set at a lower level than they might otherwise have been. Provisional figures for 1986–87 indicate a similar picture for that year. With the prospect that the pattern of CFCR expenditure may be equally unpredictable in future years, the Secretary of State proposes to simplify the present position—hence this order.
Under the revised arrangements, capital from current revenue will no longer count against current expenditure guidelines as it does at present but instead will score against authorities' capital allocations. Consequently, from 1988–89 local authorities' Section 94 consent allocations will cover all capital expenditure no matter how it is financed. This will be more flexible than the existing arrangements under which authorities which express an intention to finance some capital expenditure from current revenue are given a lower Section 94 allocation. If they subsequently decide to finance that capital expenditure by borrowing, it is not possible for them to have their Section 94 allocation increased accordingly and they are stuck with the original decision which may have been made over a year previously. This inflexibility has certainly caused problems for some authorities in the past.
In conclusion, including capital expenditure financed from current revenue within Section 94 is essentially a tidying up exercise to put on a simplified
658
statutory basis the control we already exercise by administrative means. It will be less wasteful of scarce resources and have real benefits for central government in terms of a simplified control mechanism. For local government it will mean greater. flexibility in taking decisions on financing capital projects and will allow a more equitable distribution of the available resources between authorities. I commend the order to your Lordships and I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 1st April be approved. [19th Report from the Joint Committee]—(Lord Glenarthur.)
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I had the impression that in the last hurried days of this Parliament everything we were doing in asking for the indulgence of Members was related to urgency. I do not know whether noble Lords have had a look at the Definition of Capital Expenses (Scotland) Order 1987:
"Made 25th March 1987; laid before Parliament 1st April 1987; coming into force 1st April 1988".
What is the urgency about this? Noble Lords have been holding back. They should have liked more time to discuss the last Bill, which went through in a flash. There is a Bill on Scotland on which I do not think a word has yet been said in another place, and it is unlikely that anything will be said here. There is no justification for this.
The local authorities were never mentioned. The Minister did not say whether the local authorities agreed with this, welcomed it or criticised it. That is rather bad. They have been discussing the matter since about November last year. The Government suggested that they were going to do this at some time or other and the local authorities discussed it. They sent a letter to the Scottish Office on 2nd February suggesting that it required more consideration and asking for another meeting if it could not be withdrawn. They received no reply.
One of the deputy directors of CoSLA who was down here on other business—and we can all guess what the business was—discovered by chance that it had been laid before Parliament on 1st April. This is not good enough. It is not good enough for the Government to say that this is a small matter adding to a tidying up operation; that we did it in 1975; that there was another one at another time and that this is just adding to it.
The fact that the Government have been asked by CoSLA to reconsider this and to have another meeting to discuss it is symptomatic of the distrust that has grown up over the years between the local authorities and the Scottish Office. It has happened elsewhere as well. The distrust has deepened with every local government finance measure or clause within a miscellaneous provisions Bill. We have guidelines, penalties, clawbacks, interference, determination of local government powers, and here we have a fairly simple thing.
I am not saying that the present situation is ideal. It will never be ideal until we have a proper definition of capital expenditure. Many things which are dealt with

659
out of current expenditure in one area would be considered capital expenditure in another. We heard about the problems with computers in the Highlands—software and the rest of it. That might be considerable capital expenditure there, but in Strathclyde it could be construed as normal expenditure that is met out of current expenditure. Some people could construe buying an electric typewriter as capital expenditure. What is wanted is for local authorities to come together with advisers of the Government, work it out and come to an agreed solution.
There is plenty of time. What the Scottish Office is doing here is taking more control of all that is construed by the Government to be capital expenditure, whereas at the moment under the definition if a certain project can be completed within a year—and within the guidelines, because we are still controlled by guidelines in respect of current expenditure—it is allowed. If the authority decides to do it the general allocation for Scotland is changed and the allocation for that local authority is changed. So there is still full control but there is a certain measure of flexibility for the local authorities.
The Government are cutting out the possibility of a local authority doing that and saying that everything, whether it is financed out of borrowing, out of the capital fund or out of current revenue, has to be lumped together and has to be approved by the Secretary of State. This is guaranteed to create mistrust of the intentions of the Government.
Everything the Government want to do is being done. They may consider that it is being done in a roundabout way. The local authority can decide to spend something within the financial year out of revenue and then a calculation is made in regard to its capital allocation and it is reduced from that. What the Government are trying to do here is unnecessary and has led to suspicions among local authorities that they are being clamped down again by the Scottish Office. We have come to a terrible pass in respect of this and we have seen it getting worse and worse. If the Government are not prepared to drop this they should withdraw it today and have another meeting with the local authorities. They have plenty of time. They have a full year. It does not come into force until 1st April 1988. I suggest that they do that.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Lord is concerned about the commencement date. He ended his remarks by saying that we had plenty of time to deal with it. I am sure the noble Lord will recognise that authorities need to plan ahead. They need to know on what basis they have to complete their financial plans which have to be submitted in the autumn. That is the reason for dealing with the order now.
I heard what the noble Lord said about consultation. He explained that an official he had met had thought there had been no reply to the letter. My information is that the objection by letter of 2nd February was dealt with by the authorities being told on 20th
660
February that after due consideration of its comments the Secretary of State had decided to proceed. This was confirmed at a meeting in April. Perhaps the message had not reached the person concerned.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, April was not that long away and we were busy with other things. What date in April was this?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I do not have the date with me, but I can certainly find out the precise date and let the noble Lord know.
The noble Lord said that the amendment is unnecessary and will lead to further complications. I recognise his concern but I cannot agree that that is the case. The Treasury requires that all capital expenditure, no matter how it is financed, must count against the cash limit, but the statutory definition is out of step with that, requiring us to make assumptions about authorities' likely use of CFCR and hold that amount back before issuing capital allocations. This is a cumbersome procedure and not very accurate when authorities' use of CFCR is as unpredictable as it has become in recent years.
So far as concerns the classification of capital expenditure, the convention raised this point when it was consulted in September, and at its request the Scottish Office consulted the Controller of Audit. He confirmed our view that, although there may be difficulty at the margin in drawing a distinction between capital and current expenditure, this would not be exacerbated by the proposed change in the wording of Section 94(2). We are not attempting to define capital expenditure as such. That, as I am sure the noble Lord will agree, is a job for the Local Authority Accounts (Scotland) Advisory Committee.
The Government are not seeking to define that, for example, a computer is always a capital item but that a floppy disk, which goes into the computer, is always a current item. That is the sort of example that would fit into the remarks that I have just made, and that surely would be more a matter for the local authorities to settle with their own auditors as a matter of common practice.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I do not know whether the Minister realises it, but the advisory committee will meet fairly soon to discuss the whole question of the definition of capital expenditure. Would it not be far better also to remit this to them for consideration? Why should there be haggling between the Government and the local authorities about this kind of thing? It creates distrust and eventually leads to confrontation. The Government have plenty of time. Why do they not withdraw this order? They can always bring it back; they have time to do so.
As regards the business of giving extensions in respect of capital limits, this is done all the time. Even after this order is agreed to, it will happen. Very often one discovers that the capital available is not being used up by one local authority and one gives an additional sum to another during the financial year. That will continue. The noble Lord's remarks in that respect bear no relevance at all to what is being done here.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to the meeting that the advisory committee is about to have. As I understand it, that meeting will not discuss the definition. The noble Lord seems to think otherwise but I am advised that that is not the case. Nor will the order have any effect on the amount of public expenditure provision for capital expenditure by local authorities.
I hear what the noble Lord says, but I think that this is an improvement. I accept that CoSLA has made representations. As I have explained to the noble Lord, this has now been taken forward and we do not believe that the concerns it has expressed are as justified as it believes them to be. It is a reasonable change to make and it is broadly parallel to other changes which have taken place to try to improve the section over the years. I do not think that I have anything else to add to what I have said. I hear what the noble Lord says, and beg to move.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, does he not appreciate that he is simply doing as he is told by the Treasury? They are just carrying forward the kind of cavilling procedure of tying up the local authorities as much as possible. My information in relation to the working party is entirely different from his. My information is that they are going to discuss the difference between capital and revenue expenditure. I do not know where the noble Lord gets his information, but I get mine directly from someone concerned in this.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, I am not too sure whether or not the Minister has actually resumed his seat, but on the supposition that he is just on his way down and has not quite got there, perhaps I may draw his attention to one facet of difficulty on the Scottish local government scene at the moment which I hope that this order might at least more clearly define?
I refer to the real difficulty which exists between the citizens of Aberdeen—and I think that I can put it as broadly as that rather than say the district council of Aberdeen—and the use to which they wish to put their common good fund. The Minister will know of the difficulty over the common good fund of Aberdeen. The district council and indeed the wider body of the citizenry properly think of the fund as being under their purview to develop capital investment as they determine.
In the meantime the Secretary of State takes the view that this cannot be the case and that they are not to be allowed their most reasonable expenditure. I hope that the Minister will give me some confirmation that the discussions which are about to take place will at least lead to some clearer definition in this regard.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising that point and I shall come back to him in a minute on the Aberdeen common good fund. I may have inadvertently misled the noble Lord on the question of the meeting between the local authority advisory accounts committee and the Scottish Office. That committee is meeting to discuss the definition of capital expenses but the order does not seek to distinguish between capital and current. I think that that is where our misunderstanding may have arisen.
662
As for the common good fund, there is no connection whatever between this order and capital expenditure financed from common good funds. Section 94 already applies to expenditure financed from such funds whereas, as I said, the purpose of the order is to simplify the control system by bringing capital expenses financed from current revenue—that is, nearly all rating income—within the scope of Section 94. I think that that is the answer to the noble Lord's point. If the noble Lord is content, then I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Crossbows Bill
4.57 p.m.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Brougham and Vaux.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 12th May), Bill read a third time.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Brougham and Vaux.)
Lord Monson: My Lords, in contrast to a stand I took on another piece of legislation ealier this afternoon, may I express pleasure at the passage of this modest Bill, which has received quite adequate scrutiny in both Houses of Parliament. I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Brougham, and the original sponsor of this Bill in another place. It is always good to see a Private Member's Bill succeed.
I said "modest Bill" because, bearing in mind that a crossbow is a much more lethal weapon than an airgun, some of us thought that the minimum age should have been raised to 18 or even higher. Your Lordships may have noticed that the Chelsea football hooligans, who earlier this week were sentenced to beteen 4½ and 10 years' imprisonment and who employed a crossbow as one of their many lethal weapons, were aged between 24 and 31. However, this modest but excellent Bill can no doubt be enlarged upon if necessary in the light of experience.
On Question, Bill passed.

AIDS (Control) Bill
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee.

663
Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Stallard.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 12th May):
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Stallard.)
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I want briefly to ask the noble Baroness a couple of questions of which I have already given her notice. The first relates to my noble friend Lord Young's concern, which he expressed at Second Reading, that mandatory rather than voluntary reporting might undermine the principle of confidentiality, and therefore fewer people might come forward than at present. Will the Government undertake to keep a sharp eye on any evidence that the Bill is having such a counter-productive effect? If it were, we might need to reconsider in the next Parliament the whole question of mandatory reporting.
My second point is that which I made at Second Reading. It is extremely important that no additional costs should fall on health authorities as a result of the Bill. That would be particularly unfortunate at a time when, as reported in the press today, some London hospitals are having to restrict the purchase of the AIDS drug AZT for their AIDS patients because of shortage of funds. That is a matter we must discuss on another occasion. However, there is no doubt that the Secretary of State has made many requests to health authorities in respect of AIDS, but has given no clear indicaton of how he will help them financially.
I should like to be assured that there can be no question of the Bill contributing in any way to the funding difficulties. If any additional expenses are triggered by the duties under the schedule—it seems to me that certain expenses might arise under paragraph 4—I should like to be assured that the Government will make provision for them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, has provided me with the welcome opportunity to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, and the honourable Member for Edinburgh East who, together, have made a little bit of history. The noble Lord's Bill is the first primary legislation solely concerned with AIDS.
I should like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, that the existing voluntary confidential reporting system to CDSC will be maintained. Nothing in the Bill should undermine this and it will not therefore affect those arrangements. We shall continue with all the checks that are at present undertaken. It has reassured us of the virtually total completeness of the reporting of AIDS cases to date. As regards confidentiality, I gave the strongest
664
assurances when the Bill was last before us and I gladly repeat them.
As regards the second point raised by the noble Lord, the provisions of the Bill should not produce any significant costs for health authorities. We expect the very small cost in producing their reports to be found from within authorities' existing budgets. The Government fully support the intentions of the Bill and believe that it will provide a useful weapon in the fight against the spread of AIDS.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I speak on behalf of my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies, who unfortunately is unable to be present. My noble friend has asked me to pay tribute to the Minister for the strong assurances given at Second Reading and on other occasions regarding the maintenance of confidentiality. My noble friend Lord Prys-Davies was most anxious to make that public declaration of thanks to the Minister.
I join others in expressing gratitude to the Member of another place, and particularly to my noble friend Lord Stallard for all the hard work and research devoted to putting on to the statute book an excellent piece of public health legislation.
On Question, Bill read a third time.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. In doing so, I should like to congratulate the original sponsor of the Bill in the other place, Dr. Gavin Strang, Member of Parliament for Edinburgh, East. I wish to congratulate also the Minister for Health in the other place, Mr. Newton, who provided great assistance as regards necessary amendments to make the original Bill more acceptable and sensible. I thank, too, all noble Lords who have helped and supported my efforts, the voluntary organisations who have written to express support, and the BMA. In addition, I thank the noble Baroness for her sterling support from the start of the Bill's progress and the members of her staff who have ably assisted in trying to get through this piece of legislation.
It is important legislation. We have said most of what must be said. But we face a menacing threat to the health of the nation. It cannot be stressed enough that we need accurate information and education if we are to begin to fight that threat. Therefore, the compilation and publication at local level of the information that will come to light as a result of the Bill is necessary and valuable in the fight against a new disease of such horrific potentialities. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Stallard.)
On Question, Bill passed.

Environmental Protection
5.7 p.m.
Baroness Stedman Baroness Stedman rose to call attention, in the European Year of the Environment, to the case for measures to protect the countryside and environment and to the case for all-party support for environmental protection; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spent most of the Easter recess in the Lake District. Sitting high up

665
on the fells watching a buzzard soaring overhead, I wondered if it realised that this was European Year of the Environment, and if, during all its travels over the years, it had noted the continuing decline in our environment. Had it registered how the hedgerows have been pulled out; how the broadleaved woodlands have been reduced; and how the vital wild life reserves and habitat used by birds and other species have been destroyed or become smaller?
We have seen our ground water polluted by nitrates and pesticides. Our rivers have become polluted. Any success in reducing pollution has been slowed down or reversed by public spending cuts and the fact that the powers of water authorities in relation to pollution control are still too vague. One sometimes has the feeling that environmental considerations come a long way down the queue in relation to their operational requirements. That includes the discharge of sewage effluent into watercourses.
We believe that the Secretary of State should have more power to control water pollution and marine pollution caused by the discharge of aldrin, dieldrin and endrin. These chemicals have a totally disastrous effect on wildlife, and the Secretary of State ought to be able to set emission standards and national quality objectives that the water authorities would be required to enforce. Change is never easy to contemplate or to manage. But the difficulties will be much greater if we always cling to the past and to what we know and understand, and try to defend that past because we are afraid of what the future might hold.
We, on these Benches, believe that we have that vision of the future. We recognise that environmental strategies are an essential part of our economic strategy. For far too long, the way in which environmental decisions are tackled within government has been unsatisfactory. The department mainly responsible is the Department of the Environment which is purely a department of local government and housing. Even if the Secretary of State wanted to give more prominence to environmental issues, then, of necessity, local government and housing must be his major concern.
The environmental responsibilities also spill over into other departments like MAFF, Trade and Industry, Education and Science, and Transport. There has been an imbalance between environmental and other considerations in reaching policy decisions because individual departments of government are not required to consider the environmental consequences of their own policies and also because, in some ways, the DoE has lacked clout in promoting environmental issues throughout government. Therefore, agricultural policy has tended to be decided rather more in the interests of the farmer than of the conservationist. The benefits of energy conservation are given less prominence than the interests of the energy producers. Nor do we take account of environmental considerations when we formulate government policy on foreign aid.
That is why we are proposing a new Department of Environmental Protection which would be responsible for planning, conservation, pollution control, leisure and recreation, and animal welfare. It would also be responsible for promoting and co-ordinating environ
666
ment policies in government in general. The secretary of state of this new department would be a full member of Cabinet, giving environmental protection an effective voice at the conference table for the first time.
We would want to foster co-operative attitudes and institutions which bring people together to share in the decisions which affect them. to identify our common objectives, pool our resources and work together to make a really integrated rural society. And what better time to begin than in the European Year of the Environment?
We believe in a flourishing rural economy based on a less intensive form of agriculture than we have known until now; but the recent circulars and the £25 million package have not been well-received by farmers, rural dwellers or environmentalists. They do little or nothing to stem the fall in farm incomes or to relieve the fears of totally unplanned growth in industry, housing and forestry in the countryside.
Even so, we believe that we have been given a great opportunity to take advantage of the need to restrain over-production. It would be a tragedy to throw away that opportunity on ribbon development, blanket forests of conifers and unrestricted housing development. Yet the Government's proposals for alternative land use and the rural economy to me look little more than a policy to buy off farmers for the losses that they have sustained through the shift in CAP. We need the conifers and the broadleaved woodlands, but in the right locations.
Why cannot the local authorities be more involved in preparing a strategic plan for forestry, as proposed in the latest report from the Countryside Commission, New Opportunities 'Or the Countryside? Why indeed can there not be some kind of landscape conservation order as a reserve power when voluntary agreements cannot secure the protection of valuable countryside features, such as the Association of County Councils has suggested? We believe that we have to balance our economy and our ecology. We want to encourage economic growth that is environmentally beneficial or, in today's jargon, "green growth".
We see energy conservation, housing rehabilitation and improvements in public transport as being environmentally beneficial. All public policies have some impact on the quality of life and all nations ultimately share the same environment, as was so graphically illustrated by the results of Chernobyl.
A good environment pays dividends in improved health, welfare and personal fulfilment, if not immediately then certainly in the long-term. Our countryside is of crucial interest to all of us because of its wildlife, its beauty and its ability to meet the growing recreational needs, and because it is still primarily a source of our food and other raw materials. A healthy agriculture is necessary for the management and preservation of the countryside. Much of the natural beauty, some of the wildlife and most of the footpaths and open spaces would disappear if the farmers were not there to manage our land. We want to work towards a developing consensus between the conservationists and the farming community. I believe that most farmers would share our view that the maintenance of healthy agriculture, the conservation

667
of the environment and the sustaining of balanced rural communities must be the objective of any integrated countryside policy.
That will mean looking at grants, subsidies and price incentives both here and in Europe. It will mean guaranteed protection for our most important landscapes and wildlife habitats. However, beauty needs the protection of the SSSIs, of the nature reserves, the national parks, the areas of outstanding natural beauty, the environmentally sensitive areas, the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council. It also means that our farmers must be adequately rewarded for their share in the management of such areas. I see the farmer as the front-line guardian of the countryside, its landscape and much of our rural environment; so let him have a just reward from the taxpayer for playing that role. Incidentally, how many projects have been put forward for European Year of the Environment grants and how many have been agreed so far?
We believe that we need to look at the Wildlife and Countryside Act to make it better able to protect our most valuable features and the wildlife habitats. We need much more research into soil erosion and into the link between fertilisers and nitrates in our water supplies. We need much more research into organic fertilisers and their uses. We want to be able to enhance the rich diversity of our landscape and its wildlife.
We welcome attempts to provide alternative sources of energy and we believe there should be serious and well-funded research into tidal power. However, at the same time we need parallel research into how to retain marshland and mud flats for the wildlife and plant life which depend upon them. For example, we have to find out if tidal energy is feasible and, if so, if it is also feasible to build up the levels of mud flats to ensure that bird life can be maintained. We ought to know the consequences of our actions before we embark on using tidal waves and estuaries for an alternative source of power.
We also need to look at our towns and cities, many of them with areas of dilapidation and dereliction. Townspeople need the freedom to move around in pleasant surroundings in the fringe areas; and it ought to be possible to protect the environment—natural and man made—in the course of development.
We have to learn to manage our waste properly, to use recycling wherever possible and to control much more carefully where noxious waste will be disposed and by what methods. We have to do more about cleaning up our sewers and sewage outfalls so that our lakes and rivers will be unpolluted and our seas fit to swim in, and so that our bathing beaches will be cleansed and purged of the despoliation of today.
I believe that the time has come to act on the principle that the polluter should pay. We should be planning much more research into the physical and biological sciences, into ozone levels and estuarial problems, into new forms of energy, marine conservation and so on—sciences which explain the natural processes of the environments. Yet organisations associated with the Natural Environment Research Council are being starved of funds and
668
the Freshwater Biological Association is facing a cutback of 30 in its staff of 100. Surely we do not want research scientists just to run a high-quality consultancy. We ought to be encouraging much more multi-disciplinary research.
A green environment and growth do not necessarily have to be in conflict. It is possible to have economic and housing growth while still conserving and enhancing our environment. What we must do is to recognise the interdependence of economic and ecological priorities and the need to bring environmental issues much closer to the heart of economic policy to achieve a real balance.
There has to be greater interplay between environmental policies and other key policy areas such as agriculture, energy, transport, housing renewal, and so on. We believe that a properly conceived public investment programme could achieve more jobs in Britain and that projects for energy conservation, the repair and renewal of water and sewage systems, improved public transport and rehabilitation of our housing stock would all bring significant environmental gains. We could also add to job creation if we were to do more in connection with tree planting, derelict land reclamation and the restoration of wildlife habitats, on the scale that was being achieved by the Greater Manchester Council before it was abolished.
Before concluding, I should like to pay tribute to the Minister's right honourable friend Mr. William Waldegrave, for the efforts which he has made to bring environmental policies to the fore. Many more people in this country are environmentally aware of, and take an interest in, issues such as pollution, acid rain, erosion of the ozone level, conservation and changes in land use. More and more people are learning a greater understanding of our flora and fauna. Surely now is the time in the European Year of the Environment to set aside any party differences, to get round the table all the political parties, and the voluntary and statutory organisations who are concerned about conservation and environmental decisions.
As the recent Bruntland Report asserts, only if governments reform their decision-making can sustainable development be achieved. Economic objectives have been built into the national systems of administration. We want to see a new understanding that "economic" also means "environmentally sound".
I ask: why can we not try to hammer out an agreed programme for the protection of our environment and, having agreed a basic programme that is acceptable to all political parties as well as to environmental and other groups, have that conservation and environmental protection policy honoured and funded by successive governments with periodic recall to the conference table to update the priorities? I believe that my suggestion is a practical way forward and one that would be acceptable to most of the voluntary and statutory organisations and certainly to the public at large. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.21 p.m.
Lord Craigton: My Lords, I have to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for giving us an opportunity

669
to debate this important subject. I have happy memories of the time when she was a Front Bench spokesman for the Department of the Environment. In my speech I hope to give a background to her emphasis on the importance of the environment.
In 1983, the United Nations formed the World Commission on Environment and Development to report on the problems of protecting and enhancing the environment. That is the Bruntland Report to which the noble Baroness has referred. It was published last month and consists of 383 pages convering virtually the whole globe and all its conservation problems. It was produced in the European Year of the Environment. It is the latest of many such reports. There is a surfeit of such reports and we must ask ourselves how serious is the situation.
There are two increasingly dangerous problems, both of which are of mankind's own making and of recent origin. First, there is the growing shortage of living space. Already the world population of 2½ billion people in 1950 has nearly doubled, and will double again in the early years of the next century. Many life forms as we know them now will not survive.
Secondly, for little over 100 years man has been feeding back into the atmosphere the fossil fuels that have accumulated over the past 500 million years, and in the past 50 years we have added the waste products of the chemical era. The records show that carbon dioxide levels in today's atmosphere have increased by 27 per cent. since the mid-19th century. Carbon dioxide holds heat close to the earth and has the potential for melting the polar icecaps and raising the levels of the oceans. Now that methane and chloro-fluoro carbons have been added, it means that we are not just polluting the atmosphere but that we are tampering with our basic weather-making components. We do not know the outcome. The risks are a warmer, flooded earth or a world seared by the sun.
In the meantime, those extractions and additions are causing the pollution and destruction of many life forms with which we have evolved. In Britain since the turn of the century there has been some public awareness of the damage that is being done and the dangers that lie ahead. The RSPB was started in 1889; the National Trust in 1895; Flora and Fauna Preservation in 1903; the CPRE in 1926; the BTCV (British Trust for Conservation Volunteers) and Youth Education in Conservation in 1959; and the World Wildlife Fund in 1961. Those are all voluntary bodies.
The first world gathering of governments was the Stockholm Conference in 1972. At last fears were being turned into world action. That was the year that the All-Party Conservation Group of both Houses of Parliament was formed. In those early years—only 16 years ago—the group was worried about badgers, seals, whales, mining in national parks, how little use was being made of SSSIs and the iniquity of transferring nature conservancy to the Department of the Environment. Today the impetus has changed from protecting endangered species to protecting their habitats, which includes our own.
As the noble Baroness has said, the problems and dangers are so great that governments are forced to take responsibility for their solution or diminution. In
670
this they must have the support of the few—some of whom are in this Chamber today—but whose numbers are increasing, who know and care about those problems and dangers. As that growing minority of people who are actively aware of the dangers come from all walks of life and hold varying shades of opinion and belief, I can see no merit, as the noble Baroness has said, in turning any particular danger into a party political problem. If one does that, it alienates a large number of potential supporters and encourages those who have points of view other than conservation to jump on the bandwaggon, as it were.
One basic fact is that critics, both constructive and destructive, must have a much better chance of success with their governments if they are fully and correctly informed. It is at this point that an all-party group such as ours comes into its own. The group seeks to give Members of both Houses an opportunity to hear and question the men and women who are personally answerable for an activity or policy. Thus are so many misunderstandings clarified and answered. Common sense imposes limitations on the choice of subjects for discussion. If the Member or the Government are to do something about the problem there must be some degree of ministerial responsibility. In that case, should the Minister or his responsible official take part and if there is some difference of opinion should someone of weight attend to give the opposite view?
All that must happen before the Government have made up their mind to act. Once a Bill or order is tabled the discussions, which one hopes are better informed, fall within party debate. The all-party group is there to provide the correct information and not to influence Members, who will make their own decisions on how to act. The group meetings are attended by Members who have a special interest in the subject under discussion. The debates are circulated among some 160 Members of both Houses and that ensures that those who are interested but were not able to attend the meeting are nevertheless kept fully informed. The subjects have changed over the years but the need to keep Members of Parliament fully and correctly informed remains the same.
I should like to think that our group has helped to keep conservation out of party politics, but the credit is due to the Ministers and the ministry, especially the Department of the Environment whose publications and many meetings that have been so willingly arranged have disclosed the facts, thoughts and conclusions behind the evidence on which decisions will be based.
5.29 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I welcome the Motion that has been put down by the noble Baroness and I thank her for giving us an opportunity to speak on 'a subject on which I have both spoken and written for well over 20 years. However, I wish to make one reservation in that welcome.
When the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, asks why it cannot be the case that all-party support is given to the environmental decisions that must be made for the survival of mankind, I can give her the answer, which is very straightforward. Since election fever has hit the country, we have already seen the Government make

671
one abject withdrawal on the question of burying nuclear: waste. That was clearly designed solely for electoral purposes.
But the important issue is what reason the Government gave for changing their mind—changing their mind against what their scientific advisers had advised them to do—about burying nuclear waste in shallow trenches. The reason given was that they had now discovered that the cost of burying in deep trenches was no more than that for burying in shallow trenches. In other words, it was the cost factor which dominated the decision according to the Government. This Government measure everything by the cost factor. That is the reason why it is fantasy, and indeed dangerous fantasy, which may well dilute the conservationists' case simply to try to smooth over the differences of philosophy between the parties.
I want to concentrate on one issue, which the noble Lord who preceded me raised briefly during his speech, and that is the question of the ozone layer, because this again is an illustration of the central point that I want to make. Presumably everybody knows now that the layer of ozone which covers this planet absorbs the sun's ultra-violet radiation and if it is removed or weakened then, on the best prescription we get an increase in skin cancers, while on the worst, if it is really removed, the human race is extinguished through burning.
As the noble Lord mentioned, the emission of chloro-fluoro carbons (CFCs as they are commonly known) has in the opinion of many scientists already begun to damage that ozone layer through the use of aerosols, the use of fridges, fast food production, plastic foam and other commodities of that kind; and the CFCs, we are told by the scientists, once emitted can last for 75 to 100 years. So we are talking about the future of humanity as well as the present.
Already there have been seen through satellites seasonal holes in that ozone layer over the Antarctic—interestingly enough, missed by the computers. But what are the Government doing, what is this country doing, in the face of this grave menace to the human race? Though I could not contact the Minister who is to reply, I have contacted her staff so I hope that she will be able to give me some specific reply to this issue and the Government's stand upon it.
In 1985, we had the Vienna Convention with 30 countries approving a vague set of measures. What measures were they? The United States, Canada and Scandinavia have already banned aerosols. What have our Government done? As recently as December 1986, the United States proposed a freeze on the production of CFCs and a 50 per cent. reduction within 10 to 15 years. They were supported by the Canadians, the Scandinavians and the Soviet Union—not by the British Government.
Only two weeks ago in Geneva it was hoped that a treaty would be ready by September, but next week, on 21st May, the EC Environmental Committee meets. Our Government have a veto, every government has a veto, on that decision. What will the Government do at that meeting in Brussels next week? The record of this Government has been to oppose the cuts that have been suggested by other countries in the production of
672
CFCs. Why? It is because of the cost that would be involved, because ICI is British and believes that American Dupont is in advance of British companies in the research for replacements for CFCs.
I pay tribute, as has already been paid, to William Waldegrave for the partial U-turn that he led in March in suggesting a 20 per cent. cut in six years. I wonder how long William Waldegrave will last in this Government. But that was the suggestion in March. We do not have time to wait for this bickering, for this guesswork. Between 1978 and 1986, that ozone cover was decreased by 4 per cent. and today, if four out of five of the industrial countries were to freeze their production of CFCs, the ozone layer would be reduced by 16 per cent. by the year 2060. Can we afford this kind of risk?
I know that we are talking, and I am talking, of scientific uncertainties, but the human race cannot afford to wait for proven certainties. If this issue is to be judged, as it apparently has been in the past by this Government, on the test of profit and loss, then the probability is that the verdict on the human species will be that it made 100 per cent. profit but that in doing so it incinerated itself into extinction.
5.36 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I also should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, on her choice of subject and also on the splendid speech with which she introduced this debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, indicated, questions of the environment are of very great gravity indeed and they call for an all-party approach.
There are encouraging signs. I am reminded of this every morning, especially on a lovely day like this when I look out from the house where I live in Salford down below to the environmental improvement scheme of the Croall-Irwell valley. This was a threefold partnership scheme between the Department of the Environment, the lamented GMC, which played a predominant role, and also the four local authorities through which the River Irwell and the River Croall pass.
Clean air and new technology are giving marvellous possibilities for cleaning up the environment and protecting the countryside in new ways. However, I believe that we should appreciate that pressures on the environment come both from the rich and from the poor. The pressures are very great indeed—pressures to create wealth, pressures of those already possessing wealth to enjoy it in the way in which they would wish and particularly pressures from the poor. I expect we are thinking particularly in this debate of the countryside in our own country, and yet already I am glad to see that an international note has crept in, because all of us realise that we are concerned with the management of a very small planet and that these environmental issues run into each other all the time.
Pressures on the environment by the poor come in many parts of the world and they are contributed to in various ways by those in wealthier countries. You think, for example, of landless people of Brazil being ordered by their government to clear forests in order to secure more areas for cultivation for schemes which are sometimes supported by money from western

673
countries, or for cash crops which are damaging the environment. Or you can think of the search for wood as the only source of energy for cooking in many parts of Africa, which is causing devastating results.
To succeed, environmental policies surely have to have at home and abroad a great weight of public opinion behind them and that is the point to which I should like to address myself in these few moments. It is very difficult to get public opinion fully behind environmental causes, whether here in Britain or overseas. In this connection, the traditions that we have had from the past and the outlook that we have on theworld in which we live and on our environment around us are of great importance. Religious traditions have a value here. I am bound to confess that the Judeo-Christian tradition has been under very severe criticism in the past from environmentalists.
I shall read a few words from The Environmental Revolution by Max Nicholson in which he goes for the churches with no holes barred. He writes:
"The adherents of the church have, with few exceptions, persisted in behaving as rampant Old Testament tribes, now terrifyingly endowed with modern technological knowledge and equipment, and making mischief for the world on a corresponding scale … In South America, giant crucifixes stand proudly on summits overlooking deforested hillsides and dried up stream beds. In Spain, Italy and in many other lands, the extent of erosion and of wanton destruction of wild life is closely co-related with the proportion of regular churchgoers".
I read those words in penitence. However, things are changing in the churches, as elsewhere. For example, the World Council of Churches has promoted a major study under the heading Faith, Science and the Future, which culminated in a conference in Boston in 1979. Some of the conclusions of that conference were very important for the subject with which we are concerned. The churches were called on to:
"foster the exploration of less consumptive and wasteful styles of life, and promote programmes which restrain governments and private enterprises from depleting non-renewable resources".
The conference delegates backed the idea of "world commons", namely things held in common such as the oceans, the Antarctic, the atmosphere and space, and called on the scientific and technological communities to:
"abide by and implement the principles of justice, sustainability and participation in dealing with each other".
They called on the churches to do what they could to:
"promote education and awareness of the nature and injustices of environmental damage".
Therefore, I believe that things are changing. We are all very familiar with the concept of loving our neighbour, but the concept which is now being promoted is that our neighbour includes future generations. That is very hard to get across when people are faced with the short-term commercial pressures which are experienced in every country. They are much more excusable in countries where people are very poor and desperate to live.
If policies to protect the countryside and the environment are to succeed nationally and internationally, we must act as though the earth's resources are for all and share them much more equally than we have ever done in the past.
I was very interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, refer to the dangers of overpopulation. He
674
was absolutely right to do so as it is one of the gravest pressures of all on the environment on a world scale. However, people often forget that efforts to deal with overpopulation must go along with development. A simple illustration of that may make my point. I remember that when I was in Kenya two posters were produced. One showed a man and his wife, who was very badly dressed, sitting on packing cases outside a dilapidated hut with a crowd of children. The other showed a nice neat hut with a man his beautifully dressed wife and two children sitting outside. The latter poster was to promote the idea of family limitation and birth control.
They had to withdraw the poster because too many people were going around saying: "Look at that poor man. He has only got two children". It is clear that unless one gets away from the idea that security lies in the number of children that people have, it is very difficult to promote the concept of reducing population and reducing pressures on the environment.
Let us not be naive and suppose that in our country we can meet pressures on the environment without very difficult political questions being raised. I am thinking particularly of the planning applications for huge super shopping "cities" which are being submitted at the moment in a number of areas. They could gravely damage our environment, although I have no time to develop that theme.
I conclude that care of the environment must have a very high priority, but changing attitudes is absolutely crucial. Attitudes can only be changed by promoting concepts of the fairer sharing of resources both at home and abroad.
5.44 p.m.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I do not know whether it lies with me formally to thank the noble Baroness for giving us an opportunity to discuss this subject. She already knows how grateful I am personally.
In the few minutes at my disposal I thought it best to narrow the focus from the broad range of topics that have been raised so far and speak for a few moments about our national parks. I declare an interest, having had the delectable experience for the past six years of being president of the Council for National Parks.
Last year marked the launch by the Countryside Commission of a three-year campaign to increase public awareness of our 10 national parks. Here I follow the right reverend Prelate in stressing the importance of that. Public interest is there already. Last year, nearly 100 million people visited our 10 national parks, but relatively few people know much about them. A Countryside Commission survey conducted recently found that under half of those questioned could name more than two of our national parks, which must perhaps partly account for the overcrowding which occurs in Snowdonia, in the Lake District and in the Peak Park during the year.
The year 1986 also marked 50 years since a Standing Committee on national parks launched a movement to establish parks in England and Wales which culminated, a quarter of a century later, in the designation of the first of our national parks. Our national parks embrace under 10 per cent. of the land

675
surface of England and Wales, but they represent a great deal more than that in terms of values which bear on the quality of life, especially for city dwellers. The parks, as I see it, are standard setters for the countryside in general. They help to create public concern for the rural scene as a whole.
We do well to remember that, unlike national parks in many other countries, our national parks are areas where a quarter of a million people live and very many work—principally of course on the land. Our parks contain few of what might be properly called wilderness areas. Indeed, most of their traditional landscapes are manmade. They continue to depend on human skills and human labour to preserve and develop in ways that are sensitive to landscape and wildlife. One essential condition for the future of the parks is the continuing commitment and co-operation of local communities in maintaining a national asset for the public at large.
Over the past 20 years or so, one of the problems has been the conflict in the needs of agriculture—encouraged by MAFF grants and aided by modern technology and chemistry—in contrast to those of the national parks, where now attitudes are changing under the painful necessity to cut back on food production. There is now a new prospect of working together in a common interest of land management in the parks.
There is a great deal more I should like to say if time permitted. However, I shall limit myself to a few of the things which need to be done to defend the purposes of the 1949 National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act. I am presenting them as statements or matters of opinion, but I should be grateful if the Minister could find time to comment on one or two at least of them when she replies.
First, there is a strong case for elevating the status of the committees, which are entirely accountable to county councils, to that of the boards which operate in the Lake District and in the Peak Park. All national park authorities should also have statutory authority for their own development plans in the context of the Government's new proposals for development planning.
Secondly, the national park authorities need greater financial resources, and that notwithstanding a most welcome increase which has been made for the national park supplementary grant in the current year. There is a strong case for grant-aiding all national parks at the same 90 per cent. level as Exmoor receives for making management agreements, instead of the 75 per cent. which all other parks receive at present.
Thirdly, I wish to stress that the Government are to be commended on their insistence on the voluntary principle in regard to their policies in the parks. However, in one respect, powers of last resort are needed to prevent damaging developments which a very small minority of farmers can and have carried out, despite the withholding of MAFF grants. Landscape conservation orders, which my noble friend has mentioned, have now been proposed by the Government. However, they will be needed over the whole designated areas of the parks and not simply in key areas within them.
676
Fourthly, broadleaved farm woodland schemes, which the Government propose to encourage in their consultative document, ALURE, are welcomed; the planting of more conifer forests as alternatives for the cutback in food production are not. All forestry should be brought within the ambit of planning control in the national parks. We cannot afford more disfigurement of the uplands by blanket conifer plantations as has happened over the years in the Lake district, in the Brecon Beacons, in Northumberland and in Snowdonia.
Last but perhaps most important of all, we need an example from government. Changing attitudes on the ground should surely be matched by a policy at the centre which upgrades the value and importance of the countryside to that of food and industrial production. I am sure that the right reverend Prelate will be able to confirm that it can be said on impeccable authority that man shall not live by bread alone.
We need a strategy by government which integrates all relevant interests in the uses of rural land. That is the policy of the parties represented on these Benches and it would hopefully be the strategy which we would pursue. The national parks have fully proved their worth since they were dreamt of some 50 years ago. They exert their influence upon and they are influenced by policies which bear on the countryside in general. With greater leisure, affluence and mobility the need for and the role of the parks in the next 50 years cannot fail to assume greater importance to the quality of life in Britain. For the sake of posterity, we must make that asset secure for future generations.
5.52 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I am glad to have the opportunity of saying a word in the debate and of thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for the opportunity of debating this attractive subject. I join her in her generous tribute to William Waldegrave for his work, especially in the Council of Ministers in Brussels.
A related subject to that of national parks, on which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt spoke with such authority after his splendid service, is the preservation of green belts in this country. That is a good test of government soundness on conservation of the environment because it affects most town dwellers. All governments want more houses built and some past governments have fallen for the temptation of taking a slice of green belt land for quick and attractive development of new houses.
This Government's record is good. Not only have they significantly extended the green belts in various parts of the country but they have also resisted the tempting proposal of a powerful consortium of builders to take 750 acres of farmland in Kent and build on it a new community of 5,000 houses at Tillingham Hall. The Government rejected that scheme on the ground, first, that it breached the green belt and, secondly, that there was enough land with planning consent within the boroughs of Greater London.
Consent would have created a precedent, opening a flood of similar applications which would soon have obliterated the green belt not only around London but

677
around other cities and would have deprived Londoners and other city dwellers of what are literally the lungs of their cities. The financial incentive to crack the boundaries of green belts is so huge—a factor of at least 10 times—that the developers' continuous attack, using every ingenuity, is ever pursued. Only the vigilance of government and of local authorities safeguards them.
Conversely, the Government have given a splendid lead in developing alternative unused urban land with the massive redevelopment of the eight square miles of London's derelict docklands. That area was evidently beyond the capacity of the London boroughs to revive it; it has now been transformed by the Government's urban development corporation into a hive of new building and activity with some 10,000 houses already built or being built and 8,000 new jobs, with the prospect of four times that number in the next four years. It has been financed mainly by private money, in that for every £1 of Government money there are £6 of private money. That has been a spectacular success and shows what can be done in the area of urban renewal. It was interesting to hear, before this debate started, the Minister moving that further urban development corporations should be set up so that some six corporations will cover the country. The Government get full marks from me for conserving the green belts, and that of London in particular, while they have, at the same time, renewed housing stocks.
I turn briefly to my old friends in the water industry. The Government have achieved some good things in that area. Despite the ambivalent attitude of the Government to their legitimate child—the 1973 Act—they tend to treat the water industry rather like a father in ancient Rome who had the power of life and death over his children—with death too often uppermost in his mind! Fortunately, a period of reprieve now obtains.
In the meantime, great credit should be given to the regional water authorities for the clean-up of estuaries and coastal waters. They inherited a shocking condition from local authorities 13 years ago; all sewage outfalls from towns and cities round our coasts were no more than pipes discharging raw sewage on the tidal edge of the beaches. In the past five years, all regional water authorities have given top priority to curing the pollution by constructing long sea outfalls or new treatment works. They have devoted some hundreds of millions of pounds to that important expenditure. Now we have a report that two-thirds of all our beaches conform with the EC standard and that the remainder will soon follow. Even the murky old Mersey will eventually be cleaned to the standard of the Thames and the Tyne.
A similar story of progress in cleaning up our rivers is also going forward. However, I say with all seriousness to my noble friend that the Government must restrain their zeal for financial stringency which limits the strength of monitoring. They will never keep rivers clean without sufficient monitoring. That is essential for maintaining river quality standards. To the Government goes the credit for unified water management, which they or their predecessors brought about in 1973 and which has made progress possible. I hope that my noble friend will take on
678
board the message that whatever is done in the future, that will never be changed.
5.58 p.m.
Lord Gibson: My Lords, I have listened with the greatest interest to the speeches made in your Lordships' House this afternoon. Some have referred to the environment on a global scale. However, I should like to return in the few minutes that are permitted to me in a short debate to the way in which agricultural and planning policies affect our countryside. I am very glad that this debate is taking place before the end of this Parliament. I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for introducing the debate.
There was anxiety earlier this year when the Government indicated some relaxation of planning control. I think that that was largely unjustified anxiety. All we were being told was that, except in land of the highest quality, agricultural production should cease to be the paramount factor in deciding planning applications. Protected areas were to be protected as before. I hardly think that that is equivalent to treating special areas as land museums, as has been claimed, while letting all other land take its chance. To my mind, it is simply a recognition that economic pressures are already changing the countryside and that if we are to combine protection with furtherance of national economic and social interests, some changes in planning assumptions are necessary.
So far as agriculture is concerned, as has often been said, it is the victim of its own success. There is now an abundance of food and unless European taxpayers are prepared to underwrite the export of food at uneconomic cost to the hungry parts of the world, which in any case is not a long-term solution, agriculture must adapt to the new situation and the countryside will change accordingly—but not I think necessarily for the worse. The ideas now being canvassed—such as a return in some places to low input/low output farming, the Minister's scheme for fallowing, suggestions for, in effect, paying farmers to manage the countryside in places where farming without subsidy would be uneconomic, the farm woodlands scheme, and the various diversifications of the rural economy that have been suggested—all these ideas, whether practical or not, (and I expect some of them are not) are not ideas which would harm the countryside. They may even do more for the beauty of the countryside than an ever-more productive agriculture would be likely to do.
On the other hand, there are economic pressures which do threaten it. Here the problem is how to ensure that planning controls effectively minimise the damage, and how to reconcile our love of the countryside with the need for some changes in land use. I yield to no one in my love of our countryside. I think I care about it almost more than anything else. I have spent much of my lifetime trying to protect and preserve it, having been the chairman of the National Trust for nine years and closely involved with it for nearly 25 years.
Moreover, I am now chairing the Royal Society of Arts Environment Committee, so I think that I can lay some claim to being an environmentalist at heart. I am

679
totally behind the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, in urging the importance of environmental protection and a reconsideration of the present administrative set-up within government to achieve it.
The fact is that if we cannot generate the resources to afford to maintain the countryside it will, in any case, disappear as we know it. We must therefore have regard to economics; and moreover people's livelihoods are at stake, and with them the stability of society
To illustrate what I mean I should like to talk for a moment about the South-East of England, where I live. Although I should hate to see the view changed—whether from my garden or anyone else's—we have to consider what is our paramount national interest. One element in the matter is to do everything we can to reduce unemployment. So far as concerns planning land use, this means recognising that the south-east quarter of England is where most of the unfilled vacancies are. If we build the Channel Tunnel, this will increasingly be the case.
From the national point of view, therefore, it does not make sense to maintain present restrictive policies in an area of England which can help relieve unemployment. Everyone knows that people seeking work often find it in the South-East and then find that they cannot afford to buy or rent a house there. My belief is that a future government ought to insist that the South-East does rather more to help the country as a whole by accommodating more low-cost housing than it is doing now.
What planning procedures will best ensure that encouraging economic growth, and jobs where they are most likely to be available, does the minimum damage to the countryside? Can we find a way to prevent development from ruining it? I believe that we can. As the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, pointed out in your Lordships' House last February, we do not want housing estates tagged on to our existing villages.
What we shall need are new villages, not in green belts—I hasten to support the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, on that matter—but there are places where new villages can be sited without doing any harm. As architects are now more responsive to traditional values and popular taste, why should these villages not be attractive? Why should we not add to their attraction by planting trees, as has been done in Milton Keynes—not little trees, but big trees which will grow in a way that will give scale and dignity to their surroundings.
However, these are points of detail, and although details are critical to the appearance of the countryside, before we can get those details right what we surely need is a strategic plan, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for land use over the whole country, drawn up in the light of the changing situation.
I am not clear what strategic planning the Government contemplate. I know that they propose to replace the county structure plans and local plans with a single system of district plans, but districts will need to operate within an overall plan. Perhaps the Minister will expand that point, for the nature of the broad
680
framework within which districts would work is crucial.
If the next government set up the machinery for deciding at national level the broad lines on which public resources are to be allocated between different forms of land use—for example, industry, farming, housing, conservation, forestry and all new kinds of activity within the rural economy—then district authorities can be left to make planning decisions within that framework.
What we shall still need—and this is my last point—is a sufficient number of planning officers with the training to do the job really well. The planners have saved us from many visual atrocities, but we can all give examples of planning absurdities which have sometimes been due quite simply to a lack of proper education in visual matters. I believe we could do infinitely more by careful training to produce a larger body of planning officers with a sensitivity which is now sometimes missing.
When local government was reorganised in 1974 the number of planning authorities was greatly increased without a corresponding increase in well-trained planners and there was a constant dilution during the ’seventies in the quality of planning officials. If the inevitable changes in our countryside are to be managed without detriment to its beauty we need a strategic plan for land use and more well-trained people to implement it on the ground.
6.7 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for instigating this debate. I am delighted that it is not one of the victims of one of the Government's cuts and that we still have it. I should like to follow up what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, and welcome the Government's initiative on the alternative uses of farm buildings and farmland. I was delighted particularly about the alternative uses for farm buildings. Last week I went to see a snail farm in our local area which has taken over a derelict farm building, and is actually exporting snails for consumption in France, which I thought was rather good news.
I echo the noble Lord when he said that there was unjustified criticism concerning the restriction on planning controls. However, I go further and say that there was a lot of nonsense talked about it, particularly in the local press where there were headlines to the effect that farmland was to be covered with rashes of new housing, and that farmers would go mad and sell every acre for building. I also echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, said, but I feel very strongly, as the noble Baroness said, that farmers and landlords in this country are the front line guardians in the battle for conservation. Many of them have lived for generations on the land and the one thing they want to enjoy is an attractive countryside. Of course there are exceptions but I do not believe they are the rule.
I have mixed feelings about planners. We live in a lovely part of the world. I am lucky enough to live on the edge of the Yorkshire Dales. We have many visitors now, especially since Mr. Herriot made his money from writing his "vets" books. The most attractive and popular place on my estate is known as

681
Druids Circle, which is wonderful. It is on the edge of the moor. It is perfect in every way. There is even a stow with a channel down which the Virgin's blood was supposed to run. It may strike you that there is nothing very strange about this. However, visitors come and say it is better than Stonehenge—so it ought to be; it was built only 150 years ago! It was built by the then owner of the estate at a time of high unemployment. He could indulge his fantasy in Victorian folly and also produce some wages for the locals at a time of high unemployment.
I was thinking about this matter the other day and I thought that if I had wanted to do that sort of thing I would never have got planning permission. To put forward a folly in this day and age would be a folly.
I am not suggesting for a moment that planners should be abolished, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, that some of them could reconsider their ideas. In case I am being too complacent and too kind to the Government, I should like to put out a marker for the next government—I am quite sure that a member of that government will be the noble Baroness who is sitting on the Front Bench and will be answering this debate—on the question of the common land forum and any future legislation on the lines suggested. I know that this was a unanimous decision by those in the common land forum. Unfortunately, there was a North-South divide. Those who gave evidence and the members of the forum could not spot the difference between common land, especially in the South of England, and the large heather commons of the North, which are a very different proposition.
I hope that any government will consider seriously the evidence recently put forward by the moorland association, which has gone into some detail about the heather commons of the North of England and produced a cogent and well informed report. I hope that whatever government look at it will take advice about the matter. In case your Lordships suspect that I should declare an interest, perhaps I should say that none of my moorland is common land, so I do not gain anything from what I say.
A short debate like this is not the right time for me to go into the arguments. There are good arguments. The report has been submitted to the department; it makes interesting reading and I hope that it will be well considered—I rather enjoyed it.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Buxton of Alsa: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness not only for a vigorous survey of the problems of the European Year of the Environment—I sit on the United Kingdom committee—but for the wording of the Motion, because it enables me to deal with a specific case for special measures. That is the subject of afforestation in the far North; that is, the wild wilderness in Sutherland and Caithness known as the flow country. Before anyone thinks that I am against forestry or afforestation, let me say that I regard this particular case as a specific political, social and environmental problem. I am entirely in favour of forestry and indulge in it myself.
682
The blanketing of this area with coniferous plantations is doing irreversible damage to a unique and delicately evolved wild habitat. It will eliminate many fascinating natural species, especially birds and plants. Once it has gone, it will probably never recover, even in centuries.
I believe that it is immoral to eliminate and perhaps even exterminate highly specialised species of birds and plants, unless it is absolutely essential for mankind's economic survival. Even then it may still be immoral, but in that case it would proably be inevitable; in this case—the flow country—it is not even necessary.
The Government have initiated new forestry policies, and prospects for the forestry industry are bright. Henceforth large areas of the country will be available for forestry. There is no excuse therefore for eliminating a unique wilderness. It is like saying that agriculture is threatened because we do not plough up medieval mounds, forts and barrows or stands of ancient oaks. People have gone to prison or been fined for that, yet in the case of the flows there is not only no discouragement but the Government are compounding the crime and encouraging it by subsidies and even more by substantial tax benefits for only a very few shareholders.
The public interest has simply been ignored. It has been ignored because a sort of gold rush has been discovered, a way of making a quick killing, which is not even consistent with sound forestry practice. I say this having been a business man all my life. In this instance there is a clear case for making a quick killing.
The reasons why this valuable ecological heritage is being destroyed are simple. First, the land is cheap for the forestry industry to buy. Secondly, it is available, because if an owner needs the cash he may find there is only one potential purchaser, a forestry company. Thirdly, the shareholders of the forestry companies gain substantial tax concessions. Forestry schemes are put to clients in the City simply as tax effective investments with no concern for the local issues. In many cases the shareholders do not even know where their land or plantation is.
I do not blame the people involved. As my noble friend Lord Onslow so frequently says, if the Government provide a nice trough, we are all tempted to put our snouts in it. Therefore, I do not blame the people involved. The Government have to intervene in the public interest and for future generations.
If an owner has to sell, nobody will benefit from forestry in this area other than the vendor of the land and the few shareholders of the forestry company—the local inhabitants least of all. How can it possibly be to the advantage of the next generation of locals and their successors to have the area sterilised by blanket forestry? If a few hands during draining, ploughing and planting are employed today, there will be nothing for their children and their grandchildren to do. The area will be no more than a dark green desert.
The cycle here should be recognised. Some hands are employed now but then there will be a 30-year blank period, after which some people will be brought back, probably from outside; that will be followed by another 30 years of blight. That cannot be in the interests of the local communities.

683
The traditional pursuits of tourism, open air life and sport provide stable and consistent employment. Leisure is the in-thing in the City. Tourism is high on the Government's agenda. The future prosperity of the flow country and its people is bright if the prospects and the natural resources are not extinguished now. In leisure and amenity terms, with the associated employment opportunities, one can even argue that the long-term consequences of blanket forestry in this wilderness will have longer term negative results than Chernobyl.
There are, I believe, some 5,000 people employed in forestry in the UK, but there are hundreds of thousands—perhaps in due course millions—with a mounting interest in birds, botany and this type of wild wilderness. That means in Sutherland and Caithness that if the resources are preserved the visitors and tourists would have to be housed; they would need bed-and-breakfast and hotels. They would need gillies, wardens, stalkers, guides, petrol services, garages, shopping centres and so on. None of these rewarding and attractive occupations will exist once the coniferous forest has blanketed the moorland. Nobody will drive hundreds of miles to see row upon row of furrows and lines of conifers. The future of employment in the flow country should be as bright as it is in the Norfolk Broads, where the Government have taken such keen interest, if it is given equal priority.
I therefore ask my noble friend the Minister to take into account the serious problem which concerns not simply wildlife and the environment; it is a social community problem in the far North of Scotland. Government measures take time and maybe no instant action is likely. Since the situation is critical and the deprivation is proceeding, perhaps my noble friend can express concern about it and consider reviewing the question of subsidies in that area, especially tax concessions. I myself like tax concessions, if I can find them. However, these are unjustified because they are against the public interest and the local interest.
The Government have shown commendable concern in the Norfolk Broads. The wild country of Sutherland and Caithness is just as important for the recreation and employment of future generations. The area needs comparable protection now.
6.18 p.m.
Lord Henniker: My Lords, I want to join the chorus of thanks to my noble friend Lady Stedman for introducing this important subject and doing it so very well. She soared like a lakeland buzzard over the whole scene. I shall approach it from another angle, a more earthbound position of the toad beneath the harrow.
For the last 10 or 12 years—and I should declare an interest because I have been involved in all matters connected with the environment in my area—we have tried to conduct what a visitor called a controlled experiment in seeing how we can improve the environment, open it to the public and prevent the countryside in a very rural area of Suffolk becoming a museum, with little employment and a small amount of housing.
684
I have followed all the speeches and concur with nearly all of them. From my worm's eye view, on a small scale, I think that I can say something optimistic. What we have done at home is totally unimportant. But we have been trying to show farmers and landowners that what we have done can be achieved without threat, without ruining the countryside and without any really serious problem.
When we started 10 years ago we had a lot of obsolete farm buildings and we converted them. We now have 14 separate industries working in them, some trading abroad. I hate saying that we have created jobs because people get jobs if they want them, but we have provided a foothold for about 40 jobs. We have also opened a place for helping handicapped people to start their own industries.
We have heard things said about planners. All I can say is that the planners considered me to be a zany diplomat when I returned, but they let me perform one job that I wished to do. They were pleased and since then we have become total allies. They are ahead of me most of the time and it is an extremely satisfactory partnership.
If we are going to do this, we must have housing for rent. This is one of our big problems. Suffolk is becoming a commuter county. I am all for the sale of council houses. I think it has done good. But we have now to get on to providing houses for young and old people. The young are starting their work; the old are finishing and wish to stay in their villages. We are very much homebound in Suffolk. We have to provide houses. I have managed to provide five out of my converted farm buildings. We have also made, with the assistance of the National Agricultural Centre Housing Association, a small scheme in the village. I am chairman of the Suffolk Rural Housing Association. We are trying to go ahead with what villages want; that is, small housing schemes. We have no wish to be ripped apart by large developments.
It is very sad, in a way, that we go so slowly. We started about three years ago. We are getting our first bricks on the ground this year. The Housing Corporation that will fund us spends 87 per cent. but, of course, its priority consideration is the inner cities and we recognise that. However, it spends less than 1 per cent. of what it receives on small villages and the need is getting urgent. Our houses now cost up to four times what they cost about two years ago and the people there cannot possibly buy them.
Another matter that worries me is that as we try to provide work, the infrastructure shrinks. For example, just as we got going the doors of the post office clanged shut. The number of children in the village having risen in six years from three to 49, we were treated to an argument that the local school must be closed on the grounds of a demographic trend which we thought we had bucked. We are also trying to develop access to bridle paths and to create walks in woods and in areas around ponds, providing recreation for our locals and also for London children. We have a big camp to which children from less happy homes come in the summer and throughout the year. We have reached a figure of 20,000 people a year and can prove to our peers that there is no threat. We are very vulnerable. We sit in the middle. The context is that we have no

685
particular house to show and no particular site to display, but we have beautiful countryside. Unfortunately, we have no large capital sums that we can spend. We have shown our farming colleagues what can be done without threat. We turned our cow house into a school for environmental studies, and last year we had 6,000 children visitors.
My experience is that militant people on both sides create most of the trouble between conservationists and countrymen. Most people do not understand, and one has to help any educational project. We urge the Government to adopt this approach, perhaps by exchange rural and urban studies between urban and rural schools. We find that even with country children—we had 75 in on Saturday from Bury St. Edmunds—some have never been in a green field in their lives. The problem, of course, is finance. One needs to be very experienced or very clever to find where one can get money. We have been greatly helped by the Countryside Commission which has provided a warden. My wife and I did all the work at the start with the local council. I am glad to see that the development commission—Cosira—has more resources now and it has also been of great help.
The MSC has been absolutely invaluable in country districts, particuarly in connection with the community programme. We hear that the programme is going to be cut., and the enormous problem is trying to get labour to do the things that need to be done. Rural people have at their fingertips, when they start, all the things which the MSC has to do; for example the ability to dig, saw, cut ditches and so on. I hope that instead of unemployment schemes there can be provided subsidised jobs in a rural craft, such as forestry. I am sorry that I have exceeded my time and I apologise.
6.27 p.m.
Lord Gibson-Watt: My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, is happy with the result of the debate which she initiated. I have been very interested in all the contributions which have been made. It is a pity that the television cameras are not here today when we are discussing a matter of far greater importance than some of the issues upon which we normally spend much of our time.
Conservation takes many forms, both in creating and preserving what is fine and beautiful and in improving the environment. I take, for example, old buildings. For some years I was a member of the Historic Buildings Council in Wales. We inspected castles, great houses, cottages, churches and even dovecots. Of course, we gave grants to deserving cases where we could afford it. As a result, part of our heritage is the richer today. This is going on in England and in Scotland, too.
In the sphere of archaeology, for example, last month the Offa's Dyke Society, of which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was once a notable president, and of which I myself have the honour to be president at the moment, heard a lecture on the action being taken to maintain and preserve Offa's Dyke. As its current president I should like publicly to thank English Heritage for the work it has done in renewing and improving the Dyke at Sedbury. The present use of the Dyke and the care taken of it by the society and by
686
others again adds to our heritage. However, like other remains, if it is not repaired it can be damaged.
As regards nature conservancy, in the past few years care by the RSPB has safeguarded the existence of many bird species. I remember inquiring in 1972 from Mr. Lovegrove, the head of the RSPB in Wales, how many peregrines there were and he told me there were six pairs. Today the position is very different because there are now a great number of hawks around. For people in some areas there are perhaps rather too many—and for some small birds! Indeed, the picture has changed greatly. I only wish that other countries, like Italy, would stop this needless slaying of uccellini and the netting and shooting which goes on. In time, education may teach them.
It is reported that the RSPB has lately had a report from an expert committee on the "edge effect"—the effect of forestry on bird populations at the edge of plantations. Press reports say that the report casts great doubt on the RSPB's former understanding of this matter, and it would be as well if the report were to be published by it. If its former understanding of that point were found to be inaccurate, the RSPB would gain great kudos from admitting that its views had changed. We should base all these value judgments on the evidence of expert and scientific research.
Let us take acidification, which has been mentioned. It is a huge problem. The latest research, which I and other Members of your Lordships' House were privileged to see the other day portrayed by the Welsh Water Authority, shows that the water run-off from conifer forests is more acid than the run-off from bare moorland. To alleviate the problem, the Forestry Commission has issued instructions about keeping such planting away from watercourses. Other steps have also been taken.
Timber Growers (UK), of which I am at present chairman, has also issued a code of practice to achieve the same improvements in the private sector. The real cause of acid rain, as others of your Lordships have said, is the sulphur and other muck which for years has been gushing from the timbers of industry. Very few people have criticised that. I welcome the start that the Government have made in finding money to improve that matter. However, it is a long-term problem and it is heavy industry, rather than forestry, which is the prime cause. Here again, the efforts which must be made could over a long time eventually improve our heritage.
I say on behalf of the timber growers that we have created the Minet award for the best woodland managed for commercial and conservation objectives. It is rewarded by the presentation of the Dulverton Flagon as its first prize. I do not see the noble Lord in his place, but I am sure that he is here in spirit.
Let us take the work of the national parks, which has already been referred to. Country parks, camping sites, chalets in the forests, nature trails, footpaths, bridle paths and paths in the woods for the blind all add, as other noble Lords have said, to a continual improvement in our heritage. Let us not forget the great contribution made by voluntary organisations.
Being a forester, I must also talk about the work of foresters, both state and private. Since 1919, not only have they created a viable industry that is attracting

687
investment from overseas, but over 40,000 jobs in the countryside are now found in that industry. I welcome the recent policy statement on forestry targets and farm forestry as sensible guidelines for the future, although I think that the Treasury will have to cough up a good deal more money if the target is to be reached.
Forestry has made a great contribution to our heritage, and by co-operating with the NCC and other bodies in many areas it must be admitted that advance has been made. The noble Lord, Lord Buxton, talked about the flow country. I shall not go into the details of the problem which I readily admit exists, but the action of the Secretary of State for Scotland who has said that any planting in the flow country will take place now only after discussions between the Forestry Commission and the NCC is a great step forward. That should complete what the noble Lord told us today about that area.
Finally, I wish to say a word for those who live and work in the countryside and who have cared for it for generations. I quote from the Countryside Commission for Scotland:
"It behoves those who seek to promote conservation policies to bear in mind all the time that, without the conviction and practical support of those who earn their living on the land and are directly responsible for it, no conservation policies are likely to succeed.".
How true! Without the willing co-operation of those people, none of the improvements in the quality of our heritage can be achieved. That voluntary principle was recognised when the Wildlife and Countryside Act was debated in both Houses and became law.
We all have a part to play in conservation—to make Britain a better place. Only then can we hope to influence those other countries which lag behind.
6.35 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my former colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Henniker, and my neighbour, the noble Lord, Lord Gibson-Watt, in this debate. I too would like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for giving us this timely opportunity to debate the environment.
It has taken a long time for the present consensus on the importance of the environment to be reached. In 1962 when I was in Washington, I got to know Stewart Udall who was President Kennedy's Secretary of the Interior. He was then one of the few politicians who took a real interest in the environment. I remember at dinner in my house that we spent a great deal of the night trying to persuade the late Hugh Gaitskell that there was political mileage in conservation. Nowadays I think that everyone knows that there is.
The other day I received, as other noble Lords will have done, a glossy pamphlet from Shell, extolling what the oil industry has done in the field of conservation. I contrasted that with a visit that I paid to Shell with some of my colleagues in the early 1960s when Shell Chemicals' executives sought to persuade us that Rachel Carson's Silent Spring was nonsense. Well, it was not. But happily, attitudes have changed in politics and in industry.
In the 25 years since then, as we all know, immense damage has been done to our environment in Britain.
688
But, if we go about it in a common sense way, we now have a chance of reversing the trend, not only in this country but throughout Europe.
We have reached the point where there is general agreement in Europe that we cannot go on generating vast agricultural surpluses at enormous cost. All the talk now, as the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, pointed out, is of set-aside, low-input farming, alternative crops or what is known as the policy of 'conifers and caravans'.
What is important is to ensure that, now that radical changes in the pattern of agriculture are being forced upon us, environmental considerations should at last be given their full weight, and that we should no longer merely subsidise overproduction but link grants to environmental and social needs. Environmentally sensitive areas are a modest but useful start. But it is the whole countryside which needs sensitive handling, not just a few special sites.
There should be no more taking of chalk downs, wetlands, moorlands and old broadleaved woodlands to grow food which no one needs. Not only that; we must not merely halt but should reverse the process. We should put back the chalk downs to grass, re-flood some of the wetlands and plant more native, broadleaved trees. We must also take a much stronger line over agricultural pollution. Silage and slurry effluent are damaging our streams and the life in them. I hope that Her Majesty's new Inspectorate of Pollution and the water authorities will pay attention and that offenders will be prosecuted.
We need an end to the excessive use of chemicals. I was very much struck by what the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, said about nitrogen in this House on 21st January. I am sorry that what seemed to me to be his sensible suggestions were dismissed by the Government.
The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food now has a responsibility to consider environmental aspects. Indeed, it has acknowledged that. But not everyone in that great empire has caught up. I have a high regard for ADAS and for its work in our part of Wales. But the latest ADAS Powys Digest, which we have received this month, has an article called:
"Sulphuric acid—the cheap silage additive".
It says that the number of brands sold has increased to 17 and that the cheapest is waste acid from industry, such as battery acid, which is extremely corrosive and dangerous to handle. That type of thing puts off consumers of agricultural products just as they are put off by what they read about growth hormones and the misuse of antibiotics. There has been a sharp reduction in the consumption of red meat. At big supermarkets, like Waitrose, organically-grown vegetables are now specially labelled in response to public demand.
Agriculture is not the only culprit. There are developments that gives cause for concern. For instance, there are over 30 threatened barrages on rivers such as the Severn, the Mersey, the Taff and the Humber, which may have a devastating effect on birds and possible migrant fish. Ski developments in the Highlands, although very desirable in some places, may, if not carefully watched, affect bird life there. The case for protecting the countryside and the environment is overwhelming. However, we can only put

689
things right if we tackle the problem more vigorously and with a greater sense of urgency, first and foremost here at home, but also in Europe, and wherever we can make our influence felt in the world.
We are on the eve of a general election. I should therefore like to end by quoting a leading article which appeared in the Financial Times on 29th August last year, which was entitled "Politics of conservation". It said:
"If 'green' issues play a large role in the next election the Labour and Alliance parties will have to convince voters that their substantial programmes are not just vote-catching rhetoric but could and would be implemented; the Conservatives will have to explain their very late interest in the subject …On one set of issues … all parties would need to be resolutely convincing: their determination to control agriculture, conifer forestry and land drainage".
That is the end of the quotation but I might add that at the end of the leading article the Financial Times pointed out that the Conservative Party had more individual members than the individual members of the other three major parties put together but that their numbers were still less than those belonging to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.
6.43 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I should also like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman. I was driving, I think last Friday, on the Surrey-Sussex borders. I was looking at the surrounding green trees and thinking that there was absolutely nothing wrong with England; it was so mind-blowingly beautiful. I had to draw myself up short and remind myself that there were, as my noble friend Lord Buxton said, issues such as The Flows of Sutherland, the ruined Dorset Downs, and the hedges and ditches which have been removed from the finest hunting country in England.
It seems to me that the greatest threat to our environment at the moment is the problem of surpluses. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, spoke about this issue just now. By using chemical and plant-breeding methods I believe that we can double yields of corn per acre from what we have at the moment. Saudi Arabians are exporting wheat. I did not know this fact until the other day when I met someone who is in the wheat business. They exported a large tonnage of wheat. It cost them about £800 a tonne to grow. They sell it at £36 a tonne but they like to do so because it is a way of spending some of their oil money. Anyone can grow wheat now, given the right financial support and the correct tools to do so. We are in danger of churning out infinitely large amounts of feed grain which nobody knows what to do with.
I shudder to think what will happen if Mr. Gorbachev manages to turn Russia back into what it was in the days of Tsar Nicholas II: a grain exporting nation. At the moment they are the only buyers of surplus wheat on the world market. Not only are these surpluses threatening everyone's environment but they are ruining third world agriculture. As I have said, anyone can grow wheat but there must be some price that one has to be paid for it. If the Community and the United States of America are dumping wheat on the market which has a subsidy of approximately £86 a tonne we shall ruin third world agriculture. Third world agriculture can easily pull itself up by its
690
bootstraps. It does not need aid. It has only to be shown what can be done in the Punjab. The green Punjab area of India is now flourishing. In the Punjab area of Pakistan they are still being incompetent and are not growing wheat properly. Anyone can grow wheat; it is a question of getting their act together. I suggest that the famines in East Africa are helped by God and made certain by man.
This brings me back to the damage that these surpluses can do to the countryside of Great Britain. Unless we plan for the rundown of food production in the United Kingdom and Europe—and I am afraid that this then goes on to link not only with Europe, but with the United States of America and Australia—it also means opening up the Japanese food market. Your Lordships may have seen an article in the Economist about two weeks ago on the question of Japanese land use. Their governing party is based on small farmers who are subsidised. One can buy rice in America f.o.b. at 136 dollars a tonne and it costs 2,000 dollars a tonne in Japan. This is how to ruin things. This is a global problem and has to be attacked globally.
However, we return to this question. What do we do with England's green and pleasant land?—because, by golly, it is still green and pleasant in England especially at this time of the year. I suggest that the way we do this—it is perhaps a hobby-horse of mine—is that we pay farmers to be gardeners and gamekeepers instead of producing food. What the farming or land-owning world has done is exactly what the public and Parliament have asked them to do. Because there were U-boats in the Channel and because we thought the world was going to starve we were told to go and produce food, and we did so. We did it superbly efficiently and superby well. What I would hope that the Government will say to us now is, "Thank you, farmers. You have done absolutely splendidly. We now want to change your remit. The countryside of England is marvellous. We want you to grow food, not by having grants to cut out hedges, but in a way that is attractive and we shall pay you to manage the landscape".
It seems to me that there are two uses for grants. One is to create wealth. I am not convinced about the value of grants to create wealth; but I am convinced about the value of grants with which to do nice things. Most of us like the idea of going out to earn money; that is a good thing. We then like to spend our money on something that is pleasant and civilised. I suggest that it is reasonable, with the growth economy that we have in this country, with the surplus in FEOGA funds, to say, "We have created the wealth and now let us use some of that wealth to look after this very precious asset—the European, English, Scottish and Welsh countryside."
There have been methods put forward to start this process. One may say to a farmer, "We want you to keep your dry-stone walls. We want you to plant small copses, hedges and cut and ley them. We want you to grow old meadow grasses." Let us take some of those Dorset Downs which have all been ploughed up—perfectly reasonably, because the U-boats were in the Channel and we needed the food and wheat. One might say, "Instead of paying you £86 a tonne subsidy on feed wheat to grow 2½ to 3 tonnes of wheat on

691
Dorset Downs" (because that is the net subsidy on feed grain) "we shall pay you to put 2½ sheep per acre on that land and to put it down to an old ley with lots of wild flowers and so on." The country would save money, the countryside would be prettier and we should hit at surpluses. That seems a very good combination.
There is one matter on conservation about which we have to worry. I am president of a canal preservation society in Surrey and Hampshire. After 19 years' hard work we have practically re-opened this 18th century canal. Lo and behold, the Nature Conservancy Council has said that if we put any boats on it we shall ruin all the water life. This is an interesting example of a clash between two totally legitimate conservation interests.
That is outside the remit of my speech and I have gone slightly over time. I shall finish with the delicious thought of the cure for unemployment of the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, which is reproduction troughs for virgins' blood.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, on arranging for the subject to be debated this evening. I should like to contribute a word or two about the marine environment. To mark the European Year of the Environment, an international organisation, the Advisory Committee on Pollution of the Sea, known generally by the acronym ACOPS, is organising an international conference later this year. The organisation started in Britain. Its headquarters is still here though it is now widespread and has members in many countries. I should explain that I am speaking on this matter because I have suddenly become the acting chairman again for unexpected and sad reasons. I was acting chairman for a year and a half before the late John Silkin became chairman. His untimely death has deprived us not only of a friend and able parliamentarian but also of his leadership in ACOPS. I was asked to become acting chairman again as the time for the conference was approaching.
There are some achievements to record in the progress of reducing marine pollution. It has been steady but not as rapid as some of us would have wished. Regarding oil, the international conventions, combined with practice and policing which have improved, have had this effect. Deliberate operational creation of oil slicks through cleaning oily ballast out of tanks at sea is now much less common. For accidental and casual spills, vigilance and discipline are essential and must be sustained. Of course navigational disasters like the "Amoco Cadiz" could still occur but in Britain we are much better prepared and our neighbours are also.
Other causes of marine pollution such as toxic chemicals must have our attention. In this area, part of what is known as the MARPOL Convention has recently come into force. It is not enough, however, to conclude international agreements; it is necessary to have the facilities at ports to put the intentions in the agreements into effect, such as facilities for disposing of chemical waste. Two other sources of pollution
692
must be controlled, effluents from rivers and refuse from shipping thrown overboard which makes unpleasant litter on the coastline and spoils beaches.
Turning from the marine to other parts of our environment, there are some measures on which there is general agreement but they cost money. There is the conversion to unleaded petrol by stages and reducing pollution emissions from coal-fired power stations. I am glad to see that there has recently been an announcement from the Central Electricity Generating Board which operates in England and Wales that it is to spend £170 million over the next 10 years. No one wants to make electricity more expensive but the control of pollution is a common end. Then there is control of the effects of the use of nitrates and other substances in agriculture. Here the aim must be to avoid penalising particular farmers or adding to the price of food.
The Motion calls attention to the case for all-party support. It comes at a time when, unfortunately, for the next four weeks the areas where the political parties disagree are likely to be more emphasised than the ones on which they agree. Some months ago the SDP announced that it was proposing that there should be a new Ministry for environmental protection. The noble Baroness mentioned it again today. I have a question here as well as a word of caution. Will its scope include Scotland? It appeared from everything the noble Baroness said—and I did not want to interrupt her in a limited debate—that she was speaking about England and Wales.
The word of caution I have is that a similar Ministry was announced before the 1964 general election and was set up by the Labour Party when it became the Labour Government. That was the Ministry for Land and natural Resources. Many people will now have forgotten about it. The Ministry lasted for only two years and was then wound up. During 1964–65 when I was in another place I was questioning the Prime Minister of the day and other Ministers with a number of points. I asked in particular whether it covered Scotland. At first the answers were not at all clear. Then the answer eventually came through, no. That meant that more than one-third of all the land resources in Britain were not included, although the intention had been that this Ministry should exercise overall supervision in Britain.
I am not suggesting that Scotland should be included in the scope of such a Ministry. I am simply pointing out the difficulties. The Scottish Office and its Ministers have these responsibilities, the equivalent of those exercised for England and Wales by the Department of the Environment. It would be reversing about 60 years of administrative devolution to take them away from the Secretary of State for Scotland, and this is unlikely to appeal to any incoming government. I took the proposal in 1964 and its carrying into effect seriously but I recognised when it disappeared after two years that the role and functions of the new Ministry had not been properly thought out beforehand.
There are international problems which we should be considering in this year—acid rain; the damage to the ozone layer of the atmosphere, the layer which protects us from dangerous radiation; possible damage

693
to life from what is known as the greenhouse effect. Noble Lords will remember that I have put these points at Question Time in recent months. None of these problems seems to have obvious solutions yet and we shall have to co-operate with other countries in trying to find them.
There are also international problems which fall within the sovereign territories of particular countries where we cannot interfere. I refer, first, to the spreading of deserts, with the Sahara the particular one in mind, and, secondly, to the clearing on a massive scale of forests in Latin America. Here I applaud the recent statement by the World Bank that in future it will include some conditions in loans to countries concerned, with the object of protecting the environment.
6.58 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, there seems to be a certain irony in the fact that we are devoting these last hours of a dying Parliament to debating what is perhaps the most important issue of all facing this nation and the world today. We should all be deeply indebted to my noble friend Lady Stedman for enabling us so to do.
When winding up a debate of this kind in a short time, about which I make no complaint—I am as anxious to get away as everybody else—it is impossible to comment on earlier speeches, which is very sad indeed. The speeches have been of the highest possible quality. Every one has been important and they have all been made by experts in a particular field. Each has shown great credit to the noble Lord or Baroness who made it, and all the speeches collectively have done great credit to your Lordships' House.
It is also perhaps unwise at this stage to try to introduce any new themes. I shall therefore content myself merely with trying to underline and emphasise what I believe to be the basic assumptions from the recognition of which policies on these matters should be derived.
We face three parallel, related and menacing trends. They are, first, an increasing rate of depletion of the basic, irreplaceable raw materials on which we depend for our lives and for our continued existence on the planet; secondly, an increasing rate of contamination, pollution and destruction of the environment in which we live; and, thirdly, an ever-increasing world population which itself adds to the rate of consumption of scarce resources and the rate of destruction of a fragile environment. I shall say a brief word about each of those trends.
On depletion of resources, I point merely to energy and say that our energy resources are at least finite, which means that sooner or later they will run out. It behoves us all to husband and cherish the resources we now have with great care so as to give ourselves enough time to pioneer and develop safe and adequate alternatives.
On pollution of the environment I shall look only, as did the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, at our atmosphere and what we are doing to it. There is the phenomenon of acid rain; the problem of lead in the atmosphere from exhaust fumes; the problem of increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting
694
in the greenhouse effect, to which the noble Lord referred; the problems of fluorocarbons from aerosols and their effect on the ozone layer which, along with the greenhouse effect, is perhaps resulting in a measurable, gradual and steady increase in the mean average world temperature. I am not predicting that the seas will boil or the rocks will melt; nor am I saying that the Polar icecaps will melt tomorrow; but I do not advise my friends to pay a lot of money for properties at sea level.
On population, I can do no better than merely quote from an excellent address given in a committee room here in the Palace of Westminster by His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh to a joint meeting of the all-party group on population and development, at which I was present as president of the Birth Control Campaign (a job that I took over from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner), and also to the all-party conservation committee of which the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, is the chairman.
His Royal Highness said:
"I believe that human population pressure—the sheer number of people on this planet—is the single most important cause of the degradation of the natural environment, of the progressive extinction of wild species of plants and animals, and of the destabilisation of the world's climatic and atmospheric systems".
I believe that, not for the first time, His Royal Highness was absolutely right. He went on to give some startling figures. I shall not repeat them. I shall just give two more of my own. On my calculations, at the moment the world population is growing by 8,000 an hour, which means that by the end of this debate we shall have added considerably to the burdens that the world has to carry.
On recent figures it appears that 50 per cent. of the world's present total population consists of people who are under the age of 15, which is an indication of the potential for explosive growth in population. To those noble Lords who say that this is a matter for the undeveloped world and not for us, I would merely say that the United States of America, with 6 per cent. of the world's population, now consumes more than 50 per cent. of the world's irreplaceable raw materials.
In Britain we have special problems. We certainly have a population which is too big for England, and also perhaps too big for Scotland and Wales. We also have a population with an increasing amount of leisure time, with an increasing number of people choosing to spend that leisure in what they call countryside activities.
One of the principle challenges facing us at the moment is the provision of opportunities for the constructive and fulfilling use of leisure in ways which are not consumptive of scarce resources and which are not destructive of a fragile environment. We are not doing that. Noble Lords who doubt me should merely pay a visit to the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads during a hot day in the middle of the season to see part of our national and natural heritage being slowly destroyed by the people who love it.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred to the pressure on the National Parks. When I was chairman of the Countryside Commission we had a visit from the director of the Yellowstone National Park. He told us about his problems and the number of people for

695
whom his staff had to provide in a year. I was able to tell him that the figure he quoted was almost precisely the figure of the number of people who move into the Peak District National Park on a hot Sunday in August, and he thought that he had problems!
I have not spelt out remedies and I do not expect the noble Baroness to spell out the remedies. I am not recommending draconian steps like dissolving the pill in water supplies. I am merely concerned that we recognise the problem. So far as population is concerned, if we could ensure that no children are born who were not wanted at the time of conception, we would solve the population problem.
I am not expecting the noble Baroness to give all the answers, but I hope that she will tell us that she recognises the problem. I was much impressed years ago by some words of Senator Fulbright. I wrote them down and I shall quote them. He said:
"When our perceptions fail to keep pace with events; when we refuse to believe something because it displeases or frightens us, or is simply startlingly unfamiliar, then the gap between fact and perception becomes a chasm. Action becomes irrelevant and irrational".
We are in danger of being in that position.
If the noble Baroness can tell us that she recognises all these problems, we shall have partly solved the problem. I hope that in years to come our successors in this Chamber will not be saying, "What on earth were they doing? Didn't they know? Couldn't they see what was happening? Did nobody tell them?" My Lords, we are being told. We should listen, heed, and take action.
7.6 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, seven minutes is not enough time to deal with what has been an excellent debate, but I happily devote 15 seconds or so to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, in order to thank her for the opportunity to have the debate. Perhaps I may be forgiven if I single out just one or two things for which I have a particular feeling, particularly Lord Buxton's passionate plea for The Flow country, which I think we should all heed. I should like to add too to Lord Moran's statistics on the RSPB, which were quite telling. I understand that this year they are attracting new members at the rate of 1,000 every week. That should make the political parties think, if nothing else does.
I should also like to support the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, in his plea that the water industry be left alone. I know that we had a hectic time over it last year, and it was mainly because of the environmental aspects of it that people got so upset and uptight. The solution to these problems will not be found in the direction that the Government have proposed to go.
With what is left of the time I can deal only with perhaps the least interesting but also the most essential part of the debate, which is how we organise the undoubted concern that everyone has for the environment and its protection. How can we translate that concern into action? I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, that the present system will no longer do. We have to face the fact that without exception all government policies have environmental implications. Almost all departmental activities have environ
696
mental effects. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, mentioned the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and I am sure she would also include the Department of Agriculture in Scotland, the Department of Energy and the Department of Transport. There is no way that anything they do does not affect the environment.
We must try to achieve better co-ordination of the whole range of environmental protection measures. Environmental considerations must be built into the system. We believe, with the noble Baroness, that there must be a ministry of environmental protection and we have created this post in the Shadow Cabinet. I note what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said about the short life of the last one, but that was a more limited brief. Public perception and individual perceptions have changed since then. I have hope that this will be a longer lasting ministry.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, will it apply to Scotland?
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, it is a limited debate. If I can finish within seven minutes perhaps we can return to that point. In addition, there must be a requirement that environmental considerations should be part of every activity. Every significant action of government or local government—because we must not forget the impact that local government has on the environment—must be automatically examined for possible environmental consequences to the best of the knowledge which prevails at the time. All major development applications, whether publicly or privately funded, should be required to be accompanied by an environmental impact assessment. I believe that this requirement should be introduced now. It is being introduced in 1988 as a result of European Community requirement. But I hope that whichever government are in power after the election will realise that this matter is most important and will introduce it now. Some big developments where this has not been done are going ahead.
The Minister who is to reply—I do not envy her, except that I should like her 15 minutes—will no doubt produce a list of the Government's achievements. At this point I should like to add to the commendations that have been given to the Minister, Mr. Waldegrave. He has done a splendid job and I believe that his heart is in the right place. I do not believe that he has his own way as often as he should but I support his attempts.
No doubt the noble Baroness will produce a list of the Government's achievements; for example, the first marine nature reserve, the environmentally sensitive areas and the other designations which have been mentioned. While we welcome what has been achieved and do not wish to take away from it in any way, I emphasise yet again that if the facts are taken in isolation from a more general, positive approach to environmental detection their value is greatly reduced.
Past and present policies of this Government—I hope not future—show a disregard for the generality of protection. We are faced with a programme which would in the long run leave us with a few isolated museums of the countryside in a landscape of commercial development. It could even be argued,

697
given the lack of sympathy in other policies, that creation of these special areas diverts public pressure and in the end defeats what should be our main objective.
Finally, we must remember, as has been said by other noble Lords this evening, that we are part of a very small planet which is at risk. Though this evening we may have been talking primarily about our own environmental protection, we must remember that everything we do affects our neighbours. We do not have the best reputation in European terms, but as the years go on I hope that we shall do something to improve that situation. I leave your Lordships with a less exalted quotation than others which have been given this evening. It comes from my grandmother who, after all, was a Victorian. She quoted often to us as children a Victorian tract which showed a picture of chubby faced Victorian children sweeping the village street. Underneath it read:
"If each before his own door swept the village would be clean".
This applies in environmental protection more than in anything else.
7.13 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I begin by saying that as always on these occasions this has been a wide-ranging and most fascinating debate. I should like to emphasise that protection of our environment is a continuing government commitment. We are keen that the nations of Europe should put into practice the policies which we collectively develop. I believe that we need not be ashamed of our record. Alone among member states—apart from those most recently joined—the United Kingdom has never been taken to the European Court of Justice for failing to implement a European Community directive on the environment.
Your Lordships will be aware, I am sure, that the European Year of the Environment has two principal aims. The first is to raise awareness of the importance of environmental protection so that better progress can be made in conserving and improving the environment. The fact that this debate is taking place today is an example of such a raising of awareness. We are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedmen, for both introducing the debate and emphasising this point, admittedly in relation to government departments. I can assure her and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, that in addition to the commitment of the Department of Environment to the European Year of the Environment, other departments are also making contributions.
For example, the Overseas Development Administration has produced a booklet entitled The Environment and the British Aid Programme. The Department of Transport is preparing a booklet entitled Transport and the Environment. The Ministry of Defence is involved with the army training areas clean-up week in July and the Department of Education and Science is organising a project on the use of school grounds for environmental teaching. The Scottish, Northern Ireland and Welsh Offices are supporting financially the organisation of the European Year of the Environment. We are moving in the right direction, albeit slowly, and I hope that that reassures all noble Lords who have had qualms on the subject.
698
The other main aim of the EYE is to carry out projects in support of an awareness campaign which will have lasting effects. The personal support given to the year by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales is a great encouragement to all involved. The year enjoys the support of all political parties, a fact that has been welcomed in the course of this debate. I understand that the committee has already heard of nearly 1,000 events and projects which are taking place under the EYE banner. They involve schools, youth organisations, local authorities, industry, business and voluntary groups of all kinds, and of course government departments. That is exactly the kind of all-sector involvement called for by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman.
The Department of the Environment, for instance, is sponsoring a number of events, including the new better environment awards for industry and a handbook on community environmental policy. We were also a major sponsor of the recent and very successful International Pollution Abatement Fair and Conference at Birmingham. Other departments are also making contributions, some of which I have already enumerated.
I should like to draw attention to the Government's commitment to the protection of the countryside and the environment which has perhaps been the main topic of the debate. In so doing I hope that I shall be responding to a number of points which have been raised. We remain firmly committed to protecting green belt land from inappropriate development. It is worth remembering that since 1979 the area of approved green belt in England has more than doubled. I have noted the request made by my noble friend Lord Nugent in this respect. In another place we have introduced the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Bill, which has been referred to. This aims to create for the first time a properly integrated authority with powers and functions for the management by both the waterways and the land space. The Bill will be coming to your Lordships' House in due course. In view of his remarks, I feel sure that it will be particularly welcomed by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley.
The Government fully recognise the need to protect the countryside for its own sake. We firmly believe that a strong and efficient rural economy is the best protection. The farming and rural enterprise package which we launched in March has been genuinely welcomed for achieving a reasonable balance among farming, economic and social needs, conservation and enjoyment by the public.
I noted the suggestion for further action made by my noble friend Lord Onslow. My noble friend Lord Swinton referred to the common land forum. We have recently reached the end of the consultation period on the recommendations of the forum. I know that the Moorland Association in particular has expressed concern about the effect of the access proposals on heather moorland and the lack of restriction for game purposes in the proposed model scheme for management. I can assure my noble friend that the Government are well aware of those concerns. My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale has already discussed their worries with the delegation. My honourable friend William Waldegrave agreed at a meeting at

699
Bolton Abbey last week that there should be further detailed meetings at official levels.
Turning to the question of adequate funding, a concern expressed by a number of your Lordships, the Government's commitment to the countryside is clear from the increased resources which they have made available to the agencies charged with its protection. Grant in aid to the Countryside Commission, for example, has risen from £11.2 million in 1982–83 to £19.5 million for the current financial year. The supplementary grant to national parks in England has increased from £5 million to £7.3 million in the same period and perhaps I might particularly draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to that fact. These are both very substantial increases in real terms.
The Department of the Environment also has a £1·3 million programme of research on countryside affairs and the Nature Conservancy Council funding has increased from £8 million in 1979–80 to £36.5 million in the current year. Therefore I trust your Lordships will not feel quite as anxious on this particular aspect as appeared in the course of the debate.
As has been said, without wildlife in its many forms our countryside, and our cities and towns too, would be poorer and meaner places. The Wildlife and Countryside Act of 1981 now protects many hundreds of our animals, birds and plants. It also gave the Nature Conservancy Council new powers to protect habitat through the creation of national nature reserves and sites of special scientific interest which have already been referred to. The Act is based on the principle of voluntary co-operation and partnership in the countryside between the statutory agencies, farmers and the voluntary conservation movement. We designated Britain's first statutory marine nature reserve at Lundy last November. I have to say that to satisfy the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol! Several more such reserves are expected to be designated over the next few years. I recognise the points made, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, in this respect. I can also reassure the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that the Government are well aware of calls from some quarters for a change in the status of the national park committees. This would require legislation and could not be considered without recourse to a detailed review of the administration in national parks. The Government decided against such a review in 1981 and do not feel that decision should be reversed as yet.
The noble Lord also considered that national parks should be the statutory authority for development plans. We see no reason for a change in this system, but in any case it would not be considered without an administrative review to which I referred earlier.
The noble Lord, Lord Buxton, and others, spoke about the problems of blanket conifer afforestation. The Government share this concern, which stems from policies of earlier years. Certainly we are in total agreement when it comes to the development and adoption of sylvicultural practices which minimise the adverse impacts of forestry on the environment. We already have well-established guidelines and mechanisms in place to ensure that forestry developments take place in harmony with nature conservation. I can assure the House that efforts are
700
now being made to ensure that all new forestry schemes are designed not only to fit in with the landscape but to ensure that planting schemes do not harm the surrounding environment and that a balance is reached with other land-use interests. However, I have taken careful note of my noble friend's remarks and those of all the other speakers who have referred to this. I shall particularly bring them to the attention of my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale.
Turning now to other aspects of environmental protection, we are aware of the particular problems posed by chloro-fluorocarbons and this is one of the matters which will be discussed in Brussels at the Council of Ministers' meeting scheduled for the 21st May. I can assure the House that the United Kingdom is by no means holding back the development of a European Community policy; nor are we isolated within the Community on this complex issue, as seemed to be suggested perhaps by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby. The noble Lord, Lord Craigton, also referred to this point. We are also contributing to international efforts such as the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Climate Programme in considering the implications of CFCs and the ozone layer for national policies.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords—
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am afraid there is very little time and I cannot give way: there may be time at the end of the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Gibson, asked what will replace structure plans. Our proposals for replacement of the cumbersome process of structure planning were established last year. I cannot describe them in detail now because of time constraints, but I can assure the noble Lord that district councils will not be left without guidance from the county councils on the key issue of planning.
The formation of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution on 1st April presented a concentration of resources which will be deployed as the organisation develops in a co-ordinated approach to pollution control. I hope this will reassure those noble Lords who have expressed concern about monitoring and implementation. In particular, I am addressing the anxiety of my noble friend Lord Nugent. I can assure him that the Government's firm objective is to maintain and improve water policy and the HMIP will discuss the performance of individual sewage treatment works with the authorities concerned. The Government take compliance very seriously and expect all works to meet their consent conditions.
At the International Pollution Abatement Fair in Birmingham, my honourable friend William Waldegrave—and I am most grateful to all those who have paid tribute to his undoubted commitment in this area—launched the environmental protection technology scheme. This will aim to encourage innovation in the field of pollution abatement and cleaner technologies generally. We are committed to ensuring the widespread availability of unleaded petrol well before the European Communities' deadline in 1989 and we intend that newly registered cars should be capable of running on unleaded petrol by October 1990.

701
Some further matters are worth mentioning, particularly since we, as a country, are taking a lead in this area. I feel that this should be recognised. Next month our agreement with the Paintmakers' Association will reach full fruition when lead will cease to be added to all decorative paints made by its members. We have also taken strong action to control the use of anti-fouling paints for boats based on tributyl tin. That has been shown to damage shellfish and other sensitive marine organisms—a concern which has been expressed in the course of this debate. We are taking the initiative on this particular matter within the European Community to ensure that we carry our partners with us in both these actions on paint.
My noble friend Lord Gibson-Watt referred to the problems of acidity, and others also referred to this point. The Government fully share the widespread concern about acid rain and accept the need for action to tackle the problem. Emissions of air pollutants from the United Kingdom have already fallen substantially since 1970 and the Government are aiming to achieve a 30 per cent. reduction on the 1980 levels by the end of the 1990s. Emissions will fall even more dramatically after the turn of the century as new "low-acid" technology comes into play. Last September the Government authorised the CEGB to instal flue gas desulphurisation equipment at three major power stations and announced that all new coal-fired stations would require to be fitted with appropriate technology to remove sulphur emissions.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy welcomed the fact that last week the Government took a further significant step in authorising the CEGB to begin a major 10-year programme to instal low nitrogen oxide burners at the board's 12 largest power stations. Low NOx burner technology will also be a requirement for all future fossil-fuel fired power stations. These measures mean that we are now in the forefront of European countries taking positive action to reduce emissions. The Government have a substantial research programme and will be guided by the research work in considering further policy options.
Every one of these topics deserves treatment at much greater length than has been possible today. I have not even got on to the points on villages which were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Henniker, nor the specific schemes referred to by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, that the Government recognise the problems and will take note of the many points that have been made in the course of this important debate. We believe that care for the environment transcends regional and political divisions, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, indicated in the wording of her Motion.
I am sure that your Lordships will join me in applauding and supporting the aims and activities of the European Year of the Environment, which I have no doubt will make a major impact, raising further the public's awareness and their concern for our common environment and our common heritage of the future.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, will she please answer the specific question that I asked? What will be the Government's
702
attitude in Brussels on 21st May to the cut in production of CFCs?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am not at liberty to reveal what the Government will do at that point but I believe I answered the noble Lord when I said that we were in no way holding up the development of European Community policy in this respect.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, it only remains for me to bring this debate to a close. I think that we are very fortunate that it has survived the turmoil of the past couple of days and we have been able to discuss this topic. The justification for the debate is the number of people who have taken part. It is not for me to wind up on the occasion of a short debate. I should just like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that the Alliance would not dare take anything away from the Scottish Office. I shall let him have a note about how we see it working there, but I shall not bore the House with those details now.
I am most grateful to all those who have taken part in the debate, and to the noble Baroness for the replies that she has given and the care that she has taken in dealing with them. I beg leave to to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Motor Cycle Noise Bill
7.31 p.m.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
I must congratulate the honourable gentleman the Member for Christchurch on presenting the Motor Cycle Noise Bill and piloting it successfully through the other place. He asked for my asssistance, which was readily given, in seeking support for the Bill in your Lordships' House. The Minister of Transport, Mr. Peter Bottomley, supported the Bill on behalf of the Government. He made some amusing comments about our sharing the same surname. It is my privilege to count as friends his mother and father. I worked with Sir James Bottomley, who was an outstanding and distinguished diplomat in the old Dominions Office and in the Commonwealth Relations Office. I am glad to be associated with his son in asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill.
The purpose of the Bill is to control the quality of replacement exhaust systems and silencers in motor cycles when they are offered for sale. The House will be aware that legislation already exists to control motor cycle noise but that it is difficult to catch the users of noisy machines. There is now a British standard for motor cycle exhausts and the Bill will enable the Secretary of State to require replacements to be marked with a standard number or with the words "Not for road use". All silencers offered for sale will have to bear some marking. The Bill is not dealing with the initial equipment that is supplied on new motor cycles but with replacement exhausts that are deliberately designed to create as much noise as possible.
The motor cycle fraternity as a whole is composed of very responsible members of our society. Motor

703
cycling gives them a sense of adventure and mobility which is to be encouraged. This Bill is aimed at the minority who cause social nuisance and annoyance to others. Deliberately exacerbated noise from motor cycles causes much disturbance to those who go out for a gentle stroll during the summer and it annoys those who are resting in their homes. The Bill attempts to deal with noise that is deliberately made. It is aimed at those motor cyclists who set out to make as much noise as possible. Its provisions will in no way interfere with the normal everyday activities of motor cyclists.
The Motor Cycle Association is in favour of the Bill and the British Motorcyclists' Federation also supports it. It will benefit not only those who are fit and have good hearing but also those who are less fit, hard of hearing or blind. The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association also hopes that the law will be strengthened as a result of the passage of this Motor Cycle Noise Bill. There has also been support from local authorities.
The enforcement of the provisions of the Bill will be by trading standard officers employed by local authorities. At present enforcement of the law dealing with noisy exhaust systems is the responsibility of the police, who have the almost impossible task of chasing offenders round the towns and countryside. Relieved of those duties, the police will have greater opportunities to concentrate on other forms of crime. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Bottomley.)
7.37 p.m.
Lord Strathcarron: My Lords, I rise to support this Bill wholeheartedly. I have been riding motor cycles for 47 years and I normally come to your Lordships' House on two wheels. Motor cycling is the last freedom of the road; traffic and parking problems disappear like magic, journeys take a fraction of the time that they do by any other form of transport; and I believe that motor cyclists should be appreciated by other road users for taking up so little space on our crowded roads.
However, I am afraid that the motor cyclist is unpopular. In part, this is due to the irresponsible antics of some dispatch riders in London who weave in and out of traffic with their radios blaring, frightening everybody—possibly including themselves. I should like to mention that the number of motor cycle accidents has decreased steadily over the past 10 years. In the past year alone motor cyclists are the one category of road user in which the number of accidents have actually gone down.
Noise is the main complaint about motor cycles. The exhaust systems that are fitted by the manufacturers are commendably quiet. Strangely enough, the larger the motor cycle normally the quieter it is. My own four-cylinder BMW is as quiet-running as any car. Motor cycles are nowadays very expensive machines. Prices range from about £300 for a modest moped up to £5,000 or more for larger motor bikes.
Unfortunately, spare parts are also expensive, particularly exhaust systems. A young rider will often
704
use all his available money to buy a machine, often without regard to any additional expense for accident repairs or spare parts. Therefore when the exhaust needs replacing he is hard pressed to find the money to buy the manufacturer's system, so he buys what appears to be a similar one from a motor cycle shop at a very much lower price. Only when it is fitted does the rider discover that it makes more noise. He may not have intended it to make more noise, and he certainly could not afford to change it afterwards. I must admit that there are riders who tamper with the exhaust of their motor cycles in order to make more noise, in the usually mistaken belief that the performance will be better. Unfortunately, these machines are often low-powered and of small capacity so it takes a long time for the noise to pass one by.
Some of your Lordships may have attended the demonstration put on by the Institute of Motorcycling in 1985, at which the difference between the exhausts supplied by the manufacturers and the unofficial ones was all too plain. It is often suggested that the police should stop motor cyclists and measure the degree of noise, but to do this requires very expensive equipment in large quantities, which would be totally impracticable. It is far better to prohibit the sale of exhaust systems which do not meet the required standards. For this reason, I support the Bill.
7.41 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, in following the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, I cannot claim the motor cycling experience that he has. In fact, in the long distant days when I was young and active my preference was to belong to a pedal cycling club. The noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, has put forward sound reasons for supporting my noble friend in bringing this Bill forward. I congratulate and thank my noble friend and also Mr. Robert Adley in the other place who sponsored the Bill originally. My noble friend Lady Nicol reminded me that there is one aspect of pollution which was not mentioned in the last two-and-a-half hour debate and that was noise pollution, which is what this Bill seeks to eradicate in one respect.
Many of the motorcyclists coming down my road have tampered with their exhaust systems and, although we can control the exhaust noise of new machines, there is a gap as regards replacement exhausts. But this Bill will get to grips with that replacement problem.
I am glad that both my noble friend Lord Bottomley and the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, emphasised that this is not a Bill hitting at motor cyclists. I have never been a motor cyclist and, as I said, was a pedal cyclist, but I recognise that a vast number of people enjoy their motor cycling. We see them in the Highlands and elsewhere thoroughly enjoying their pursuits.
I wonder whether I may mention two points. Noble Lords receive, as I do, a copy of the journal Motor Cycling. There is an article in the current issue stating that unless motorcyclists wish to have more harsh laws, they should put their own house in order by refusing to buy illegal systems, by not tampering with exhausts to make them noisier and by replacing them promptly when they cease to function properly. That is the attitude of responsible motorcyclists.

705
I should like to give an example of why, although some of them weave in and out and have a high accident rate, we should not regard all motorcyclists as if they are in the same category. My daughter is chairman of the Social Services Committee of Nottinghamshire County Council. At Christmas a local motor cycling club arranged a special event and no less than 200 motor cyclists decorated their machines and rode through Nottingham City carrying a toy to be presented to children in the care of the Social Services Committee. The same thing happened at Easter, when there was a vast number of motor cyclists carrying Easter eggs to homes where children were in care. I mention that because we must not classify all motor cyclists together. There is a vast number of good motor cyclists who will welcome this measure against pollution, which will assist decent motor cyclists who wish to ride properly.
7.45 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I should very warmly like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Bottomley, for having brought this Bill before your Lordships this evening. I should also like to pay tribute to my honourable friend the Member for Christchurch for having introduced the Bill in another place. After what we have heard this evening, there is very little left for me to say about this Bill, because it has been so well described by the noble Lord, Lord Bottomley, and so warmly supported by my noble friend Lord Strathcarron and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill.
We all know that noisy motor cycles are a cause of distress to a great many people. Many of these machines are equipped with inadequate exhausts, and this Bill aims to ensure that replacement silencers for motorcycles meet the required standards. Mention has been made of deliberately tampering with motorcycle exhausts to make them noisier. I can only say that that is an offence under existing legislation. The police do their best to prosecute where possible; but, as has been mentioned this evening, it is not easy. I can only endorse what has been said by other noble Lords, that responsible motorcycling organisations condemn this practice. We as a government equally condemn it, as it is indeed an offence.
The Government most warmly support this Bill and hope that it will become law very shortly. We shall not have to go through the normal procedures. I do not think that would have been necessary anyway, because I do not think there is any conceivable amendment that could have been necessary. Once again, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Bottomley, for having brought this Bill forward.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his kind reference to myself and I am grateful to the two noble Lords who have given their support. I think that the conclusion is unanimous.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 12th May), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Protection of Animals (Penalties) Bill
7.50 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill was piloted through the other place by Mr. Harry Greenway, the honourable Member for Ealing North, who had two previous attempts with a similar measure. The first attempt in 1985, prompted by his enthusiasm to crush the villains who promote dogfights, involved a Bill with penalties of £10,000 and 10 years in gaol. That was no good; the Government realised that the penalties were far too heavy. Cases would also have had to be tried in Crown Courts rather than in magistrates' courts. The position would have been hopeless because the Crown Courts would have been so clogged up. Under the existing Bill such cases can be tried in magistrates' courts.
This is an excellent Bill. If it is passed, the present fine of £1,000 will be increased. That is equivalent to Level 4 on the standard scale, or three months' imprisonment, or both. The present Bill will double that. The fine proposed is £2,000; that is Level 5 or six months' imprisonment, or both.
The Bill was originally entitled the Dog Fighting Penalties Bill. The reason for that title was that Mr. Greenway was concentrating on this atrocious custom—one cannot call it a sport or a pastime—which appears to be on the increase. However, it was thought to be far more useful if a Protection of Animals Bill was introduced which imposed penalties with regard to the ill-treatment of any animal. Under the terms of the Bill cruelty to any captive or domestic animal, which is considered to be extremely serious, can lead to the perpetrator of that cruelty being fined up to the maximum.
I shall now go back about 150 years to show how dog fighting came to pass. The baiting of animals 150 years ago was carried out chiefly with bulls and hears. It was made illegal principally because the bull often got loose and tossed the spectators. It would also toss dogs severely harming and often killing them. However, when such baiting was made illegal, dog fighting came into practice.
I consider dog fighting a greater evil than cockfighting, although both have been illegal for a long time. After all, the dog has been man's companion for thousands of years. The Egyptian pharaohs worshipped the pharaoh hound as a god up to 5000 BC. Apart from being a lovable animal, one could not farm sheep without dogs, especially in wild country. Guide dogs help the blind. And the police use dogs. Therefore, the dog occupies a superior position to the game cock. A game cock is bred purely for fighting, despite the fact that this has been illegal for a long time.
The dog is an extremely useful animal, a great companion, and brings enjoyment to many people. In the last five or six years, however, dog fighting has come back into vogue. It appeared to die out at about the time of the First World War, but we are told that it is now on the increase. There was a bad incident in 1985, although that was the first prosecution for dog fighting ever brought in this country.

707
Some of your Lordships will probably have seen pictures in the press of a bitch which was mangled and had her jaw torn off. She was left in a most appalling condition and had to be put down. It is extraordinary that there are men who can do that. They must be very sadistic; they must enjoy watching animals tearing themselves to pieces.
I should like to see the penalties for promoting dog fights stiffened. But the number of trials that would arise would clog the county court.
The Bill is very short; it has only two clauses. The first clause is the important one. It sets out the appropriate fines and imprisonment for such offences. The other clause is of no great importance. It repeals two enactments but those enactments do not affect the Bill to any great extent. Clause 2 also states that the Bill will become law within two months from the date that it is passed and that it shall not extend to Scotland and Northern Ireland. However, I hope that one day, it will.
The Bill has passed through all its stages in the Commons and the Government wish it to pass through all its stages today. Therefore, there is not much more that I can say about it. Dog-fighting has been called a sport, but it is only performed before thugs. It is an extraordinary thing that people—chiefly men—can enjoy seeing animals tearing themselves to pieces or human beings such as heavyweight boxers giving one another brain damage or some such injury. It is a degenerate pastime and it appears to be on the increase. It is mystifying that people can enjoy such a form of entertainment.
Finally, pehaps I may say that if the promotion of dog fighting is not crushed there will have to be another Bill and the penalties will have to be increased. It is possible that the penalty of six months' imprisonment will have more effect in stopping dog fighting than the fine of £2,000. Having said that, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Viscount Massereene and Ferrard.)
8.1 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I am grateful for the clear presentation that the noble Viscount has made in moving this short but very important Bill. I also very much enjoyed the highly informed details which he gave concerning the historical background of the question of animal baiting and dog fighting.
We on these Benches certainly share the horror and repugnance that the noble Viscount has expressed at any form of cruelty to animals. I think that the necessity for this Bill has been made clear by the examples which the noble Viscount has given and which were given in the debate in another place as regards the increase in cases of dog fights which have been brought before courts in the past year or so. Therefore it seems right that the law should be amended in the way suggested in an attempt to deter people from that barbaric and cruel habit.
Perhaps I may widen the discussion briefly and touch on one or two other matters which may be kept in mind when considering how best to protect animals
708
from cruelty. The first and most important matter is education. Surely it is important to educate society and especially young people to have respect for animals and to treat them properly. That must be seen as an ongoing process which is of the most fundamental importance.
Secondly, there is the question of dog wardens. In Northern Ireland, dog wardens are already appointed by local authorities. I feel that if that practice were to be brought in throughout the United Kingdom there is little doubt that the role of the wardens in looking after and protecting stray dogs would make an important difference.
Lastly, perhaps we should also examine the powers of the police and the RSPCA inspectors in order that one day future legislation may enable them to enter premises with a warrant when they believe that an animal is suffering unduly. While recognising that such powers would have to be exercised very carefully, I nevertheless feel that that would avoid some of the appalling suffering which can at present be experienced by animals when the RSPCA cannot gain entry to relieve suffering.
With those few additional points concerning future thinking on how we may further the protection of animals, perhaps I may say that we support the Bill on this side of the House. We believe that it is a step forward towards ensuring that animals are not treated cruelly. As I say, I hope that extra safeguards will be kept in mind for any future legislation.
8.5 p.m.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for explaining his Bill to us this evening. I shall be brief. The Bill provides for a considerable strengthening of the legislation protecting the welfare of animals. The Government wish to ensure that effective penalties are available for all instances of cruelty to captive and domestic animals and we are therefore pleased to support this important Bill. I know that the Bill has support on all sides of your Lordships' House and I warmly commend it to your Lordships.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, for what she has said. As regards dog wardens, it has been suggested that we should follow the example of Northern Ireland. However, I am not sure whether they would have any effect on dog fighting. Perhaps that does not go on in Northern Ireland. Having said that, I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 12th May), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Prescription (Scotland) Bill
8.7 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.

709
This Bill is a small but important measure introduced in another place by the honourable Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden. Before I deal with the detailed provisions of the Bill now before the House, I must take the important step of declaring an interest since I hold a position as a director of Clydesdale Bank plc. As I hope to make clear, however, the provisions of the Bill which I move are not designed to benefit solely institutions such as a bank but rather are designed to protect the interests of all creditors. I can confidently assure the House, therefore, that in promoting this Bill I do not in any way seek to forward my own or my bank's pecuniary interests. With that assurance, I now go on to deal with the Bill itself.
The main purpose of the Bill is to amend the law of prescription in Scotland to correct an anomaly resulting from the combined effects of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 and the Insolvency Act 1986. It may be helpful to your Lordships if I remind the House that the law of prescription in Scotland is the law relating to the periods of time after which rights and obligations are extinguished and cannot be enforced.
The Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act and the Insolvency Act had the effect of repealing the enactment which provided that the presentation of, or the concurring in, a petition for the winding up of a company or the submission of a claim by a creditor in the liquidation of a company interrupted the running of prescription (or the time limits) on the debt claimed. This interruption was achieved by Section 9(1)(b) of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973. However, the combined effects of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act and the Insolvency Act have resulted in creditors requiring to raise a court action to preserve their entitlement to their debt.
These effects have been twofold. From 1st April 1986 until 29th December 1986 only the submission of a claim in a winding up (and not the petition for winding up) had the effect of interrupting prescription. The anomaly arises in the case of a claim by a creditor in liquidation only in liquidations commenced after 29th December 1986 when the Insolvency Act came into force.
What should have happened is that when the relevant section of the Companies Act 1985 was repealed on 29th December 1986 by Part II of Schedule 10 to the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act and by Schedule 12 to the Insolvency Act, Section 9(1)(b) of the 1973 Act should have been amended in the way now proposed in this Bill.
Clause 1(1) of the Bill amends Section 9(1) of the 1973 Act by adding to the definition of what is a "relevant claim" for the purposes of interrupting the running of prescription after which the debt claimed is extinguished and cannot be pursued. It provides that a relevant claim should include the presentation of, or the concurring in, a petition for the winding up of a company or the submission of a claim in a liquidation in accordance with the Insolvency (Scotland) Rules 1986 made under Section 411 of the Insolvency Act 1986. Clause 1(2) repeals in Section 9(1)(b) of the 1973 Act the references to the now repealed Section 613 of the Companies Act 1985, which I mentioned earlier.
710
Clause 1(3) makes the amendment to Section 9(1)(b) of the 1973 Act retrospective, or I should perhaps more correctly say retroactive, so that it covers expressly any claim which has been submitted in a liquidation which commenced on or after 29th December 1986. This is an important point. It will ensure that the submission of a claim will always have had the effect of interrupting prescription and will avoid the need for creditors to resubmit claims in order to derive any benefit from the Bill. The Bill therefore preserves rights. It does not take away any vested right. It is not considered necessary to make the Bill retroactive all the way back to 1st April 1986 because, as a practical matter, the submission of a claim in a liquidation would have protected any creditor who petitioned, or who concurred in a petition for the winding up of a company.
I appreciate that this Bill, however small, contains technical and complex provisions. It is important, however, that it restores the position to what it should always have been and I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Sanderson of Bowden.)
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, rather unexpectedly it has fallen to me to respond to the noble Lord. I fear that I do not consider myself to be a great expert on this subject. However, I have listened most carefully to what the noble Lord has said; and everything he has said seems entirely logical and acceptable. Therefore, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove I should like to support the noble Lord in his Bill.
8.13 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness for intervening on behalf of her noble friend. I am sure noble Lords will wish to join with me in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, for his very clear explanation of this complex matter. We are indebted to him for this, and also to the honourable Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden who introduced the Bill in another place. As we have heard the Bill will restore and preserve rights which would otherwise have been lost because of an anomaly. For that reason it is welcome, and from this Bench I commend it to your Lordships.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her very swift reply and the Minister for his comments. I believe that the Bill will put something right which has gone wrong; and I am sure those affected will be grateful to see the Bill passed.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 12th May), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Access to Personal Files Bill
8.15 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that

711
no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Tordoff.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 12th May), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Channel Tunnel Bill
Recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.

City of London (Various Powers) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes past eight o'clock.

  NUCLEAR INDUSTRY REACTIVITY MECHANISMS
  NUCLEAR INDUSTRY REACTIVITY MECHANISMS
  PORT POLICE: NATIONAL CO-ORDINATOR
  PORT POLICE: NATIONAL CO-ORDINATOR
  TRAFFIC CONGESTION IN PARLIAMENT SQUARE
  TRAFFIC CONGESTION IN PARLIAMENT SQUARE
  CROWN SUPPLIERS: PRIVATISATION STUDIES
  CROWN SUPPLIERS: PRIVATISATION STUDIES
  CROWN SUPPLIERS: PURCHASES EXPENDITURE
  CROWN SUPPLIERS: PURCHASES EXPENDITURE
  WANDSWORTH CLEANSING SERVICES
  WANDSWORTH CLEANSING SERVICES
  WANDSWORTH COUNCIL HOUSING POLICY
  WANDSWORTH COUNCIL HOUSING POLICY