Sitting of 13 June 1988

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    SOUTHERN WATER AUTHORITY BILL
    Considered; to he read the Third time.
Oral Answers to Questions
  ENERGY

    Continental Shelf (Exploration Drilling)
    Mr. Key: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the current level of exploration drilling on the United Kingdom continental shelf.
    The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Peter Morrison): During the first five months of 1988 a total of 75 exploration and appraisal wells were started, compared with only 40 in the same period last year. Exploration well starts alone have risen from 18 in the first five months of 1987 to 27 in the corresponding period this year.
    Mr. Key: May I be the first to congratulate my right hon. Friend on becoming a Privy Councillor. That is very good news. Will he have a word with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the models used to calculate the net present value, because some of the oil companies are very concerned about that calculation for
    2
    the southern North sea? It would he a shame to do anything to disturb the very good upward and upbeat trend.
    Mr. Morrison: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his congratulations. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy is not here today because, as hon. Members know, he is leading a very important industrial mission to China.
    I have heard the points made by some oil companies. They have discussed them with me. They are very much in favour of the proposals put forward by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in many parts of the Budget. However, they have one or two points to make and they are being discussed with me and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: May I add my congratulations and those of my colleagues in the SNP-Plaid Cymru group to the Minister on the honour that he has received. When does the right hon. Gentleman expect that there will be a spin off to the oil fabrication yards of the renewed activity in the North sea sector, particularly in view of the difficulties at Ardersier?
    Mr. Morrison: I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for her remarks. She and one or two other hon. Members put points to me when they came to see me the other day. There is concern about the amount of work available in the fabrication yards. As I said then, the current level of activity—drilling and appraisal—and the number of developments that I have been able to approve this year mean that the outlook for the yards is better than it would otherwise have been.

    National Union of Mineworkers
    Mr. Patchett: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next proposes to meet officials of the National Union of Mineworkers; and what matters will be discussed.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Michael Spicer): My right hon. Friend and I are

    3
    always willing to respond to requests for meetings by trade unions from the energy industries. No such request has been received from the NUM.)
    Mr. Patchett: The Minister regularly refers to or asserts the great future for coal in this country, yet he has never met representatives of the work force to hear their opinions, fears and concerns. Why is there this lack of interest? Is it because, as we suspect, the greatest interest lies in imported coal rather than in the British coal industry?
    Mr. Spicer: We regularly meet members of the UDM because they have asked on many occasions—
    Mr. Patchett: Scabs.
    Mr. Spicer: The hon. Gentleman may call them scabs, but they represent a very large proportion of the British Coal work force. That shows his prejudices in asking this question. We have never wanted to encourage imports. We have said that a privatised electricity industry will be able to buy in the best market.
    Mr. Hind: If my right hon. Friend meets leaders of the UDM and NUM, will he emphasise to them the importance of the participation of the unions in the mining industry in the Government's employment training programme? In future, that will fill a necessary gap in skills in the mining industry and throughout industry.
    Mr. Spicer: I will certainly pass on to British Coal the points that my hon. Friend has raised. There is no doubt that training in all aspects of industry, including mining, is very important.
    Mr. Redmond: If the Minister receives a request from the NUM, will he agree to a meeting and discuss with the union the privatisation plans as they stand to date?
    Mr. Spicer: The hon. Member speaks about privatisation plans, but the Government have made it clear that there are no plans to privatise the coal industry before the next general election. However, as has also been said, the Government are considering the possibilities for private capital to play a greater role in the industry. If the NUM wishes to discuss that, and the prospects that it might create for new jobs, we shall be willing to hold such discussions.
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: When my hon. Friend next meets officials of the National Union of Mineworkers, will he tell them that miners in Nottinghamshire have five times broken their own productivity record? Will he point out what a tremendous tribute that is to the collieries' men and management, and that such an achievement gives the best possible guarantee for the long-term future of the British coal industry?
    Mr. Spicer: It there were to be a meeting with the NUM, I certainly would convey the points that my hon. Friend has just made. However, as mention has been made of foreign imports, I would have to accompany those sentiments with the advice that foreign competitors, particularly the United States and Australia, continue to enjoy a productivity rate three times higher than our national average.
    Mr. Skinner: If the Minister does meet officials of the UDM, will he tell them that they were very successfully used by the Coal Board and by the Government during the
    4
    miners' strike? They were promised roses all the way for combining with the Tory Government. Will the Minister explain in what circumstances he felt it necessary to connive with the British Coal management to shut the pits in Nottinghamshire—in other words, to say to those UDM members who formed the bosses' union, "We will use you when it suits us but we will also drop you when it suits us—and we shall sack you in the process"?
    Mr. Spicer: No, it is unlikely that I would say very much of that to officials of the UDM. I would say to them that the UDM, far from being a "bosses' union" has been extremely tough, not in debating politics with British Coal, but in debating the interests of its members. As a result, the UDM is getting better deals for its members than is the NUM in many cases.

    British Coal
    Mr. Adley: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Coal; and what he expects to discuss.
    Mr. Meale: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Coal; and what subjects were discussed.
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Coal; and what topics were discussed.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: My right hon. Friend and I meet the chairman of British Coal regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.
    Mr. Adley: Notwithstanding the fact that I had a tooth fall out during lunch, is my hon. Friend aware that the Secretary of State for Transport, in announcing his willingness to accept closure of the Settle to Carlisle line, said that every Government Department would do its best to see that the line stayed open? As British Coal has a vested interest in selling coal for use by the steam locomotives travelling on that line, and as it has already made substantial contributions in that regard, will my hon. Friend take an opportunity to discuss with British Coal the need to co-operate with the Government's efforts to keep the Settle to Carlisle line open?
    Mr. Spicer: I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising the subject of the Settle to Carlisle line under this question, particularly given the fact that one of his teeth fell out on his way to the Chamber. I commiserate with him. British Coal has sponsored a number of steam train runs on the Settle to Carlisle line. I will ensure that my hon. Friend's views are made known to the chairman of British Coal, but, as my hon. Friend will know, British Coal is not in a strong financial position to do very much more.
    Mr. Michael Welsh: When the Minister meets the chairman of British Coal, will he discuss coal supply, and whether it is better to buy British rather than foreign coal? Will he make it plain to the chairman that he would not like to see foreign coal imported cheaply in the short run, if, when it runs out, the domestc coal industry will be unable to supply our needs?
    Mr. Spicer: The hon. Gentleman has made a good point, which will no doubt be borne in mind by those who are laying contracts for coal on behalf of the electricity

    5
    industry. One of the great advantages that British Coal has in any negotiations about buying coal is that the spot market may change in the future. A number of analysts say that it could well rise. British Coal is able to provide on a secure basis, which foreigners may not be able to do. World coal prices, however, are considerably lower than British coal prices, and there is therefore an onus on British Coal to make itself fully competitive, which we believe it should be able to do.
    Mr. Colvin: My hon. Friend has made it clear that competitiveness is one of the matters that he would discuss with the chairman of British Coal, so that, if given the go-ahead. British Coal could supply coal to Fawley B power station. I hope that the power station is not built. Nevertheless, does my hon. Friend not regard it as an act of gross contempt by the CEGB to place orders for the generators before the public inquiry—which he has now sanctioned—into whether it will be built, has even started its sessions?
    Mr. Spicer: I understand that my hon. Friend is right in that certain design contracts have been placed for generators, but it is for the CEGB to take a view on whether the risks involved in placing them—with, no doubt, penalties attached if it does not go through with them—are worth taking. As my hon. Friend rightly said, the inquiry has not even begun. Certainly the Government's view is that the contracts would in no way prejudice the outcome of the inquiry, one way or the other.
    Mr. Morgan: As a change from questions from toothless Tory Back Benchers, may I ask the Minister whether, if he agrees to the meeting with the chairman of British Coal, he will discuss with him the implications for the coal burn of the statement made in the business section of The Sunday Times yesterday and attributed to the heads of British Steel in a press briefing to City journalists in Port Talbot last Wednesday?
    British Steel said that it was thinking seriously about buying its electricity direct from the generators, thus cutting out the electricity board, and possibly buying indirectly from the French nuclear electricity industry. Does the Minister realise that if British Steel does that, its private sector steel competitors, which use the electric arc method, will almost certainly do so as well? That would mean that 30 per cent. of the market for the South Wales electricity board would disappear overnight. What would be the consequences for the domestic electricity consumer in south Wales?
    Mr. Spicer: Let me say first that anyone who has had to answer questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) will know that he is not toothless. I do not know who the hon. Gentleman was referring to, but his description cannot be applied to my hon. Friend.
    The question whether a large customer could buy direct from the generating company under a privatised industry is one that we are considering very carefully, in view of the privatisation and the regulations that we shall have to make. My prejudice, however, is in favour of allowing for the maximum competition and, if big consumers wish to buy direct from certain suppliers, to allow them to do so. That would put good competitive pressure on what are otherwise pretty well monopolist bodies—the local regional electricity board companies.
    Mr. Batiste: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the greatest contributions that could be made to the stability of the coal industry would be to give individual miners the opportunity of a substantial capital stake in their industry? Will he at an early stage have discussions with the chairman of British Coal, in the first instance to provide an opportunity for the miners to buy out pits that British Coal considers uneconomic?
    Mr. Spicer: We have said that we are reviewing the limits to private capital currently imposed on the industry. The deep mines to which I think my hon. Friend was referring are limited to 30 men underground. I cannot yet tell my hon. Friend the result of the review.
    Mr. Barron: When the Minister meets the chairman of British Coal, will he explain to him why Hinkley C PWR is not to be judged economically against coal, or even British coal? It is to be judged economically only against renewables. Will he explain in detail to the chairman of British Coal why, under the privatisation plans, he is willing to cosset nuclear energy but not coal, although productivity in the British coal industry is good?
    Mr. Spicer: We are not comparing like with like. Coal accounts for between 60 and 70 per cent. of all the sources of energy in this country, so, whatever happens, we are talking about a vast market. All that we have said is that in the interests of security and variety of supply we wish to ensure that there is a minimum level of non-fossil-based fuel sources in this country. To that extent, we shall ensure that a non-fossil-based fuel source exists in the future.

    Energy Efficiency
    Mr. Hind: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what will be the key priorities for energy efficiency in the next decade; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peter Morrison: I recently announced that the energy efficiency office is entering a fresh phase. It will run a targeted regional service of advice and support for industry and commerce. At the same time it will continue to help the domestic consumer, through the community insulation programme and research into energy efficiency in housing.
    Mr. Hind: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the major initiative taken by the building societies to promote energy efficiency among home owners is a major contribution towards energy efficiency in this country?
    Mr. Morrison: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. I put the proposition to the building societies about four months ago and said that this was something that we could do together. What particularly pleased me was the reaction of the Building Societies Association and the fact that all the major building societies are now taking part.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: Will the Minister confirm that the fresh phase for the energy efficiency office is a cut in the budget from £24 million to £15 million and that there is to be no major promotional advertising campaign by the office in the following year? Is the Minister telling the House that energy surveys are no longer necessary because people have somehow magically learnt the lessons that the energy efficiency office was set up to teach?
    Mr. Morrison: I can confirm that the campaigns of the energy efficiency office will be specifically targeted. The success of the monergy campaign has been such that I believe that the general message has got across. There is awareness in industry, commerce and the domestic household of the need for and the advantages of saving energy. As for the survey schemes, half of those who have taken them up say that they would have done it anyway, without any input from the taxpayer. That seems to be a wrong use of taxpayers' money, so there will therefore be a reduction in the use of taxpayers' money for that purpose.
    Mr. Rost: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the biggest contribution to improved energy efficiency over the next decade can come from improved thermal efficiency in electricity production—from the present 35 per cent. that is achievable for electricity-only production to the 80 per cent. potential that is achievable when heat that would otherwise be wasted is used?
    Mr. Morrison: I note what my hon. Friend says about combined heat and power, and we take it very seriously. The benefits that will result from competition in a privatised industry will lead to improved efficiency.
    Mr. John Garrett: Does the Minister accept that the Opposition are stunned and overjoyed to read of the honour that has recently been conferred upon him? However, does he agree that he is not being entirely frank with the House, in that there is to be a cut of one third in his Department's expenditure on energy saving programmes next year, and more the year after, and that this is hardly the time to embark on such a cut? A recent EEC study shows that Britain has made virtually no progress on energy saving since 1983. I am sure that the Minister has read the report. Does he agree that getting building societies to hand out a few leaflets is not the way to mount a major initiative on energy saving?
    Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman knows that at this time of year all Departments of State negotiate with the Treasury. To anticipate the outcome of those negotiations would be wholly to mislead the House. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not more effusive in his praise of the building societies' initiative. It will reach millions of householders and potential householders who in the past did not have such a checklist before them.

    Coal Imports
    Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many tonnes of coal were imported into the United Kingdom in 1987; what proportion this represented of total domestic coal consumption; and what were the comparable figures for 1982.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: Some 9·8 million tonnes of coal were imported into the United Kingdom in 1987, representing 8·5 per cent. of total inland consumption. In 1982, comparable figures were 4·1 million tonnes and 3·7 per cent.
    Mr. Cran: Will my hon. Friend confirm that industrial and other users should continue to have access to the cheapest sources of coal, irrespective of whether they are in
    8
    the United Kingdom? Does he agree that the United Kingdom's future international competitiveness may—I stress "may"—depend on that policy?
    Mr. Spicer: I can confirm that the Government have no plans to prevent a privatised electricity industry from buying coal in the best market. We say that because we are confident that British Coal can become fully competitive so that the electricity industry will want to buy British.
    Mr. Ashton: The Minister has just admitted that imports of coal have trebled in five years. How much of that coal came from South Africa? If the new port opens at Killingholme, how many miners' jobs in pits in my constituency will be lost because of massive importation of coal from South Africa, Bolivia and other countries run on cheap and slave labour?
    Mr. Spicer: Speaking from memory, I believe that South Africa provides 0·2 per cent. of inland coal consumption and 2 per cent. of all imports. A significant proportion of imported coal is coking coal. If flexible working arrangements could be worked out between the unions and British Coal, Margam would be able to go ahead and coking coal produced there would substitute for a large proportion of imported coal.
    Mr. John Marshall: I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend has said that he will not prevent a privatised electricity industry from buying in the cheapest market. Can he be more positive and say that he will encourage it to buy cheaply, as that would be good for customers such as pensioners, and good for employment in energy-using industries?
    Mr. Spicer: The Government would much prefer coal used for electricity generation to be bought from British coal sources. We say that in the belief that British Coal should be fully competitive. We shall not prevent customers, particularly the electricity industry, from buying abroad, but we shall do everything we can to encourage and assist British Coal to become fully competitive so that it will be able to take on all corners.
    Mr. Prescott: Has the Minister read the financial report on the coal industry by Prior and McCloskie, which says that, within six years, world prices will begin to rise, when British Coal prices are falling, making present-day uneconomic pits economic? Does that not expose the short-term nature of the Government's policy of encouraging large-scale imports, motivated largely by the desire to privatise a smaller, more profitable coal industry at the direct expense of Britain's long-term energy interests, redundancies and pit closures?
    Mr. Spicer: Nobody who listens to the hon. Gentleman would imagine that the Government have allowed £1 billion of taxpayers' money to be spent on the industry each year, or allowed £6 billion of investment to be made in the industry. Anybody would think that the Government were allowing the industry to go out of business. Quite the converse is the case. The Government are building the industry into one that is able to take on all comers, particularly for the reason that the hon. Gentleman mentioned—the unpredictability of the future price of coal. Coal prices may well rise. In that event, British Coal will be even more profitable than we want it to be immediately.

    Continental Shelf (Oil Reserves)
    Mr. Chapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest estimate of recoverable reserves of oil on the United Kingdom continental shelf; and what were the comparable figures five and 10 years before.
    Mr. Peter Morrison: The latest estimate for remaining recoverable oil reserves at the proven plus probable level is 1,290 million tonnes, which compares with previous estimates of 1,475 million tonnes made at the end of 1982, and 1,980 million tonnes made at the end of 1977.
    Mr. Chapman: Does that decline of about one third during the past 10 years cause my right hon. Friend to be disappointed with the rate of success of recent exploration drilling? In view of the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) earlier, will my right hon. Friend repeat to the Chancellor that the tax regime should in no way inhibit such drilling in the immediate future?
    Mr. Morrison: With two years' depletion, the amount of proven and probable reserves in the North sea for both oil and gas has increased, so that trend is very encouraging. As my hon. Friend says, the amount of activity in the North sea in terms of drilling, exploration and development plans, either approved or in the pipeline, could not he more encouraging. As for his point about tax, the reaction that I receive from all the companies about the regime in terms of the economy as a whole and the tax regime in the North sea is positive. They have one or two points to make about the Chancellor's proposals and they put those fairly and forthrightly.
    Mr. Skinner: If the Minister is saying that the reserves have fallen by something approaching one third during this period, does that not mean that Britain's balance of payments will worsen as a result of the ability to use those reserves and sell some of that oil abroad? If that is the case, and if there are to be dwindling receipts from oil revenue, does it not make nonsense of allowing imported coal into this country, thus making the balance of payments deficit even worse?
    Mr. Morrison: Unusually, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was listening to my answer to the supplementary question. I said that during the past two years, despite that two years' depletion, the proven and probable reserves in oil and gas had increased. I am very encouraged by all the activity that is going on. We shall have oil and gas reserves well into the 1990s and towards the end of the 1990s at least.

    coal Mining (Labour Productivity)
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the increase in labour productivity in the coal mining industry since 1983–84
    Mr. Michael Spicer: For the week ended 28 May, deep mined revenue output was 4·36 tonnes per manshift, a new record. This represents a 79 per cent. increase on the average for 1983–84 of 2·43 tonnes.
    Mr. Knox: Does my hon. Friend agree that that figure is very impressive? Can he give comparative productivity figures for other countries?
    Mr. Spicer: I very much agree with my hon. Friend that the figure is impressive. However, in answer to the second part of his question, British Coal's productivity is still low relative to its main international competitors. In the United States of America and in Australia, underground productivity is three times as high as the British Coal average. Clearly, there is much further to go if British Coal's deep mines are to compete effectively against international coal. We are confident that, with flexible working, they will be able to do so.
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Will the Minister tell us what the subsidy is on coal from South Africa, Columbia and Poland? Will he give us the figures of the subsidy paid by the Government to that coal industry?
    Mr. Spicer: No, Sir, I do not have the figures for subsidy. As the hon. Gentleman knows, because we have had discussions privately and publicly, those figures are very difficult to get hold of, but I have no reason to believe that they are excessive.
    Mr. Andy Stewart: Does my hon. Friend agree that the excellent figures that he has just reported to the House about productivity, spearheaded by the Nottinghamshire coalfied, which has reduced prices to power stations by 20 per cent. in real terms, are the way to defeat foreign imports?
    Mr. Spicer: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. That is precisely the Government's strategy and objective.
    Mr. Allen McKay: Should not those impressive figures lead to an expansion of deep-mined coal rather than having to import it? Is it not a fact that the number of men made redundant from the industry have helped towards that impressive output per manshift? If he believes that, will he have a word with the chairman of the Coal Board, which has owed some of my constitutents £30,000 since March and tell him to pay not only the £30,000 but the interest?
    Mr. Spicer: I shall certainly pass on the hon. Gentleman's last point. I agree with him entirely about the impressiveness of what has been done, which of course is due partly to the redundancies that he mentioned, but is also very much due to the massive investment in the pits, particularly pits such as Selby, which is now striking European records, let alone British records. One seam is producing 21 tonnes per manshift. That, in very large measure, is due to the enormous investment in that pit.
    Mr. McLoughlin: The figures that my hon. Friend has given to the House are impressive. However, does he agree that the fact that there are countries with greater productivity than the United Kingdom leaves us with some way to go to improve our productivity? Does he further agree that we could improve productivity by greater utilisation of machinery, rather than by adopting the Luddite approach of the National Union of Mineworkers, which is opposed to some of the huge investments with which we want to go ahead and which would allow greater utilisation of machinery?
    Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to talk about the vital utilisation of machinery, particularly heavy duty machinery, in which the Government have enabled the industry to invest. I witnessed evidence of that in the

    11
    United States when I saw that the same British equipment is being used in similar geological conditions far more efficiently than here.
    Mr. Speaker: No. 9.
    Mr. Skinner: Where is the Secretary of State?
    Mr. Spicer: If the hon. Gentleman had been here at the start he would have heard my right hon. Friend the Minister of State——
    Mr. Skinner: I was here.
    Mr. Spicer: In that case, the hon. Gentleman has a problem with his hearing. My right hon. Friend made it clear why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not present today.

    Nuclear Reactors
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the implications for the United Kingdom electricity industry of the recent United States Government Energy Agency report regarding early retirement of nuclear reactors.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: The report will no doubt be studied in this country.
    Mr. Taylor: Does the Minister accept that decommissioning costs are likely to form an increasing part of the cost of the nuclear cycle in the years to come and that the pulling out of the current decommissioning work at Windscale by the CEGB has caused serious delays? Will he give a categorical assurance that the Government will not take over any of the decommissioning costs of the nuclear industry in the years to come, thereby providing a hidden subsidy for nuclear power?
    Mr. Spicer: We have yet to say publicly what we intend to do about the important issue of decommissioning costs. The report to which the hon. Gentleman referred concerns itself specifically with operating costs and the fact that American operating costs have risen. The operating costs of British nuclear power stations are still considerably lower than those for coal-powered stations in this country.
    Dr. Michael Clark: Does my hon. Friend agree that British engineers, particularly British nuclear engineers, always over-design for any life expectancy? Does he agree also that the closer a nuclear power station comes to the end of its initially stated design life, the easier it is to assess its future usefulness? Therefore, will he accept that there are many nuclear power stations approaching 20 years of age that might quite safely be given an extension of five, 10 or even 15 years?
    Mr. Spicer: I bow to my right hon. Friend's great knowledge in these matters, but I have to tell him that the body responsible for and which therefore takes the decisions about the safe life of, nuclear power stations is the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate. The Government have decided to increase the number of inspectors from 120 to 140 this year, bearing in mind the decisions and investigations they have to take on board.
    Mr. Prescott: Does the Minister accept that the same American report highlights the unforeseen 60 per cent. increase in operating costs that are due to the regulatory controls that the Americans have imposed on the industry
    12
    and that he has assured the American nuclear industry that such costs will be lower for a privatised nuclear industry? Does he accept also the recent medical report on the link between Dounreay and Sellafield nuclear plants and leukaemia? Since such matters cause deep public concern, will he ensure that the research is carried out and that the conclusions are provided to the Hinkley B inquiry; and, if not, why not?
    Mr. Spicer: I think that the hon. Gentleman is confusing the two types of regulation, but I stand to be corrected. We have never said that we want our safety regulations to be other than the best in the world. It is true that the Americans have cumbersome and bureaucratic institutions to determine price regulations, and we shall try to avoid such bureaucracy. The issue of Dounreay and leukaemia was raised in COMARE's report. It has prompted the Government to ensure that further investigations are carried out urgently. I assure the House that the report comes to no conclusions about the connection between nuclear plant, leukaemia and leukaemia clusters. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says that there are some coincidences. One can argue that leukaemia clusters occur in many parts of the world, notably in New Zealand, which does not have any nuclear power stations. We shall thoroughly consider this issue. If it is germane to the Hinkley inquiry, no doubt the inspector will raise it.

  THE ARTS

    Library Services (Old People's Homes)
    Ms. Walley: To ask the Minister for the Arts what evidence he has on the extent of demand for competitive tendering for library services to old people's homes.
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): This service is one of several that library authorities may wish to consider contracting out to the commercial sector. Library authorities would continue to be responsible for the scope and quality of any service contracted out.
    Ms. Walley: I thank the Minister for his reply. Will he admit that it is ludicrous to think that money can be made out of providing a comprehensive library service for elderly people? They are very worried about the service. Has any commercial interest been shown in this disgraceful competitive tendering? If not, will he withdraw it, as the Green Paper proposes?
    Mr. Luce: The hon. Lady has misunderstood the purpose of the exercise. The purpose of the Green Paper and the proposals for discussing more contracting out is to improve the services for elderly people that are available in our libraries at the service points by obtaining better value for money. If a library authority decides that by tendering outside it will receive an improved service, surely that is something that the hon. Lady would welcome.
    Mr. Colvin: My right hon. Friend is right—the proof of the pudding is in the eating. As he has confirmed that it is still part of the Government's policy to encourage library authorities to target special needs groups, will he give the number of library service points that are available for the elderly and other special needs groups compared with 10 years ago?
    Mr. Luce: There has been an increase in the number of service points for special needs groups, such as the elderly and hospitals, from 9,700 to 13,300 over the past eight years.
    Mr. Tony Banks: The Minister knows that what is needed are more resources for libraries. We know that the Prime Minister, and perhaps the Minister, would like our poor old-age pensioners to be stuck in their homes reading The Sun, or books by Freddie Forsyth and listening to MTV. That is not what they would want to do, any more than we should. This is nothing more than a further reading tax. The Minister is a disgrace to the library service.
    Mr. Luce: I look forward to the hon. Gentleman's warm support for the Green Paper proposals. One of their purposes is to increase resources for libraries.

    Public Library Development Incentive Scheme
    Mr. Greg Knight: To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on the implication for the arts of the public library development incentive scheme which he has set up; and how much funding he intends to award it in the next two years.
    Mr. Luce: I have set aside £250,000 a year for the next three years for the scheme, which encourages collaborative ventures designed to lead to improved and more efficient services.
    Mr. Knight: Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is excellent news? Will he say which authorities have received those awards and what activities have been covered by them?
    Mr. Luce: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support for these collaborative schemes, which are designed to help to improve services to the public by way of their value for money and efficiency. The schemes range over a cross-section of the country, including the Cleveland county libraries project, to establish a market advice and information centre in Cleveland, and the Sheffield city libraries project, to set up a sports library and information service for the United Kingdom. There are also a number of projects in the south.
    Mr. Jessel: As there are 4 million more books in our public libraries than there were in 1979, which is an impressive achievement, does my right hon. Friend think that any incentive is needed for the public to read them?
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that the number of books available in public libraries over the past seven years has increased from 110 million to 114 million, which shows that library services are improving. Since 1979–80 there has been an increase of 5 per cent. in library resources in real terms.
    Mr. Dalyell: Will any of the money for public services in the libraries find its way to help house the Thyssen collection? What is the Government's policy?
    Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman is ingenious in his attempts to raise totally different issues. I do not quite see the link between libraries and his question.

    Public Libraries (Photographic Exhibitions)
    Mr. Boyes: To ask the Minister for the Arts what is his policy on charging for the exhibiting of photographs in public libraries.
    Mr. Luce: The decision on whether to charge is a matter for the local authorities concerned. I am suggesting no change in this policy.
    Mr. Boyes: The House would have welcomed a more positive answer fron the Minister. Does he accept that libraries create opportunities for photographers to hold exhibitions, especially for youngsters who are starting off on the trail, and provide space for projects of local interest, involving local history, voluntary organisations and so on? I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would join me in encouraging libraries to create such opportunities and, above all, to ensure that their services remain free to the customer.
    Mr. Luce: As I travel around, I see a considerable number of libraries that provide special exhibitions for painting and for photography. Whether there is a charge is entirely at the discretion of the local authorities. A number of local authorities provide these services, and I welcome that.
    Mr. Fisher: I welcome the fact that the Minister is prepared to exempt exhibitions from his obsession with raising money and charging for public library services. Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that, by defining a free basic public library service and responsibility as narrowly and meanly as he does in the Green Paper, he will create a two-tier, semi-privatised public library service and thereby deny to many people its full range of services? That will narrow access rather than do what the Opposition want, which is to widen it.
    Mr. Luce: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will come to see that the purpose of this exercise is to improve the services of libraries. Those services are already of a high standard, but it will be a great day when the hon. Gentleman can at least welcome that objective. I have made it plain repeatedly that we plan to keep the basic services—book loan services and reference sevices—entirely free. As the libraries have changed in a big way in the past 10 years, with far more information at their disposal, it seems sensible that it should at least be possible for local authorities to levy charges, if they wish, in developing specialist services.

    Local Theatres
    Mr. Moss: To ask the Minister for the Arts to what extent his policy on private funding of the arts will aid local theatres.
    Mr. Luce: One hundred and six theatres have gained awards under the business sponsorship incentive scheme, while 18 have won awards under my arts marketing scheme. Theatres which are funded by the arts councils or by regional arts associations will be entitled to apply for incentive funding under the Arts Council's scheme.
    Mr. Moss: I thank my right hon. Friend for his helpful reply and draw his attention to a local theatre in my constituency, the Angles theatre in Wisbech—to which I cordially invite him and which I hope he can attend—

    15
    which is one of only two Georgian theatres still used as a theatre, the other being at Richmond in Yorkshire. Can my right hon. Friend give any guidance as to possible funding, from either public or private funds, to carry out renovation and restoration of such theatres, which are of historical and architectural importance?
    Mr. Luce: I have heard of the Angles centre at Wisbech. I know of my hon. Friend's association with it and the work that he does to support it. It is largely an amateur theatre. When professional groups go there, there is, I understand, funding from the Eastern regional arts association, which I welcome. The theatre's architectural quality is a matter more for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: Is the Minister aware that a number of theatres are under threat, largely because they occupy important and valuable sites and are suitable objects of interest to developers? Does the Minister understand that he has some responsibility to preserve these buildings for future generations, who may be interested in the theatre as it has been and will be, and should be?
    Mr. Luce: I recognise the importance of the theatres, which have grown in number considerably in the past 20 or 30 years. There has been an average of one new theatre every year for the past 30 years and I recognise that many of them are very fine. However, it is for the managers of the theatres, the arts councils, where they are involved in funding, and the local authorities to play their part. Local authorities have an important role to play in the refurbishment of existing theatres.

    Premium Book Subscription Schemes
    Ms. Ruddock: To ask the Minister for the Arts what evidence he has on the administrative costs of premium book subscription schemes.
    Mr. Luce: The administrative costs of subscription services will vary according to their nature and scope. Library authorities in England wanting to set up premium services will want to assess for themselves these costs.
    Ms. Ruddock: Would not a premium book service be yet another example of rewarding the haves and punishing the have nots? Would it not mean new books for the well-off and dog-eared copies for the poorer people in the community? Does that not go against the whole principle of a free library lending service? Will the Minister reconsider this horrific proposal?
    Mr. Luce: We must get the matter into perspective. A large number of local authority library services, if not most, already charge for certain services, although not, of course, for the basic service. With the Green Paper we are debating whether, in the light of all the changes in library services in the past 10 years or more, we should give scope for charges in other parts of the service. This is just one of a number of proposals. The consultation period lasts until the end of June and, after that, I shall assess the areas to which we can extend that power. The basic services remain free.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Armstrong Memorandum
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service on how many occasions since January 1986 civil servants who felt that actions they have been required to take were fundamentally against their consciences, have gone ultimately to the head of the home Civil Service or the head of the Diplomatic Service, under the terms of the Armstrong memorandum.
    The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Richard Luce): None, Sir.
    Mr. Dalyell: Precisely. So if the Armstrong memorandum was at all realistic, why is it that a civil servant should, at great risk, send the briefing that the Secretary of State for Education and Science had in front of him to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw)—the matter is referred to in column 788 of Hansard for 17 May—revealing the extent of the cold, calculated deceit of the Commons in the Secretary of State's answer to me.
    Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman is a colourful character, although his questions get a bit tedious and repetitive. I was asked how many civil servants had used the existing guidelines procedures on grounds of conscience. The answer is that none have done so. They have a right to do so. Under the Armstrong guidelines recently produced, they have a right to go through certain procedures if they think that they have a grievance on ethical grounds or grounds of conscience. They can go to their permanent secretary and ultimately, if they so wish, to the head of the home Civil Service. The hon. Gentlemen asked how many had used that right, and the answer is none.
    Mr. Batiste: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, given the existence of the procedure and the fact that no civil servants have used it in the time scale referred to, there can be no justification whatever of the underhand leaking of documents by civil servants in breach of the terms of their contracts of employment?
    Mr. Luce: Any leak against the rules of the organisation is to be deplored. I have no particular case in mind in saying that. By and large, the standards of the Civil Service are extremely high and will remain so.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is not the failure of the Armstrong memorandum to provide real protection the reason why civil servants have leaked like sieves in relation to the Richmond Yard affair, in which a Minister deliberately misled Parliament?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw that. No hon. Member deliberately misleads Parliament.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: I withdraw for you, Mr. Speaker.
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of that unsatisfactory reply, I give notice that I propose to raise on the Adjournment the conduct of civil servants.

    Appointments
    Mr. Cran: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many new recruits to the Civil Service in 1987 were appointed directly at principal level or above; and how many temporary appointments were made of individuals on secondment from bodies in the private sector.
    Mr. Luce: In 1987, 184 staff were recruited to permanent Civil Service appointments at grade 7—principal—level or above. A further 124 appointments at those levels were made on secondment from industry and commerce for periods of at least three months.
    Mr. Cran: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the figures that he has given. Does he agree that maximum contact between the Civil Service and business is beneficial to both, as each can learn from the other? I hope and expect that my right hon. Friend will come back in a year's time with even better figures.
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There has been an increase of 400 per cent. in secondment to and from the Civil Service since 1979, but from very low starting figures. I wish to see a substantial increase in that and other areas. I believe that direct entry at a later age by people with experience in other walks of life is extremely healthy and strengthens the Civil Service. I am currently reviewing other ways in which we can assist this interchange, such as the Whitehall and industry scheme, the non-executive directorships and the very good training courses provided by the Civil Service.
    Mr. Janner: How many of those appointed were women, and how many were members of ethnic minorities? What steps, if any, were taken to comply with the codes of the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission in monitoring the appointments?
    Mr. Luce: To be specific on all those questions, I should have to write to the hon. and learned Gentleman. Women make up about 50 per cent. of the Civil Service as a whole, but not at sufficiently senior levels, although we seek to encourage this as best we can. The same applies to the ethnic minorities. At national level, representation of black and Asian people is roughly the same as in the general population, but again the issue of promotion prospects will have to work its way through. My task is to ensure that we remain equal opportunity employers.
    Mr. Holt: My right hon. Friend has given some interesting information about the upper levels of the Civil Service, but is he not concerned about the situation for junior ranks in London, which is so appalling that almost as many temporary as permanent staff have to be employed in the clerical grades? Could not much of the problem be overcome by generating jobs in the north of England, an issue on which we keep hearing promises but have seen no action?
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right about the problems in London and the south-east, not just in the Civil Service, but in other sectors. Until recently we have had a dispersal policy. We also have a relocation policy. The end result is that today four out of five civil servants work outside London. The present climate and market pressures mean
    18
    that there are incentives for further changes in that direction, which I hope will lead to the result that my hon. Friend seeks.
    Dr. Marek: Has there been a shortfall in the Government's plans for direct entry at grade 7 and above? If so, has the shortfall anything to do with the low rates of pay in the Civil Service? Irrespective of that aspect, are there sufficient civil servants at senior executive officer level ready for promotion to principal?
    Mr. Luce: I am not aware of any major shortfalls in the direct entry process. An encouraging feature of the last direct entry round was that 50 per cent. of those who succeeded in the competition were people who wished to join the Civil Service after years of experience in the private sector. That is a healthy trend.

    AIDS
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many anti-AIDS kits have been dispensed by the occupational health service.
    Mr. Luce: Civil servants going abroad have obtained more than 6,000 first aid packs from the occupational health service and commercial sources. The packs are used to avoid infection from AIDS and other diseases following an accident, for example, when a blood transfusion may be necessary.
    Mr. Butler: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the scale of the problem in sub-Saharan Africa? For instance, in the Congo 100,000 deaths from AIDS are expected in the next 10 years. As so many hospitals have difficulty providing screened blood, should not kits be issued to diplomats as a matter of course?
    Mr. Luce: This is principally a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. There has been much consideration of the matter. A great deal of advice is given to diplomats who are serving in various parts of the world. The provision of these packs is probably the best way to proceed.

  THE ARTS

    Regional Theatres
    Mr. Key: To ask the Minister of the Arts which regional theatres he has visited since 1 February 1988.
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): I have visited six regional theatres since February, details of which I shall circulate in the Official Report.
    Mr. Key: It is marvellous to hear of the enthusiasm of my right hon. Friend the touring Minister. What assistance is he giving to touring companies in this country?
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is fortunate in having in his constituency the Salisbury playhouse, which has a tremendous record of attendance. Two thirds of its income is earned through private sector resources. On the question of touring, it is my view that standards of excellence in the arts should be available to as many people as possible. To that end, extra money has been made available to the Arts

    19
    Council to facilitate touring by theatre, music and opera compaines. I hope that my hon. Friend's theatre and other regional theatres will benefit from that.
    Following are the details:

    Regional theatres visited by the Minister for the Arts between 1 February—13 June 1988.

    20

    Stables Theatre, Hastings, 19 February.

    Redgrave Theatre, Farnham, 27 February.

    New Towngate Theatre, Basildon, 13 April.

    The Theatre on the Green, Richmond, 10 May.

    Sherman Theatre, Cardiff, 17 May.

    New Theatre, Cardiff, 17 May.

Devonport Dockyard (Redundancies)
3.31 pm
Mr. Martin O'Neill: Will the Minister answer the question of which I have given him notice?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Tim Sainsbury)rose—
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the House must hear the question. Will the hon. Member read out his question?
Mr. O'Neill (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the proposed redundancies at Devonport dockyard.
Mr. Sainsbury: Hon Members will be aware that Devonport Management Ltd., the commercial managers of the royal dockyard, announced last Friday that there would be a further reduction of 1,900 in the jobs available there. That, in addition to the 1,400 job losses already announced, brings to 3,300 the reduction in jobs at the dockyard by April 1990. I very much regret the need for these job losses, and appreciate the potential impact on the local economy.
I understand that DML intends to make the maximum use of natural wastage and voluntary redundancy, consistent with preserving the balance of skills and trades necessary to its organisation. The number of compulsory redundancies will be kept to the minimum. My Department will fund the cost of redundancy of ex-dockyard civil servants on generous Civil Service scales of compensation.
In the run-up to commercial management, there was an extensive consultation exercise. We made no secret of the fact that substantial job losses would be needed whether or not the dockyards were managed commercially, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State confirmed to the House on 24 February 1987 that, at the time, DML envisaged a reduction by 2,300 jobs in the period to 1990. Further job losses were expected after that date.
There is understandable concern that subsequent decisions by DML have increased that early estimate. Several factors have caused this. First, DML was deprived of the opportunity to enter the dockyard before vesting day to study the facilities on the ground and evaluate methods of operation. Secondly, there was considerable scope for improvements in productivity. DML accepted a target of a 30 per cent. improvement in efficiency over the seven-year period which was incorporated in the term contract. Thirdly, in continuation of a trend already apparent, the naval refit load allocated to the dockyard as a core programme has been reviewed twice since vesting day as part of the normal Ministry of Defence annual costings, and reduced on each occasion. In part, this reflects the fact that modern gas turbine ships are more reliable and need less maintenance than older ships.
These factors have led to a need for a reduction in the work force on a greater scale and earlier than previously expected. They will, however, result in the Royal Navy achieving better value for money in its refit programme and make the dockyard more capable of winning further work in competition from the naval unallocated programme, the private sector and overseas.
22
I should like to assure the House that Plymouth will remain a major naval base and our largest dockyard for the foreseeable future.
Mr. Martin O'Neill: I thank the Minister for his reply. Can I assume that the failure of any of the hon. Members who represent Plymouth to raise this question can only be attributed to the fact that this is a matter of national security? It is, of course, but at this stage it can only be seen as a devastating blow to those individuals who work in the yard, their families, and, indeed, to the entire economy of the south-west. However, is the Minister aware that, when it first became known that the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), when Secretary of State for Defence, was to embark upon this scheme, there were, on 1 April 1985, 13,000 people employed in the yard? We were told that there would be 2,000 jobs lost. The figure was then increased to 2,300 and then to 5,000. We now know that by 1990 the number of 13,000 employed will have fallen to 6,000—a loss of 7,000 jobs.
Does the Minister appreciate the cynicism and bitterness of the local community when on Saturday 11 June it read the report by Michael Chilvers in the Western Evening Herald? The report stated that, earlier last week, Chase Manhattan bank was advising its clients in a confidential investment review to buy shares in the Weir Group, one of the consortium members. That was primarily because the initial £300,000 which the Weir Group invested in the yard would mean a profit of £1 million, which was likely to be increased to £2 million by 1990. Does the Minister not agree that, instead of handing out money in that way, DML would be better off equipping itself to seek work in the commercial sector and looking for work in the refitting of the type 42s? The last one of the guaranteed programmes is going to Portsmouth.
Is the Minister not ashamed that 7,000 jobs should be sacrificed to Tory ideology in this way? Not only are we losing jobs in the local community, but we are denying the Fleet and the country the services of men and women who have served us well for a long time and whose energies and support the fleet and the country now require.
Mr. Sainsbury: I understand that there is great anxiety among those employed. However, I am encouraged by the fact that the managing director of DML said, that he looked to the number of jobs stabilising at around 6,000. I hope that the hon. Member appreciates that these reductions in job opportunities at the royal dockyard are not a consequence of commercial management as such, but of the changes that I set out in my answer to his first question, which are a reduced naval refit work load and the need for a great improvement in productivity and efficiency in the dockyard.
That is exemplified in two ways. First, DML itself accepted, before it had an opportunity fully to assess what happened in the dockyard, a target for a 30 per cent. —30 per cent.—improvement in efficiency over the seven years. Secondly, the lower refit requirements of the Royal Navy are exemplified by the fact that in 1981 the average time spent in refit by our surface warships was 20 per cent.—one in five days. That time is now down to 12 per cent. and I would expect there to be further reductions in due course.
Mr. Robert Hicks: May I say how distressing it was for everyone in the Plymouth travel-to-work area to receive on Friday the information

23
about the loss of a further 1,900 jobs? While we all recognise that the refits of the modern Royal Navy are less frequent and take less time, does the Minister not agree that that is so, essentially, in peacetime circumstances? The fundamental purpose of the royal dockyards is to service the Royal Navy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Was."]—is to service the Royal Navy in peacetime and in times of emergency and conflict. In view of the reduced work force, can the Minister give an assurance to the country and the House that we are capable of servicing the Royal Navy in a national emergency?
Mr. Sainsbury: I am well aware, as I am sure is everybody in the area, of my hon. Friend's concern for the well-being of those of his constituents who work in the dockyards or whose prosperity is associated with the work of the dockyards. I appreciate the concern of those people.
On my hon. Friend's important point about the strategic capacity of the refitting industry, we keep that under review. However, I must point out that Devonport is only part of the industry and that we keep under review the industry's total capacity. I can assure my hon. Friend that we would not let that fall below our crisis requirements. The existing facilities at Devonport represent a substantial surge capacity, and a great deal more surge capacity is available in the industry, in both the public and private sectors.
Dr. David Owen: I hope that the Select Committees and the Audit Commission will look at how Ministers have consistently misled the House about redundancies in Devonport. Will the Minister now do for Plymouth at least what the Ministry did with extreme success for Chatham dockyard when it was closed, because more jobs have been lost in Plymouth than were lost in Chatham? Will he make available land for industry and consider especially freeing up the south yard because Plymouth desperately needs industrial land if it is to attract new industry to the area? Will he also talk to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and try to ensure that Plymouth, like Chatham, gets enterprise agency status and extra help to meet this severe blow to its economy? Will he give the ancient dockyard buildings the same plans as Chatham enjoyed in association with the Heritage Trust? A Ministry of Defence commitment is needed to help the Plymouth economy. Will that be forthcoming?
Mr. Sainsbury: The right hon. Gentleman may have forgotten that the Department of the Environment is responsible for enterprise zones, not the Department of Trade and Industry, but I take his point. We appreciate that it would help the local economy if we could make more land available for redevelopment and for a variety of other purposes. We recognise that and, as the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, we have already released two central sites and have several other sites under active consideration—including the historic Royal William yard —for which job creation schemes are being considered. I believe that, in addition to the Royal William yard, six other sites, covering nearly 70 acres, are currently under active consideration for release. It is for DML to make proposals about the south yard in the first instance. We understand that the company will shortly be ready to present us with the results of its study into the south yard.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my hon. Friend consider for a considerable proportion of the dockyard employees who are being made redundant a reserve scheme with an annual premium paid, analagous to reservists for the armed forces themselves, so that, if it becomes necessary to expand capacity at short notice—as it did, for instance, for the Falklands or the cod war, when there was a high utilisation, none of which was a large international war—the people with the necessary skills will be available? That would also provide a measure of stabilisation which would tend to keep those skills locally rather than having them dispersed through the world and not available at short notice.
Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend, as so often, has come up with an interesting and ingenious point, to which we shall certainly give careful consideration. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks), Devonport is not the only refitting capacity that is available. The yard's facilities have considerable surge capacity to meet emergencies or crisis requirements. As I have said, that is also true of the rest of the industry.
Mr. Michael Foot: I mean no reflection on the Minister who has made the statement, but is it not deplorable that the Secretary of State for Defence did not insist on coming to the House to make the statement himself? If the House has been misled, as the workers in Devonport dockyard have been gravely misled, it appears that the Secretary of State bears a direct personal responsibility, and he should be here to answer that point. Is not this part of the callous way in which the Government have dealt with the whole matter? When the Dockyard Services Act 1986 was introduced, the previous Secretary of State for Defence did not even trouble to come to the House to move it himself. How can the Minister say that he will give guarantees, when one grievous aspect of the privatisation programme is that no guarantee given by Ministers from the Dispatch Box has been worth anything.
Mr. Sainsbury: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we take very seriously the scale of the job losses and the pace at which they are having to be introduced. May I explain to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House that the need for substantial job reductions was known long before we even started discussing commercial management. The longer-term need for very substantial reductions in the work force, down almost to the level that is now being postulated, had already been disclosed in discussions with the unions before discussions about the introduction of commercial management. Therefore, we can decisively reject the right hon. Gentleman's allegations that we have sought to deceive the work force or the House on this matter.
Sir Peter Emery: Will my hon. Friend accept that no one can be happy about the extra redundancies? Will he make clear to the House the Government's commitment to Plymouth by stating the amount of capital work that went on last year, has gone on this year and is continuing now in the modernisation of certain quay work further upriver with concreting to enlarge the capacity of the docks to deal with shops—[Laughter.]—to deal with ships, with their engineering shops, close to the moorings?

25
Does he agree that such work can be dealt with more efficiently through the improvements than at present, and that that is a good thing for Plymouth?
Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend draws attenion to a very important point. I cannot answer offhand his question about the scale of the capital works, but I can certainly write to him about that. In addition to improving the productivity and efficiency of the work force, a substantial amount of work is being carried out involving capital expenditure, in rationalising the layout of the dockyard and in producing improved capital facilities to carry out work for the Royal Navy and also to give the dockyard greater capacity to compete on the open market for work from other private sector sources in this country and from naval and private sector sources overseas.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Minister must accept that the scale of the job losses is far higher than the Ministry suggested to the work force. The job losses are happening more quickly and the savings from the management scheme have been nothing like as large as was originally suggested. If the Minister is telling us that the House and the work force have not been misled, at the very least there has certainly been bungling. Is there not an obligation on the Government to step in and save the jobs immediately? If jobs must go, we want to hear news about the plans that the Government will implement to provide other jobs for the work force which has done all it can to save the industry and work for this country in Cornwall, Plymouth and Devon.
Mr. Sainsbury: I am surprised that the hon. Member does not recognise the benefit to the Royal Navy of a 30 per cent. improvement in the efficiency of the dockyard labour force. I would have thought that that would have been obvious. Only by achieving that level of improved efficiency will the dockyard be able to compete for other work, which would secure the remaining jobs and provide an opportunity to increase employment in the area. There is work outside the naval sector, including work from British Rail which the yard has already obtained, for which the dockyard can compete using its skills and capital facilities.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must have regard to the fact that this is a rare private Members' day and that this is a private notice question, not a statement. We must now move on to the statement.

Barlow Clowes Group
3.48 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Francis Maude): With permission Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on Barlow Clowes. The House will be aware of extensive recent publicity surrounding the affairs of Mr. Peter Clowes and companies in the Barlow Clowes group. In view of the public concern on this matter, it is right that I should inform the House of the situation and of the action that the Government is taking.
Many companies are involved. Those most in the public eye have been Barlow Clowes Gilt Managers Limited, a United Kingdom investment management company, and Barlow Clowes International Ltd. a similar company registered in Gibraltar. The holding company of the group is James Ferguson Holdings plc.
Investigators were appointed in November of last year, under section 106 of the Financial Services Act 1986, to examine the affairs of Barlow Clowes Gilt Managers Ltd. The interim report of the investigators has been received and formed the basis for he winding-up petition of that company. The Official Receiver has been appointed provisional liquidator, and special managers of its assets have been appointed at the instance of the Securities and Investments Board.
My Department is in close touch with the special managers, who have been at the company's premises over the weekend. Mr. Clowes has been co-operating during this period with the special managers. At present, it cannot be said with any certainty what the return to creditors will be. Papers have been passed to the serious fraud office, and investigations are being carried out by the police.
On Friday of last week, the section 106 inspectors, Mr. David Ziman, a solicitor, and Mr. Walter Hoffman, an accountant, were appointed under section 432 of the Companies Act 1985 to look into the affairs of James Ferguson Holdings plc. That will in turn enable the affairs of all that company's subsidiaries to he looked at.
The Gibraltar company, Barlow Clowes International Limited, is being wound up at the instance of the holding company, under the supervision of the Gibraltar courts. The joint liquidators are two British firms, Cork Gully, who are the special managers of Barlow Clowes Gilt Managers Limited in the United Kingdom, and Ernst and Whinney.
Public concern has been expressed about the role of my Department in relation to these companies. My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State has decided that this should be examined objectively and independently, and he intends to appoint an independent person of standing to investigate and report to him as soon as possible on the facts of the Department's handling of the matter.
Mr. Michael Foot: Lord Rees-Mogg?
Mr. Maude: Subject to there being no legal impediment, as to either content or timing, we propose to publish that report.
Meanwhile, it will be of interest to the House to know of the earlier decisions taken in relation to those companies. In 1984, the Department approached the Barlow Clowes partnership to establish whether it should be licensed under the Prevention of Fraud (Investments)

27
Act 1958. Rumours about the partnership were subsequently reported by the National Association of Security Dealers and Investment Managers. After pressure from the Department, the partnership applied for a licence and in October 1985, after prolonged negotiation and the receipt of assurances, a licence was granted. In October 1986 it was renewed. In October 1987, in the light of some dissatisfaction by the Department with the monitoring returns from Barlow Clowes, and of other information, it was decided to appoint investigators. The company's licence was renewed while that investigation was in progress.
The main priority at present must be to safeguard as far as possible the interests of investors. I cannot at present comment on the amounts which may be at stake or on the position of individual investors. I am sure, however, that the liquidators in London and Gibraltar will seek to resolve the situation as quickly as possible in the interests of investors. I shall make a further statement when I am in a position to do so.
Mr. Tony Blair: I welcome the appointment of an independent investigator into the DTI's handling of this matter. However, the trenchant action today stands in stark contrast to the years of gullibility and incompetence which preceded it. Will the Minister ensure that the investigator's report is completed as quickly as possible, so that the lessons can be learned?
I understand that the Minister cannot prejudge the report's conclusions. However, will he at least agree with me as to the issues it must address? Is it not the case that, until March 1985, Barlow Clowes's main activity was bond washing, which is a tax dodge with gilt-edged stock? Is it not also correct to say that that practice was outlawed in the March 1985 Budget but that Barlow Clowes continued to offer a gilt-edged fund with a high rate of interest, income tax free, and with no reduction in capital redemption? That scheme was inherently implausible and it should have set alarm bells ringing in any halfway diligent authority.
In those circumstances, should not the first question to ask be how on earth Barlow Clowes came to be granted a DTI licence, which was then bound to be relied upon by financial intermediaries and investors as giving a Government clean bill of health to the scheme? Secondly, does not the Minister have to investigate why the licence was reissued in October 1986 and in October 1987, but investigators were appointed only in November 1987? What warnings were given by NASDIM, the watchdog, and why were they ignored?
Has not the Minister also to ask why the Securities and Investments Board, which took over regulatory functions only in April, was within weeks winding up a company that had for years been sanctioned by the Department of Trade and Industry? Does not the Government's action in harrying social security claimants stand in stark contrast to their action over the years in relation to the City? What guarantees will the Minister give us that no more Barlow Cloweses are hidden? How many more firms are still trading with only interim authorisation under the Financial Services Act?
Finally, is not our most important charge now to do our best for the investors, many of whom are retired or have sunk their redundancy payments into the company,
28
and have been encouraged by the Government to put money into the City? Does the Minister agree that it is vital now that the Government, together with the parent company and the liquidators, consider urgently how arrangements can be made for restitution, so that those who have built up funds by graft and hard work do not find that they are dissipated by greed and worse in the City of London?
Mr. Maude: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's welcome for the trenchant action—as he described it—taken by my Department today. He prefaced his remarks by saying that he did not expect me to prejudge the outcome of the investigation, and I am grateful for that as well. The hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot do so. I can, however, reassure him that the questions that he has outlined are the sort of questions that will be covered by one or other of the investigations. Some will be covered by the section 432 investigation into the company's affairs; others by the investigation by an independent person, yet to be announced, into what happened in my Department.
The hon. Gentleman asked why it was possible for the Securities and Investments Board to move quickly to wind up the company soon after the board came into formal existence under the Act. The reason is very simple. Under the previous regime, the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act 1958, there were not sufficient powers to seize the assets of a company operating in such a way. Action taken too quickly would seriously jeopardise the interests of existing investors, and a difficult balance had to be struck in those circumstances. Whether the right balance was struck will have to be considered by the independent investigator. But it was precisely because of our concern about the extent and range of powers available to regulatory authorities under the previous regime that, in the Financial Services Act, we gave the regulatory authorities a far wider range of powers, which have been used by the SIB in the way that the hon. Gentleman describes.
I of course confirm that the interests of investors are our highest priority, and that we shall do all that we can to safeguard them.
Sir Peter Emery: Can my hon. Friend give some assurance to the many investors, particularly those who are retired, who are concerned about the quarterly income that they used to receive from the company so that they could build up their lives in retirement? Is it correct that Cork Gully, the provisional liquidator, has taken control of £51·5 million, but has stated in so doing that it is not yet certain whether there is a deficiency, and whether the funds are adequate to cover all the claims? If it is proved that they are sufficient, will my hon. Friend ensure that payments on the investments are restored as quickly as possible?
Secondly, will my hon. Friend attempt to ensure that, as there is some doubt about how the funds of directors found their way into the directors' control, they will be frozen until the matter has been much more clearly defined?
Mr. Maude: I do not think that my hon. Friend will expect me to comment in detail on what the position will be. This is an exceptionally tangled matter, and I fear that it will take some time for the special managers and the liquidators to sort them out. It would not be helpful if I were to speculate about the eventual outcome, but I know

29
that the liquidators and the special managers will want to settle these matters as soon as they possibly can in a way that is as beneficial as possible to the investors.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: But is the hon. Gentleman aware that the £130 million that has gone missing, which involved large sums for the people concerned, is a more serious matter? Will he bear in mind that it is one thing to issue a licence but that it is another thing to reissue the licence after investigation? If the hon. Gentleman reissues a licence, how can he expect the ordinary investing public to regard it other than as absolute confidence in the company concerned? Does not the Department bear a large measure of responsibility for what happened in this case? How does it intend to implement its responsibilities?
Mr. Maude: The right hon. Gentleman makes an assumption about the state of the funds and assets that at this stage I cannot possibly confirm or deny. The special managers and liquidators will need to go into that matter. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman realises that it is an exceptionally complicated matter and that it will not be possible for conclusions to be announced for a little while yet. There was no reissue of a licence after an investigation. In October of last year, inspectors were appointed under section 106 of the Financial Services Act 1986. Following the receipt of their report in April of this year, swift moves were made to proceed with winding up the company.
Mr. Tim Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware that the decision that he has announced today to appoint a Companies Act liquidator for the holding company and to hold a special investigation into the activities of his Department is absolutely the right one—in fact, the only possible one in all the circumstances that he has described? However, does he agree with me that an important contrast has to be drawn between the rather feeble powers that were available to him under the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act 1958 and the really tough powers that came into force only at the end of April under the new Financial Services Act? None the less, will he confirm that if the investigator finds that my hon. Friend's Department was negligent in carrying out its statutory powers there is a precedent for paying compensation to investors?
Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the Financial Services Act gives the regulatory authorities substantial additional powers to enable them to move quickly to deal with matters of this kind. Those powers did not exist under the previous regime. My hon. Friend is also right to say that, if it were found in the ordinary course of law that my Department was negligent in the exercise of its statutory duty, it would be liable in law for damages. However, I make no prejudgement of that issue. It is precisely for that reason that we want to find out exactly what happened in my Department. That is why we have decided to go ahead with what I hope my hon. Friend accepts is an unusually full and open inquiry.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: Does the Minister accept that, after nine years of the green light for financial spivs, cases such as this are bound to happen? If necessary, will the Minister extend the inquiry into the particular circumstances of Gibraltar, which is not like the Isle of Man and other offshore islands? The British Government appoint a governor. Gibraltar may be
30
internally self-governing, but if Gibraltar is involved in offshore fund dealings, the British people think that they have been given a cast-iron, copper-bottomed guarantee.
When I visited Gibraltar, eight or 10 years ago, I thought that it was in danger of brass plates littering the high street—that, because of the demise of the docks and the need for other means of generating funds, it would be forced into carrying out offshore island financial activities. Many Gibraltarians did not want that to happen, but it has come to pass. It is only one symptom of this policy. I ask the Minister to extend the inquiry into the particular circumstances of Gibraltar as a financial "offshore island".
Mr. Maude: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman does his cause much good by expressing it in the kind of language that he used at the beginning of his question. Under the Financial Services Act, companies based in other countries that do business in the United Kingdom will be subjected to a tougher regime than hitherto. I cannot say that the investigation will look in particular at the regulations in Gibraltar, but no doubt it will throw light on such matters.
Mr. Anthony Nelson: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in all the circumstances, his statement is absolutely right? I am sure, however, that he would be the first to agree that this case raises serious questions about Government and DTI supervision of the regulatory process in the investment market and about some of the practices by operators within that market. Does he agree that the principal concern of the investing public at this time must be in the integrity of the market as a whole and that there will be concern, after McDonald Wheeler, that this is yet another example of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted? After examples of this kind, the greatest assurances must be given that the number of rip-off merchants who are still operating in the market is not as great as many people fear. What assurances can my hon. Friend provide for the public?
Mr. Maude: Nobody in a position of regulatory authority can ever give an absolute guarantee that all investment companies are safe. That is not possible, no matter how rigorous the regulatory regime may be. The regulatory regime that we now have is exceptionally rigorous. I said earlier that, under the previous regime, the powers were limited. They were not available over as wide a range as was regarded as necessary to deal with cases of this kind. It is precisely for that reason that we extended those powers in the new Act.
Mr. Frank Cook: The Minister makes great play of the stringency of the regulatory regime, as he calls it, but is it not true that the Government laid great emphasis on the fact that the market should be self-regulatory? Does he not agree that the history of this sequence of events gives a clear signal to any dealer that all he has to do is grab what he can as quick as he can and get out as quick as he can? What does the Minister intend to do to make self-regulation more regulation according to law rather than according to the whim of his Department?
Mr. Maude: The new regulatory regime that came into existence no more than six weeks ago is based on the law, the Financial Services Act. It provides exceptionally rigorous powers that have been used in this case. It is precisely because those powers were not available under the previous regime that events took this course. I do not

31
want to say any more. To do so would be to prejudge the outcome of the investigation that I have announced. To suggest that the new regime under the Financial Services Act is in any way less rigorous than that which preceded it is an absurd travesty.
Mr. Robert Rhodes James: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that I am not the only Member of Parliament with constituents who have invested a very large proportion of their savings in Barlow Clowes enterprises and who fear that they may have lost them. They want to know as soon as possible what is the real situation and how it will affect them. My hon. Friend referred to this as a "tangled matter" that will require some time to resolve. How long is "some time"?
Mr. Maude: I cannot put a time on it, because it does not lie in my hands. It lies with the special managers and the liquidators. As I said in my statement, they have been working solidly all weekend and they will continue to work full time to resolve this matter as soon as possible. We are very much aware of their anxiety.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Minister must be aware of the great concern that is felt by those who have invested in this group. That is quite apart from deciding where the responsibility may lie for what has happened. Will he clarify for them the position of the parent company, James Ferguson Holdings plc, in respect of any claims that may arise? Moreover, in view of the DTI's close involvement, what role will it play in backing up any claims that may be made?
Mr. Maude: Answering the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question would pre-empt the outcome of the investigation. I have announced that we have appointed Companies Act investigators to investigate the responsibility of the holding company. The responsibility will depend on what decisions are taken as a result of the investigations.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my hon. Friend give the House a positive assurance that the internal investigation which he has announced will not be used as an excuse for granting immunity from disciplinary action if it is found that somebody in his Department had failed to carry out their duties properly?
Mr. Maude: I can certainly confirm that.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to have regard to the fact that this is a private Members' day. I shall allow questions for a further 10 minutes, but then we shall have to move on.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is it not true that the names of four licensed security dealers that I gave the Securities Association—the responsible self-regulatory organisation—last week were all given interim registration by the Securities and Investments Board? When inquiries into the activities of those companies are taking place, will the Minister ensure that, if necessary, they are closed down? Will he also confirm that the last
32
two licensed security dealers that I brought to the attention of the House as acting fraudulently were both closed down by the Government?
Mr. Maude: Under the new regime, the cases to which the hon. Gentleman refers are no longer matters for the DTI—they are matters for the Securities and Investments Board and the Securities Association, which should take proper regulatory action. No doubt they will take proper account of any representations that the hon. Gentleman has made.
Mr. John Wheeler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the frankness of his statement. Will he confirm that the sequence of events—it is very important—was that the provisional licence was granted in March 1985, subject to assurances, and the licence was subsequently allowed in October?
Mr. Maude: My understanding is that a decision in principle to grant a licence was made in March 1985, subject to proper assurances being given and proper arrangements being set up. The licence was granted in October 1985.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Minister agree that this case, involving another City scrounger being caught in this tangled net, shows that the Government have two faces regarding the treatment of people who are caught by Government Departments? Why, after warnings two years ago, were licences allowed? If somebody claimed a DHSS benefit worth £20 a week, the chances are that one of the Minister's colleagues would have hounded that person within a month, not after two years. Rather than waste the two years, why did the Government not use the power of sequestration which they used against the miners in 1984–85? If the Government can hound the National Union of Mineworkers and follow its money halfway around the world, why can they not do the same to Mr. Clowes? Why do the Government not have one law—for the poor and for the rich?
Mr. Maude: I am sure that the House is grateful for the hon. Gentleman's legal advice. Powers of sequestration follow only when there has been contempt of court, and there is none in this case. I have told the House, and I think that the House has accepted, that no such powers existed in this case. Precisely because no such powers existed in this case, we have provided them in the Financial Services Act.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: Will my hon. Friend confirm that this is a shocking and disturbing story, whose implications are potentially worse than the Guinness saga? Does he agree that it shows once again that, when unsophisticated civil servants, often with classics degrees, try to follow sophisticated dishonest people in financial circles, using the advice of sophisticated honest people in the City—whose advice they often ignore or act upon too late—even with the increased powers provided by the new legislation, they do not act in time to save honest investors? Will my hon. Friend confirm that the directors' movements will now be restricted, pending the full investigation? Will he comment on the Cork Gully inference that £50 million may have been secured and covered, but that it is unsure about the rest?
Mr. Maude: I cannot comment on the detailed aspects of the case.
Sir Peter Emery: Cork Gully did.
Mr. Maude: Cork Gully may have chosen to, but it is not a matter on which I can comment. It would be wrong to arouse false hopes, or the reverse, without knowing precisely what the position is. It will not be possible for some time to disentangle this exceptionally complicated matter.
Mrs. Marjorie Mowlem: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that he would not be prejudging the independent inquiry if he clarified an answer that he give earlier to the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler)? He said that a licence was applied for in March 1985 and that it was granted in October 1985. I should like a simple, straightforward yes or no answer to whether the watchdog NASDIM—the National Association of Securities Dealers and Investment Managers—submitted to the Department between March and October its worries and doubts about the company.
Mr. Maude: I have already said in my statement that that was the case.
Mr. Robert McCrindle: I warmly welcome the new regime of self-regulation and congratulate the Securities and Investments Board on the swiftness with which it moved on this matter. Does my hon. Friend agree that a combination of naivety and avarice is always likely to lead innocent investors to be attracted by the type of advertisements which this organisation put in newspapers? Is my hon. Friend satisfied that, when exercising the powers given it by the Financial Services Act, the SIB has taken fully on board the need to control the content of advertisements? Will he confirm that he is satisfied, bearing in mind the fact that this is the second occasion in 18 months which I can recall of the Gibraltar element leading to people losing or prospectively losing their investment, that we are making some progress with consumer protection in that territory?
Mr. Maude: Exceptionally detailed advertising regulations for investment business are issued under the Financial Services Act. They are far more detailed and rigorous than was the case hitherto. Under the new Act, a tougher regime applies to investment businesses based overseas which do business in the United Kingdom.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: If there is no certainty about what will be returned to the creditors, what is the estimate? When do we expect any interim report from the serious fraud office or the police? The Minister said in his statement:
"In October 1987, in the light of dissatisfaction by the Department with the monitoring returns from Barlow Clowes, and of other information, it was decided to appoint investigators."
What was the other information?
Mr. Maude: There was information of various types and of varied provenance. I am not prepared to say more than that at this stage. Those are matters that will properly be considered by the independent investigator, and I do not think that it would be helpful for me to go into them now.
The serious fraud office will take such steps as it deems proper at the time it deems them to be proper, and I do not
34
propose to comment further on that. I am afraid that I have forgotten the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question.
Mr. Dalyell: In his original statement, the Minister said that there was no certainty about what would be returned to the creditors. I asked him what the estimate is.
Mr. Maude: As I said earlier, it is, I am afraid, just not possible to make any estimate at this stage. I have been into the matter, but it would not be helpful or sensible to make an estimate.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the strange and worrying aspects of this business has been the use of funds to buy into or to buy over rather shaky public companies, at prices which at the time were regarded as excessive, through the good offices and on the apparent advice of some of the most respected names and institutions in the City of London? Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that at least one of the inquiries that he has mentioned will try to obtain advice from those institutions about what part they played and what advice they gave?
Mr. Maude: I will certainly look at the point raised by my hon. Friend. It may well be that the Companies Act investigation into James Ferguson Holdings plc would be an appropriate vehicle. I shall certainly consider that.
Mr. Allen McKay: Will the Minister elaborate on a number of points that he has made? About an hour ago, I opened a letter from a constituent, from which it would appear on first reading that his home, his retirement fund and his car are dependent on his investments. I am sure that he is interested in the Minister's new powers, but I am sure that he is more interested in knowing whether he will get his money back, and when.
Mr. Maude: As I said, I am well aware of the concerns and anxieties that must exist for investors at the moment. I am afraid that it is not possible at this stage to give any further reassurance. It will be for the special managers and the liquidators to settle the matter as soon as they can. I know that they will be keen to allay those anxieties and concerns, in so far as they can, as soon as possible.
Mr. David Shaw: While I welcome the points that the Minister makes about the new financial services legislation which undoubtedly improves the disciplines and controls operating in the securities industry, is he really satisfied that small companies that are responsible for managing overseas bank accounts and investments can be relied upon to exercise proper control? From this example, according to press reports, it appears that the United Kingdom funds have largely been recovered, but funds in Gibraltar that have been manoeuvred between Switzerland and other exotic locations seem to have hit problems. Whether they are licensed by his Department or whether they run under the auspices of other regulatory bodies, controlling funds overseas is a really difficult problem, and perhaps his Department should consider it further.
Mr. Maude: I am certainly satisfied that the new regulatory regime is tougher and provides more effective

35
control than existed hitherto. I have to say that the position, as I understand it, is by no means as simple as that which my hon. Friend sets out.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Application under Standing Order No. 20.
Sir Peter Emery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to give notice—
Mr. Speaker: No. I will take points of order after the application under Standing Order No. 20.
Sir Peter Emery: But it is a point of order on the statement.
Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no procedure for seeking leave to move the Adjournment of the House on a statement. I shall take the hon. Gentleman's point of order in a moment.
Later—
Mr. Speaker: Now I will take points of order.
Sir Peter Emery: Not in answer to a question, Sir, but because of the great concern that exists about the Barlow Clowes group, I wished to ensure that the matter should be raised on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Sharpeville Six
4.22 pm
Mr. David Winnick: 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 urgent action by Her Majesty's Government on South Africa, following the imposition of extended emergency regulations and the latest development in the case of the Sharpeville Six."
The matter is specific, in that my application refers to the latest extended emergency powers taken by the apartheid regime. These extend all the regulations relating to detention without trial, restrictions on press reporting and making illegal and punishable all calls for boycotts.
In addition to the 17 organisations which remain banned, including the African National Congress and the United Democratic Front, another organisation—the Committee for the Defence of Democracy—has also been banned.
My application is important because of the need for the British Government to pass from simply criticism of such action to taking effective economic measures such as sanctions against the apartheid police state. It is also urgent that the House should debate these matters because of the refusal of the judge in the Supreme Court in South Africa to allow the Sharpeville Six a new trial.
The lives of five men and one woman who have been convicted and sentenced to death must be saved. There have been protests from Governments, from Parliament and the rest, and the refusal to allow new proceedings means that, once again, the lives of the six are in great danger, and it is necessary for the British Government, the United States Government and other western European Governments to make sure that there is the maximum protest.
Over the weekend, millions of people saw the wonderful concert put on at Wembley in honour of Nelson Mandela's 70th birthday. Nelson Mandela has devoted his entire life to fighting the evil that I have been describing. He is undoubtedly the most outstanding South African of his generation. The way in which people all over the world saw that wonderful concert on television showed only too well the feelings of people that Nelson Mandela must be freed.
Given all those circumstances, and bearing in mind what has happened on South Africa in the past few days and the question of the Sharpeville Six, I beg you, Mr. Speaker, to recognise the urgency of the matter and to allow a debate so that the House can debate fully these issues as quickly and as openly as possible.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) seeks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"The need for urgent action by Her Majesty's Government on South Africa following the imposition of extended emergency regulations and the latest developments in the case of the Sharpeville Six."
I have listened with concern to what the hon. Member has said. As he knows, my sole duty in considering an application under Standing Order No. 20 is to decide whether it should be given precedence over the Orders of

37
the Day set down for today or for tomorrow and whether it meets the criteria. I regret that I cannot find that the matter which the hon. Gentleman has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.

Valleys Initiative (Press Conference)
4.26 pm
Mr. Alan Williams: On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have repeatedly put on record your opinion that, when a statement is made in the House, as last Thursday the Leader of the House assured us that the Secretary of State for Wales intended to do on his long-awaited valleys initiative, the Minister should make that statement at the Dispatch Box before it reached the press. You may also recollect, not least because I sent you a copy, the guarantee by the Secretary of State for Wales on 23 May:
"I shall certainly make an announcement in the Chamber, although I shall also be making announcements in the Valleys."—[Official Report, 23 May 1988; Vol. 134, c. 6]
Today, I have heard that, in addition to briefing editors today, tomorrow, at 10·40 am, the Secretary of State will launch his valleys initiative with a great fanfare and press jamboree in Tonypandy in south Wales, a full five hours before he can possibly tell the House—a typical attempt to precondition the attitude of the press before questions can be raised by hon. Members.
As this is a brazen, blatant discourtesy to you, Mr. Speaker, in view of your constant rulings, and to the House, in view of its long-standing conventions, will you lend the weight of your office to our demand to the Leader of the House that that press conference and further press briefings be postponed until after the statement and questions in the Chamber?
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman kindly mentioned this matter to me in advance of his point of order, therefore giving me an opportunity to look into it. I have no authority to postpone press conferences, but I understand that the information to be given in Wales will be released in the Vote Office tomorrow morning—[Interruption.] Order. This will give hon. Members a chance to study it in time for questions to the Secretary of State in the afternoon.
Mr. Frank Dobson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The undertaking given by the Secretary of State for Wales was no offhand answer. It actually appears in Hansard as a corrigendum to the Official Report:
"I shall certainly make an announcement in the Chamber, although I shall also be simultaneously making announcements in the Valleys."—[Official Report, 24 May 1988; Vol. 134, c. 302.]
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word "simultaneous" means "at the same time".
The Secretary of State said that he would be making a statement in the Chamber at the same time as he made a statement in the valleys. No one knew how he was going to do that in two places at the same time, but that is his problem. Nevertheless, he gave an undertaking to the House that he would make the announcement in the Chamber. We ask you, Mr. Speaker, to give all the weight you can to our representations, to make sure that that statement is made in the Chamber, as the Secretary of State volunteered and promised.
Mr. Speaker: The House well knows my views on this matter. I believe that the House of Commons should always be given information in advance of the press or anyone else. However, it is not within my power to

39
postpone a press conference. I am sure that what has been said will be carefully noted by those on the Government Front Bench.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have consulted five dictionaries, in case I did not understand the word "simultaneous". It seems quite clear that it means "at the same time", in the same way as simultaneous translation means more or less instantaneous translation. Therefore, I suggest that the Secretary of State for Wales has misled the House by making that statement during Welsh questions.
Making a statement and holding a press conference in Wales, even though the right hon. Gentleman may be leaving the details in the Vote Office, is not the same as making an oral statement to the House before making that statement in Wales. I have no objection to Ministers making statements in Wales: it is good that Ministers occasionally make their statements in the areas that will be most affected. However, the Secretary of State for Wales has made a promise in the House simultaneously to make a statement on the valleys initiative, about which those of us who represent the valleys are deeply concerned and rightly, we want to be the first to comment and question him. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to use all your good offices to make sure that he does not make that statement before we have an opportunity to hear it and to question him on it.
Mr. Dennis Skinner rose—
Mr. Speaker: Is it the same matter? Mr. Skinner.
Mr. Skinner: Is it not normal practice that, when a Minister or anybody else misleads the House, they are expected to make good and redeem that statement? Is it not worth noting that the White Paper on public expenditure produced in February this year shows on page 35 that planned public expenditure for Wales will fall over three years? Perhaps the reason why the Secretary of State will not come to the Dispatch Box is that he will be criticised on the amount of expenditure. Instead, he is going to the valleys to try to kid them, when he is cutting the money.
Mr. Speaker: The House well knows my views on this matter. I am sure that what has been said has been noted.

Mining Subsidence
4.32 pm
Mr. Alan Meale: I beg to move,
That this House believes that any public body or organisation involved in the working or getting of coal should be required to take steps to prevent subsidence damage and to promote public awareness of any workings which might give rise to such damage; further believes that the owners of houses, land, buildings and other constructions which have suffered damage due to subsidence from the working and getting of coal should without time limit receive full right of repair to, or equitable compensation for, their properties; and calls for the establishment of an independent arbitration procedure to resolve any disputes that may arise over compensation for subsidence damage or any matter relating thereto.
I am grateful for the fact that the rules of the House have allowed me this opportunity to enable hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber to discuss the important topic of mining subsidence. I hope that at the end of the debate hon. Members will be more aware of the subject and that the Minister will be kind enough to give some suggestions as to what the Government intend to do to rectify the problems created by subsidence damage.
Many hon. Members will be aware of my interest in this matter. If they are not, let me advise them that if they wish to get on in politics, they should read Hansard more regularly. The problem of coal mining subsidence in parts of north Nottinghamshire is now so bad that it is the single most important issue for home owners in the area. Proof of that is shown daily in the mail bags of other hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friends the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes), for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), all of whom I hope will be given an opportunity to speak in the debate.
In other parts of the United Kingdom, particularly in Yorkshire and Wales, similar problems are appearing regularly in mining areas. Therefore, the issue needs the Government's attention so that home owners, tenants of damaged properties, businesses, landowners and the service industries may be given the justice necessary to enable them to repair such damage, or at least provided with proper compensation if it is required.
Despite the fact that the Select Committee on Energy carried out major investigations into the problem, including visits to the affected coalfield areas, the receiving of written and oral evidence and the publication of the report in 1984 by Professor Waddilove entitled, "The repair and compensation system for coal mining subsidence", I find it amazing that hon. Members still await any positive action. If any hon. Member doubts that statement, I should say that since the publication of the Waddilove report in 1984 all that has transpired from Government has been the publication in 1987 of their response to the report's proposals and, recently, a Department of Energy consultative document entitled, "Coal mining subsidence compensation: Proposals for legislation". Those reports were critical of each other on the most important points.
I shall point to some of the major differences between the documents I have listed. The Government conceded in their response to the Waddilove inquiry the importance of accurate prediction of possible subsidence damage, yet they maintain the view that as that may be expensive, a

41
balance has to be struck between benefits and additional costs. Without any shadow of doubt, that is contrary to the spirit of the Waddilove findings, which recommend:
"The Board"—
that is, British Coal—
"should extend the priorities for investigating likely subsidence damage and consequent preventive work to include sensitive community areas such as residential neighbourhoods".
Paragraph 80 of the same report states that British Coal "should undertake such appropriate preventive measures."
The Minister will probably say that British Coal already does a considerable amount of predictive work, including the carrying out of instructions given to it in 1984 on procedures to be adhered to, and the compilation of a subsidence damage manual. Will the Minister make that manual available to hon. Members? It would be of great help to all those concerned with this matter.
On prevention and precautionary measures, the Waddilove recommendations and those of the Government differ dramatically in their resolve. For example, paragraph 83 of the Waddilove report states:
"Coal should not normally be extracted where the Board predicts that severe or very severe damage is likely to occur unless action can be taken to reduce the likelihood of damage below this level."
The Government's view is only to concede that local planning authorities face a dilemma in such circumstances.
In my constituency of Mansfield there has been a rumour for some time that British Coal intends to make application to mine into the pillar of coal on which most of the centre of the town now stands. Will the Minister investigate that and give me an answer on his findings? Is he aware that hundreds of millions of pounds worth of property and investments are situated above the pillar? If the rumour is true, will he give an assurance that Government Departments will make available the extra finance necessary to try to prevent damage and, thereafter, to remedy any that may occur?
The Government have accepted the principle that proper notification was not being conducted fairly by British Coal and that in many cases inadequate information was being provided to those concerned with subsidence. For instance, with mining searches, recent practice in Nottinghamshire has been to provide basic information on past and current mining activities but not details of compensation claims settled and the amounts involved or what repairs they covered.
Similarly, little liaison exists between prospective purchasers and the estate departments of British Coal. Until a central register exists that is easily accessible to anyone interested and which is preferably held and managed by the local authority, difficulties will continue to occur. Such a facility would rightly offer prospective home or business purchasers direct access to the vital information they need before purchase. Further, it would give owners who believe that their property had experienced damage the opportunity to check for themselves.
The Waddilove inquiry recommended that the Government should bring the Law Society and British Coal together to agree a form of mining search to be used by prospective purchasers of property in mining areas. Why has that not yet happened? Many regard the repair of damage to property as the main cause affecting the resolution of this issue.
42
Needless to say, the Minister will not be surprised to learn that I agree with the Waddilove findings and the Government's view that the repair of damaged property to its pre-damaged condition is the correct formula to adopt. Compensation is paid only in exceptional circumstances and when it is agreed by all parties. I take issue, however, with a number of the matters that have been raised.
The infamous six-year rule is the method by which British Coal determines whether it should be liable for repair or compensation for damage caused by coal mining subsidence. It is outrageous and nonsense that British Coal should feel that because coal mining subsidence damage occurred six years or more after coal mining ceased under a property, it should not be responsible. I have been told that on almost every occasion when that principle has been challenged in the courts it has not been upheld, yet the Government still feel able to rely on that rule. It arises out of the Limitation Act 1980 and is the appropriate measure for such cases.
Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, under the Housing Bill, latent damage after house purchase is limited to 10 years? I believe that I am right in saying that there is no limit in the Latent Damage Act 1986. People suffering subsidence damage, such as those in my constituency, are getting a raw deal.
Mr. Meale: The consultation document issued by the Department of Energy states that, in cases of damage to property, the six-year limit is likely to be reduced to three years, not removed altogether.
Mr. Gerry Steinberg: Does my hon. Friend agree that there should be no limit to the period in which damages can be claimed for subsidence damage? There were a number of pits in my constituency, but after 30 years, holes and pitfalls are still appearing for which compensation cannot be claimed. A farm in my constituency, at which mining finished in the 1930s, is still suffering from pitfalls. Does my hon. Friend agree that compensation should be paid regardless of time?
Mr. Meale: As my hon. Friend knows, I have introduced two private Member's Bills, which stipulate that there should be no time limit with regard to damage to properties.
I inform the Minister that I am in possession of a number of confidential British Coal documents relating to the six-year rule. They show a conspiracy by British Coal in this matter. I have a letter that was sent by British Coal's London headquarters to Mr. Williams, who owns a damaged home in Sutton in Ashfield. The letter is dated 7 January 1985 and states:
"The strongest limitation period that can apply to subsidence claims is twelve years."
That view is supported by Mr. Tyrrell, who is regional solicitor for British Coal at its Eastwood hall offices. In a memorandum dated 1 April 1985 to the deputy director of administration, north Nottinghamshire area, and his area estate managers, he says:
"Claims for compensation founded on agreements under seal made between the Board and the surface owner—12 years. Claims for repair of property—12 years."
In a confidential memorandum dated 13 May 1985, M r. Wenn, who is an area estates manager in the north Nottinghamshire area, went into more detail. Under a section headed "Claims for repairs" he states:

43
"Severance Terms contained in Title Deeds etc. —the limitation period is 12 years from the date of damage."
The Minister should remember that that is a memorandum to an estates officer saying British Coal should deceive owners who have damaged property.
The memorandum continues:
"You will note that these limitation periods appear to be entirely contrary to those that we have been employing for a number of years, i.e. claims for compensation generally under title deeds, we have allowed 12 years plus 2 years for ground movement to cease and claims for repair under the Acts, 6 years, plus 2 years for ground movement to cease. Implementation, therefore, is bound to be difficult."
The final paragraph of the memorandum says:
"It is clearly in the Board's interest to restrict claims for compensation to 6 years from the date the damage occurred as this may limit our liability. The problem is going to be that as we are pursuing a repairs policy more claims will fall into the 12 year limitation."
I have a confidential British Coal document—reference EDI(77) 1 K 664—which is headed "Estates department instruction." It was sent out by Mr. Dickie, who was then national director of estates. On page six he says:
"It is twelve years where the obligation to pay compensation was imposed by a covenant in a Mining Lease or other document by which the Board are still contractually bound, or by a Working Facilities Order."
I shall willingly pass all those documents to the Minister for his comments.
I should like to mention the effect on some of my constituents of the insistence on the six-year interpretation. The first case involves a constituent who lives at 45 High street, Mansfield Woodhouse. His home is in a deplorable state of disrepair; ceilings are cracked throughout the property, floors are out of level, window frames are twisted beyond repair and, despite the fact that the cottage is built of Portland stone and its outside walls are 20 inches thick, huge cracks have appeared inside and outside it. Mining last took place under the property in 1979. The cottage, which is the middle property of three, is splitting in two. Repairs to the properties on either side are being paid for by British Coal. To make matters worse, the property is listed with a preservation order because of its unusual and historical importance.
Mr. Johnson of 22, Bosworth street, Mansfield lives in a semi-detached property on the Ladybrook estate. Despite the fact that the adjoining house has been repaired, British Coal continually refuses to offer help to repair the property.
Mr. and Mrs. Sharman live at 24 Williamson street, Mansfield. Mr. Sharman was a coal miner and deputy, and worked for British Coal for 50 years. That elderly couple bought their council home only to be told that, because the head of claim—the local council—had changed, a new claim was required. When they claimed, they were immediately informed that, because it was a new claim, they were out of time.
Mr. and Mrs. Lilley of 37, Harropwhite road, Mansfield went as far as to pay for a lengthy consultative report on their property. It clearly showed that severe damage to their home had been caused by mining subsidence. They have been told that to continue their fight for justice in the courts will cost about £100,000—a matter that is making both of them very ill.
I shall pass the Minister a photograph album of the severe damage to 42, Southwell road east, so that he has some idea how bad it is. It is in such a state of disrepair,
44
because of coal mining subsidence, that it is considered to be dangerous for its owners and local residents. British Coal has agreed that the property is a write-off but refuses to settle the matter because it believes that it can force the owners to accept less for their home than would enable them to buy a similar home.
There is also the issue of the response by British Coal to the need for repairs or to contact from a home owner who believes that he has a subsidence problem. Contacts and promises by representatives to visit are often not followed up. British Coal's response needs to be reassessed, because my files are full of instances of intimidation of home owners after visits by Coal Board staff. The rules need to be changed so that staff are fully aware that their job is not to intimidate owners or to scare them into believing that they have no right to compensation or repair of their properties by British Coal.
Temporary accommodation is important for people who have to leave their homes while repairs are carried out. I fully agree with the main thrust of the Government's recommendations in response to the Waddilove report. There are two main problems in north Nottinghamshire, the first of which is availability. There is an enormous list of families waiting for British Coal properties to become vacant. British Coal estates officers regularly cite that factor as a reason for owners quickly accepting sometimes low financial compensation or delaying repairs.
The second problem involves management. I have had to sort out problems with a number of the public services, including the gas and electricity boards, to stop them disconnecting properties because of non-payment of bills by British Coal. I hope that the Minister will note my comments and write to British Coal in Nottinghamshire stipulating that the board must adhere to criteria on the siting, standard, availability and management of temporary homes.
I should like to deal with compensation settlements generally, which I hope I have shown are unsatisfactory. I am disappointed that the Government in their response have declined to support the concept of a local or a regional independent arbitration service to deal with these matters. It is a major error for British Coal to rely on a home owner's right merely to a reference to the lands tribunals. As the Minister is aware, in the past two weeks two cases against the board—one in Leicester and the other in Mansfield—were won under this system, and compensation of about £40,000 and £15,000 were agreed. It took four years for both cases to reach that position, with costs in each case estimated to be between £100,000 and £150,000. These cases are not unusual; many have preceded them. A much more practical and humane and cheaper approach would be to use the independent arbitration service which I recommended in a private Member's Bill.
I again ask whether the Government intend to agree to the recommendations of the Waddilove inquiry. Recommendation 95 states:
"Government Departments should be prepared to adjust the various Capital Expenditure Allocations made to Local Authorities to take account of additional Expenditure incurred as a result of serious damage to an area."
I ask that question because, in my district council area of Mansfield, the following damage problems arise: first, structural repair costs to council housing stock of about £1 million are outstanding, covering hundreds of homes; secondly, at least eight homes which have had to be

45
vacated because of subsidence damage are uninhabitable; thirdly, 16 properties which have had to be demolished because of coal mining subsidence; and, fourthly, because British Coal has placed stop notices on certain areas, hundreds of homes cannot be repaired.
The Minister is aware that the Department of Energy is awaiting responses to a recent consultative document on this subject. He is aware also that district councils throughout north Nottinghamshire, together with Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire county councils, have already undertaken a study into their areas, as well as compilation of a central register of damage to property, services and land. I ask the Minister to take account of that work and expenditure and agree to delay the closing date of the consultative exercise so that the valuable information which the study will provide is included.
As hon. Members know, I could speak for hours on this subject but I should like to offer others the opportunity to participate. I ask the Minister to take note of all my questions and to respond to me either at the end of the debate or later, if he wishes to investigate other avenues. I ask the House to record my view that this matter is of public concern, especially in my area of north Nottinghamshire, which has hundreds of damaged homes, businesses awaiting compensation and some schools and even a hospital which have closed. I sincerely ask the Minister to respond genuinely to my request for justice for home owners and businesses in my area.
4.55 pm
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I congratulate the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) on winning the ballot and on selecting this subject, which is locally of great concern in his constituency and peripherally of concern in mine.
I recognise the hon. Gentleman's worry. He will recall that, just before the Easter adjournment, at 5 am in the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill, we debated this and a number of other subjects covering economic development generally in Nottinghamshire. There was not enormous agreement then, but I am pleased to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that on one issue he is in complete agreement with British Coal. The board does not want its headquarters moved to Nottingham. Like the hon. Gentleman, the board feels that that would not be an enormous advantage. I continue to find that surprising, as 50 per cent. of the economic activity in mining is based on the Nottinghamshire area, but British Coal clearly feels that it is more suitable for the headquarters to be nearer the Department than the industry's centre.
I declare an interest in that I have recently received notice that mining will take place under my home near the Cotgrave colliery. That colliery has had major problems, but it has also had enormous investment. Now that its prospects are much improved, I wait with a certain trepidation to see whether there is subsidence under my own home. I have, however, been impressed by the length of notice warning that mining would occur under our village, the details of the planning process and the information on my rights to object, although I shall not be objecting. Although my constituency is a coal mining area, I have had only a handful of complaints about problems with the board over subsidence. In the past year I have had only three or four complaints and I felt each time that the board had looked fairly into the matter.
46
I underline the need to keep subsidence to the minimum and I also underline the progress made both in the interests of those affected, many of whom work in the industry—enormous anxiety and distress can be caused—and also in the interests of the industry as a whole. The Waddilove report makes it clear that the cost of subsidence is part of the cost of winning coal. We must bear both points equally in mind. A balance must be struck, as I am sure the hon. Member for Mansfield accepts.
British Coal now has a far better system of notification and publicity, following introduction of new notification procedures in 1986, which advised where workings were taking place or were about to take place. Credit is due to British Coal for that action and to the industry. which is now operating in a much better climate of realism. We must accept that, no matter how the costs of subsidence are divided—whether as social costs, the cost to British Coal as a whole or the costs to an individual pit—there is a trend towards pit-top accounting and there must be a reserve to meet the potential liability for subsidence. That reserve must increasingly relate to the cost of the coal extracted from under the houses affected.
I draw attention to the need to have a procedure that is neither costly nor cumbersome and to the absolute necessity to do right by those adversely affected by subsidence. It is interesting to note what John Harris, the chairman of the East Midlands electricity board, whose headquarters is in my constituency, said on a visit to the House last week. He recognises that he is sitting on top of an enormous coalfield with huge potential. He recognises that in a landlocked area, importing foreign coal is not particularly attractive. He recognises that the potential for new coal-fired power stations is enormous. He recognises that Nottinghamshire could be the powerhouse of the energy and electricity industries.
We have the natural resources, skills, traditions and manpower. The main proviso—if not the only proviso—is that we should continue the current progress towards competitiveness and maintain the current excellent productivity results. In the Nottinghamshire area we have broken the record for productivity five times this year alone. Productivity nationally is up by 16 per cent. and in the past year the Gedling colliery in my constituency increased its productivity by 25 per cent. Having lost £6 million last year, it expects to break even this year. Those figures are an enormous credit to the miners and the management. They are encouraging to customers and critical to the plans and future of the privatised electricity industry.
My remarks are intended to keep subsidence and the many other important problems aired by the hon. Member for Mansfield in perspective. All too often when we discuss the prospects for the coal industry we hear doom and gloom. We need to hear more about the progress that has been made in the industry and the promise and the prospects for the future.
In referring to the need to keep subsidence to a minimum, I have already paid tribute to the greater sensitivity of British Coal in Nottinghamshire to the problem. I should like to go further than that. I note that in the Sherwood colliery, which I think is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Mansfield, there has been working by finger panels or single entry and in built-up areas panels of 40 m or 45 m wide have been used,

47
rather than the normal long wall of 200 m plus. That is an example of sensitivity to possible disturbance on the surface of the techniques of mining underneath.
Mr. Meale: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman mentioned that. I would point out that on a number of occasions I have had to visit properities in areas around Sherwood where whole streets of houses were shuddering because of the new workings underneath.
Mr. Mitchell: I readily accept what the hon. Gentleman says, as I am no expert in these matters. However, those in the industry tell me that the point I am making is an example of a more sensitive mining technique which makes a great deal of difference to the degree of subsidence. Perhaps that is why there is evidence of progess in respect of the number of claims. In Nottinghamshire, I understand, there are one third as many claims as there were three years ago. That shows that there has been some progress at least.
The third key point that I mentioned was the need to deal fairly with those affected and ensure that their properties can be properly looked after. As I said in dealing with claims, we must strike a balance between the maintenance of professional standards and the merits of speed. We should again give credit where it is due. In Nottinghamshire, British Coal is handling claims 50 per cent. faster than it was last year. It is also employing outside professional consultants to try to speed up the process and help its own staff. Last year there were about 4,000 claims. Two thirds are being, or have already been, agreed—sometimes with compensation in cash but mostly in repairs—and British Coal tells me that nearly all the backlog should be cleared by the end of 1989. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Mansfield accepts that, but I am happy to put it on record that that is what I have been told by British Coal.
Let me make a few brief points about the Waddilove recommendations. I congratulate the Government on commissioning the report and accepting many of its recommendations. I note that the hon. Member for Mansfield also did that to some extent. I look forward to the legislation replacing and supplementing the Coal-Mining (Subsidence) Act 1957 and the subsidence provisions of the Coal Industry Act 1985. In particular, it is clearly sensible that it should be the norm for compensation to be in the form of repairs rather than cash. It also seems to me that the extra efforts announced by the Government to build defences against subsidence into new buildings in mining areas represent an important trend in the right direction. It is also sensible of British Coal to make a contingent liability of likely subsidence costs in the five-year programme for each colliery.
I should like the Minister to clarify two points. The first, which has already been raised, relates to the six-year limit and the statute of limitation. I note from the Government's proposals that the yardstick to be used is
"three years from the time when the claimant had reasonable grounds for believing subsidence had occurred."
I understand that most subsidence is evident after two years, but I would welcome the Minister's confirmation that where that is not the case this three-year rule will take precedence over the six-year rule. That would seem to me to resolve many of the concerns expressed on this issue
48
—not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) and the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale).
Secondly, paragraph 50 of the consultation paper, which deals with home loss payments, refers to the assessment of the value of the property that has been damaged with reference to rateable value. Have the Government yet decided what alternative method to use when the community charge is introduced? It would be most helpful to hear anything that my hon. Friend the Minister has to say on that matter.
5.5 pm
Mr. Michael Foot: I shall be brief, because I know that many of my hon. Friends from mining communities wish to speak. I urge the Minister as strongly as I possibly can not to turn down the appeal made so excellently by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) but to consider all the facts and come back with constructive proposals for dealing with a whole series of injustices that still continues and which is becoming more serious in some respects. I plead with the Government not to come forward with a ready-made reply but to examine the individual cases and consider the problem to be dealt with.
Since I have represented Ebbw Vale, I have dealt with scores of subsidence cases. My experience is that, over the past few years, British Coal—and before it the National Coal Board—has become a good deal more mean and estrictive in dealing with the problem. That derives partly from the instructions that the Coal Board was given some years ago when Mr. MacGregor arrived. He never thought that it was part of the business of the Coal Board to deal with extraneous matters—if this can be considered an extraneous matter. Part of the change of attitude dates from his arrival.
Despite the efforts of some of the people on the spot—I do not blame them—it is clear from individual cases that there is pressure from the top of British Coal to make the whole business much more restrictive. That is the first reason why I urge the Minister to consider the individual cases. Several of us could add many more such cases to the list. By the way, we are talking not only about individual householders, although in some respects they suffer more severely than anyone else. If the Government have any interest in small businesses, they should recognise the dangers. Some businesses have taken great risks in establishing themselves and then found themselves subject to this special difficulty.
Let me illustrate my argument that the Government should consider the whole matter. I hope that the Minister will report to the Secretary of State for Wales on this subject and that the Secretary of State for Wales will include in the statement that he is to make tomorrow a reference to subsidence and its effects on the valley towns. We have urged this upon him and we think that one cannot have a proper valid initiative that does not include proposals for dealing with subsidence problems as a major feature.
The village of Troedrhiwgwair in my constituency provides a remarkable illustration of the problem. The villagers feared that the mountain was going to move. After the Aberfan disaster, there was a great fear that the inhabitants would have to be moved, and the council properly made arrangements for people to move if they

49
wanted to, but some of the residents were determined to stay there. Despite the local council's perfectly proper decsion to proceed with a compulsory takeover order, the villagers decided to stay and fight for their homes, as they had every right to do. Following the inspection, the Secretary of State for Wales came down on the side of the villagers, and all honour goes to them for the way in which they fought their case.
But that is only part of the problem. If the problem is to be solved, there must be sufficient money for the necessary repairs to be carried out so that the inspector's decision, approved by the Secretary of State, can be properly put into effect. The case was widely discussed throughout Wales, and there was a full inspection. The more it was discussed, the clearer it became that mining communities faced special problems from the threat of subsidence or landslips in one form or another. In dozens of cases in my constituency, landslips are a real peril. We must have more money and determination to deal with the problem.
I would rather the Minister gave no answer today than hear him retail to the House whatever British Coal happens to be saying at the moment. I hope that he will consider the series of individual injustices cited in the debate and come forward with a comprehensive policy to deal with the real and widespread danger of subsidence, both in the industrial sphere and for individual householders.
5.10 pm
Mr. John Heddle (Mid-Staffordshire): I echo the tribute paid by my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) to the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) for giving the House this opportunity to discuss again the whole problem of coal mining subsidence and the injustice of current compensation procedures.
I go further, and pay tribute also to my hon. Friend the Minister for his particular interest in the subject and for being a moving force in ensuring that the Government responded as positively as they did on 29 April by producing their consultation paper. To me, that suggests that legislation is contemplated—indeed, is in the pipeline. During the next Session of Parliament, therefore, I hope to contribute to proceedings on a Bill embodying in a constructive and lasting form the ideas advanced from both sides today.
As the hon. Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) will confirm, on 19 March 1982 I introduced the Coal Mining Subsidence (Fair Compensation) Bill. Like other right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, I was also pleased to submit evidence to the Waddilove committee. I must declare an interest, as I did on that occasion, in that I am a vice-president of the Building Societies Association, and I know that subsidence is a matter of particular concern to national and regional, and especially to local, building societies in the east and west midlands and in the Yorkshire coalfield area.
I am concerned that the Department has not gone far enough in a number of respects. The present law has remained unaltered for some 30 years and gives British Coal considerable discretion in the treatment of claims for compensation which, in my view, falls well short of providing adequate protection for the interests of individual home owners, tenants, business men, farmers
50
and smallholders, whose property is often damaged beyond repair. With the threat of both seam mining and opencast mining activity hanging over large areas of the country for many years to come, proper notice of such activity and full compensation for consequential losses, especially for agricultural land, must be made available in the United Kingdom, as it is in all other European countries.
I am glad to see from paragraphs 79 and 83 of the consultation paper that due regard is now being paid —and, I hope, will shortly be enshrined in legislation—to damage to chattels, home loss payments, depreciation of crops, farm loss payments and additional compensation for tenant farmers. I welcome that, but I do not welcome paragraph 5:
"The Waddilove committee carried out a thorough analysis of the compensation scheme as it then stood"—
and had stood for 30 years—
"They recognised that the main thrust of existing provisions was right, but identified certain shortcomings. They did not call for a radical revision or overhaul o f the system as operated by British Coal, but for administrative changes, many of which have now been made by British Coal."
It is on that point that I should like to share my views with my hon. Friend the Minister.
Hon. Members on both sides will know that certain legal obligations are devolved to British Coal to make good or compensate for damage caused by subsidence and mining activities, but broadly speaking those obligations relate only to damage to land and buildings. The legal obligation on British Coal is too loosely defined and, in my view, Mr. and Mrs. John Citizen are not adequately protected in law and will not be adequately protected if the proposals in the consultative document are enshrined in law. Nor can they necessarily be assured of receiving fair compensation for damage to businesses, property, farms and smallholdings or for nuisance or disturbance, as would be the case if their properties stood in the way of a bypass or motorway project.
The reason for that is simple. British Coal has a duty to compensate the public according to a code of practice, but the code of practice has no standing in law. I hope that in any Bill which comes forward the code will be enshrined in law. At present, it is capable of being interpreted for the convenience of British Coal and cannot readily be challenged by an aggrieved house owner, business man, farmer or smallholder who may be unfamiliar with the nooks and crannies of compensation law.
If your back garden was taken for road widening, for a bypass or for a motorway, Madam Deputy Speaker, under the Land Compensation Act 1973 you would have the right to have your fees paid, regardless of your financial circumstances, and to have your case discussed and negotiated on behalf of both parties—the Department of Transport, and yourself as a private citizen—by an independent arbitrator known as the district valuer, whose job it would be to bring both parties together.
My concern is that, in this instance, unlike any other application for compensation, British Coal has—and, if I read the consultative document correctly, will continue to have—wide discretion as to how and when compensation is to be paid. It thus has a psychological advantage over individual tenants and home owners, often with small terraced or semi-detached houses, who are unfamiliar with the nooks and crannies of the law.

51
That discretion allows British Coal to act as both judge and jury. I believe that that is wrong, and I hope that the point will be taken on board by my hon. Friend the Minister. Between now and drafting the Bill, I hope that he will give serious consideration to ensuring that this basic change—not an administrative change, but a structural change—is incorporated in the Bill.
Judging from the heart-rending correspondence that my parliamentary neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth), and I receive, as I am sure do many other hon. Members, British Coal often seems to offer compensation on a take-it-orleave-it basis. It is a large, forbidding Government body and the individual voice is perhaps not heard with the same sympathy, understanding and respect as it would be if the individual were represented by a qualified surveyor, valuer, solicitor or other person capable of prosecuting the case in the same professional, technical valuation language used by the coal board itself.
Mr. David Ashby: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, as it is unlikely that my contribution will be reached and this is an important point. The proposal that these matters should go before a tribunal would mean that the aggrieved party could not obtain legal aid as well. Whereas, previously, an aggrieved party could go to the county court and perhaps obtain legal aid, that possibility will be denied to people in the future. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is an important factor in the recommendations?
Mr. Heddle: As one would expect, as a lawyer, my hon. Friend has raised a particularly interesting point, and it enables me to identify another matter. I agree with what he has said, but a more fundamental point undermines his intervention. That is that an individual may refer to the lands tribunal only on a point of law. Disagreement with the compensation put on the table by British Coal's valuer is not a matter of dispute that can be put to the lands tribunal. Therefore, as a court of appeal, the lands tribunal is not a satisfactory solution to the problem. The only way for Mr. and Mrs. John Citizen to get a fair hearing is by negotiations being conducted by an independent party. That independent party must be the district valuer.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right on his second point about legal aid. One cannot obtain legal aid to refer a matter to the lands tribunal. But, in the parallel that I drew to your attention, Madam Deputy Speaker—that of your garden being taken for road widening—whatever your financial circumstances, you would be entitled to have your fees paid by the acquiring authority. Over and above the compensation offered there would be no question of you, or Mr. and Mrs. John Citizen, being out of pocket because of the activities of British Coal or the other acquiring authority.
I draw the Minister's attention to the code of practice. If it is to be enshrined in law, I invite him to agree that the booklet advising compensation applicants should be better drafted than it is at present. Under the heading "How to make claims under the Act", it asks:
"Will the repairs always restore the property completely to its condition before the damage?"
The answer states:
52
"No. In most cases the Coal Board's obligation is to do such repairs and re-decorations as are needed to make the property reasonably fit for its use at the time that the damage occurred."
Who is to say what was the state of the property when the damage occurred? Who is to define "reasonably fit"? I understand that, in a fair and equitable society, the basis of compensation is to restore property to its original state, or, if that is not possible, fully to compensate the owner. Therefore, prior notification is absolutely vital to give the person whose property is affected the opportunity to seek professional advice, to prepare a schedule of condition as the property exists, and to be prepared before any damage is suffered. When damage is suffered, a schedule of dilapidations should be prepared, one document compared with the other, and compensation based on the extent of the damage.
With those few remarks, I repeat my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Minister for his positive attitude in bringing forward the consultative paper. I am sure that he will take on board my suggestions, in the hope that the forthcoming Bill—which I hope is not yet cast in bureaucratic stone—is capable of some amendment before it comes to the House for its first and subsequent readings.
5.22 pm
Mr. Joseph Ashton: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale). In the year that he has been an hon. Member he has shown extreme assiduousness in presenting his campaign. All credit is due to him. One seventh of my constituents live within the Mansfield district council boundaries. I shall not attempt to repeat the excellent case that my hon. Friend made, but I stress that the forthcoming Bill will primarily affect owner-occupiers who, in no small way, have been urged by the Government to buy their houses. In particular, I refer to council tenants.
For two or three years, a poor woman in my constituency has been going around in circles solely because she took the Government's advice and bought her council house. Her name is Mrs. Morley, of 68 Laurel avenue, Warsop. For two and a half years, she has kept quiet and asked me not to publicise her case, but, on this occasion, she has given me permission to do so. In case the Minister wants to telephone her, her telephone number is Mansfield 846932. Hers is a special case. Her husband has Crohn's disease. He will never work again. He is only in his 40s. He worked at Welbeck colliery. Despite their circumstances, they took the Government's advice and bought their council house.
Their income is £86 a week. They took out a mortgage for a mere £5,000. They got the house at a discount. Within a couple of years, it started to crack. There were cracks in the walls, the ceiling started to come away from the walls, ties had to be put into the bricks, and the floor sloped so badly it was like a ship's deck. They cannot decorate or hang curtains. The central heating pipes and joints are bending and cracking. The house is in a deplorable state. Quite frankly, it is worthless. No building society would provide a mortgage for somebody to buy that poor couple's house. They are saddled with a mortgage on an ex-council house that is not worth tuppence, because they took the Government's advice to buy their council house.
They cannot get compensation from the Coal Board, because the Coal Board has already paid it. It paid it to the council 15 years ago. Therefore, the Coal Board says, "We

53
will not pay it again. There has been no coal working since 1959." Mansfield district council, which has been helpful, was asked, "Will you buy the house back?" It said, "We cannot." The Government's legislation will not allow it to buy it back. The Government's legislation stopped it refusing to sell it in the first place. The council knew that the house was in a dodgy area, but, because of the Government's legislation on council house sales, it could not refuse to sell the house. That poor woman's house, at the junction of two major fissures, is worth nothing.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: The hon. Gentleman is making his case well. At the time of selling the house, was there not an obligation on the council to make it clear to the potential purchasers that it was in an area in which there had been coal workings and that further subsidence was likely? Therefore, the price to the tenants should have reflected that, and they should have taken it into account in their considerations.
Mr. Ashton: They are not daft. They live within half a mile of the pit. They know that it is in a coal mining area. The council sold it for £5,000. How cheaply can one buy a house? That does not prevent the poor woman from being in such a predicament.
What did she do? She went to the insurance company. When owner-occupiers buy their houses, as I and other hon. Members did, they must take out insurance. The building society that lends the mortgage says that one must insure the house. When they go to the insurance companies and say, "Our house is falling apart, and there are cracks in the walls," the insurance companies do not want to know. They find some small print, stating that the company is not responsible for land slip or, in the case of subsidence, the owners must spend the first £3,000. There are other clauses and get-outs. That is the situation that that lady faces.
I took the case to the ombudsman, and said, "This poor woman has been led astray by all sorts of people. She has an invalid husband who cannot get about. He is on mobility allowance. She cannot sell their house. What will you do about it?" The ombudsman said, "I cannot do anything. No law has been broken." I went back to the council and asked, "Will you provide her with another council house?" The council said yes. The woman said that she would be happy to move into another council house and board up her present house. But the council must charge her rent. To get into a decent house, she will finish up still paying the mortgage on a house that is not worth anything and paying rent to the council.
It is a Catch 22 situation. The buck has been passed in circles. She asked the council, "Will you write off the mortgage?" It said, "We cannot. In any case, if we do, there will be another 100 ex-council houses in the area with the same problem." Hon. Members know, as anyone does in a coal mining area, that once one hears a whiff of the word "subsidence" a terrible fear comes into the area. Often the owner-occupiers in that area say, "Please, Mr. Ashton" or "Mr. Skinner" or "Mr. Meale. Do not make a fuss. Do not tell the television or the newspapers. Do not name our street or nobody will want to buy the houses." Then they have to set to with a bit of anaglypta, Polyfilla, plaster or cement. Cement rendering is applied and everyone is walking on eggshells. They are in this Catch 22 situation.
54
I have advised council tenants in Warsop—my part of Mansfield—under no circumstances to buy their council houses. They would be daft. It is nothing to do with politics. A lot of the tenants have taken the trouble to have an extra survey carried out on their council house before buying, which in some cases has cost £200. The surveyor has then said, "All right, you are going to get the council house for £5,000 or £6,000, but it will cost £18,000 to put the house right." That is without any guarantee of a penny from the Coal Board.
In that kind of situation, the Government have a 100 per cent. moral, and almost legal, duty to bail out those people who have bought their council houses in those circumstances. They have already introduced legislation for defective houses, where they have said, "Okay, they took our advice and bought defective Coal Board houses and council houses which were built of a certain construction. In those cases, we will pay the grants and recompense those people for taking our advice on buying council houses." The Government have not said anything about people who have bought council houses and then discovered that they were not covered for any subsidence compensation.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield said in his admirable introduction, there is a need for at least two or three measures. There has to be some sort of independent tribunal which can adjudicate without—with respect to the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle)—tenants having to pay high fees to surveyors and other people cashing in by charging £100 just to have a look at the house. It must be some kind of independent tribunal to which local councils, British Coal or the occupiers can take their case and get a fair deal.
There must be a register. I am happy to say that on Friday I attended a meeting in Mansfield, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield and the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart). We heard that six district councils are joining together, and when they send out the voting registration forms in October, there will be a letter included saying, "Has your house ever had any problems with subsidence? Will you tell us whether you have made a claim and what happened to it? What is the procedure you have gone through? How much did it cost? Were you happy with the service from the Coal Board? That scheme will cost £30,000.
Mansfield district council has had to underwrite £30,000 to call in Trent polytechnic and universities to prepare a proper report, because nobody knows the extent of the problem. Some of those areas are sitting on a San Andreas fault such as is found in California. If it was an earthquake or a volcano, there would have to be Government intervention. When there was a hurricane last October, and trees were blown down, the Government quickly found £15 million for 15 million trees, or whatever the total was, to be put back again. This matter concerns people who have taken the Government's advice.
I close with this point, because many of my hon. Friends want to make a contribution. The Minister said earlier that the coal industry would not be privatised before the next election. However, if the Tories win—I do not think they will—and try to sell off the pits, they will have great difficulty in selling to anybody with this kind of open-ended compensation commitment hanging over the industry. No one will want to take these houses on. It is a

55
major problem, affecting not just north Nottinghamshire and my constituency, but many others, in Wales and elsewhere.
As yet, no one knows the extent of the problem. No one knows the number of houses involved and the compensation necessary. There is no machinery to find out those facts. It is a downright disgrace that ordinary decent people, who have taken the Government's advice to become owner-occupiers, have found themselves in the same kind of situation as Mrs. Morley. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) said that he did not want any answers today. I hope we get some answers today, as we might not get any in the months to come.
5.35 pm
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: I too would like to thank the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) for raising this subject and to welcome the efforts that he has made to rectify the subsidence problems. From my experience of dealing with constituents' cases, it strikes me that the major problem relating to British Coal and subsidence is the use of the six-year limitation rule. I am told that in the old days British Coal used a 12-year rule, but in recent years it has been told by its lawyers that it can get away with a six-year rule. That means that virtually no subsidence claims are accepted in my constituency, because most of the workings took place some years ago.
British Coal has used its six-year rule ruthlessly. It has only really agreed to settle claims which might have arisen more than six years ago in instances where the claimant might qualify for legal aid. In instances where people have, none the less, taken British Coal to court, it has always settled generously before a judgment has been made, to prevent a precedent being created. However, I say to the hon. Member for Mansfield that when Councillor Brian Eley of Amber Valley district council suggested that Mansfield district council, Amber Valley district council and the other councils concerned should join together to take a test case to court and ensure that it was fought to a conclusion so that a precedent was created, I understand that Mansfield district council and the other councils concerned were not willing to join Amber Valley to fight such a test case.
It could be argued that one cannot blame British Coal for getting away with what it can within the law. After all, any commercial company—British Coal is no different —has a right to make as big a return as possible. However, I feel that the inadequate laws which have allowed British Coal to get away with this has caused a great deal of misery and anguish. All hon. Members can quote examples from their constituencies. I will briefly quote two cases just to bring home to hon. Members that this matter has caused immense problems.
A couple called the Allsopps in Heanor in my constituency had a claim accepted in 1972. However, they were told that a further claim in 1986 for damage which had arisen subsequently was out of time. As they did not qualify for legal aid, they were up the proverbial creek. An even worse situation arose for a Mr. R. Cook of Marlpool in my constituency. There were workings under Marlpool between 1938 and 1960 and Mr. Cook successfully claimed for subsidence in 1960. However, when he claimed in 1984
56
for a massive tilt which had occurred since 1960, liability was denied. He is now unable to sell his house, which is tilting so much that one thinks one is on a ship when one visits him.
I believe that the Government's proposals show that a major improvement is on the way, because from my understanding of the new three-year rule—the Minister will no doubt confirm this—it is proposed that claims will be accepted, not just three years after workings have ceased, but up to three years after the claimant could reasonably have noticed that that work would need to be carried out. That is a significant and major improvement, which seems to have escaped the notice of Opposition Members.
Mr. Ashby: My hon. Friend has given an illustration of a case that is common to all of us who have mining constituencies, but which is not covered by the Government's scheme or the Government's proposals. The example my hon. Friend has given is where compensation has already been paid and then there is further damage 20 years afterwards as a result of the same mining. There is nothing in the Government's proposals that covers secondary damage. As my hon. Friend knows, there is a rule that once compensation has been paid in respect of a claim, that is it, once and for all. Does my hon. Friend not agree that in exceptional circumstances the Coal Board and the Government should propose that subsequent discovery of damage from the same source should also be covered by compensation?
Mr. Oppenheim: My hon. Friend, who has a great deal of experience in these matters, is right. However, I would welcome confirmation from the Minister of the exact position. If there has already been a compensation payment for earlier damage, under the new three-year rule will people be allowed to make a second claim for subsequent damage which emerges at a later date? That is a key point, because the three-year rule will only be effective in helping people if it can be used more than once. Justice dictates that that should be the case.
My other queries relate to the proposal to give British Coal the right to require developers to take preventive action when building new structures to ensure that subsequent subsidence does not damage those structures. I should like to raise two points. First, I sincerely hope that some provision will be made to ensure that British Coal makes its submissions quickly so that developments are not unfairly delayed by bureaucratic problems at British Coal. Secondly, if British Coal makes such proposals, it is only fair that it is British Coal, not the developers or their subsequent customers, that bears the cost.
I believe that in the Government's proposals we have the kernel of what could be a major improvement on what has been a grossly unsatisfactory and unjust situation. At the very least, the proposals will be some improvement. I sincerely hope that when he replies to the debate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will give some indication that there will be justice for those people who need to claim for subsequent damage after they have made an initial claim. I hope that they will be covered by the new proposals.
5.40 pm
Mr. Frank Haynes: I shall be brief, in the interests of the other hon. Members who wish to speak.

57
First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) on the selection of this subject and on his contribution, which was first-class and which, as far as I am concerned, has opened up the field in relation to this nationwide problem in the coal mining industry.
I get the impression that Conservative Members favour what is coming. They obviously know what is coming but I will not know until I see it, and I do not know whether it will he of any help to the people I represent.
The young hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) has not lived yet. He does not know what the mining industry is about, what work is about or what this place is about. He has yet to live, but he will find out. When he read his speech, I got the impression that it had been written by Sir whatever-his-name-is, the chairman of British Coal.
I want to put a message across about the seriousness of this situation. The Government do not come off well. There is no doubt that in the past this Government made a big mistake because the cost of meeting mining subsidence nationally came from central funds. However, this Administration then changed the rules. The Minister is frowning, but he has not been in that job long and he is learning. A Minister before him changed the rules so that the cost of mining subsidence had to be borne by the pit and the area that caused it. The end result fitted in with the Government's policy on pit closures. I used to have nine pits in my constituency, but now there are only four. The cost of mining subsidence made pits uneconomic. The Government were well on their horses to get rid of the mining industry in my constituency and in others. It all fits in with the Government's privatisation programme. Never mind what the Minister says—the Government are preparing the way for privatisation by using mining subsidence.
I should like to give one or two examples. Hundreds of compensation cases in my constituency have been rejected, yet the hon. Member for Gedling talked about the progress that has been made. He said, "The claims will be gone by 1989." Yes, they will be gone all right—they will have been disqualified, just as happened in the past. That is how British Coal will get rid of the claims.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent ( Mr. Foot) was right when he said that the real problems began when MacGregor became chairman of the National Coal Board. Opposition Members gave fair warning in the Chamber that he should not have been appointed because of the problems that would be created.
In one road in my constituency, containing about 120 properties, every compensation case has been settled over a period, except for two which have been described as out of time. That is scandalous and ridiculous. If the people concerned approach the Minister, he does not want to know. He says, "Go back to British Coal. It is British Coal's responsibility." However, when people go to the Coal Board, the Coal Board says, "The Government must change the legislation." Who is the piggy in the middle? It is the Member of Parliament and his constituent, the complainant, who has bought a house that is falling down.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) said, the Government encouraged such people to buy, but the houses are now falling down and our constituents have lost their money. They do not know where the hell they are, so they go to their Member of
58
Parliament's constituency surgery to see whether he can help them. The result is a debate such as this, initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield.
I do not trust the lands tribunal. It is another arm of the Government. It is linked to the Government, but it should be totally independent. The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) was correct to say that there is a need for somebody or some body to be totally independent of the Government and of British Coal. However, that body should have a connection with Members of Parliament so that we can feed in the necessary information on behalf of our constituents so that they get a fair deal.
In conclusion—I said that I would be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker—I have read the Waddilove report. I am sure that all hon. Members have read it, because we all have problems in our constituencies. An elderly lady in my constituency made a claim and the board said, "No, we are not going to settle but we will do a bit of patching and decorating. We are coming underneath again. We do not meet the claim twice." As my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw has pointed out, the NCB does not pay twice. However, it admitted that it would go there again. It came again, all right, and when it had finished the lady made a claim. The Coal Board said, "Sorry, you are out of time." Those are the arguments being used by British Coal at present. It should come off it because the Waddilove report makes it clear that claimants have not had a fair deal with the mining subsidence programme. Indeed, I see a theme of fairness in the Waddilove report.
The Secretary of State should be sitting at the Dispatch Box listening to this debate. He is probably down at Weymouth enjoying himself in the sunshine on the beach. He should be here listening to an important debate about an important problem in our constituencies. I look forward to the legislation if it is going to help my constituents. If it is right, I will back the Government, but if it is not, I will kick and kick and kick just as I have done previously.
5.47 pm
Mr. David Ashby: I shall be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker, and am grateful that you have called me. This is an excellent subject for a debate —because all of us with mining constituencies have to deal with subsidence problems time and time again.
The first point that I should like to make is that the Coal Board is not all bad. It is often very good. I can give examples of cases in which the Coal Board—or rather, British Coal—has acted quickly, bravely, strongly and well, in financial terms. The village of Oakthorpe in my constituency had a fire smouldering underground. The coal was on fire and many houses in the villages were subsiding. I can only praise British Coal for the manner in which it acted. It brought its engineers to the village swiftly to assess the situation. It spent millions of pounds and dug out the burning coal. Now, two years later, the village can only be described as a model village. So British Coal is not all bad. It does some good things and sometimes acts honourably.
However, there are times when British Coal falls from grace, sometimes in the most scandalous way. We have heard examples of that today. We must realise that we are talking about the exceptional powers enjoyed by the Coal Board. What other authority has the right to mine

59
underneath one's house, to cause damage to one's property and then to say, "I am going to be judge and jury about that."?
British Coal is in an exceptional position. One would have thought that, as it has such powers, at the very least it would treat those who have suffered in the way that other people would expect to be treated if they had suffered damage. For example, if a car had knocked someone over or been driven fast down a hill, through a wall and into a house, negligence claims would be made in the courts. There would be a six-year period for claims or a claim in three years following the discovery of that damage. However, that does not apply to mining subsidence. British Coal has been the judge and jury in its own cause for a long time.
At long last, the Waddilove report has appeared and the Government's responses to that report in the White Paper are very good. The Government are looking at the civil law and the way in which an honourable party should behave—the way in which the Coal Board should behave. However, the Government must go further than that. We are not talking about a car being driven into a house. We are not talking about normal damage claims; we are concerned about exceptional behaviour involving undermining property.
If damage occurs to a property, a claim may be made. However, 20 or 30 years later, more subsidence might occur and another claim might be required. Compensation must be paid in such a case. British Coal must pay for or repair any subsequent damage even though it has paid for the first lot of damage.
We must remember that we are dealing with very simple people who are not used to going to law. They may have put all their savings into a house, and subsidence may prove to be a major claim. Subsidence may loom very large in their lives. Those people need help. At the outset, they should be encouraged to have a schedule of condition prepared on their property. They should be encouraged to get expert advice. British Coal should tell those people that it will not deal with them unless they have received independent advice. British Coal should tell them who will provide that advice, and British Coal should pay for it.
Mr. John Prescott: What about legal advice?.
Mr. Ashby: No; those people may simply need the advice of a surveyor. However, they need independent advice.
Time after time, people have come to my surgeries for help. They have not sought independent advice, and they have not received the proper compensation. Their affairs tend to be in a complete mess in connection with problems with British Coal over subsidence claims. Their affairs are in a mess because they have not received independent advice. British Coal should put money aside to provide that advice.
We must remember that a mine is only as profitable as the cost of mining. Part of the cost of mining must include claims for subsidence in respect of a mine. We are not talking about an open-ended book, and there are two sides to the equation to determine whether a mine is profitable.
British Coal must include the cost of subsidence claims in its equation when it decides whether to mine in an area.
60
Having done that, it should go out of its way to offer help and independent advice to people whose homes may suffer from subsidence.
If we are to have a lands tribunal, it is absolutely essential that legal aid should be extended. That may not be the ordinary legal aid scheme. British Coal should put a fund aside to legally aid people who go to the lands tribunal. There are plenty of precedents for that. Many other bodies provide such legal aid, and British Coal should put money aside for it.
In view of the excellent recommendations that change the rules under which British Coal operates, what possible reason or justification can there be for those rules not to prevail now? If the Government are to make those recommendations, the rules should apply to British Coal now. If we wait for legislation, people will run out of time. That would be unfair and unjust. The whole purpose of recommendations is to be just and fair.
If we are to be just and fair, the legislation must include backdating. That legislation should at least date back to when the White Paper was produced or—even better—when the Waddilove committee was established. It is wrong that someone who is entitled to make a claim now might have three years in which to make a claim from the moment that they become aware that the damage has been caused, because the rules are to change—that provision will apply once the legislation is introduced—while other people will be aware that time is running out as they anticipate the legislation being introduced. There can be nothing more unjust than that. There must be some backdating in future and we must be fair and just.
5.55 pm
Mr. John Prescott: I apologise on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), who would normally have dealt with this debate. He has suffered a slight accident about which I was unaware until Saturday. He is immobile. The debate will be poorer without his expertise on these matters. In those circumstances, I apologise to the Minister because I must leave early to attend another engagement.
I want to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), as all other hon. Members have done, on choosing an excellent subject, which has found echoes of support from hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber in its references to justice for constituents. This matter hs clearly caused considerable concern for some time. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) said, the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield was excellent. It showed the expertise, detail and example which the House likes and which shows the House at its best.
The argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield requires an answer from the Government. However, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) said that perhaps the Minister does not want to be pushed into answering at the moment. From my brief reading on this subject, preparing for the debate, I can see that the Government have been pressed for some time in various reports to produce answers to these questions about justice for people affected by subsidence caused by British Coal.
The speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield confirmed that he has established a reputation

61
for hard work and research on behalf of his constituents, in this case against a big corporation. I know that this is not the first fight that my hon. Friend has had with British Coal. He achieved a victory with other hon. Members in his area in preventing the Coal Board from privatising its houses in that area. I am aware of the tough style of the Coal Board management in the area and I know that it is no mean feat to battle against that management. My hon. Friend will work well for his constituents, as he has shown in his short time in the House.
The debate has clearly reflected the concern among hon. Members on both sides of the House about the issues. I had a brief read through the Waddilove report today. I have also read the reports from the Select Committee on Energy, which places pressure on the Government to act. I have seen the White Paper, produced in response to Select Committee pressure.
The consultative report states that the Goverment are likely to bring in more legislation, presumably to give force to what is already a code of practice. We have heard complaints from hon. Members that the code of practice is not adequate. It appears that the Government have accepted the argument for legislation, and that is reflected in the White Paper. Can the Minister give us any idea when we can expect the legislaton that he has promised to deliver?
The issues reflected in this debate, in the various reports including the Waddilove report, and the reports from the Select Committees are about balance.
Balance is the one aspect that really concerns the House —a balance between the rights and responsibilities of the individual versus, in this case, British Coal; a balance of justice in the payment of compensation; and a balance in the fairness of treatment. From the examples given by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield, it was clear that there is not a proper balance of justice in those matters. The various recommendations for correcting that situation, which hon. Members have mentioned show that there is a long way to go before one will be achieved.
There is also the question of delay, as was also pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield. I was astounded to hear of the legal costs involved, although perhaps of late we should not be astounded about the level of such costs. I refer to the costs of tribunals. One member of the public in Leicester, and another in Mansfield, seeking to put a case before a tribunal each paid something between £100,000 and £150,000 to have their compensation increased to a level marginally beyond that offered by the board. That is an exorbitant amount of money for anyone wishing to use the tribunal system.
The report raises serious questions about whether the tribunal system is satisfactory. I note also that the Government are aware that very few people use tribunals. Cost, as well as the question of delay, must be in the minds of many people already suffering from anxiety and stress in their desire to repair properties damaged by subsidence.
It is clear that there is an absence of equality among the parties concerned. A number of individuals have already complained that British Coal has exploited its power and that they have very limited rights compared with the board. However, I acknowledge also that many people have reached an amicable agreement with British Coal. My concern is where injustice may be perpetrated. Parliament should concern itself with arriving at a framework of law which will give a balance between the individual and a public corporation.
62
The same argument is equally applicable in the case of a private corporation, and that may be relevant if it is the Government's intention to privatise the British coal industry. The balance achieved in moving from codes, recommendations, a sense of fairness, and what lawyers call "acting reasonably" may prove insufficient, and there should be statutory enforcement in respect of certain aspects of the codes, as recommended by some reports. The same concern was expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Mansfield and for Ashfield. They argued that it should be clear both now and in the future that, whatever happens to this industry, there exists a responsibility to fund the compensation necessary for those seeking damages arising from subsidence.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield made the point that the situation is becoming more acute, because the uncertainty which prevails has been increased by announcements of Government policies in other areas affecting the coal industry. Recent statements about opencast developments will reduce local authonties' rights, which one or two hon. Members have already pointed out are already limited.
If planning controls are to be reduced, and if local authorities are to have even fewer rights, the rights of individuals to pursue, through local authority planning inquiries, information and compensation will be further reduced. The removal of mineral rights advocated by the Government in view of their possible privatisation programme, under which those rights will be taken from one body and given to a number of others, will also cause uncertainty, until the Government's intentions are clear.
Overriding all that, and at the head of the Government's own basic policy towards coal, is the industry's possible privatisation. Past examples have shown that a privatised company is not given the same regulatory and economic framework as that of a nationalised industry. A privatised company is concerned with operating with fewer controls and maximising profits, with very little sense of social obligation. At Question Time, we heard the Minister make clear yet again his beliefs concerning the bureaucracy of controls, when he compared the controls he is prepared to reduce in respect of a privatised nuclear industry with the situation in America.
In considering controls and social obligations, one should be able to expect of public companies a better standard than that of a private sector company. The reports clearly show that there are inadequacies in that respect and that one needs to establish a legal framework by which the rights of the individual may be properly adjusted. That is the clear message from this debate.
A number of other issues have been raised, and given the short time available to me, I will comment only briefly on one or two of them. The question of compensation raises the whole subject of liability. There is something to be said for the claim by a number of hon. Members that the question of assessing the full extent of any damage and liability has not yet been resolved. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield commented that a study was under way in Nottingham to catalogue the extent of the problem. As someone who is new to this subject, I find it amazing, given that the problem has been with us so long, that such an effort has not been made before and that information is not readily available.
I was amazed to learn that members of the public cannot find out from an authority exactly what are its.

63
plans or what damage had been caused to an affected property. I was appalled to discover that even claims whose registration I understand the Government still reject could not be recorded somewhere so that, by making a search, an individual could establish whether a property had suffered any subsidence damage. The Government, in their consultative document, have rejected that proposal, which is wrong. People should have all the information available to them in making a proper assessment, and I add my voice to those who advocate a proper procedure.
There are also conflicting views as to how long liability should last—be it three, six or 12 years—and about establishing the period in which damage must be declared, which might conflict with the time at which the damage itself arose. I was impressed by the case put for extending liability to all matters of consequential loss, which is one of the proposals the Government are now considering. However, it is not clear whether British Coal should have placed on it an obligation which is not imposed on others in analogous circumstances. That aspect is not properly explained. What are the same or similar circumstances which the Minister has in mind? How limited will be the liability compared with the six or 12-year period we have discussed? Perhaps the Minister can give the House further information.
I am persuaded by those who argue that there is a national responsibility and a strong argument for a national fund with the resources available to guarantee justice. It follows that such a fund should be separately administered. If it is the Government's intention to privatise the industry, it is all the more important that there is an independent, separately funded body for that purpose. The Government do not totally accept that British Coal should carry all the cost. The Select Committee's report rejected the view that British Coal should not carry any part of the cost of subsidence, but it also rejected the Government's view that their sole concern was the taxation cost. I do not have time to quote from paragraph 161 of the Select Committee's report, but it said that there should be a balance between the two—and that balance probably represents a cost far greater than the industry should carry.
It is amazing to discover from the Select Committee's report how much subsidence costs add to the price of a tonne of coal—particularly in an area such as Nottingham. In 1983, it was about £1·11p, but it has risen nine times to about £9·58. That is an extraordinary cost for any industry to carry·whatever may be considered to be its fair share of that amount.
The Government have given the industry a rather fair economic framework, designed to cut it down to size in readiness for privatisation, to a level at which it will become profitable—and therefore attract the resources for which the Government hope. I hope that the Government will address themselves to the problems I have described, because otherwise they will either deter people from purchasing the industry—and there is something to be said for that—or there will be attempts to cut costs, leaving even fewer resources to ensure a balance of justice.
Having heard about the costs of arbitration for the lands tribunals and the time involved, I feel that there is an argument for independent local adjudication. I noted that the Government mentioned that as a proposition in the
64
White Paper, but they did not follow it through in the consultative document. I hope that the Minister will say something about it now.
On the issue of repair versus compensation, I favour what seems to be the majority view—shared by the Government—that the emphasis should be on repair. We already know the arguments, but I wonder whether the Minister can tell us whether he intends to do anything to assist local authorities—which have tremendous problems in this regard—to obtain extra resources to deal with their housing estates. There is a legitimate argument for such action. I know that it conflicts with the local authority financing arguments, and that it involves another Department. Nevertheless, I should like to hear what the Government have to say.
I have offered the House merely a few observations based on a limited amount of research and judgment. I think, however, that it is agreed on both sides of the House that this is a question of justice, and that a proper balance must be achieved—one that puts more emphasis on statutory enforcement, so that an individual can exercise his right when his property is damaged by subsidence.
6.10 pm
Mr. Andy Stewart: Today's debate gives hon. Members an opportunity to bring to the attention of the House the serious and often distressing circumstances that constituents must endure as a result of damage to their properties by mining subsidence. I should like first to thank the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), who used his good fortune in the ballot to choose this subject for debate. The timing is right, as the Government's response to the Waddilove report, published in a White Paper last October, is still open for comment.
Since I was elected to the House more than five years ago, I have received hundreds of letters—and a similar number of visits to my advice surgeries—from constituents complaining about British Coal's attitude, lack of progress and outright rejection of their subsidence claims. None the less, I must be fair to British Coal and say also that many claims have been satisfactorily concluded.
The problem faced by my constituents and myself is that, in Nottinghamshire, British Coal has changed, the rules and moved the goal posts when it is in its interests to do so. A blatant example of that was the reduction in the time limit for claims to be made from 12 years to six. If a claim had been lodged but not yet processed, it was just the claimant's bad luck. Offers of compensation were withdrawn after serious financial irregularities were uncovered in Nottinghamshire during 1983–84.
The only redress available to my constituents is the right to appeal to the lands tribunal. That was satisfactory when it was introduced many years ago, but in the past few years the average cost per case heard has risen to about £15,000. That is not much of an incentive for claimants to rush there for justice.
A change to a simple and cheap system of recourse for claimants is long overdue. That is why I welcome the White Paper published in response to the Waddilove report, in which the Government make it clear that they are determined to alleviate the hardship and distress suffered by those whose properties are affected by coal mining subsidence. No one can afford to be complacent about such an issue, least of all British Coal, many of whose employees live in areas prone to subsidence. The

65
cost of meeting compensation claims is an average of £90 million per annum, approximately £1 per tonne of coal mined. Small though that may seem, it can be crucial in making a colliery viable. I share the view of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers that the charges should be set against a national fund and not against individual pits.
I was delighted to read in British Coal's annual report, that charges to collieries had dropped substantially—from £245 million in 1983·84 to —69 million this year, of which £58 million relates to earlier years. At the end of the financial year 1986–87, British Coal had —297 million set aside for latent liabilities arising from subsidence. But how do we ensure justice for claimants?
Paragraph 25 of the consultation paper is most welcome. It states:
"Under this legislation a claimant is able to bring an action within a period of six years from when the damage actually occurred, or three years from when the claimant first had reasonable grounds for believing that damage had occurred."
However, for the reason that I outlined earlier, I cannot accept that if a claim is rejected it should be referred to the lands tribunal. I believe that the matter should fall to an independent adjudicator, or better still—as we are going to legislate—that an office of mining subsidence ombudsman should be set up. After all, we have ombudsmen for national Government, local government, banking and insurance. Why should the office not be used to deal with this serious problem?
The White Paper said that simple arbitration would be available as an alternative. Unfortunately, that is not happening, even when British Coal has accepted liability. All my submissions on behalf of constituents have been rejected. One constituent has submitted 20 separate claims for arbitration on differing aspects, and those also have been rejected. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister can tell the House how many disputes have been referred to independent adjudication since the publication of the White Paper last year.
In their response to the Waddilove report, the Government stated that many of the recommendations had been accepted by British Coal and incorporated in its subsidence damage manual. While I have every faith that that is the case, I felt that it was in the interests of my constituents that I should have sight of the manual. Alas, it is available to hon. Members neither in the Library nor direct from British Coal. According to a parliamentary answer, the Department of Energy does not possess a copy either.
Why is British Coal so secretive, if it is playing fair? Secrecy breeds suspicion. Perhaps my hon. Friend can reassure me that he is satisfied with the manual's contents and that the recommendations are being implemented, but the evidence in Nottinghamshire so far is that that is not So.
From the many cases in my files, I have selected six to illustrate that nothing has changed in Nottinghamshire where British Coal is concerned. The first case concerns a constituent in Ravenshead who had some damage repaired. The repair work was unsatisfactory, and British Coal offered £2,300 in compensation. The householder rejected it, and went to an agent to submit the claim. At that point British Coal turned around and said, "We are sorry, but this is under a different heading. You are no longer eligible, as you are out of time." To date, nothing has been given to that constituent.
66
Case No. 2 was submitted by a constituent in 1986 on five houses, one of which was divided into flats. It was inspected in July 1987. By February 1988, no progress had yet been made. A meeting was arranged in March 1988, when the inspector said that
The third case relates to a retired couple in Calvert on, who purchased their house from the local council. They put in a claim for subsidence damage and it was accepted. The repairs were not carried out to their satisfaction. The workmen withdrew because the couple objected, and the work was left unfinished until I put pressure on British Coal to complete the repairs. When I visited the couple, I found that the husband was suffering from arthritis and walking with a stick. His wife was recovering from a major operation. They were trying to redecorate their home on their own. I insisted that they should stop. That case was put right, but why should this old couple have had to suffer because British Coal adopted a high-handed attitude when they complained about poor workmanship?
My fourth example relates to the Beauvale estate in Hucknall. It is a beautiful estate, built on a slight incline in the shape of a horseshoe. A few years ago, every house was repaired because of mining subisdence. Subsequently, the gardens of those houses started to flood. Everybody believes that the damage to the drainage was due to British Coal's mining activities. However, the flooding started after the six-year rule, so British Coal rejected the claim and said that it was out of time. The local council is pursuing the matter with British Coal on behalf of the residents. As the houses suffered from mining subsidence, the people who live in those houses know full well that the drains must have suffered from subsidence, too. British Coal should put that right immediately.
There are other cases that I could mention, but because of the pressure on time I shall not refer to them in the Chamber but will draw them later to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister. British Coal's recent production records are impressive. During the last two and a half years, the turnround in the industry is nothing short of miraculous. The same expertise ought to be applied to settling mining subsidence damage claims, with a view to providing justice and fairness for the claimants.
the house divided into flats had not been inspected, because only one claim had been submitted and two were needed. The constituent had never been told that. Eventually the constituent said that he wished to be told the procedure for arbitration. The answer from the chairman of British Coal was, "We cannot give you an answer."
6.21 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) referred to the problem of publicising cases in certain areas. Such publicity might give the area a bad reputation and property values may fall. The alternative is to adopt a softly, softly approach, but that might lead to little being done. Many of us are therefore in a quandary about what to do.
I want to refer to the Hartington estate in Staveley. Some of the people who live on that estate are worried about publicity, but others would like it to be used as a weapon. The cat is out of the bag, though, because the Hartington estate has been the subject of local publicity, so I feel that it is possible to draw the attention of the House to the views of my constituents.

67
Mining subsidence occurred in 1984, and 108 representations have been made to me. My constituents tell me that in 1984 they were not told about the action that British Coal intended to take with its underground workings. The hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) said that the 1986 notification procedure now applies, so that difficulty has been overcome. I know that notification is now given in other areas of Staveley that lie within the Chesterfield constituency, but the people on the Hartington estate were not notified in 1984.
As for the repairs, residents feel that their rights and what they have to do when they vacate their property are not made clear to them. They make arrangements to move into another property where they expect to live for a matter of weeks, but they find that the weeks turn into months, or even into more than a year. When they vacate their property, they put their belongings into storage where they find that mildew affects it. Consequently, they feel that they must return as quickly as they can to their homes without checking whether the repairs have been completed satisfactorily.
Residents say that they experience considerable delays before agreement is reached about repairs or compensation, and they blame British Coal and their own agents. When they complain, British Coal blames the householders' agents for not taking appropriate action, but when they go to the agent, he blames British Coal for not implementing his recommendations. They feel that British Coal attempts to push those who cannot stand hassle—the pensioners and the infirm—into accepting compensation when it would be more appropriate for repairs to be carried out.
The compensation that is accepted does not cover the amount that has to be spent on putting the property into order. The compensation that is paid sometimes covers what has to be spent, but that is only because the compensation includes loss of value of the house, due to tilt. The additional compensation for tilt has to be used to put their property into reasonable order.
Reference has been made several times to the fact that, when a settlement has been reached, it is impossible for the residents to make a further claim. Repairs often take much longer than the residents expected when the settlement was accepted. Many of them have faced considerable difficulties because of the time that they had to spend out of their homes, either in caravans or in property that had been rented by British Coal. Residents say it is difficult to consult British Coal. They are not involved in the inspections that are made of their property. They believe that the repairs are mainly cosmetic and that they are done on the cheap, either by cowboy builders or by decent builders who are overstretched and underpaid.
Residents say that when bricks are missing, resulting in holes between one house and another, the holes are filled in. Bricks are not used to fill the holes, and a quick plastering job is done on top of the filling. If the residents complain and say that they want a proper inspection, they are told that that can be carried out only if they are prepared to pay for fresh replastering. The result is that many people then accept what has been done. There are also problems about the pointing of brickwork. It looks a mess from the outside because it is not straight; it zigzags.
68
Many problems arise after the repairs have been completed. Mr. Hunt, of 11 Hartington view, lists 57 defects in his property. I have seen many of them. I have also seen the defects in the repairs to his neighbours' property.
Subsidence is a traumatic experience for many people. They need to be shown care, concern and compassion, but that is not being offered to them. Instead, they are involved in considerable hassle with British Coal. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) said that there ought to be greater public awareness of the problem, that there should be an end to the time limit for repairs and that provision should be made for independent arbitration. When my hon. Friend's Bills come before the House again on 8 July, the Government should not automatically say "Object". They should consider placing some of the recommendations that have been made today on the statute book.
6.29 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Michael Spicer): I was sorry to hear about the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie)—perhaps the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) will convey our good wishes to him.
I too congratulate the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) on his success in the ballot. I should like to pay a special tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) and for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) and to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes). Like the hon. Member for Mansfield, they have spent a tremendous amount of time on this issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire has spent many years on it and he recounted the history of his involvement. I hope that the whole House is aware that there are several hon. Members who have battled with this problem for a long time. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who is muttering, wants me to congratulate him too, I am happy to do so.
The debate has shown that subsidence damage is of great concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House who have constituents who have been seriously affected by it. I can also congratulate myself, because I remember my time as a candidate for the Easington constituency in County Durham in the 1960s and early 1970s, when I saw the distress that subsidence causes people whose homes are damaged by it.
The hon. Member for Mansfield asked whether the Law Society and British Coal should agree on a new form of mining search. He stressed that there is no proper machinery for searching for subsidence. The Law Society and British coal have agreed on such a document, which will be made available.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) asked whether the Government decided on an alternative to rateable assessment for valuation purposes. We are considering other methods due to the proposal to introduce community charge.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) mentioned backdating legislation. It is not the general practice to make legislation retrospective, but we shall consider the appropriate date from which the measures that we shall introduce should become effective. We shall consider many of the arguments that have been advanced today.

69
The committee chaired by Mr. Lewis Waddilove has been referred to many times. That is quite right.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Minister has dealt with some of the issues that have been raised, but he has missed out the change, after the strike, from 12 years to six, in the length of time for which British Coal remains liable. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that British Coal honours the arrangements that applied before 1983·84?
Mr. Spicer: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any assurances about history, but I can tell him what we plan to do with time limits. I recognise that this is a problem.
The Waddilove committee recognised from the start the importance of achieving a balance. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) talked about a balance between the needs of people who are affected by subsidence— they are often employees of the coal industry —and the interests of the industry. It has to be said that that industry is today struggling in a depressed market to stand on its own feet.
Mr. Waddilove felt that concern for loss, disturbance or damage caused by subsidence had to be weighed against the needs of an industry engaged in developing a major national energy resource. The costs to that industry of compensating for damage caused by subsidence cannot be underestimated. They have averaged more than £90 million a year recently, and the corporation has set aside £297 million against latent liabilities for subsidence damage.
I recognise, of course, that some hon. Members question whether subsidence costs should be taken into account in assessing the economic viability of individual collieries. We believe that it is a cost associated with the extraction of coal and should be treated as such. It is not, perhaps, generally recognised that the knowledge that subsidence costs are directly relevant to the future well-being of a colliery must sharpen the incentive for colliery management to avoid areas of high subsidence risk when drawing up their mine plans.
Mr. Allen McKay: Where are the subsidence costs of the 12 collieries in my area that have closed?
Mr. Spicer: If given notice, I am happy to answer that question. All I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that, as a matter of principle, the Government support the view that such costs should transparently be borne by the pit concerned. We think that that will provide management with an incentive to ensure that subsidence is kept to a minimum.
The Waddilove committee published its report in 1984. It found that, although the basic framework of compensating procedures was sound, the subsidence repair and compensation system had certain serious shortcomings, some of which have been stressed today. It recognised that improvements had been made, but stressed that further advances were necessary, and so made a total of 65 recommendations.
The Government gave careful consideration to all 65 of those recommendations, taking into account the points of view of those most clearly concerned—the people who live in and operate businesses in mining areas, their local
70
authorities and British Coal—and those of professional bodies such as lawyers, chartered surveyors and the representatives of the farmers and country landowners.
The Government's reply to Waddilove was published in the White Paper in October 1987. By the date of the White Paper's publication, a number of changes had already been introduced in line with the thinking in the Waddilove report.
The White Paper emphasised the need for a repairs-based compensation scheme. The hon. Member for Mansfield and others have accepted that idea. The White Paper also endorsed Waddilove's view that it is essential to strike a balance in the repair and compensation scheme between benefits to individuals and the environment, and the cost to British Coal and, currently, to the taxpayer.
Given the large number of subsidence claimants, it is not surprising that a disputed claim may arise from time to time, and it is therefore quite natural that disputed claims should have taken up a substantial part of this interesting debate.
The Waddilove committee was worried that the existing statutory appeals procedure was too little known and that some claimants might find. it daunting. The committee considered the lands tribunals to be the most appropriate bodies to consider appeals on subsidence, and the Government agree. The Government also agreed with the committee that where reference to local adjudication would be acceptable to both parties and was likely to be simpler, cheaper and faster for them, that approach should be encouraged, without there being any need to put the arrangement on a statutory basis.
Since the Waddilove report was published, the Department of Energy has published a detailed guidance leaflet to help claimants. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire referred to that leaflet, not entirely favourably. I shall certainly look carefully at his comments to see if there are ways in which the leaflet can be improved. If he has any further examples to raise, perhaps he would be kind enough to write to me. The leaflet is circulated widely to public libraries, citizens ad vice bureaux and others, and it is very important that a leaflet telling the people their rights is accurate. I should very much welcome any specific criticisms from hon. Members. We can certainly get it right, and I should be glad to receive any advice.
The White Paper also took a number of other points from the Waddilove report, which either helped to prevent subsidence damage, or widened the scope and the control of the compensation system. Some of those points have been referred to, but they included, among others, the inclusion of subsidence costs in the investment appraisal of any new mining proposals, and the modification of mining layouts to prevent surface damage as far as practicable; giving claimants the choice of using their own, rather than British Coal's, contractors to repair damage; a payment for loss of home amenity where damage has been severe and repair extensive, but where British Coal has been unable to offer a householder alternative accommodation; extending the scope of non-statutory compensation to householders and to owners of agricultural land; and an annual report to the Secretary of State for Energy on the administration of the compensation scheme, which would need to be laid before Parliament.
The Government have accepted the Waddilove recommendation that existing legislation— in the

71
Coal-Mining (Subsidence) Act 1957 and the Coal Industry Act 1975—should be codified, and that other of British Coal's discretionary provisions, at present set out in a code of practice, should be brought into statute. That is a direct answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire. The Government plan to bring forward legislation in that respect, although I have to say it will not be in the next Session.
The Government are satisfied that, since 1984, there have been marked improvements in the coal-mining subsidence compensation system. The hon. Member for Bolsover questioned my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling, who raised that issue. During that period, the compensation system has already been improved. There has also been encouraging improvement in the handling of claims—whether or not hon. Members are prepared to accept that. Since 1984, the typical time taken to settle claims has been halved from four years to two, and that is an improvement. Since 1984, more than 62,000 claims have been settled. There has also been a decline in the number of new claims, and consequently a marked decline in unsettled claims.
Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that one of our arguments about settling claims has been that, during the past few years, British Coal has done its level best to hold up those claims for as long as it possibly can? There is no better example than that of Bolsover church when British Coal refused to negotiate. I had to bring the matter here to the House of Commons and ask the hon. Member who answers on behalf of the Church Commissioners to get on with the job. I challenged British Coal to a debate in Bolsover church, and no doubt we would have filled it. Only as a result of all those efforts did British Coal agree to start the process of settlement with the parochial church council.
Mr. Spicer: No doubt the hon. Gentleman's intervention will be read by British Coal. It is strange for a member of his wing of his party to be making such wide-ranging allegations against a nationalised industry such as British Coal. It is interesting that nationalisation does not always work, at least in this context.
Mr. Haynes: I wonder if the Minister was correct in what he said to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover. He was obviously talking about the average amount of time across the industry. If we had a figure for Nottinghamshire, then we might get somewhere.
Mr. Spicer: I do not deny that there will be such cases. One of the reasons I am interested in the issue is that much improvement is possible; I do not in any way deny that. However, one must be fair to both sides. The number of unsettled claims has fallen quite dramatically. In 1983·84, there were 52,000 outstanding claims; in 1986·87 there were 36,000. That is not good enough, but there is a trend of improvement on which we must improve considerably.
Of course I am aware that some people are disappointed that we have not accepted that householders should be offered compensation for residual loss in property values. We did consider this very hard, but we came to the conclusion that, given the wide variety of factors which can affect the values of property, it would be
72
difficult to identify and properly to assess permanent loss in value, so we have concentrated on compensating for repairs and damage.
British Coal is now committed to achieving "a good standard of repair" in all cases, as opposed to ensuring that a property is "reasonably fit", as present legislation dictates. British Coal will also continue to compensate at the date of completion of repairs where there remains an identifiable material and physical change in the condition of a property following subsidence, and where it can be demonstrated that such change has materially reduced the value of the property.
In the White Paper, the Government also promise to pursue the question of time limits for making claims. A number of hon. Members raised that question, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Gedling and for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim). We think that it would be going too far not to have any time limits at all. That matter was also raised by the hon. Member for Bolsover. To have no time limit would be as inequitable, in its way, to the body liable to compensation as an over-restrictive approach would be to the claimant. We believe that subsidence compensation should be treated consistently with limits on other claims for damage.
For England and Wales, the Limitation Act 1980, as amended by the Latent Damage Act 1986, sets out time limits in respect of latent damage which does not involve personal injuries. Under that legislation, a claimant can bring an action within six years from when the damage actually occurred or three years from when the claimant first had reasonable grounds for believing that damage had occurred. My hon. Friends the Members for Gedling and for Amber Valley asked which of those it would be. The answer is that they are alternatives; whichever is most favourable to the claimant applies
The Government propose to legislate to apply a similar approach to the limitation of subsidence claims. In these circumstances, the present right of appeal to either the British Coal Corporation or the Secretary of State against the rejection of claim as out of time under the 1957 Act would no longer be appropriate.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Minister mentioned England and Wales. Are there any proposals for Scotland?
Mr. Spicer: The proposals for Scotland would be a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and that question might properly be addressed to him.
It would fall to the lands tribunal to determine whether a claim was time-barred. In fact, I can tell the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that similar principles will be applied in Scotland.
Mr. Skinner: How do you know?
Mr. Spicer: It is written on the brief. I had forgotten about it, but it is there.
On 29 April, the Government issued a consultation paper on proposals for legislation. Copies were sent to over 100 interested parties and are freely available to anyone who applies to the Department of Energy. It is a matter of contention—the hon. Member for Mansfield raised the matter today or has raised it in writing—whether the period of consultation should be longer. We think that three months is adequate for consultation. However, in view of what the hon. Member for Mansfield

73
said about further research being undertaken and the fact that we want to get the legislation right—that is why we have listened to what has been said today and at other times—the Government will always be interested to hear the views that anybody may wish to contribute towards the policy. If those views seem appropriate, they will be included. There is nothing sacrosanct about the time allowed, and we will keep our ears open until the legislation is drafted. We will be glad to receive views from hon. Members or anyone else.
The legislation will be introduced as soon as possible but, as I said earlier, it will not be possible to introduce a Bill in the next Session.
Mr. Oppenheim: I should like to doubly clarify two important points, one of which the Minister has touched upon but the other he has not. Will my hon. Friend state categorically that the three-year rule applies not to when the damage occurs but to when the householder or owner could reasonably have noticed that damage resulting from the workings was affecting their property? What will be the position of people whose properties have had an earlier claim accepted but who then have subsequent claims arising out of further damage?
Mr. Spicer: On the first point, the answer is uncategorically yes. On the second point, it would be difficult for the same damage to be the subject of new compensation. If it were new damage, it would be much easier. The matter has been raised several times in the debate, and I shall see whether I can do anything further.
The Government will bear in mind the concerns that have been expressed on both sides of the House. We will be bringing forward legislation. We are not complacent about subsidence and are well aware of the hardship and distress it can cause. I believe that the proposals set out in the White Paper, which have been developed in the consultation paper, constitute a balanced and acceptable standard of compensation for coal mining subsidence. The significance of the problem has certainly been recognised today.
In answer to mumbles I have heard from Opposition Front-Bench Members as to speed of action and so on, I should say that British Coal is already putting many of the Waddilove recommendations into practice. The legislation will largely be a question of consolidating those changes and putting them into statute.
Mr. Meale: Will the Minister answer the questions that I asked in my speech?
Mr. Spicer: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that I have tried to address myself to all the major issues. I cannot possibly answer every point, particularly constituency points, but I would be happy to do so in writing.
6.53 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) for giving the House an opportunity to debate this subject and I am more than grateful to him for allowing me to have the few remaining minutes that should have been his.
The Waddilove report was a response to the Flowers report and if we are not to have a Bill before the next Session, 10 years will have passed without a response from the Government to this important subject.
74
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) referred to paragraphs 158 to 162 of the Select Committee report. In the short time I have available I do not have an opportunity to go into detail but the Committee said:
"Any system of compensation which is developed from the Waddilove Report should be so framed as to apply equally to British Coal and any present or future competitors".
I hope that when the Bill is produced it will not refer only to the responsibilities of British Coal. If British Coal is to be privatised, one hopes that the legislation will be final and binding on the coal industry in the private sector.
Along with others I had the privilege of giving written and oral evidence to the Waddilove committee. However, at that time the problem to which I wish to refer had not reared its head. The Townville estate in Castleford in my constituency is an estate of 400 dwellings where 70 ex-miners purchased their homes from British Coal. At the time, there was no mention by the board of any subsidence. Since that time, those unfortunate owners have been caught by the Housing Defects Act 1984.
The Minister will know that the properties must be repaired to the required standard authorised by the Secretary of State or they must be repurchased by the local authority, whichever involves the lowest cost. The repair of the properties would amount to about £18,000 or £20,000 each, more than the market value. Therefore, it was left to the local authority to repurchase the homes. The local authority valuer valued 60 or so houses at about £12,000 but four of the owners, ex-miners, were told that because their homes had suffered subsidence, £4,000 would be knocked off the valuation.
After corresponding with British Coal, I have been told that it will admit liability but will pay only 50 per cent. of the difference. Therefore, 66 of my constituents will receive about £12,000 for their homes but, because British Coal has conceded that four of them have been damaged by subsidence, they will receive less money. Surely, if there is any justice, British Coal should meet the full difference. That matter is not mentioned in the Waddilove report or the consultative document but I hope that the Minister will take it on board because it is serious.
The owners have obtained legal advice and have been referred to the six-year rule. They have been told that their claims are out of time. I hope that cases of this type will be included when the Minister produces his Bill.
As I sat in Mansfield and listened to the people of the area, I discovered that their main problem is the lack of information. The Government's response to Waddilove excludes public participation. They have talked about discussions with local authorities and other bodies but they have suggested that there should be no public participation. I do not know what they mean by that. As has been said, many of those people have had no experience of dealing with claims of this nature and are having to obtain advice. However, they do not seek advice unless it is brought to their doorsteps. Many people have lost out purely because of lack of advice. I hope that the Minister will deal with those matters.
6.59 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: I have enjoyed today's debate because, for the first time since I have been an hon. Member, the House

75
seems to be in complete harmony. We agree that there must be a better compensation system for mining subsidence.
I remember that in my former constituency of Huddersfield, West an elderly couple came home from holiday and tried to open the front door but it would not open. When they got in they found cracks in the hall and on the stairway, that the inner doors would not open and that the ground floor had sunk, but they could not explain why. The Victorian mine workings had not been properly delineated on the maps—
It being Seven o'clock, proceedings on the motion lapsed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13(8) (Arrangement of public business).

Orders of the Day

  Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Lords amendment No. 1 agreed to [Special Entry.]
  Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): In view of the progress that we are making, if no hon. Member wishes to address the House on any of the amendments I shall put them together.
  Lords amendments agreed to, some with Special Entry.

  WAYS AND MEANS
    CONSIDERATION FOR CERTAIN RESTRICTIVE UNDERTAKINGS
    That provision may be made charging to income tax under Schedule E any consideration given in respect of certain restrictive undertakings.—[Mr. Norman Lamont.]
    That provision may be made about annual payments by Scottish partnerships.—[Mr. Norman Lamont.]

    RESIDENT COMPANIES CEASING TO BE LIABLE TO UNITED KINGDOM TAX
    That provision may be made about companies which, while continuing to be resident in the United Kingdom, fall to be regarded for the purposes of any double taxation relief arrangements—

    (a) as resident in a territory outside the United Kingdom; and

    (b) as not liable in the United Kingdom to tax on gains arising on disposals of assets of descriptions specified in the arrangements.—[Mr. Norman Lamont.]

    GAINS ARISING FROM CERTAIN SETTLED PROPERTY
    That provision may be made about the taxation of gains accruing to trustees of certain settled property where the settlor or his spouse has an interest in the settlement —[Mr. Norman Lamont.]
    POST-CONSOLIDATION AMENDMENTS
    That provision may be made to correct errors in the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 and in the amendments made by the Finance Act 1987 for the purposes of the consolidation effected by the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988—[Mr. Norman Lamont.]
    VALUE ADDED TAX ON CERTAIN SUPPLIES OF MEDICAL GOODS
    That provision may be made amending Group 7 in Schedule 6 to the Value Added Tax Act 1983.—[Mr. Norman Lamont.]

    Housing Bill
    As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
    7.3 pm
    Mr. Clive Soley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The other day, Mr. Speaker declined a motion to refer the Bill back to Committee. I should like your advice about whether we can refer some parts of the Bill back to Committee.
    We are deeply concerned that the Government have introduced so many amendments and new clauses, which were not debated in Committee, that they are again changing the nature of the Bill. We object not only to the iniquitous voting system whereby even the dead have votes, but to the fact that we have been unable to debate the Welsh housing corporation and new clause 47. The social landlords, charter—to which the Minister referred in Committee and said that he felt that it was necessary to refer it back to the House—is not available, although there is a pamphlet about the powers that are available.
    On the Government's own admission, they have tabled 15 new substantive amendments. In only one part of the Bill they have tabled 15 new amendments, 19 technical ones and 18 as a result of concessions made in Committee.
    I wonder whether you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or Mr. Speaker, would consider referring back those parts of the Bill that were not debated in Committee. I understand that it may not be possible to take the amendments today, but could you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, give the House some guidance about whether they could be considered at a later stage? Do they necessarily have to be taken on Report? If so, one of the problems is that the issues will have been debated in a wider way rather than in the detailed way that they would have been discussed in Committee, had the Government been able to get their act together and deliver the Bill in a proper form on Report.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall not repeat the points made by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), with which I agree.
    When we debated the procedure of the Report stage with Mr. Speaker last Thursday, the Minister—I thanked him for this at the time—suggested that he might be able to make available to hon. Members some notes on the new elements in the Bill. Obviously that matter does not directly concern the Chair, but it may influence the timetable. Substantial new matters are coming before the House for the first time, one of which is specifically referred to in the press release that the Government issued last week. It relates to a matter that probably will not come before the House until Wednesday in part IV of the Bill, which concerns what the Government think is tenants' choice. In that press release, the Minister for Housing and Planning said that the amendments would be supplemented
    "by an account, intended to help informed debates at the Report Stage, of how we expect the scheme as a whole …— to work."
    As I said on Thursday, it is difficult for Opposition Members and Conservative Back Benchers to know what amendments to table before the House rises today, because we are not aware of the Government's proposals. I ask for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on how time can be
    78
    made available to table the appropriate amendments so that they can be debated before we complete the Report stage.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I shall deal first with the points made by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). The selection of a recommittal motion is a matter for Mr. Speaker to consider ai the appropriate time. As to timing, page 573 of "Erskine May" makes it clear that a motion to recommit a Bill on consideration may be made only at the moment when that stage is entered upon—in this case, that was last Thursday —or immediately after the stage is concluded. Such a motion is therefore hypothetical with regard to today's business.
    I appreciate the points made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and the difficulties that may arise. As we proceed with the debate, the hon. Gentleman will have to take opportunities when he can to table further amendments if he thinks them appropriate.

  Clause 32

    NEW PROTECTED TENANCIES AND AGRICULTURAL, OCCUPANCIES RESTRICTED TO SPECIAL CASES
    Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 306, in page 22, line 45, leave out 'cannot be a protected tenancy, unless' and insert 'shall be a protected tenancy if.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: Government amendment No. 48.
    Amendment No. 325, in page 23, line 5, after 'question;', insert
    'or—(ba) it is granted to a person (alone or jointly with others) who immediately before the tenancy was granted was the protected tenant (or one of the protected tenants) or a statutory tenant of other premises owned by the same landlord or managed by the same managing agent.'.
    Amendment No. 232, in page 23, line 5, at end insert—
    `(c) it is granted to a person (alone or jointly with others) who immediately before the tenancy was granted was the protected tenant (or one of the protected tenants) or a statutory tenant of other premises let by the same landlord.'.
    Amendment No. 307, in page 23, line 22, at end insert `unless, in any of the cases in (a) to (d) above, the tenant informs the landlord in writing that he wishes to be granted an assured tenancy.'.
    Government amendments Nos. 49 and 50
    Amendment No. 80, in clause 33, page 24, line 8, leave out from 'tenant' to end of line II and insert
    `(alone or jointly with others) of a registered housing association: or'.
    Amendment No. 81, in clause 33, page 24, line 26, at end insert
    or
    (e) it is granted to a person (alone or jointly with others) who, immediately before the tenancy was granted, was a secure tenant (alone or jointly with others) of a local authority, a new town corporation or an urban development corporation, all within the meaning of section 80 of the Housing Act 1985, a housing action trust established under Part III of this Act or the Development Board for Rural Wales.'.
    Government amendment No. 51.
    Amendment No. 300, in clause 33, page 24, line 43, leave out from second 'was" to end of line 45 and insert
    `a secure tenant of a registered housing association;'

    79
    Amendment No. 301, in clause 33, page 25, line 10, at end insert—
    '(f) it is granted to a person (alone or jointly with others) who, immediately before the tenancy was granted, was a secure tenant (alone or jointly with others) of a local authority, a new town corporation, or an urban development corporation, all within the meaning of section 80 of the Housing Act 1985, or a housing action trust established under Part III of this Act or the Development Board for Rural Wales.'
    Amendment No. 299, in schedule 13, page 120, column 3, leave out lines 6 to 10.
    Mr. Hughes: If I were to give a title to this debate, it would probably be "When is protection not protection? When is a concession not a concession? And when is a social landlords' charter not a social landlords' charter?" Each of those matters arises in the debate.
    I was reminded of a quote—I thought that it was from Sir Winston Churchill but it has an older pedigree—derived from Tolstoy:
    "Should you read, upon an enclosure with an elephant, a sign saying Buffalo, believe not your eyes."
    One question which will arise regularly in this debate is, when does a sign that says one thing reveal, on a closer look, that there is something else behind the bars?
    Amendments Nos. 306 and 307 deal with Rent Act-protected tenancies. Clauses 32 and 33 deal with four types of tenancies—Rent Act-protected tenancies, protected agricultural tenancies, housing association tenancies and secure tenancies. Each half of the two clauses deals with a different species of protected tenancy. The important matter of principle—the Government's response will determine whether it will be put to the vote—is whether tenants who are at present entitled to and enjoy Rent Act protection will automatically be granted new Rent Act-protected tenancies and whether, at the end of a Rent Act-protected tenancy, the new or old landlord can grant them assured tenancies even if they do not know what is going on. The risk is that a person could lose his rights at the end of a tenancy without being aware of it.
    Amendments Nos. 306 and 307 are designed to guarantee statutory tenants the right to new, similarly protected tenancies unless they do not want them. That is stated clearly in amendment No. 307. The presumption is changed so that Rent Act protection continues
    "unless … the tenant informs the landlord in writing that he wishes to be granted an assured tenancy."
    Sometimes—this will be the exception rather than the rule —people may be willing to forfeit Rent Act-protected tenancies or similarly protected tenancies for assured tenancies—for example, if they want to sell on a fixed-term assured tenancy. There should be opportunities for a tenant to opt out of protection, and that is what the amendments provide.
    Clause 32(1) and (3) and clause 33(2) and (3) provide that new tenancies can be protected tenancies, but do not guarantee that they will be. The amendments attempt to reverse that. This is not a theoretical point. I raised in Committee, and make no apology for raising it again, a typical example from my constituency. Just over the bridges into Southwark and just off Borough High street, there is an attractive estate called Newington estate, owned by Trinity House, which invested in the estate to provide
    80
    the income necessary to fulfil its duties to lighthouse keepers and seafarers. Just over half the tenants are on fixed-term leases governed by the Rent Acts.
    The tenants have asked me several times since the Committee stage whether their present rights will be protected when their current fixed-term leases end. Will they be granted a new tenancy of the same property and given the same protection? If the Government concede, as I think they must, that that protection is not built in, I look to the Minister to say that that is a valid request and to agree that protection should be continued. After assignment by inheritance of a fixed-term lease on the Newington estate, would the new tenancy be an assured tenancy or have protection under the Rents Acts? That point has not yet been made clear under the present drafting of the Bill.
    7.15 pm
    Amendment No. 325 raises another substantive point —the extent to which people can move into other properties owned by the same landlord and still have the same protection. I am grateful to the Minister for making some concessions and, in turn, I concede that they go at least some way to meeting my worries. I seek by way of my probing amendment to discover whether the Minister accepts that my measure goes further than his. The Labour party has tabled a similar amendment, No. 232.
    There may be good grounds for a person to move elsewhere. They may be instigated by the landlord in order to renovate a property, or a tenant may wish to move to larger, or smaller, premises because of a change in the number in his family. The concessions should be made clear. If they do not go as far as my amendment, the Government should accept that they need to go further. The Government's concessions do not appear to cover whether a move to another property owned by the same owner or managed by the same managing agency carries the same protection.
    The Minister will have seen in the specialist housing press reference to worries about this aspect. Amendment No. 48 appears to allow a new landlord to talk a tenant who is unaware of his or her rights into signing a new agreement when ownership is transferred, with none of the old rights. I accept that this will apply only when a tenancy and ownership ends and there is a new landlord. It is likely that a person will buy a property so that he has it when the fixed-term lease concludes. Tenants may find on signing their new seven or 14-year lease that they have an assured tenancy and not a Rent Act-protected tenancy. Like many hon. Members, I listened to the Government's case in Committee. The logic of their argument is that they are not seeking to alter the rights of tenants who are presently protected. I believe, as do many tenants and those involved with them, that the Government are resiling from that position and that some existing protected tenants will not be protected if the Bill is passed unamended.
    Amendments have been tabled which are worthy of support and an appropriate response and which protect the present practice of mobility between properties in the housing association sector. Many of us use in our constituency work information from the housing association liaison project, which is operated by housing associations. It allows people who live in a property owned by a housing association in one borough to apply for a transfer to another property owned by a different housing association in a different borough. I am not convinced

    81
    —the amendments point to this deficiency—that there will be the same facility to enable people to move once the protection ends. In particular, I would ask the Minister to consider the threat that clause 33 appears to pose to arrangements which are mutually beneficial, which allow mobility and which the Government should support.
    This is the first opportunity that we have had to debate the social landlords' charter, to which amendment No. 299 relates. In Committee, we had a long debate about whether there should be a housing association tenancy. The Minister will remember our exchanges about the status of housing associations. We wanted to establish whether they were private sector bodies, public sector bodies or something in between. Are they a new social provision? The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) asserted that they were in the public sector. The Minister resisted. Eventually, I elicited from him a commitment that they were not in the private sector either.
    If that is correct, what is now presented as the social landlords' charter appears to be slightly different from what was implied in Committee. It looks as though we are to have not a housing association tenancy, or even half a housing association tenancy but some sort of guidance from an ever more powerful quango, the Housing Corporation, appointed by the Secretary of State, which will apparently mysteriously provide some sort of protection for the new sector which is neither one thing nor the other. It looks as though all that we shall have is a bit of extra protection added on to the private sector with a lack of rights that the Government seek to make the growth sector of their rented housing policy.
    Mr. Soley: Is not the reason for that that the Secretary of State for the Environment would dearly like housing associations to be moved into the private sector, whereas the Minister for Housing and Planning recognises that that would not work and would therefore like to keep housing associations in limbo, whereas, to my mind, they clearly belong in the social landlord or public sector portfolios.
    Mr. Hughes: The Secretary of State is in his place so perhaps he would like to reply to that. Last week we were all waiting for the balloon marked "social landlords' charter" to go up, but no one was sure whether it was the right balloon. On Wednesday, the Minister of Housing and Planning went to Warrington and made a speech. The press release, issued at the very last minute, did not relate to the contents of the speech. No one was sure whether what they saw was the balloon marked "social landlords' charter" or something else. Perhaps the Secretary of State will come clean on this. There certainly appears to have been an internal debate about what the new creation should be. Whatever the substance may be, the Secretary of State must surely have been happy with the description given.
    Mr. John Home Robertson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the biggest balloon was in the Scottish Office? Having served on the Opposition Front Bench during the proceedings on the Housing (Scotland) Bill, I am very interested in this debate on the English Housing Bill. The Secretary of State for Scotland held throughout that housing associations were to be in the private sector under the new arrangement. Therefore, I was particularly interested to read the speech made by the Minister for Housing and Planning in Warrington last week as it was prefaced by a paragraph that concluded by
    82
    referring to a new social housing sector in Britain. For the time being, at any rate, Scotland is part of Britain, as far as I know. I have tabled a series of written questions to the Scottish Office to try to find out whether Scotland is to be part of the new scheme, but there seems to be chaos in Government ranks at present.
    Mr. Hughes: I shall not be drawn into discussing whether Scotland is in Britain; the Government have not yet managed to float Scotland off, despite their efforts to float everything else off. We discovered in Committee that what went on in the Scottish Office did not go on in Marsham street and vice versa. I might say that we were often envious because we wished that we could have proposals similar to those accepted by the Scottish Office. The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) may be critical but we would have been grateful for some of the small droppings off the Scottish Office table.
    Mr. Ian McCartney: Droppings? Mr. Hughes: I am sorry, I meant the crumbs.
    Mr. McCartney: We have table manners in Scotland, you know.
    Mr. Hughes: The confusion probably arose from bread and dripping.
    The was-it, wasn't-it social landlords' charter announcement on Wednesday has certainly not persuaded good Tory bodies such as the Association of District Councils to welcome the proposal with open arms. The National Federation of Housing Associations said that there were good bits, but that it did not go far enough. The Institute of Housing still has its alternative ready to be taken up by the Government. We are sad that what promised much has apparently given birth to so little.
    I do not know whether you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will have the good fortune to be chairing them, but we shall no doubt have some very interesting debates on this question. The Minister implied that the rents in the social landlord sector must remain within the reach of those in lower-paid employment, but we have not yet been shown the mechanism to achieve that. We shall be asking, "When is an affordable rent not an affordable rent?" Some of us have very clear views about that and we await the Government's response on it. We shall be interested to discover whether we got the whole picture and whether what was described as an elephant is in fact a buffalo, to return to my original quotation. Are we to have a social landlord's charter or are we to have private sector assured tenancies with knobs on but very few advantages to the tenant in the end?
    Amendment No. 299 focuses on the fact that in moving the housing association sector the Government appear to be removing its security and removing from housing association tenants the right to buy. I do not know whether that is what the Minister intended. The right to buy applies only to secure tenancies. If housing association tenancies are not to be secure tenancies, presumably the right to buy will not apply. That did not get a press release in Marsham street green, or bigger neon lights either.
    It also looks as though the Government are repealing the right of housing association associations and the like to grant secure tenancies. This is the time to ask the Minister to set out clearly—not just for the House but for all those who have been building up the housing association

    83
    movement—the exact implications of this part of the Bill and what exactly the Government amendments will do to the housing association sector. What will be the rights of tenants in housing association property and as regards the rent that they have to pay? If the provisions go through and the Opposition amendments are rejected will the housing association tenant have only four weeks' notice to quit as opposed to the security enjoyed by such tenants at the moment? This is the time when the truth will out. I note that the Secretary of State has just left. Perhaps he does not want to be here when what was promised fails to be delivered. I hope that the Government will at least accept that the fears are well founded. Unless they move some way in our direction, we shall have to register our feeling that much was promised but not enough has been delivered.
    Mr. Rhodri Morgan: The Opposition take strong exception to the Government's failure to make absolutely clear their intentions on the transferability of tenure for housing association tenants and the other transitional provisions. The Government are attempting to tighten the noose around the Rent Act protection that private sector, local authority and housing association tenants have hitherto enjoyed. It is part of their attempt to make what they see as a great leap forward—the vision of a free market-based housing market. They see it as an attempt to rerun the 1957 Act deregulation of the housing sector. For some of the reasons already mentioned by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) we take strong exception to that and we also have special reasons of our own.
    Amendments Nos. 232, 300, 301 and 299 are intended to highlight the problems that the Government are creating for themselves by their inability to make up their mind about the status of housing associations in the brave new world of the deregulated housing market. Their current dilemma is in the same tradition as the problems that they faced in extending the transitional provisions when phasing out the Rent Acts in the private sector. The Government were unable to sort this out in Committee and the amendments that they have been tabling right up to this morning leave us with the impression that the Secretary of State as Caligula and the Minister of State as the horse appointed to be his proconsul are still in some conflict and that as the Minister of State canters through the private green belt around his hon. Friend's castle in Cirencester, communications between the two of them are still somewhat deficient. In the next couple of days, they must tell us finally whether housing associations are intended to be free market bodies with assured tenancies and market rents or part of the social housing sector and, if the latter, how the right to buy will be handled.
    That critical division within the Government has produced an extraordinary piece of legislative jerry-building to which last-minute additions are still being proposed. I have no doubt that when the Bill goes to another place it will still be subject to multiple amendments, some put down by the Minister of State to neutralise those that the Secretary of State persuaded his ministerial team to table the previous day. The Bill will be a succession of lean-tos propped precariously on one another.
    84
    7.30 pm
    The difficulty that we all face is in knowing the kind of tenants for whom the housing association sector is intended to cater when it moves away from the traditional concept to which we have become accustomed even from this Government. The Government went to a great deal of trouble to extend security of succession to council tenants in 1980 and the right to buy to housing associations other than charitable associations in 1980, further strengthened by the Housing Associations Act 1985. The Government's current mental state on housing matters is clearly schizophrenic, but they have a duty to inform the half million families in housing association tenancies what is intended for that sector and how it is to move from the situation created by the Government in the past nine years to the proposed new state of affairs.
    Housing association tenants need to know whether they will have the right to buy or whether the Government intend to treat the associations as commercial agencies with commercial methods of raising funding and thus not subject to the right to buy. If that is the intention, will tenants be offered transfers to other public sector housing with full transferability of discount? This is a critical area of difficulty for the Government as they have invested so much political capital in the right to buy with transferable and successively increasing discounts.
    Moreover, while the Government are furiously tabling amendments to their own legislation 14 weeks after the end of the Committee stage, along comes the Secretary of State for Wales and starts dripping words to the press about a further extension of the right to buy, with massive discounts and the sale of two-up two-down council houses in Wales for £1 apiece to sitting council tenants. Presumably the same would apply to housing association tenants. The provisions in the Bill seem to run directly counter to the press briefings by the Secretary of State for Wales two weeks ago, which were presumably intended to cover England and Wales and perhaps even Scotland, too.
    None of this does much to foster the conviction that the Government know their own mind. The Minister of State will have to take a couple more canters around the Secretary of State's private paddock to establish whether the intention is to introduce further discounts for council tenants, and presumably also for housing association tenants, or whether it is the opposite. People must be told whether the Government are still committed to the right to buy and the possible elimination of public sector housing or whether they have decided to go back on that commitment because they regard a large rented sector as desirable for reasons of labour mobility or whatever else they have in mind.
    The Government's schizophrenia must come to an end in the next couple of days. Local authority and housing association tenants have the right to know what is intended for them. They waited for the Housing Bill and they have waited 14 weeks since the end of the Committee stage, but Government amendments are still pouring in. Many of those amendments do not fit in with previous legislation. The moment of truth must come during the Report stage of this extraordinary double Bill which the Minister of State and the Secretary of State have cobbled together in such a way that it would certainly not be guaranteed by the National House-Building Council, as it clearly will not last long.
    Will the Secretary of State now tell us how he regards the housing associations of the future? Will t hey offer

    85
    secure tenancies and the right to buy or will they be part of the private sector with assured tenancies and market rents, and how are they intended to move from one situation to the other?
    Mr. Timothy Kirkhope: Many Opposition Members seem not to have understood the history of the housing association movement, which should actually be called the voluntary housing movement and does not really fall either in the public sector or in the private sector. If hon. Members have not yet read C. V. Baker's excellent book on the history of the housing association movement, they should do so now. They will then realise that it is a progressive movement which was forestalled mainly by the failure of local authorities to show the same enthusiasm for housing after the first world war as the voluntary movement had before the war and has again today under the Government's proposals.
    Ms. Dawn Primarolo: If the hon. Gentleman is giving us lessons on housing, I should remind him that both the Addison Act and the Wheatley Act which were dealt with by local authorities made an enormous contribution to housing in the public sector. Local authorities participated strongly in that initiative which grew directly out of the campaigns which developed before the first world war and continued thereafter.
    Mr. Kirkhope: I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention, but it is the belief of many that the failure of councils to take up the old management traditions after the first world war, combined with the poor estate design, had much to do with stunting the growth of a very important movement.
    It is important to realise that, by and large, housing associations are small bodies both in terms of the number of houses that they control and in the scope and area of their activities.
    Mr. McCartney: In giving this history lesson on public housing concepts, will the hon. Gentleman tell us exactly what happened in the public sector before 1919? He seems to suggest that there was some kind of activity before that date. Perhaps I went to a different school and my knowledge of history and social science is deficient on that point, but I doubt it. Having done such magnificent research on the subject, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give chapter and verse about what exactly was the public sector before 1919.
    Mr. Kirkhope: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am not trying to teach anybody anything. I am trying to make a few observations about these matters, as I am entitled to do, just as the hon. Gentleman is entitled to do.
    It is perfectly true that, before 1919, one of the large movements in this country was the almshouses. [Interruption.]' Any derogatory remarks about almshouses are not helpful. They were the precursors of the present voluntary housing movement. They were set up on a charitable basis and were extremely successful in providing good, modern housing. They had enlightened housing management. That is what I tried to say to hon. Members when I referred to local authorities which, I regret to say, for many years were not as enlightened and did not have the same progressive views as the voluntary housing movement.
    When one talks about the great number of housing associations, it is important to remember that my
    86
    constituency and the area around it in Leeds have more diverse types of housing associations than many other parts of the country. The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) will acknowledge that. I support what the Government are trying to do. It is important not to create an atmosphere in which small housing associations are unable to continue their work in that small area in which they want to work.
    Mr. John Battle: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why Leeds housing associations have petitioned the hon. Gentleman—he has made press statements about them—to say that the proposals in the Bill will make their work more difficult? Not least, they will price them out of development in inner-city areas that are difficult to develop and will make it more difficult for them to provide accommodation for those with special needs. Having voted against them in Standing Committee, what is the hon. Gentleman's response to housing associations now?
    Mr. Kirkhope: The hon. Gentleman is now trying to give lessons of one kind or another. I have met representatives of the Leeds housing association movement. I am rather more aware than the hon. Gentleman is of what they said to me at the time. They generally welcome the Government's proposals to enliven—[Interruption.] I have had meetings with them, and I know what they think. They generally welcome the Government's approach to the enlivenment of the housing association sector. They welcome the greater freedoms that they will have in raising finance. They greatly welcome the fact that they will receive support from the Housing Corporation and from many other institutions such as the building societies that are now able to support them. They welcome all those things. Naturally, they have the concerns that I have expressed. To some extent, smaller associations worry that they will be gobbled up or that their specific role will be affected.
    The Government are generally right, but, obviously, it is important too for us to do our best to recognise the needs of housing associations of every size and type. Only through doing that will we continue to give the extra necessary support to make the housing association movement grow even faster.
    Mr. Soley: My remarks on this important group of amendments will be brief. We should like to know why the Minister is moving Government amendments Nos. 50 a nd 51 when, in a later part of the Bill, he proposes to remove from about 500,000 existing housing association tenants security of tenure, tenants' charter rights, and rights to buy. If the Minister examines amendment No. 299, he will see that we seek to delete the proposed partial repeal of section 80 of the Housing Act 1985. The partial repeal would mean that housing associations no longer satisfy the "landlord condition" required for a secure tenancy.
    In other words, after the enactment of the Bill, the existing 500,000 housing association tenants will cease to be secure tenants, because the landlord condition required for a secure tenancy will not be satisfied. Additionally, tenants of non-charitable housing associations will lose the right to buy, and tenants of non-charitable housing associations will lose the right to apply for a transferable discount to assist them to purchase a property in the private sector. I should like the Minister's comments on those issues.

    87
    Rather more widely, and without repeating the arguments already outlined by the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), I warn the Government, with considerable seriousness, that they are in danger not only of not achieving their goal but of destroying the housing association movement as we have come to know it. The hon. Member for Leeds, North-East missed an important point. In 1974, the Labour Government put forward the housing association movement in its modern form. That action was based on all-party support.
    It is fair to point out that the legislation was considered in detail by the Government of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). It was picked up by the Labour Government and put into effect. It had all-party support. The present Government have busted that consensus wide open, and have put housing associations in an incredibly difficult position. The hon. Gentleman should not say that housing associations do not mind that. They are deeply worried. I concede that they are now divided—some support the Bill and some are against it—and that division is doing much damage.
    7.45 pm
    Mr. Kirkhope: The legislation was drafted by the Conservative Government in 1974. If the hon. Gentleman will check the matter, he will see that barely any amendment was moved by his party. The inspiration of the Conservative Government led to the housing association legislation. It is important to remember that point.
    Mr. Soley: I do not object to the hon. Gentleman taking up the time of the House by repeating what I have said. Some amendments were made, but there was all-party agreement. The Labour Government enacted what they picked up from the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. That is what happened. This Government are busting the consensus wide open.
    The problem is that some housing associations may wish to move up-market, when the Minister for Housing and Planning actually realises that there is a crisis in low-cost rented accommodation and when we need more housing associations, more local authorities, and more co-operatives providing for the lower end of the market. Obviously, if some housing associations choose to move up-market, they are free to do so. But they must not expect an open-ended Government subsidy, either under the present Government or under a future Labour Government. If they provide up-market accommodation, they carry the responsibility of arranging finance for it. The priority for a Labour Government will and must be good-quality, low-cost homes for people on low incomes. Investors who do not recognise that fact will burn their fingers.
    The housing market is not and cannot be a free market. Conservative Members keep falling into the trap of talking about it as though it were a free market—it cannot be; there are too many imperfections in it. At best, using economists' language, it is an inelastic market, in which change takes time. But several other factors—for example, cost and availability of land, alternative uses and the various Government subsidies in the form of tax relief and
    88
    regional grant—affect the supply of housing and make it nonsense to talk about a free market in the way that the Government do.
    Where there is scarcity, a Labour Government will arrange for rents to be set independently of the landlord. I predict that even this Government will return to that sooner or later. They will do so because they will find that the growing sense of scarcity in the low-cost accommodation sector—be it for rent or for purchase—will drive them to it. As the housing crisis worsens, and as more people sleep out or are forced into bed-and-breakfast accommodation, so the Government will be forced to address the problem. As the Government take off the Rent Act tenancies, they are aggravating the problem that they are seeking to solve.
    It is important that that message goes out loud and clear, not only to investors, but to everyone in the housing association movement. We set up the housing association movement with all-party support. The Tory Government have broken that consensus and placed housing associations in a difficult position. We will continue to support housing associations as long as they remain true to the principles on which they were set up. That is the important aspect that is being placed at risk by the Government's absurd legislation.
    The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. William Waldegrave): Though I would put the rhetorical points differently, I can agree wholeheartedly with a lot of what the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) said. That is that no one wants the housing association movement to move away from doing the job for which it has been funded under both Labour and Conservative Governments. We want it to do more. I do not think that anyone would thank me for widening this point into a general debate about housing associations, which we shall be coming to later. However, there are one or two points to deal with now.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope) said, it is right that the experimental mixed-funding scheme is a small part of the funding of the Housing Corporation. About £60 million has been put into the scheme and there have been £700 million worth of bids from interested housng associations. That shows the amount of interest that there is in the scheme. I do not believe that the people who have put forward those bids —some of whom are in my hon. Friend's part of the country—are departing from their traditions. They are seeking to make the money go further and have more useful, low-cost housng built, which is the objective of all of us. I do not disagree with what the hon. Member for Hammersmith said. The House would want to know if the subsidies did not produce housing at low market rents. That is clearly what they are meant to achieve. We shall continue the subsidies.
    I can dispose of one small point that the hon. Member of Hammersmith raised.
    Mr. Soley: Before the Minister moves on, the scheme is not producing more low-cost rented accommodation in the housing association movement.
    Mr. Waldegrave: As the hon. Member knows, the mixed spending scheme has only just started, with a tiny sum of money in the first year and the grant levels too low. Therefore, we have put more money into it and we are developing it as we go along. The scheme is now beginning

    89
    to work. I have visited, as the hon. Member probably has, some useful schemes that have already been carried out in the second year of the experimental programme.
    One small hare that has been started running by a genuine misunderstanding in the National Federation of Housing Associations can be laid to rest. The hon. Member for Hammersmith alleges that we are affecting the rights of 500,000 existing people. That is not so. We are certainly not resiling from the pledge to maintain people's existing rights. We shall, of course, need a saving provision to exclude from the repeal provison in schedule 13 those who are in existing secure tenancies. That would normally be done in a commencement order under a Bill like this, but, as it is so important, it will be on the face of the Bill itself. Obviously, we must do that, and that is a technical amendment which will be brought forward. Clearly, that is just a misunderstanding. We have written to Mr. Page of the NFHA, who has probably briefed the hon. Member for Hammersmith on this, to explain that point to him.
    Mr. Soley: I am grateful to for the commitment that the Minister will amend that matter, but will he tell us when he will do this? Will it be more legislation on the hoof? Will we get it at a later stage in here or is he proposing to do it for the House if Lords?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Member for Hammersmith is really pushing this slightly thin line a little bit too far. Normally, it would be done in the commencement order of the Bill. We can do that if he wishes and wait until next April. That would be the normal way of doing it. However, we thought that it would be better to put it on the face of the Bill.
    However, the hon. Member for Hammersmith presses me never to make another concession to him again.— [Interruption.] That is the message I have received from his behaviour in the past couple of days.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: On the question of the state of the housing association tenants, is the Minister saying that the present security for all housing association tenants will be underwritten and guaranteed, not just on the right to buy, but that all their present security will be guaranteed?
    Mr. Waldegrave: As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) knows, there are broadly two categories among present housing association tenants. There are tenants of registered housing associations, who are secure tenants with the right to buy, and all the rest of it. There are also tenants of unregistered associations, who are usually—not in every case because some of them may already be on secure tenancies—Rent Act tenants, without the right to buy. Some hon. Members have been asking whether all those tenants in the housing association movement have the right to buy. Of course, they do not all have the right to buy. If they are tenants of charitable housing associations, they do not have it. They also do not have it if they are Rent Act tenants. However, all existing rights will be continued.
    Mr. Hughes: For both categories?
    Mr. Waldegrave: Yes, for both categories.
    The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) asked me about the assignment of tenancies. There is no problem about that. I am advised that the Bill
    90
    makes our intention clear. If a fixed term protected tenancy is assigned or devolves by inheritance, it will remain protected even after the commencement of the Bill.
    I think I made this point in Committee, but it is perhaps worth making again. People have the right to register a fair rent, even after the commencement of the Bill. If they are in the category of Rent Act tenants who have never got around to, or chosen to register, a fair rent, they can do so at any time. Their rights under their existing tenancies continue indefinitely.
    The purpose of our amendments was to undertake the commitment that we made in Committee. I think that it was I who made that commitment. It is to be found in column 603 of the Committee Hansard. That commitment was at the commencement of the legislation to provide additional protection for people who are tenants of private landlords or housing associations who might be required to be moved around. One can imagine that that might be necessary in hostels and other types of accommodation, and might be good housing management.
    I said in Committee that we were inclined to do it only for tenants of the same landlord. That is what the amendments provide and there can be no doubt about it. Tenants moved within the property of the same landlord would obtain secure tenancies on the same basis. We said in Committee—and we have stuck to it—that we were doubtful about doing it for transfers because that would greatly increase the number of Rent Act tenancies. Therefore, we have not moved further. I understand that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey would have liked us to move further but we have not.
    I cannot accept the argument that people who happen to share the same management agent might gain a secure tenancy from it. That would have the most peculiar random effects. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey as a lawyer—I am glad to see that he has recovered from his cold—would regard it as a matter of some importance that it would produce tremendous uncertainty and argument subsequently about what had been the status of a tenancy at the beginning. It would depend on who the managing agent was and that might have no relationship to the property ownership at all. I should have thought that that would have been an odd procedure.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: I am aware of the possible general difficulty. However, one of the things that happens, as the Minister is aware, is that there are often transfers of ownership between a holding company and a subsidiary company—different companies in the same group. There are a lot of companies in the private sector which will transfer ownership from one company to another, which may be technical in one sense, but in terms of legal ownership it is fundamental. The management is carried on by the same agency—the same firm of estate agents, surveyors or whatever—and transfers take place for reasons that have nothing to do with the management of the property or the good of the tenants.
    There are a lot of mischiefs which, I am sure, the Minister will want to prevent when dealing with some of the worst landlords—corporate landlords—and which are
    occasioned by transfers between one technically "corporate" owner and another. I would be grateful if the Minister could consider that problem because it seems

    91
    something that he would not want to slip through the net. My amendment sought to protect such moves which, at the moment, might be to the disadvantage of the tenant.
    8 pm
    Mr. Waldegrave: I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying. However, his method of making the managing agent the test would produce some peculiar anomalies. I want to argue against him and I claim that our amendments are much clearer than amendment No. 307. Our amendment states that there is no question but that the tenant becomes a secured tenant. We do not give the option for negotiation about whether or not he wants to choose to become an assured tenant, first because clarity is important and we do not want subsequent arguments about "Did he agree, or did he not?" and the landlord saying, "Oh yes, he did," and so on. We want it to be clear that there is no legal argument. The tenant continues to be a secured tenant. That is the first and most important point.
    Secondly, if we opened up the idea that there could be negotiation, one might open up just the pressures which hon. Members of all parties would be against if there was the option of pushing people into an assured tenancy. There will not be an option. The tenancy becomes secured automatically, which is right.
    Amendment No. 80 goes much wider than our amendments. Its effect could be that tenants of registered housing associations with new-style assured tenancies who have never had a fair rent tenancy of the old kind would, if they moved to another dwelling let by the same or a different association, get a housing association tenancy subject to part VI of the Rent Act 1977. That seems extremely odd because they might never have been in such a situation. I think that amendment No. 80 was a probing rather than a serious amendment.
    I have dealt with amendment No. 299, the point of which is absolutely essential and clearly we must deal with it. As I have said, we shall deal with it not in the commencement order, but on the face of the Bill. I hope that the House will welcome that.
    We have moved to meet some commitment that we made in Committee and which will improve the Bill—
    Mr. Simon Hughes rose—
    Mr. Waldegrave: I see that the hon. Gentleman wants to go even further. I am willing to give way to him once more.
    Mr. Hughes: The Minister appears inadvertently to have missed the question about whether the protection continues if a fixed term protected tenancy ends at the same time the landlord changes, even with a new landlord. That is a specific question that I have been asked and which I now ask the Minister.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I think that I should be absolutely sure and get a lawyer's answer on that, so that I will not mislead the hon. Gentleman. I shall write to him about it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members will agree that, although they want us to go further, we have met two commitments that we made in Committee and that the drafting has met our objectives.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister has certainly clarified for me some things that were not clear. I cannot speak for the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), but speaking for myself, the right course is to go away and consult lawyers and to await the Minister's letter on the one remaining matter. That is the responsible way forward, because there will be opportunities in another place, where as the Minister knows, the housing association movement has many friends. If any matters remain unresolved here, they will no doubt be pursued in the other place.
    I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendments made:No. 48, in page 23, line 2, leave out from second 'was' to 'or' in line 5 and insert
    'a protected or statutory tenant and is so granted by the person who at that time was the landlord (or one of the joint landlords) under the protected or statutory tenancy'.
    No. 49 in page 23, line 42, leave out from second 'was' to 'tenancy' in line 46 and insert
    'a protected occupier or statutory tenant, within the meaning of the 1976 Act, and is so granted by the person who at that time was the landlord or licensor (or one of the joint landlords or licensors) under the protected occupancy or statutory'.;—[Mr. Waldegrave.]

  REMOVAL OF SPECIAL REGIMES FOR TENANCIES OF HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS ETC.
  Amendments made, No. 50, in page 24, line 8, leave out from second 'was' to `or' in line 11 and insert
  'a tenant under a housing association tenancy and is so granted by the person who at that time was the landlord under that housing association tenancy'.
  No. 51, in page 24, line 43, leave out from second 'was' to end of line 45 and insert
  'a secure tenant and is so granted by the body which at that time was the landlord or licensor under the secure tenancy'— -[Mr. Waldegrave.]

STATUTORY TENANTS: SUCCESSION
Mr. Robin Squire: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 27, line 30, leave out subsection (1).
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 3, in page 27, line 42, leave out
'paragraphs 5 to 8 of'.
No. 4, in page 28, line 1, leave out subsections (5), (6) and (7).
No. 215, in page 28, line 44, leave out subsection (9).
No. 305, in page 28, line 44, leave out subsections (9) and (10).
No. 5, in schedule 4, page 85, line 25, leave out paragraph 1.
No. 6, in page 85, line 38 leave out paragraphs 3 to 8. Government amendments Nos. 275 to 281.
Mr. Squire: In moving amendment No. 2, which is tabled in my name and that of various Labour and Social and Liberal Democratic Members, I shall obviously seek to comment on amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6.

93
To those hon. Members who were not privileged to serve on the Standing Committee, a little explanation might be needed. I readily confess that my amendments do not clarify the issue. However, we are discussing the important question of carers in our society—those people, often relatives, who give up their existing homes to look after aging or infirm relatives.
I make no apology for returning to this subject, which I raised in Committee. Although my hon. Friend the Minister of State listened as courteously as he always does to reasoned arguments, he felt unable on that occasion to concede any ground. Therefore, I return to those arguments today. If I may, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall make some passing comments about the Government amendments that are to be considered at the same time.
At present, the law is that anyone who gives up their home, whether rented or owned, to move to look after a relative, will succeed to that person's tenancy after six months. I do not know whether there has been any widespread abuse of that. If there has been, I am sure that my hon. Friend will give us the figures at the appropriate time. However, in the absence of any knowledge of abuse, clause 37 and schedule 4 reveal that, instead of the period being six months, in future it will be five years. That is excessive both in itself and by comparison with the existing law.
We owe an enormous debt to the people who give up their time and homes to look after relatives in their own home rather than seek to have them released into the wider community at a considerably greater charge and, no doubt, with less advantage to the aging or infirm relative. The Bill does such people no service and has greatly worried organisations such as Age Concern, which has written to me, and Shelter, which believes that the present proposals go too far. This evening I wish briefly—seeing the Minister's amendments encourages me to think that if I speak briefly I may achieve something that I am seeking, whereas when I spoke at length in Committee, I was unsuccessful —to say that we owe a great deal to those carers and that we must be seen to look after them.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled has spoken at great length and on different occasions about the important role that carers play in our society. We must recognise that and say that five years is far too long. Ideally, I should like the period to revert to six months, which is the purport of my amendments.
I notice and naturally welcome the Government's amendments. I notice also that in the way of these things it is possible to amend schedule 4 without amending clause 37. I wish that I had access to the same advice as my hon. Friend the Minister of State. Never mind, the purpose of his amendments is precisely the same as mine, with the single obvious exception that the period now becomes two years. Clearly, that is an improvement on the five-year qualification period that we were otherwise facing. That must be welcomed although I naturally wish to hear from my hon. Friend why his proposal is not for six months, as I moved in Committee and move now.
Ms. Primarolo: In Committee, the Minister said:
"We believe"—
that is, the Government believe—
"that succession rights have been as important as rent control in driving rented property off the market … It would be easy to seem caring by reinstating the right, but it would lead to further drying up of rented property."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 2 February 1988; c. 614.]
94
We totally refute that and ask the Minister, if he can, to provide us today with proof for his assertion. We believe, and organisations such as Age Concern believe, that there is no sign that succession rights have proved to be a difficulty in the private rented sector.
We believe that it is crucial to link the Government's policy on succession rights with their so-called "care in the community" policy. At present, it is estimated that one in five women over 40 are responsible for dependent relatives. The Government's care in the community policy increases the burden on women, but carers are often forgotten when housing policy is discussed. They were forgotten when this section of the Housing Bill was drafted, because their needs and responsibilities were totally ignored.
It is estimated that women living with elderly tenants in the private sector account for about 60 per cent. of private protected tenants aged over 65 years. The Government's proposals to remove from them the right to take over a tenancy or succeed to one on the death of a relative by elongating the period of qualification, seems wholly inappropriate.
At the moment, there are three significant proposed changes to the current arrangements in the Bill. First, where a tenant is protected under the Rent Act 1977—in other words an existing tenant when the Housing Act 1988 comes into force—a relative would have to have lived with the tenant for the previous five years instead of the present proposal of six months. The proposals in the Bill would enforce homelessness on those who have cared for relatives if they then die before having lived with them for five years. It is unbelievable that at a time of great stress and sorrow for families, carers might find themselves with the additional problem of homelessness.
The second proposed change would mean that a relative would have no right to succeed to a protected tenancy if the relative qualified under the five-year regulation. Instead, she—I say "she" specifically because I do not want that to be translated into "he" in Hansard in the sense that "he" always means "he or she"; in the majority of cases when we talk about carers we mean women in our communities—would succeed to an assured tenancy. In other words, that carer would probably face a massive increase in rent and be subject to the landlord's potential use of much more wide-ranging grounds for possession than those covered in the Rent Act 1977. The third change would mean that, where a tenancy begins after the Housing Act 1988 comes into force, the carer will have no right of succession.
The Government want to help landlords to increase the supply of rented accommodation by ensuring that, when an existing regulated tenancy comes to an end, any succession is to an assured tenancy only. The Government have stated that the rights of existing tenants will not be affected by the Bill. They continue to explain that that is the case. However, as I have said, and as Age Concern has been at great pains to stress, we are extremely anxious about the effects of the Bill on family members who care for elderly people.
Carers who have been living with a relative for less than five years may be made homeless when that relative dies. Many carers will have to decide to give up a home to care for a relative whose health is deteriorating. Age Concern also knows of no evidence that the right of succession is being abused and therefore why the period of qualification should be extended to five years.

95
8.15 pm
Carers who have been living with relatives for more than five years will be entitled to succeed, but only to an assured tenancy. Many of the carers who have given up their own accommodation may well be on low or modest incomes and are extremely unlikely to be able to afford the new market rents that they will be required to pay under the new regulations. Therefore, they will be forced out of their accommodation even though they have some nominal rights, simply because they cannot afford the rent.
The chances of their finding alternative accommodation are not high. Only assured or assured shorthold tenancies will be available in the independent rented sector. Most local authorities will have enormous housing waiting lists. For example, there are already 14,000 people on the waiting list in Bristol. There will be very little chance of a local authority being able to house a single woman.
Many people who give up their homes to care for an elderly relative in the private rented sector will not realise that they will be forfeiting their rights to the right to a home in future. The Government have put pressure on women to take up responsibilities and burdens in the community; women recognise that if they do not care for an elderly relative, no one else will because the Government have made cuts by their policy of care in the community. As a result, we know that, despite the restrictions facing carers in securing a home after the death of a relative, the considerations of care and love for the relative are likely to override the possibility that the carer might find herself homeless.
The Government are exploiting the feelings and responsibilities of many women in our community to pave the way for the greater exploitation of tenants in the private sector. That is simply not good enough.
The Government have issued guidance document LAC (85)2 to local authorities on the treatment of a dwelling house when an elderly home owner has to go into residential care leaving a relative at home. That acknowledges that, if that family member seems to have been a principal supporter and has no other home, local authorities have discretion to ignore or discount the capital value of the home in assessing whether it is to be used to pay for home fees.
The proposals on succession contradict the Government's care in the community policy which relies heavily on family carers. We do not support the Government's care in the community policies, but we believe that it is outrageous in one Newspeak that they should say that we should recognise and give a place to carers in the community and recognise their contributions, while another Ministry attempts to take rights away from the same people.
At a Conservative party conference fringe meeting in October 1987, organised by the National Council for Carers and their Elderly Dependants, the Minister for Health emphasised the Government's commitment to supporting informal carers, recognising that they are the bedrock on which community care provision is based. The lack of alternatives to family care further underlines the Government's dependence on formal carers. Yet the Government have the audacity to place before the House proposals which will mean that widows could find themselves homeless, having lost the right to succeed to a
96
protected tenancy, and that single parents moving in to care for elderly parents will lose their right to tenancy unless they have lived at the property for five years.
That is another example of the Government's attempt to exploit those in our community who give freely of their care and support, and who so allow the Government to avoid paying for the cost of that care out of the Exchequer. Because of that shame and the way in which the Government have treated carers in other areas, the Government should remove the restrictions in the Bill and allow the succession right proposed in the previous Rent Act to remain with a six-month qualification remaining intact.
We strongly made the case for that change in Committee, when the Minister said that he sympathised and that it was a difficult decision to make. I hope that today the Minister will say that, because of the problems which carers in particular face in our community, their right to succession on the death of a relative will be reinstated with a qualification period of six months rather than five years.
Mr. Simon Hughes: In Committee there was all-party agreement from the Back Benches and it is important that the same degree of agreement is in evidence now. I wish to underline both the points made by the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) and the important betrayal that there has been on the fundamental issue. Later, we shall debate succession rights within the new assured tenancy regime, but that is not the subject of this debate. It concerns succession rights for tenants currently protected by the Rent Act. Unless the Government are prepared to make a concession, their proposals give the lie to their assertion that they are not taking rights from people who already have them, because that is not the truth. The Government's succession proposals would clearly take away rights which people have acquired.
The Government have now come clean about that aspect, because a Government press release dated 7 June states:
"The succession rules are modified to make them fairer to landlords."
That is certainly true, and it is now the case. The Government's previous argument that the position of Rent Act tenants would not be changed is now shown to have been deceptive.
In Committee, it was argued that people should not lose rights retrospectively, and that to make people wait for five years when they have already qualified by virtue of the previous six-month rule would be unfair. Concessions have been made in that respect, which I acknowledge. What remains unaltered is the Government's position in respect of the request made in Committee—which we forced to a vote on both the clause and the schedule because of the strength of feeling—that the right to succession should remain if one were resident at the property in question for six months.
I could understand the logic of the argument, if the Government were to advance it, to increase the period of qualification to one year, because that is the present requirement for succession in the case of council property tenants. However, the Government are arguing for a period twice that length, of two years, and their case for that needs to be clearly made.
The hon. Members for Bristol, South and for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) made the case that the people

97
most vulnerable are in large measure women and the elderly. I wish to cite the concern felt about this matter by personalising it to some degree. Last December, my constituency office received a telephone call from a constituent of mine named Miss Fuller, who lives in Larcom street, Walworth. She wanted to know how her housing situation would be affected by the Bill. The point was not clear and the head of my constituency office discussed the matter with me. I made inquiries and wrote back to Miss Fuller. She in turn, as I had suggested, made inquiries of her landlord's managing agents. My advice to her was to seek a joint tenancy with her mother.
On 3 December, the landlord's agents replied:
"Thank you for your letter of 2nd December, regarding your application to have your present tenancy, which is in your Mother's name, to be expanded to include your own. I regret"—
here comes the surprise—
"at the present time that due to the fact that we have contracted to sell the freehold of No. 55, we are unable to agree to your request."
Incidentally. she did not know that the property was to be sold. The letter went on:
"However, as and when the sale has been completed, when we shall be continuing to manage the property, we will approach the new owners of the property with your request which of course at this stage I am unable to forecast the outcome."
Miss Fuller wrote to me in January:
"This is just to thank you for your letter of 7th December in which you promise to attempt an amendment in the new Housing Bill to ensure that people in my position have some security of tenure. Luckily, although my mother is in her late 60s, I am not yet in the position of having to 'care' for her, but I am sure that there are people in the position of 'carer' who will be affected by this Bill."
She goes on to express precisely the same concern as that raised by the hon. Member for Bristol, South—that she will be entitled only to an assured tenancy and not one protected by the Rent Acts. The reality of that is a substantially greater rent, for instead of paying a fair rent she will have to pay a market rent. In some years' time, she will herself be in her 50s or 60s and will probably be unable to succeed to the home in which she and her mother have already lived for seven years and in the street in which she has lived all her life. That is the reality of the situation.
The Government promised that the rights of tenants currently protected would not be adversely affected. The present proposal is a betrayal of that promise. The Minister should be decent to the House and to many vulnerable and important people in the community, and he should respond to massive external concern and give people the succession rights to which they are entitled.
Mr. Wigley: I am glad to participate in this debate, although I did not serve on the Standing Committee because I was attending another Committee at the time, as other hon. Members who served with me will remember.
This matter is of considerable concern to those involved in disability politics and in caring for the elderly. Coincidentally, in my constituency surgery this morning, I was presented with a case that underlines the kind of problems facing relatives when they give up their own homes to look after an elderly disabled person and that person then dies. The case I encountered this morning was most invidious, and none of the amendments would have catered for it. It involved an elderly relative who died just two weeks after the carers had given up their own home. They could not turn the clock back and retrieve their old
98
home or have a right to the new one. One can never have a safety net that will protect everyone. None the less, one must try to ensure that legislation makes the best possible sense under all circumstances. The Minister would have to make a very strong case for changing the existing provision. I am glad to support the amendment of the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), to bring even more all-party support for the change he proposes.
The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) spoke of the Government's care in the community policies. I would not wish to give any impression of being against those policies, but some of us have misgivings about whether they are sufficiently generous and go far enough. I am glad that the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) is in the Chamber, given the struggle we had to obtain adequate resources for the full implementation of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986, which he sponsored.
Ms. Primarolo: I was not seeking to denigrate the principle of care in the community. I was trying to say, perhaps not very well, that the Government make a sham of that principle. They are trying to get policy on the cheap rather than proper care in the community.
8.30 pm
Mr. Wigley: That is the point. I may disagree with the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) about that. Care in the community is not necessarily a cheaper option, but we should support it because it is right in terms of human dignity and family values. We should ensure that those who make enormous sacrifices, often late in life—and they are often single women—are cared for properly.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) mentioned the costs that can hit those who lose the security of the rent levels previously paid. That can indeed be a blow. Someone looking after an aging and infirm relative, having been in receipt of attendance allowance, probably at the higher level—and possibly mobility allowance as well—may find that all the money stops coming in at the same time. It is likely that such people will face increased rents at the very time when there is a reduced income to sustain the household. Often there is only one carer, whose age may make it very difficult for him or her to go out into the community to look for work—particularly in areas such as mine where there is high unemployment. We should introduce policies that do their utmost to secure the position. of carers.
The Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation arid Representation) Act 1986, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West contained a charter for carers. Concern has been expressed by those in all parts of the political spectrum about the necessity for better consideration for the needs of people who sacrifice so much for the disabled and elderly. While I acknowledge that the Government seem likely to move some way towards meeting their arguments, as it stands the Bill is retrograde.
Mr. Tom Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend when he reminds the House, as he does so often and so eloquently, that substantial sections of the 1986 Act that were so firmly supported have not yet been implemented. Does he not agree that it is tragic that the Government are trying to push through yet another

99
measure that will be conspicuously unhelpful to carers, when we have waited for two years for those sections to be implemented?
Mr. Wigley: Absolutely. A policy for disabled and eldely people, and for those who look after them, should be a seamless web. It should be integrated into a single thrust. Unfortunately, the present thrust seems negative in many ways. We are not making progress with the Act brought forward by my hon. Friend, which would be of such great benefit. Indeed, we seem again to be moving backwards. I appeal to the Government at least to try to provide some coherence in their legislative policies, and to ensure that they run from one Department to another.
The length of time for which a carer may be living with the person for whom he or she cares is open-ended. Carers move in not knowing whether the people for whom they are caring will live for a month, a year or 10 years. It can be an enormous commitment, and the sacrifice can be equally enormous. The position can be particularly difficult when the relative concerned dies after a fairly short time. Many district council areas have a qualification for housing residents: they must have lived in the area for a certain period—for a year of even two years. If someone has been there for six months or a year and the relative dies, they may not be entitled immediately to get rented accommodation from the district council. They will not be a priority under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977, yet they will be in danger of losing the tenancy.
I hope that the Government, in conceding that the threshold should be brought down to two years, as the amendments appear to suggest, will be prepared—if not tonight, in another place—to go along with the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Hornchurch and do what they can to maintain the status quo, so that at least we do not make things worse for the people who give so much.
Mr. McCartney: Thank you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker. Let me first congratulate you on your 15th anniversary in the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott), you and I are today celebrating 15 years in the House. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, have weathered the storm rather better than my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is most generous, but he really should not draw the Chair into the debate.
Mr. McCartney: You know what I am like, Madam Deputy Speaker. I never learn from experience in these matters.
I also congratulate the Under-Secretary of State on returning from Finland in time for the meat of the debate. The Minister of State was rather tetchy the other evening when she was not here to help him out then things got difficult. I am sure that this evening she will give us some words of wisdom about why the Minister has done a partial U-turn, insufficient to deal with my concerns and those of my hon. Friends.
The principle behind the amendment was debated on two occasions, on 19 January and 4 February. In both instances the Minister failed to take account of the cross-party objections to what was being proposed, and at
100
no time gave an indication that he was prepared to concede the principle for which we argued. He made his view clear to me—I had tabled the amendments that we were discussing on 19 January, when he said that he was "
coming too clean for the hon. Member for Macklesfield". —[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 19 January 1988; c. 305.]
He meant that he was prepared to reject the amendments. The Government felt that succession ran contrary to the whole concept of the Bill, in that the Bill was concerned with providing an immediate access to the owner of the property. If that access was through death, so be it. The Bill would give the landlord the opportunity to take possession of the property.
During that debate and the subsequent debate on 4 February, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) and I pursued the Minister, and my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) attempted at every stage to give the Minister an opportunity to backtrack and say that he was wrong. However, he rejected all our approaches. At the end of the debate, he refused in any circumstances to accept an amendment to help carers who have had to move house to look after elderly or chronically ill relatives.
We have dealt with amendments proposed by Age Concern. Before I came to the House, I dealt daily with the problems of the physically handicapped, many of whom were not elderly. Unfortunately, because of the nature of their illnesses, they never reached retirement or even middle age. In many instances elderly parents suffered infirmity or death, and a friend or another member of the family would have to move in to care for them. That group will be affected further by the Government's proposals.
This is a missed opportunity for the Minister to respond to the strength of feeling expressed on two occasions by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. The Minister has not answered the questions that I put to him on 4 February. At the time of death, the tenancy is in the market place. It is available for rent. If the family wishes to continue the tenancy, why are the Government proposing to restrict the right of that family to continue it? Even if the family is allowed to continue the tenancy, why are the Government changing its fundamental nature, particularly rent levels?
After a death, the landlord has a number of choices to make about the tenancy. The landlord could sell the property for commercial or residential use or he could allow the family to continue to live in the property. Unless the property goes to the tenant, it comes out of the market place. That is against the whole concept of the Bill. The Minister said that the purpose of the Bill is to retain tenancies in the market place, but if the landlord wishes to evict a tenant, he can then sell the property for commercial or other uses. That leaves local authorities and the Government with the problem of homelessness. There is no logic behind the Government's amendments. They say that they need to restrict succession because they want properties to remain in the private rented sector. However, if a family wishes to continue the tenancy, the legislation allows the landlord to remove the tenant and take the property out of the private rented sector. That will lead to homelessness.
The Bill also makes provision for new tenancies, but what is the logic of that? The property already has a tenant, who may have a wife or a child. If the tenant dies and the tenancy is offered to somebody else, the wife or the

101
child of the tenant will be left homeless. No additional accommodation is to be provided for them. What is the logic of that? If the tenant is removed from the property and the landlord decides not to offer it to another tenant at a higher rent but to sell the property for purposes unconnected with the private rented sector, it will lead to homelessness and to the removal of private sector rented property from the market place. That makes no sense.
I accept that the Minister is attempting to increase the private rented sector but the amendments mean that tenancies will be removed from the market place. Landlords will be able to take their property out of the private rented sector. The Minister must explain why he is doing that. It will happen every day after the Bill becomes an Act. He must explain this intellectual difficulty. The amendments will lead to a reduction in succession rights. The Government want to ensure that property remains in the private rented sector but tenants will be made homeless.
8.45 pm
The Minister has argued against the six months' entitlement. I do not understand why, because the Government say that they are committed to looking after the carers in the community. My hon. Friends referred to the arguments advanced by many organisations. The Secretary of State for Social Services says that local authorities and the social services should provide resources for care in the community. They want people to be looked after in the community instead of being transferred to institutional care, and they want those who are now in institutional care to be looked after in the home. However, the Government's proposals will lead to persons who are looking after sick people being evicted when those sick people die. Under this legislation, carers can be evicted.
It would not be so had if the Government were proposing to move a further amendment that would lead to additional resources being made available to local authorities and housing associations to provide for the carers. Instead, the Government are proposing to reduce still further the rights of local authorities and housing associations to provide for the carers.
This is an absolute hotch-potch, and the Minister knows it. In Committee he was purple with embarrassment. He may lift his bushy eyebrows and ask me what I am talking about, but he knows precisely what I am talking about. In Committee he was severely embarrassed about having to defend his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. What he said in Committee and is saying now is not his own view.
The Minister is an honourable gentleman. I do not believe that he wants a carer who has looked after a sick person for 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to be evicted. I do not believe for a moment that he wants to have to defend such a proposal at the Dispatch Box. Because he was severely embarrassed, the Minister, behind the scenes, went back to his right Hon. Friend the Secretary of State and said to him, "Look here, we have a problem, I cannot defend our policy. But it is a long time before the next general election, and as I am not prepared to resign we had better come up with a compromise." In reality, the compromise is meaningless to those in the community who will have to implement the legislation. It is meaningless for the carer and it is absolutely meaningless for the family.
If the Minister does not believe me, he should believe his hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire).
102
Despite our clashes in Committee, I believe that the hon. Gentleman is sincere. I do not believe for a minute that all that he is trying to do is to kid the electors of Hornchurch into thinking that he cares for his constituents. The Minister should believe those of his hon. Friends who, in their own guises, put forward the views of various organisations, because they are the same points as I am making.
I ask the Minister to come to the Dispatch Box not just to withdraw the amendments but to make a commitment that he will return to the House later, or in another place, with proposals to meet the concerns of hon. Members and of those in the community who look after the disabled. Without such a commitment to carers in the community, he will do a major injustice to carers. If somebody gives up his own home to care for a member of the family or a friend, he could eventually find himself thrown out into the street as the victim of market forces. I do not believe that any hon. Member would vote for such a change in the legislation.
For the third time, I ask the Minister to withdraw the amendments and to return to the House with a meaningful solution that will meet the concerns that were expressed in Committee. They were expressed not because of party-political rancour but because of genuine concern for those who work for the disabled, the carers in the community. I ask the Government to deal with the practicalities of the market place and with what will happen if the Bill becomes law. Even at this late stage, I cannot believe that the Minister will come to the Dispatch Box and defend the Secretary of State's proposals. By defending that, the Minister is defending the indefensible and the proposition that carers should be evicted because the person for whom they have cared has died.
Mr. Waldegrave: The House is seldom more eloquent than when it is disposing of someone else's property. That, after all, is what this is all about. Ever since the iniquitous Rent Act started, we have, where fair rents are lower than market rents—which I imagine is most of the country—been disposing of other people's property rather than facing the consequences of providing people with the resources necessary to buy into the market by voted housing benefit or by providing subsidised housing, also through funds voted by the House. More or less randomly, both parties, but especially the party which introduced the Rent Act, have taken certain people's property and also, rather randomly, passed the benefit of it to a group of tenants. That is not defensible.
When trying to get out of that muddle, we have the difficulty of having various vested interests to deal with. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), alone in the Committee, drew attention to the six-month people. We have taken the view that they, and others who live with people with Rent Act tenancies, should have some rights to security. All the eloquence, so easily deployed by the Opposition on this issue, is simply another way of saying that the people who should take responsibility for looking after such people are the landlords who have been caught at random by the Act. That is not a very high claim for justice.
The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) was honest enough to say that the Government did not move at all on this issue in Committee. There were three Divisions on closely related proposals which the Committee rejected. Nevertheless, we listened to the

103
arguments and we have come up with the compromise —getting out of such situations is bound to lead to some compromise—of suggesting that it would be right to offer security under the assured tenancy regime.
It must be a matter of judgment whether we alight on six months, two years or five years. We have settled on two years as a reasonable step forward and as the time after which one can reasonably say that a person has made their home somewhere. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) and others will recognise that we have gone some way to meet the point, although not as far as they would like. The further we go, the more we perpetuate the injustice inherent in the fact that the House has previously, more or less randomly, confiscated part of the capital value of a landlord's property, finding that an easier way to popularity than dealing with housing policy properly.
Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister has moved from five years to two years. That is an improvement. An argument has been made out for six months. The House will be interested to know why the Minister did not accept one year, as that is the period of security of tenure in other legislation which the Government have proposed, most noticeably for people in local authority property. It would seem logical to have a common base. The two years would also be one year better for those people who face the prospect of being protected for one and a half years less.
Mr. Waldegrave: The argument works both ways. We took the view that two years seemed a reasonable definition of establishment of a home. There is no magic about the figure.
I am well aware that the arguments that we had at great length in Committee exposed the fundamental divide between us. The Opposition think that the easy way to meet the commitment of caring is to take property which was originally let in good faith and, by Act of Parliament, confiscate part of the benefit of it and hand it out. They would be the first to observe, in their gleeful way, that there are more tenants than there are landlords, so that is a more popular way in which to proceed.
It is not a sensible course in terms of housing policy, however. The sensible course is for the Government and local authorities to take responsibility for the provision of low-cost rented housing, if it is needed, and for housing benefit to work in the market. The Rent Act is neither of those. That is why we want to end it as swiftly as possible and why we want to make as few additional loopholes as possible. It is also why, having made some concessions to the arguments made by my hon. Friends and some organisations, we do not wish to go further.
Mr. Morgan: The Minister has not said whether he has discussed the implications of the Griffiths report, which was published after the Committee stage finished but before Report, with his colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Security. If the Government intend to legislate on the basis of that report, they will clearly be backing more care in community. It would involve removing people from institutional care in hospitals to local authority care and providing back-up in the form of old people's homes or sheltered housing so that people do not have to stay in local authority institutional care. Such people may also be looked after by younger relatives or, in
104
the case of those suffering disabling diseases such as multiple sclerosis, they may be looked after by older relatives. If the Minister has not discussed these issues with his colleagues in the DHSS, he has not done his job properly.
Mr. Waldegrave: This is collective Government policy. Neither the Griffiths report nor any other part of DHSS policy will be based on the extension or continuation of Rent Act tenancies. If there are consequences elsewhere, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have to consider them, but he knows that it is central to the Government's stance that Rent Act tenancies should be wound down as soon as possible.
Mr. Soley: The Minister is disingenuous. If he really was concerned for carers, he would ensure that alternative accommodation was available for those who will be evicted as a result of the Government's proposals. He has not done that, and he is aware that the private sector will not be revived by abolishing the Rent Acts, as we all know that the problem is more to do with housing finance than it is to do with Rent Acts. Because of that, we shall divide the House.
Mr. Simon Hughes: This is a sad occasion. The Minister and his colleagues said in the early stages of the Bill that the rights of tenants would be safeguarded. They will not. Towards the end of his speech, the Minister revealed the reality: when it comes to choosing between the rights of people and the rights of property, the Government come down on the side of property. Whatever the compromise, it is not a compromise which meets need. It is a compromise which advances profit and the rights of people best equipped to make it.
9 pm
Mr. Squire: We have had a very important debate on a matter that affects many thousands of people at some stage in their lives. The House is right to devote time to it. I recognise that the House wishes to move to a Division shortly and I shall be brief in my concluding remarks.
Ms. Primarolo: The Minister referred to succession rights as the confiscation of property from the landlord. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is the same confiscation as the Government's right-to-buy policy from council housing committees? We are just a little surprised at the Government's reluctance to split both ways and at their double standards.
Mr. Squire: I recognise a whole range of distinctions, including that between state and private ownership. Even in concluding I am anxious not to lose the support of the hon. Lady for my amendment. I very much welcome the unanimous view from the Back Benchers of different Opposition parties. There was a hint of déjà vu about the speech of the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). Those of us who heard him demonstrate his ability to speak without hesitation, deviation and above all, notes, were impressed. When I sit on a future Committee I shall scan it very carefully to see whether the hon. Gentleman is on it and if he is I shall bring my blanket and my flask of warm drink. He has the ability to talk at great length, which is a tremendous attribute.

105
The important and serious point is that every hon. Member who spoke stressed that the role of carers is critical in our society and that the Bill as drafted does not assist them in any way.
My hon. Friend the Minister did his best—[Interruption.] I am by temperament one who seeks the middle ground, as is my hon. Friend. He has given half a loaf. Indeed, mathematicians among us would demonstrate that he has given more than half a loaf in moving from five years to two years. I hope only that further reflection—clearly some reflection brought us down from five years to two years—perhaps in another place will bring us down from two years to six months where I believe it should be.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 172, Noes 2

Division No. 348]

[9pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Flannery, Martin

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Allen, Graham

Foster, Derek

Alton, David

Foulkes, George

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Fraser, John

Armstrong, Hilary

Galbraith, Sam

Ashton, Joe

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

George, Bruce

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Barron, Kevin

Golding, Mrs Llin

Battle, John

Gordon, Mildred

Beckett, Margaret

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Bell, Stuart

Grocott, Bruce

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Harman, Ms Harriet

Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Bidwell, Sydney

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Blair, Tony

Heffer, Eric S.

Boateng, Paul

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Boyes, Roland

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Bradley, Keith

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Buchan, Norman

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Buckley, George J.

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Caborn, Richard

Illsley, Eric

Callaghan, Jim

Janner, Greville

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

John, Brynmor

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Canavan, Dennis

Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Lambie, David

Clay, Bob

Lamond, James

Clelland, David

Leadbitter, Ted

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Leighton, Ron

Cohen, Harry

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Lewis, Terry

Corbett, Robin

Litherland, Robert

Corbyn, Jeremy

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Cousins, Jim

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Crowther, Stan

McAllion, John

Cummings, John

McAvoy, Thomas

Dalyell, Tam

McCartney, Ian

Darling, Alistair

Macdonald, Calum A.

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

McKelvey, William

Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)

McLeish, Henry

Dewar, Donald

McNamara, Kevin

Dixon, Don

McTaggart, Bob

Doran, Frank

Madden, Max

Douglas, Dick

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Duffy, A. E. P.

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Maxton, John

Eastham, Ken

Meacher, Michael

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Meale, Alan

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Michael, Alun

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

106

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Short, Clare

Morgan, Rhodri

Skinner, Dennis

Morley, Elliott

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Soley, Clive

Mowlam, Marjorie

Steinberg, Gerry

Mullin, Chris

Stott, Roger

Nellist, Dave

Strang, Gavin

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

O'Brien, William

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

O'Neill, Martin

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Parry, Robert

Turner, Dennis

Patchett, Terry

Vaz, Keith

Pendry, Tom

Wall, Pat

Pike, Peter L.

Wareing, Robert N.

Primarolo, Dawn

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Randall, Stuart

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Redmond, Martin

Wigley, Dafydd

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Reid, Dr John

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Richardson, Jo

Wilson, Brian

Robertson, George

Winnick, David

Robinson, Geoffrey

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Rogers, Allan

Worthington, Tony

Rooker, Jeff

Wray, Jimmy

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Rowlands, Ted

Ruddock, Joan

Tellers for the Ayes:

Sheerman, Barry

Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Allen McKay.

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

NOES

Alexander, Richard

Conway, Derek

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Allason, Rupert

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Amess, David

Cope, Rt Hon John

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Couchman, James

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Cran, James

Ashby, David

Critchley, Julian

Atkins, Robert

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Atkinson, David

Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Baldry, Tony

Day, Stephen

Bellingham, Henry

Devlin, Tim

Bendall, Vivian

Dorrell, Stephen

Benyon, W.

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Bevan, David Gilroy

Dover, Den

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Dunn, Bob

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Durant, Tony

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Dykes, Hugh

Body, Sir Richard

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Fallon, Michael

Boswell, Tim

Farr, Sir John

Bottomley, Peter

Favell, Tony

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Fookes, Miss Janet

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Forman, Nigel

Bowis, John

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Forth, Eric

Brazier, Julian

Fox, Sir Marcus

Bright, Graham

Franks, Cecil

Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

Freeman, Roger

Browne, John (Winchester)

French, Douglas

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Fry, Peter

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

Gale, Roger

Buck, Sir Antony

Gardiner, George

Budgen, Nicholas

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Burns, Simon

Gill, Christopher

Butcher, John

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Butler, Chris

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Butterfill, John

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Carrington, Matthew

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Carttiss, Michael

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Cash, William

Gregory, Conal

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Chapman, Sydney

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Chope, Christopher

Grist, Ian

Churchill, Mr

Ground, Patrick

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Colvin, Michael

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

107

Hampson, Dr Keith

Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

Hanley, Jeremy

Moate, Roger

Hannam, John

Monro, Sir Hector

Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Harris, David

Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

Haselhurst, Alan

Moss, Malcolm

Hawkins, Christopher

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Hayes, Jerry

Mudd, David

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Nelson, Anthony

Hayward, Robert

Neubert, Michael

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Heddle, John

Nicholls, Patrick

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Hill, James

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Oppenheim, Phillip

Holt, Richard

Page, Richard

Howard, Michael

Paice, James

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

Patnick, Irvine

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Patten, John (Oxford W)

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Pawsey, James

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Hunter, Andrew

Portillo, Michael

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Powell, William (Corby)

Irvine, Michael

Price, Sir David

Irving, Charles

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Jack, Michael

Redwood, John

Jackson, Robert

Renton, Tim

Janman, Tim

Rhodes James, Robert

Jessel, Toby

Riddick, Graham

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Key, Robert

Roe, Mrs Marion

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Kirkhope, Timothy

Rost, Peter

Knapman, Roger

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Ryder, Richard

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Sackville, Hon Tom

Knowles, Michael

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Sayeed, Jonathan

Lang, Ian

Scott, Nicholas

Latham, Michael

Shaw, David (Dover)

Lawrence, Ivan

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Lee, John (Pendle)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Lilley, Peter

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Shersby, Michael

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Lord, Michael

Speller, Tony

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

McCrindle, Robert

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Sumberg, David

McLoughlin, Patrick

Tapsell, Sir Peter

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Malins, Humfrey

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Mans, Keith

Thorne, Neil

Marland, Paul

Twinn, Dr Ian

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Waldegrave, Hon William

Maude, Hon Francis

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Widdecombe, Ann

Miller, Sir Hal

Mills, Iain

Tellers for the Noes:

Miscampbell, Norman

Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. David Maclean.

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Question accordingly negatived.

Schedule 4

  STATUTORY TENANTS: SUCCESSION
  9.15 pm
  Amendments made: No. 275, in page 85, line 42, leave out '5 years"; and' and insert '2 years".'
  No. 276, in page 85, line 45, at end insert `and

  (d) at the end there shall be added the following sub-paragraph—,

  "(2) If the original tenant died within the period of 18 months beginning on the operative date, then, for the purposes of this paragraph, a person who was residing in the dwelling-house with the original tenant at the time of his death and for the period which began 6 months before the operative date and ended at the time of his death shall be taken to have been residing with the original tenant for the period of 2 years immediately before his death".
  No. 277, in page 86, line 13, leave out '5' and insert '2'.
  No. 278, in page 86, line 16, at end insert—
  '(2) If the first successor died within the period of 18 months beginning on the operative date, then, for the purposes of this paragraph, a person who was residing in the dwelling-house with the first successor at the time of his death and for the period which began 6 months before the operative date and ended at the time of his death shall be taken to have been residing with the first successor for the period of 2 years immediately before his death.".'
  No. 279, in page 86, line 19, at end insert—
  '8A. At the end of paragraph 11 there shall be inserted the following paragraph—

  "11A. In this Part of this Schedule 'the operative date' means the date on which Part I of the Housing Act 1988 came into force.".'

  No. 280, in page 86, line 27, leave out '5' and insert '2'.
  No. 281, in page 86, line 44, at end insert—
  '(5C) If the original occupier died within the period of 18 months beginning on the operative date, then, for the purposes of subsection (3) above, a person who was residing in the dwelling-house with the original occupier at the time of his death and for the period which began 6 months before the operative date and ended at the time of his death shall be taken to have been residing with the original occupier for the period of 2 years immediately before his death; and in this subsection "the operative date" means the date on which Part I of the Housing Act 1988 came into force."—[Mrs. Roe.]

Clause 38
  JURISDICTION OF COUNTY COURTS
  Amendment made: No. 18, in page 29, line 16, after 'III', insert 'and V'.—[Mrs. Roe.]
  Clause 39

    RENT ASSESSMENT COMMITTEES: PROCEDURE AND INFORMATION POWERS
    Mr. Tony Banks: I beg to move amendment No. 223, in page 30, line 21, at end insert:
    `(5) Proceedings for an offence committed under this section may be instituted by any of the following authorities:

    (a) councils or districts and London boroughs;

    (b) the Common Council of the City of London;

    (c) the Council of the Isles of Scilly.'

    .
    The amendment has had a chequered history which deserves a mention. It relates to clause 39 and sets out procedural matters in rent assessment committees. Clause 39(2) states that where an RAC has received an application to fix a market rent, it can serve a notice on the landlord

    109
    or tenant asking for information. The RAC may need to know, for example, the length of the tenancy, its terms and the details of the premises. It is possible that a landlord will seek to frustrate the proceedings by failing to provide the relevant information. Clause 39(3) states that if that person fails to provide information it will be a criminal offence. That is only right, because if the RAC is to have any credibility, it needs to have powers to ensure that its proceedings are not frustrated.
    Who should prosecute such an offence? That is the crucial point. At present, councils, districts and London boroughs have powers to prosecute for similar offences under paragraphs 7(2) and (3) of schedule 11 and sections 149 and 150 of the Rent Act 1977. In Committee, I thought that we had convinced the Government of the need to incorporate this power into the Bill, which will be the primary reference point for the new private rented sector.
    I had the memorable experience of being congratulated by the Under-Secretary of State—the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe)—who I am delighted to see in her place after having enjoyed herself in the vast, deep wastes of Finland. The hon. Lady has not told us what she was doing there. Perhaps she was studying igloo construction in case the nuclear winter hits us and we have to live in them. No doubt, when she replies she will tell us exactly what she was doing, if it is repeatable in the House. I remember the hon. Lady saying:
    "I congratulate and thank the hon. Member for Newham, North-West for drawing attention to this omission in the Bill."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 4 February 1988; c. 625.]
    I was grateful for such a gracious compliment. Unfortunately, it has not turned itself into a Government amendment on Report.
    In an earlier exchange, the Minister said that section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972 covers what we want. I said that I would check, but my advice is that it does not. In her letter to me, the Minister said:
    "This enables an authority to prosecute in any legal proceedings where they consider it expedient for the promotion or protection of the interests of the inhabitants in their area."
    [Interruption.] I realise that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) has just acquired a new pair of glasses, but I did not realise that he needed a hearing aid as well. Perhaps he should try to get one before the charges for all of them go up.
    The legal departments of most borough councils consider that section 222 of the 1972 Act relates to a number of the inhabitants of an area rather than one inhabitant. I do not want to push this matter too much, but perhaps the Minister could obtain some advice or look at the matter again and make it clear that section 222 could be used in respect of one inhabitant in an area. That would meet the terms of the amendment. If we wait a little longer perhaps someone will come to the Minister's assistance with that information. I hope that she will say that the terms of the amendment are acceptable to the Government or that section 222 covers a single individual.
    Mr. John Wheeler: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I regret the need to interrupt the proceedings of the House but I have only just succeeded in reaching the Chamber, notwithstanding the fact that a Division was called. I discovered that the doors to Norman Shaw North were locked and hon. Members
    110
    were unable to escape from the building to come and vote. Could the Serjeant at Arms be instructed to ensure that the doors are unlocked?
    Madam Deputy Speaker: That is probably one of the most genuine points of order that has ever been put to me. I shall certainly ensure that the Serjeant at Arms is so instructed.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Marion Roe): I thank the hon. Member for Newham. North-West (Mr. Banks) for welcoming me back to the House. I was on an official visit to Sweden and Finland to examine housing and planning matters on behalf of the Government.
    When the hon. Gentleman raised the issue in Committee, the Government agreed to consider it. On examining the matter further, we concluded that it was unnecessary to give local authorities a specific power to prosecute offences under clause 39 because of their general power to initiate prosecutions in section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972. That empowers local authorities to prosecute proceedings when they consider it expedient
    "for the promotion or protection of the interests of the inhabitants of their area".
    I have checked and I assure the hon. Gentleman that that provision also relates to a single inhabitant. I wrote to the hon. Gentleman on 5 May explaining why we did not think that an amendment was needed and I therefore hope that he will withdraw the amendment.
    Mr. Tony Banks: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  Clause 40

    INFORMATION AS TO DETERMINATIONS OF RENTS
    Mrs. Roe: I beg to move Government amendment No. 68, in page 30, leave out line 22.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will he convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 69 and 52
    Mrs. Roe: Clause 40 as drafted provides for the president of every rent assessment panel to keep and make available information concerning determinations of rent if required to do so by the Secretary of State. There has never been any question in our mind as to the need for such an order to be made. It has always been our firm intention that the requirement to maintain a register of rents should apply as soon as the Bill takes effect. In Committee it was argued that the legislation ought to leave no doubt as to the matter and we accepted the force of that argument. Amendment Nos. 68 and 69 are therefore designed to alter the wording of clause 40(1) to remove the discretion of the Secretary of State as to whether or not an order is made.
    Clause 40 as drafted refers to information relating to the determination of rents by the rent assessment committees. On further consideration, it seems to us that there is a strong case for widening the scope of the provision to take account of the distinctive procedure that will apply to rents under shorthold tenancies.
    The House will recall that where a shorthold tenant refers his rent to the rent assessment committee under clause 20, the committee is empowered to make a determination only where there is evidence that the existing rent is above market level. If such evidence is

    111
    unavailable, no determination is made. In those circumstances, it seems sensible that arrangements should be made for the publication of information as to rents which have been referred to rent assessment committees under clause 20 but in respect of which no determinations have been made.
    Such information will constitute a source of evidence as to the level of rents prevailing in the shorthold market. I am sure that that will be of help to shorthold tenants, both actual and prospective, who seek an indication whether their rent or proposed rent is in line with the market. It will also be useful to rent officers in carrying out their assessment functions for housing benefit purposes.
    With that aim in view, amendment No. 52 provides that the information kept and published under clause 40 may relate not just to rents actually determined by assessment committees but to rents which are the subject of references or applications to assessment committees. The details will be covered in the order made by the Secretary of State under the clause.
    I am sure that the Opposition will welcome the amendments, which fulfil an undertaking given in Committee.
    Mr. Soley: I thank the Minister for that and I accept that it is a concession.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendments made: No. 69, in page 30, line 24, leave out 'the order' and insert
    'an order made by the Secretary of State'.
    No. 52, in page 30, leave out lines 25 to 27 and insert—
    'as may be so specified with respect to rents under assured tenancies and assured agricultural occupancies which have been the subject of references or applications to, or determinations by, rent assessment committees.'—[Mrs. Roe.]

  Clause 42

    APPLICATION TO CROWN PROPERTY
    No. 61, in page 31, line 13, at end add—
    '(4) Where an interest belongs to Her Majesty in right of the Duchy of Lancaster, then, for the purposes of Chapters I to IV above, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster shall be deemed to be the owner of the interest.'—[Mrs. Roe.]

  Clause 43

    INTERPRETATION OF PART I
    No. 53, in page 31, line 47, at end insert- —
    '( ) For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared that any reference in this Part of this Act (however expressed) to a power for a landlord to determine a tenancy does not include a reference to a power of re-entry or forfeiture for breach of any term or condition of the tenancy.'—[Mrs. Roe]

  New Clause 25

    HOUSING FOR WALES
    '(1) There shall be a body known as Housing for Wales.
    (2) Schedule [Housing for Wales] to this Act shall have effect with respect to the constitution and proceedings of, and other matters relating to, Housing for Wales.
    (3) Housing for Wales shall have the functions conferred on it by the Housing Associations Act 1985 as amended in accordance with section [Interpretation of Part II and amendments of Housing Associations Act 1985] below.
    (4) All property in Wales which, immediately before the day appointed for the coming into force of this section, is held by the Housing Corporation shall on that day be transferred to and vest in Housing for Wales.
    (5) Any question whether any property has been transferred to Housing for Wales by virtue of subsection (4) above shall be determined by the Secretary of State.'.
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clauses 26 and 27.
    Government amendments Nos. 240, 241, 246 to 250, 242 to 245, 251 to 253 and 239.
    Mr. Grist: It gives me considerable pleasure to introduce this group of amendments, which deal principally with setting the legislative framework within which the activities of the Housing Corporation in Wales can be put on to an independent footing. Before I begin, I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning who, sadly, is not present at this moment, for giving notice in Standing Committee of our intention to table these amendments.
    The House may be interested to hear the background to this proposal. Hon. Members will be fully aware of the importance that the Government attach to the work of housing associations, in Wales as well as elsewhere. Associations bring care and voluntary dedication to the task of providing homes for those in need in society.
    To date, the role of the housing association movement in Welsh housing has been of steadily growing importance. The Housing Act 1974 was something of a watershed for the movement in that it created the present system of housing association grant and gave the Housing Corporation important new functions of administering Government financial assistance, registering housing associations and monitoring standards of probity and effectiveness. Before the implementation of the 1974 Act, housing association activity in Wales could best be described as of small scale and significance. Since 1974, however, thanks in no small part to the considerable effort put in by the existing Housing Corporation, the movement has grown considerably in strength to a point at which today there are almost 100 registered associations with a total of nearly 20,000 properties under management in Wales.
    The new financial regime for associations which the Bill will help to establish will be every bit as important for the future development of the movement as were the provisions of the 1974 Act. Our firm expectation is that the new regime will result in significant increases in the contributions made by associations to meeting housing needs in this country.
    9.30 pm
    Against the background of the new opportunities that the Bill will herald for associations, the Government have decided that the time is now right for the work of associations in Wales to be supervised by a body that has its roots in Wales, can develop a depth of understanding about the housing problems that we face in the Principality, and is fully capable of leading the development of strategies to meet problems within a policy framework set by the Secretary of State for Wales.

    113
    Although the provisions necessary to establish Housing for Wales appear somewhat formidable, there is but a single point of principle involved, as I shall explain.
    I can tell the House that the idea of establishing Housing for Wales, which will be known in Welsh as Tai Cymru, was the subject of a consultation paper issued by the Welsh Office last December. It was circulated to all local authorities in Wales, all housing associations active in Wales, and to representatives of professional and voluntary bodies with direct interest in Welsh housing, including the building industry, consumer associations, and groups concerned with the provision of housing for those with special needs.
    I am pleased to inform the House that, of more than 40 substantive responses made to the consultation paper, only one was opposed to the principle of establishing the independence of the Housing Corporation in Wales. The great majority of responses proffered overwhelming support for the proposal. On the basis of that support within Wales, I ask the House to give its approval to this measure.
    It might be helpful for hon. Members if I explain briefly what each of the amendments is intended to do. Before I do that, I should like to make two general points about the legislative basis that we wish to establish for Housing for Wales.
    First, as I have said, Housing for Wales is intended to perform in Wales those functions that presently fall or are proposed to fall to the Housing Corporation as a result of this Bill. We are not seeking to give Housing for Wales any more or any fewer powers to exercise in Wales than the Housing Corporation will have to exercise in England.
    Secondly, where the legislation gives the Secretary of State powers to introduce directions governing the exercise of their functions by the corporation, it will be possible for different directions to he proposed for Housing for Wales. Whether or not that is done will initially be a matter for consideration by the Secretary of State, in consultation with Housing for Wales and other relevant groups within Wales as necessary.
    New clause 25, together with amendment No. 240, the new Schedule entitled "Housing for Wales", establishes Housing for Wales as a body corporate, controlled by a board of members appointed by the Secretary of State, and effectively with the same powers and functions as the Housing Corporation. The schedule sets out the detailed provisions relating to the status, membership, staff and proceedings of Housing for Wales. With the exception of certain matters concerning the board and dealing with staff —paragraphs 7 to 11—for which there are no comparable provisions relating to the Housing corporation, the schedule mirrors schedule 6 to the Housing Associations Act 1985, which sets the constitution of the Housing Corporation. The provisions relating to staff follow closely the relevant proposed provisions relating to the transfer of the Housing Corporation's functions in Scotland to Scottish Homes.
    New clause 26 provides for the transfer of registered housing associations in Wales from the register of the Housing Corporation to that of Housing for Wales at an appointed time. Housing for Wales will thus assume the role of registration, funding, and monitoring body for those associations from then on. The primary responsibility of Housing for Wales will be in relation to associations registered with it—that is, with associations based in Wales. That does not mean, however, that English-based
    114
    associations working in Wales must return to the other side of the border. Their contribution to meeting housing need in Wales has been greatly valued and, where appropriate, efforts will be made to encourage them to continue their operations in Wales.
    New clause 27 replaces clause 54 as it appears in the Bill, as amended in Standing Committee. It revises the definition of "corporation" to include Housing for Wales. It also introduces a new schedule—listed as amendment No. 241—which brings together all the proposed amendments to the Housing Associations act 1985 needed to facilitate the establishment of Housing for Wales and Scottish Homes, which is being established by the Housing (Scotland) Bill 1988. More specifically, the schedule brings together the amendments to the 1985 Act that were previously set out in schedule 12 to this Bill, amendments to the act arising from the establishment of Housing for Wales, and amendments that reproduce the effect of amendments made by schedule 3 to the Housing (Scotland) Bill to allow for the creation of Scottish Homes.
    The schedule also contains several provisions that make detailed amendments to strengthen the Housing Corporation's powers of supervision over registered housing associations. Such powers will, of course, also be available to Housing for Wales and Scottish Homes.
    Under the new housing policies in the Bill, the supervisory role of the corporations will become even more important. In particular, potential private financiers will be looking for a reassurance that mechanisms are in place that will ensure standards of probity and allow prompt action against misdemeanours. The existing powers have served us quite well since 1974, but experience has brought a number of gaps and deficiencies to light.
    The changes in this schedule are of a technical nature, drawing in some instances on precedents in other legislation. They relate primarily to the corporations' powers to conduct formal inquiries under section 28 of the Housing Associations Act 1985 into the affairs of associations and act on the findings of those inquiries. Since 1974, the Housing Corporation has set up about 20 inquiries, either prompted by indications of malpractice or arising from serious financial or management difficulties. In some cases, the corporation has found that the restrictions on its powers have made it more difficult to establish the facts and have prevented it from acting quickly to put matters right.
    Those amendments do not represent an accretion of power to the corporations. They merely close a number of gaps which the Government believe ought to be closed in order to ensure that the corporations are properly equipped to supervise that important and growing area of financial activity.
    There are in addition a whole raft of consequential amendments arising from the Housing for Wales proposals. I will deal with them briefly.
    Amendment 239 amends the long title of the Bill to make reference to the establishment of Housing for Wales.
    Amendments 242 to 244 relate to the amendments to be made to schedule 12 in order to accommodate those which relate specifically to the establishment of Housing for Wales; while amendment 245 lists those consequential amendments which are required to various Acts to take account of the fact that Housing for Wales will in future be undertaking the functions in Wales which are presently undertaken by the Housing Corporation.

    115
    Amendment 246 deletes the specific reference to the Housing Corporation in clause 45, and replaces it with "corporation" as the generic term to be used in the legislation for both the Housing Corporation and Housing for Wales.
    Amendment 247 enables the two corporations to agree between themselves what proportion of grant should be deemed to have been paid to an association if a grant-aided property is transferred from an association registered with one corporation to an association registered with the other.
    Amendment 248 deletes clause 52. That is a drafting amendment consequential on the provisions contained in the clause now appearing in paragraph 34 of the new schedule detailing amendments to the Housing Associations Act 1985.
    Amendment 249 deletes clause 54. That allows the introduction of new clause 27, dealing with the interpretation of part II and amendments to the Housing Associations Act 1985.
    Amendment 250 brings Housing for Wales within the scope of clause 98. That deals with disposals of property under tenants' choice. Once properties have been acquired under tenants' choice, their subsequent disposal will be subject to the Secretary of State's consent. The effect of this amendment is to place a obligation on the Secretary of State to consult Housing for Wales if he receives a proposal to dispose of land in Wales owned by a registered housing association.
    Finally, amendments 251 to 252 make additions to the schedule of repeals consequent upon the terms of the various amendments I have already mentioned.
    The amendments I have outlined are necessary to give Wales its own housing corporation to help tackle its own housing problems. I urge all hon. Members to agree to their addition to the Bill.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: I say at the outset that I regard new clause 25 and the other schedules and amendments in the context of Welsh housing as a whole. A cursory glance at the Government's own financial statistics reveals the cut in resources and the neglect of the past nine years. Homelessness in Wales now sticks out like a sore thumb.
    The important point is that the Housing Bill has been through its Standing Committee. Now, at this late stage, the Housing Corporation has had its Welsh arm lopped off, to be created into a new body called Housing for Wales. Why should that new development be sprung on the people of Wales so belatedly? Housing for Wales will essentially be a quango. There are hordes of them in Wales. They are thoroughly undemocratic, unrepresentative bodies, which are unduly open to governmental interference and pressure. What is more, there was no opportunity in Committee to discuss the proposal in depth.
    It could be said that Scotland has had a fairer deal because the proposal for the Scottish body, to be called Scottish Homes, was included in the original draft of the Bill. Wales has again been neglected, largely because the Conservative party has such a negligible following there. Our English Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) has considerable powers under the proposals. As the Under-Secretary of State has already
    116
    said, those powers extending to the appointment of staff, including the chief executive, are laid down in statute. Housing for Wales will have far fewer staff than its English equivalent. The Under-Secretary of State told us that it will be called Tai Cymru. However, I tend to think of it as "Walker's poodle".
    The predecessor of the present Secretary of State for Wales had quite a long run at the Welsh Office—eight years. He regularly and systematically stuffed bodies throughout Wales with Conservative placemen who are unrepresentative of the people of Wales. Lord Crickhowell has now departed to a new and highly remunerative life in quango-land. Perhaps the belated nature of new clause 25 is due to the sensational proposals which have been reported as being in the mind of the present Secretary of State. He is reported as speaking about getting rid of council housing in Wales. Apparently, he spoke about properties being sold to their sitting tenants for £1 a time. Those are the sort of gimmicks that we have come to expect from the right hon. Member for Worcester.
    In fairness to the Under-Secretary of State, he touched on the issue of staff. The people who will be transferred from the Housing Corporation to Housing in Wales will be encouraged to stay in Wales. I fully appreciated that point, but we would like assurances that those transferred will receive the same pay and conditions as hitherto.
    In conclusion, and bearing in mind the criticism that I have made, we broadly support the creation of this new body for Wales, but I repeat that we deeply resent the way in which it has been introduced.
    Mr. Wigley: I should like to extend a welcome to this initiative of Tai Cymru. Although many people would have liked greater discussion as the ideas were being developed, that is not a reason for being against the ideas when they do arise. That initiative is taken against a background of pretty appalling housing in Wales. There are housing problems in the old industrial valleys of south Wales, in the slate quarrying towns of north Wales and also in many rural areas. In the Dwyfor area in my constituency, the worst figures were revealed in the recent housing condition survey published by the Welsh Office. The relevance of housing associations and therefore the relevance of Tai Cymru arises in terms of the difficulties facing local people in securing adequate housing for their needs.
    9.45 pm
    The problems are different in many areas in Wales. I can speak from experience of my constituency where more and more local people find it almost impossible to buy houses because of the pressure of people moving into the area who can pay enormous sums for houses. More and more people understandably want to leave the south-east of England to go to the beautiful country in Gwynedd. They can sell a house down here for £200,000 or £250,000 and buy a house in my area for £50,000 or £60,000. They can then bank about £200,000 and live off the difference. Down here, £50,000 or £60,000 may be cheap for a house, but that is a large sum in areas like mine, where salaries of £5,000 or £6,000 a year may be the norm and where the mortgage capacity might be £20,000 to £25,000. In other words, people find that they cannot compete in the open market to buy houses.
    In recent weeks, many constituents have told me that their children cannot afford a house when they get

    117
    married. That runs side by side with the fact that the rented housing stock has been sold off. Very few new rented units have been built, so waiting lists for houses in towns like Pwllheli in my constituency have increased substantially. I have received complaints from people in Pwllheli that it is very difficult to obtain rented accommodation, even though this winter the total male unemployment level in Pwllheli was 24·7 per cent. That was one of the worst levels in Wales. If people cannot afford to compete to buy houses and if there is no rented housing available, we will build up an enormous problem. The Government must be aware of that problem and the magnitude of what it could lead to in future.
    The relevance of housing associations is considerable. If they have the resources—I emphasise that, because the amount of resources available to Tai Cymru is critical—they may be able to move into the private housing sector to buy up some houses that need to be renovated and repaired, use public sector resources for that purpose and therefore let those properties optimistically at a rent that people can afford. Housing associations have warned of the dangers from the present legislation. Rent levels might be so high as to be out of the reach of ordinary people.
    The average income of people living in housing association houses in Cymdeithas Tai Eryri, a housing association in my constituency, has been calculated at under £60 a week. That is the income level per household. If that level has to finance a rent which must attract capital from the private sector, there could be considerable problems.
    One would not expect rent to be more than 25 per cent. of total income. That suggests a rent capability in many housing association houses of about £15 a week. However, we know that, if housing associations have to go to the private sector for part of their capital, the pressure will be for higher rents.
    Housing associations in Wales have an opportunity, to make a considerable impact on the problems of homelessness and poor housing. However, that can be achieved only if housing associations have adequate resources to buy in the housing stock they need and to repair it, and if they can do that job with public funds in a way that enables them to charge a rent that their tenants looking for housing can pay. Those are the challenges facing those who are to be involved in Tai Cymru.
    If they are afforded sufficient resources and are allowed enough flexibility to get on with the job, those people can make a considerable contribution. In no way do I wish to belittle the part played by housing associations. Some of them are first-class, not only in rural areas but also in dealing with the disabled and the elderly. There are a number of Welsh housing associations doing excellent work. However, they will have to work within the confines of both the Bill and the finances which the Government make available.
    I acknowledge the problems to which the hon. Member for Newport East (Mr. Hughes) referred, when he spoke of establishing another quango. It will be another quango, and that will create problems—but until we have an elected democracy in Wales, I suspect that we shall have to live with quango Wales. It has become a feature of our lives. Meanwhile, the question is whether the new body can do some reasonable work. I believe that it provides an opportunity, and when the Under-Secretary of State winds up I should like to hear from him more commitment in terms of the resources which are to be made available, to
    118
    ensure that the housing associations looking to Tai Cymru for a lead will be able to respond in a way that is meaningful, in meeting the needs of the people they serve. If the associations can do that, it will be a tremendous opportunity. If they cannot, it will be merely window dressing.
    Mr. Alun Michael: This is a nominal attempt to create a Welsh body, which is obviously essential, but what will it do to improve the Welsh housing situation? It will be in the hands of the Secretary of State for Wales, and he will continue to decide matters and not the new body, given the stranglehold of nomination and controls he will have over it.
    Ministers have had to be reminded by their own Back Benchers that small housing associations must be able to do their job, but what are the Government trying to do with this new body and with other amendments before the House? Will they place unrealistic expectations on housing associations through the new body in Wales, so as to cover up the Government's lack of a real housing policy? The Minister spoke of the new body having roots in Wales, but it will be dominated to the point of dictatorship by a Secretary of State whose roots are not based in Wales.
    Housing associations which are small and community based, and which are sensitive to specific community or special needs, can do a tremendous job. I know of many such examples in Cardiff. However, is the new body meant to preside over the replacement of public sector housing run by councils until now? If that is the intention, the new body cannot do that job. I and many of my hon. Friends would not pretend that public sector management of council houses has been perfect over the years, but neither has it been as bad as Conservative Members seem to believe. I served on the local housing authority for 15 years and saw the situation improve over a period.
    The real hurt has been the lack of Government resources since 1979, giving rise to unacceptable distortions, family pressures and homelessness. What will the creation of Housing for Wales do for housing in Wales? The intentions of the Secretary of State for Wales and the Government are unclear. There is in the Bill a black hole which cannot be disguised by amendments such as this. What will the Government do to support housing associations and to provide sufficient housing to meet the needs of the Welsh people?
    There is an English document relating to the transfer of housing from the council sector. We are told that there will be a significantly different document for Wales. That is just as well, because the English document is appalling, based on a sectarian and narrow view. Where and when will the announcement about the policy for Wales be made? That will surely provide the meat for a great deal of the activity to be supervised by the new body.
    The Government's intentions are unclear. For the Minister to refer to the technicalities of the amendments without explaining what the Secretary of State will do through this body—how he will enable housing associations to do a real job for Wales—is entirely inadequate. The Minister has not made a case for the body; he has merely said that it would be advantageous to have such a body for Wales. We all agree with that, but where is the real direction and policy for it and for housing associations in Wales? We have heard nothing of that.
    Mr. Morgan: I have two major criticisms to put to the Minister in the brief time that remains. One relates to my experience as the only Welsh Opposition Member on the Standing Committee. I feel intense resentment, as will every member of the housing profession in Wales. The equivalent body for Scotland, Scottish Homes, was introduced at the proper time so that the legislation could be gone through line by line and proper consultation could take place with the local authorities, the Institute of Housing and the National Federation of Housing Associations about the powers and resources that it would be given. However, the Government are willing to try to get away with things in Wales. They consider Wales to be an afterthought.
    If the Minister is honest, he will have to admit that the Government would not have tried this with Scotland. Such "afterthought" treatment produces intense anger among tenants and housing professionals in Wales—and, above all, among Opposition Members who, having submitted their names for membership of the Standing Committee, find that key items of legislation for Wales are left out until the Report stage.
    We are not willing to put up with that. The amendments contain 12 pages of detailed verbiage on the setting up of Housing for Wales, but there is no chance for proper line-by-line examination in Committee, although that is what a Committee stage is for. That is appalling treatment of the Principality. Rather than the lame excuses that the Minister of State has given so far, we need proper treatment of Welsh legislation in Committee. We shall not stand for this again. I put that on record as a member of a Committee that considered a very long Bill.
    I also object to the way in which the Minister has introduced the content of the Bill. He has said—with the Welsh Office's now familiar line in hubris—"We are setting up a new housing corporation to deal with Wales's housing needs." But there has been no word of how the corporation will match those special needs. Everyone who lives in Wales knows what they are. We know that Welsh housing tends on average to be much older than housing in England, because of the absence of any development in Wales between the wars. We also know that the social characteristics of Wales have made it the United Kingdom region which depends most on traditional heavy industries and that it tends to have a higher proportion of housing without the basic amenities. Moreover, incomes are insufficient for householders to carry out improvements of their own accord in the free market way possible in other parts of the United Kingdom. Wales depends much more on the public sector for the finance needed to bring Welsh housing up to standard.
    There are many other problems. For instance, Wales has heavy rainfall and high winds, and hilly slopes cause damp to penetrate. Are the Government telling us that the resources available to Housing for Wales—or Tai Cymru, to use its short title—will be adequate? If so, will the Minister tell us what kind of problems he is talking about, rather than merely say that the body will deal with Wales's housing needs? Which needs is he talking about and how will it deal with them? So far he has given us shrinkage masquerading as growth. The funds available to Housing for Wales and the Housing Corporation for England, will be 10 per cent. less than those currently available to the Housing Corporation for England and Wales.
    In his grand introduction the Minister told us that Housing for Wales will do the job. We strongly resent the
    120
    implication that Housing for Wales will be capable of handling the growing housing needs of Wales. Much of the housing in Wales was built about 100 years ago and it is beginning to crumble. There was a massive expansion of housing between 1870 and 1914, from Cardiff to Blaenau Ffestiniog. It will land us with appalling problems over the next 20 to 30 years.
    I welcome the fact that we have a new Secretary of State for Wales. He says that he will not choose the members of the quango from the Abergavenny triangle, which the previous Secretary of State for Wales tended to do. He believed that the members of all quangos should belong to the same cocktail party set so that the lines of communication would be short; they would then be able to communicate easily with each other. There will be different faces on the quango, but it will still be a quango.
    It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
    Ordered,
    That, at this day's sitting, the Housing Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Durant.]
    Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Mr. Morgan: If the words Tai Cymru are to mean anything, the body must expand. It must be capable of handling the massive housing needs of Wales. If not, it will be given the title of Ty Bach Cymru because it will be unable to carry out the job.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) is far away on Welsh Grand Committee business.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): Where is he?
    Mr. Hughes: He is with his colleagues in the far east. My hon. friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) said that when he served on the Welsh Grand Committee he never went further than Aberystwyth, so something has obviously changed.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor referred in Committee, as did other Opposition Members, to the need for the provision of an independent housing organisation for Wales. We on these Benches welcome the creation of Tai Cymru, or Housing for Wales. I do so as an expatriate Welshman by name, by blood and by upbringing.
    We now have a shell and a structure, but it will not meet the substantial housing needs of rural Wales unless it is provided with sufficient finance to do the job. Those who seek homes in Wales, particularly those who depend on housing associations when they begin married life, need homes at rents that they can afford to pay. That need is increasing in the disadvantaged rural areas, particularly in the north and the west of the Principality.
    I hope that the precedent of Scottish Homes and Housing for Wales will be followed in England by devolution to the regions. The Housing Corporation should cease to be an ever-growing central quango. Devolution should lead to management being near to the services and to the people. I welcome the creation of Housing for Wales, and I hope that it means that the management of housing throughout England will soon be devolved. The Government must put their money where their words are, behind Housing for Wales. They must not allow it to become a token gesture towards alleviating the substantial housing crisis in the Principality.
    Mr. Grist: It is a pity that the official Opposition so typically mean-minded and ungenerous about a proposal that has been welcomed by the local councils, the building industry, the building societies, the Housing Corporation and the housing associations. It is a pity that they cannot welcome bringing home to Wales the control over housing that at present is controlled by a quango in London. They complain about it being a quango. It is a quango now. I do not understand their approach.
    The approach of the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) was particularly pernicious. He complained that we had not given enough time to the Opposition, but we certainly gave enough time to the people of Wales, and to those who are most closely involved with housing in Wales to make their opinions known. We provided sufficient time for constituents to contact their Member of Parliament and tell them what they thought, if they had any fears about the proposal. I have absolutely no hesitation in saying that it received the wholehearted support of the vast majority of the people of Wales. I am sorry that it has not had the support of those who sit on the Opposition Benches.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New Clause 26

    TRANSFER TO HOUSING FOR WALES OF REGULATION ETC. OF HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS BASED IN WALES
    `(1) Every registered housing association which, immediately before the appointed day,

    (a) is a society registered under the 1965 Act and has its registered office for the purposes of that Act in Wales, or

    (b) is a registered charity and has its address for the purposes of registration by the Charity Commissioners in Wales,

    shall on the appointed day cease to be registered in the register maintained by the Housing Corporation under section 3 of the Housing Associations Act 1985 and, by virtue of this subsection, he deemed to be registered in the register maintained by Housing for Wales under that section.
    (2) Not later than one month before the appointed day, the Secretary of State shall notify every registered housing association which appears to him to be one which on that day will be deemed to be registered as mentioned in subsection (1) above of that fact and of the effect of that subsection.
    (3) As soon as may be after the appointed day, Housing for Wales shall give notice of any registration effected by virtue of subsection (I) above,—

    (a) if the housing association is a registered charity, to the Charity Commissioners; and

    (b) if the housing association is a society registered under the 1965 Act, to the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies.

    (4) All rights, liabilities and obligations to which, immediately before the appointed day, the Housing Corporation was entitled or subject in relation to—

    (a) any registered housing association to which subsection (1) above applies, and

    (b) land in Wales held by an unregistered housing association,

    shall on that day become rights, liabilities and obligations of Housing for Wales.
    (5) Any question whether any rights, liabilities or obligations have become rights, liabilities or obligations of Housing for Wales by virtue of subsection (4) above shall be determined by the Secretary of State.
    (6) In this section—
    "the 1965 Act" means the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965: and
    "the appointed day" means the day appointed for the coming into force of this section.'.—[Mr. Waldegrave.]
    Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New Clause 27

    INTERPRETATION OF PART II AND AMENDMENTS OF HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS ACT 1985
    `(1) In this Part of this Act—

    (a) "the 1985 Act" means the Housing Associations Act 1985;

    (b) "the Corporation" means the Housing Corporation or, as the case may be, Housing for Wales; and

    (c) subject to paragraph (b) above, "the Corporation" and other expressions used in this Part have the same meaning as in the 1985 Act.

    (2) The 1985 Act shall have effect subject to the amendments in Schedule[Amendments of Housing Associations Act 1985] to this Act, being amendments—

    (a) extending the supervisory powers conferred by Part I of the 1985 Act,

    (b) making provision incidental to and consequential upon the establishment by this Part of this Act of Housing for Wales and the establishment by the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988 of Scottish Homes; and

    (c) making provision incidental to and consequential upon other provisions of this Part of this Act and the provisions of Part IV of this Act.

    (3) In Schedule[Amendments of Housing Association Act 1985] to this Act,—

    (a) Part I contains amendments of Part I of the 1985 Act, including amendments which reproduce the effect of amendments made by Schedule 3 to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988 with respect to Scottish Homes; and

    (b) Parts II and III contain amendments of Parts II and III respectively of the 1985 Act.

    (4) Without prejudice to the operation of Schedule 3 to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988 in relation to anything done before the day appointed for the coming into force of this section, for the purpose of giving effect to the amendments in Part I of Schedule[Amendments of Housing Association, 4ct 1985] to this Act, the said Schedule 3 shall be deemed never to have come into force.'.—[Mr. Waldegrave.]
    Brought up, read the first and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    `HOUSING FOR WALES Status
    1.—(1) Housing for Wales is a body corporate and is in this Schedule referred to as "the Corporation".
    (2) The Corporation is a public body for the purposes of the Prevention of Corruption Acts 1889 to 1916.
    (3) The Corporation shall not be regarded—

    (a) as the servant or agent of the Crown; or

    (b) as enjoying any status, immunity or privilege of the Crown; or

    (c) as exempt from any tax, duty, rate, levy or other charge whatsover, whether general or local;

    and its property shall not be regarded as property of, or held on behalf of, the Crown.

    Membership
    2.—(1) The members of the Corporation shall be—

    (a) not less than six nor more than eight persons appointed by the Secretary of State; and

    (b) the chief officer of the Corporation appointed under paragraph 7 below;

    and the members appointed under paragraph (a) above are in this Schedule referred to as the "appointed members".
    (2) Before appointing a person to be a member of the Corporation the Secretary of State shall satisfy himself that he will have no financial or other interest likely to affect prejudicially the exercise of his functions as a member; and the Secretary of State may require a person whom he proposes to appoint to give him such information as he considers necessary for that purpose.
    3.—(1) The appointed members shall hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms of their appointment, subject to the following provisions.
    (2) A member may resign his membership by notice in writing addressed to the Secretary of State.
    (3) The Secretary of State may remove a member from office if he is satisfied that—

    (a) he has been adjudged bankrupt or made an arrangement with his creditors;

    (b) he is incapacitated by physical or mental illness;

    (c) he has been absent from meetings of the Corporation for a period longer than three consecutive months without the permission of the Corporation; or

    (d) he is otherwise unable or unfit to discharge the functions of a member, or is unsuitable to continue as a member.

    (4) The Secretary of State shall satisfy himself from time to time with respect to every appointed member that he has no financial or other interest likely to affect prejudicially the exercise of his functions as a member; and he may require an appointed member to give him such information as he considers necessary for that purpose.
    Chairman and Deputy Chairman
    4.—(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint one of the appointed members to be Chairman and may appoint one to be Deputy Chairman; and the members so appointed shall hold and vacate those offices in accordance with the terms of their appointment, subject to the following provisions.
    (2) The Chairman or Deputy Chairman may resign by notice in writing addressed to the Secretary of State.
    (3) If the Chairman or Deputy Chairman ceases to be a member of the Corporation, he also ceases to be Chairman or Deputy Chairman.
    Remuneration and allowances
    5.—(1) The Secretary of State may pay the Chairman, Deputy Chairman and appointed members such remuneration as he may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine.
    (2) The Corporation may pay them such reasonable allowances as may be so determined in respect of expenses properly incurred by them in the performance of their duties.
    Pensions
    6.—(1) The Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine to pay in respect of a person's office as Chairman, Deputy Chairman or appointed member—

    (a) such pension, allowance or gratuity to or in respect of that person on his retirement or death as may be so determined; or

    (b) such contributions or other payments towards provisions for such pension, allowance or gratuity as may be so determined.

    (2) As soon as may be after the making of such a determination the Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament a statement of the amount payable in pursuance of the determination.
    (3) Sub-paragraph (1) does not apply in the case of a member who has been admitted in pursuance of regulations under section 7 of the Superannuation Act 1972 to participate in the benefits of superannuation fund maintained by a local authority.
    (4) In such a case the Secretary of State shall make any payments required to be made to the fund in respect of the member by the employing authority and may make such deductions from his remunerations as the employing authority might make in respect of his contributions to the fund.
    Staff
    7.—(1) There shall be a chief executive of the Corporation.
    (2) After consultation with the Chairman or person designated to be chairman of the Corporation, the Secretary of State shall make the first appointment of the chief executive on such terms and conditions as he may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine.
    (3) The Corporation, with the approval of the Secretary of State, may make subsequent appointments to the office of chief executive on such terms and conditions as the Corporation may, with the approval of the Secretary of State given with the consent of the Treasury, determine.
    8.—(1) The Corporation may appoint, on such terms and conditions as it may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, determine, such other employees as it thinks fit.
    (2) In respect of such of its employees as it may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, determine, the
    124
    Corporation shall make such arrangements for providing pensions, allowances or gratuities as it may determine; and such arrangements may include the establishment and administration, by the Corporation or otherwise, of one or more pension schemes.
    (3) The reference in sub-paragraph (2) above to pensions, allowances or gratuities to or in respect of employees of the Corporation includes a reference to pensions, allowances or gratuities by way of compensation to or in respect of any of the Corporation's employees who suffer loss of office or employment or loss of diminution of emoluments.
    (4) The Secretary of State with the consent of the Treasury may, by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament, make regulations providing for—

    (a) the transfer to, and administration by, Housing for Wales of any superannuation fund maintained by the House Corporation in terms of the provisions of any scheme made under section 7 of the Superannuation Act 1972; and

    (b) the modification, for the purposes of the regulations, of that section or any scheme thereunder.

    (5) If an employee of the Corporation becomes a member of the Corporation and was by reference to his employment by the Corporation a participant in a pension scheme administered by it for the benefit of its employees—

    (a) the Corporation may determine that his service as a member shall be treated for the purposes of the scheme as service as an employee of the Corporation whether or not any benefits are to be payable to or in respect of him by virtue of paragraph 6 above; but

    (b) if the Corporation does so determine, any discretion as to the benefits payable to or in respect of him which the scheme confers on the Corporation shall be exercised only with the approval of the Secretary of State.

    (6) Any reference in the preceding provisions of this paragraph to the approval of the Secretary of State is a reference to that approval given with the consent of the Treasury.
    9.—(1) Not later than such date as the Secretary of State may determine, the Corporation shall make an offer of employment by it to each person employed immediately before that date by the Housing Corporation in connection with functions in Wales; and any question as to the persons to whom an offer of employment is to be made under this paragraph shall be determined by the Secretary of State.
    (2) The terms of the offer shall be such that they are, taken as a whole, not less favourable to the person to whom the offer is made than the terms on which he is employed on the date on which the offer is made.
    (3) An offer made in pursuance of this paragraph shall not be revocable during the period of 3 months commencing with the date on which it is made.
    10.—(1) Where a person becomes an employee of the Corporation in consequence of an offer made under paragraph 9 above, then, for the purposes of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, his period of employment with the Housing Corporation, shall count as a period of employment by the Corporation, and the change of employment shall not break the continuity of the period of employment.
    (2) Where an offer is made in pursuance of paragraph 9 above to any person employed as mentioned in that paragraph, none of the agreed redundancy procedures applicable to such a person shall apply to him; and where that person ceases to be so employed—

    (a) on becoming a member of the staff of the Corporation in consequence of that paragraph, or

    (b) having unreasonably refused the offer,

    Part VI of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 shall not apply to him and he shall not be treated for the purposes of any scheme under section 24 of the Superannuation Act 1972 or any other scheme as having been retired on redundancy.
    (3) Without prejudice to sub-paragraph (2) above, where a person has unreasonably refused an offer made to him in pursuance of paragraph 9 above, the Housing Corporation

    125
    shall not terminate that person's employment unless it has first had regard to the feasibility of employing him in a suitable alternative position with it.
    (4) Where a person continues in employment in the Housing Corporation either—

    (a) not having unreasonably refused an offer made to him in pursuance of this paragraph, or

    (b) not having been placed in a suitable alternative position as mentioned in sub-paragraph (3) above, he shall be treated for all purposes as if the offer mentioned in paragraph 9 above had not been made.

    11. —(1) Any dispute as to whether an offer of employment complies with sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 9 above shall be referred to and be determined by an industrial tribunal.
    (2) An industrial tribunal shall not consider a complaint referred to it under sub-paragraph (1) above unless the complaint is presented to the tribunal before the end of the period of 3 months beginning with the date of the offer of employment or, in a case where the tribunal is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented before the end of the period of 3 months, within such further period as the tribunal considers reasonable.
    (3) Subject to sub-paragraph (4) below, there shall be no appeal from the decision of an industrial tribunal under this paragraph.
    (4) An appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal may be made only on a question of law arising from the decision of, or in proceedings before, an industrial tribunal under this paragraph.
    Proceedings
    12. —(1) The quorum of the Corporation and the arrangements relating to its meetings shall, subject to any directions given by the Secretary of State, be such as the Corporation may determine.
    (2) The validity of proceedings of the Corporation is not affected by any defect in the appointment of any of its members.
    13.—(1) Where a member of the Corporation is in any way directly or indirectly interested in a contract made or proposed to be made by the Corporation—

    (a) he shall disclose the nature of his interest at a meeting of the Corporation, and the disclosure shall be recorded in the minutes of the Corporation; and

    (b) he shall not take any part in any decision of the Corporation with respect to the contract.

    (2) A general notice given by a member at a meeting of the Corporation to the effect that he is a member of a specified company or firm and is to be regarded as interested in any contract which may be made with the company or firm is a sufficient disclosure of his interest for the purposes of this paragraph in relation to a contract made after the date of the notice.
    (3) A member need not attend in person at a meeting of the Corporation in order to make any disclosure which he is required to make under this paragraph provided he takes reasonable steps to secure that the disclosure is brought up and read at the meeting.
    14.—(1) The fixing of the Corporation's seal may be authenticated by the signature of the Chairman or of any other person authorised for the purpose.
    (2) A document purporting to be duly executed under the seal of the Corporation shall be received in evidence and be deemed to be so executed unless the contrary is proved.'.—[Mr. Waldegrave.]
    Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New Schedule
    `AMENDMENTS OF HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS ACT 1985

      PART I AMENDMENTS OF PART I WITH RESPECT TO THE HOUSING CORPORATION, HOUSING FOR WALES AND SCOTTISH HOMES
      1. After section 2 there shall be inserted the following section—
      ''The Corporation
      2A.—(1) In relation to a housing association which has its registered office for the purposes of the 1965 Act in Scotland. "the Corporation" means Scottish Homes.
      (2) In relation to a housing association—
      126

      (a)which is a society registered under the 1965 Act and has its registered office for the purposes of that Act in Wales, or

      (b) which is a registered charity and has its address for the purposes of registration by the Charity Commissioners in Wales,

      "the Corporation" means Housing for Wales.
      (3) In relation to any other housing association which is a society registered under the 1965 Act or a registered charity, "the Corporation" means the Housing Corporation.
      (4) Subject to subsections (1) to (3), in this Act, except where the context otherwise requires, "the Corporation" means the Housing Corporation, Scottish Homes or Housing for Wales and "the Corporations" means those three bodies."
      2. Except as provided below, for the words "Housing Corporation", in each place where they occur in Part I, there shall be substituted "Corporation".
      3.—(1) In section 3 (the register), in subsection (1)—

      (a) for the words "the Housing Corporation" there shall be substituted "each of the Corporations"; and

      (b) after the word "Corporation", in the second place where it occurs, there shall be inserted "by which it is maintained".

      (2) After subsection (1) of that section there shall be inserted the following subsection—
      "(1A) In this Act "register", in relation to the Corporation, means the register maintained by the Corporation under this section."
      (3) In subsection (2) of that section the words "of housing associations maintained under this section" shall be omitted.
      4.—(1) In section 5 (registration) for subsection (2) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
      "(2) Nothing in subsection (1) shall require the Corporations to establish the same criteria; and each of them may vary any criteria established by it under that subsection."
      (2) For subsection (4) of that section there shall be substituted the following subsection—
      "(4) Where at any time a body is, or was, on a register maintained under section 3, then, for all purposes other than rectification of that register, the body shall be conclusively presumed to be, or to have been, at that time a housing association eligible for registration in that register."
      5. In section 6(4) (removal from register) for paragraphs (a) to (c) there shall be substituted the following paragraphs—

      "(a) a grant under section 41 (housing association grants),

      (b) a grant under section 54 (revenue deficit grants),

      (c) any such payment or loan as is mentioned in paragraph 2 or paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 (grant-aided land),

      (d) a grant under section 2(2)(a) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988,

      (e) a grant under section 45 of the Housing Act 1938 (housing association grants), or

      (f) a grant under section 46 of that Act (revenue deficit grants)".

      6. In section 7 (appeals against removal from the register), in subsection (1) for the words from "to the High Court" onwards there shall be substituted,—

      "(a) where it is a decision of Scottish Homes, to the Court of Session; and

      (b) in any other case, to the High Court".

      7.—(1) In section 9 (control by Corporation of disposition of land by housing associations) for subsection (1) there shall be substituted the following subsections—
      "(1) Subject to section 10, the consent of the Corporation is required for any disposition of land by a registered housing association except where the Secretary of State has given his consent to the disposition, or dispositions of the same class or description, in accordance with section 98(3) of the Housing Act 1988 (disposal of property acquired from a public sector landlord under Part IV of that Act).
      (1A) Subject to section 10, the consent of the relevant Corporation is required for any disposition—

      127
      of grant-aided land (as defined in Schedule 1) by an unregistered housing association; and for this purpose 'the relevant Corporation' means,—

      (a) if the land is in England, the Housing Corporation;

      (b) if the land is in Scotland, Scottish Homes, and

      (c) if the land is in Wales, Housing for Wales.".

      (2) In subsection (3) of that section—

      (a) for the words "the consent of the Corporation", in the first place where they occur, there shall be substituted "consent"; and

      (b) for the words "the consent of the Corporation", in the second place where they occur, there shall be substituted "that consent".

      (3) After subsection (5) of that section there shall be added—
      "(6) References in this section to consent are references,—

      (a) in the case of the Housing Corporation or Housing for Wales, to consent given by order under the seal of the Corporation; and

      (b) in the case of Scottish Homes, to consent in writing.".

      8.—(1) In section 10 (dispositions excepted from section 9), in subsection (1) for the words from "the Charity Commissioners", in the second place where they occur, onwards there shall be substituted "before making an order in such a case the Charity Commissioners shall consult,—

      (a) in the case of dispositions of land in England, the Housing Corporation;

      (b) in the case of dispositions of land in Scotland, Scottish Homes, and

      (c) in the case of dispositions of land in Wales, Housing for Wales."

      (2) In subsection (2) of that section at the end of paragraph (b) there shall be inserted "or

      (c) a letting of land under an assured tenancy or an assured agricultural occupancy, or

      (d) a letting of land in England or Wales under what would be an assured tenancy or an assured agricultural occupancy but for any of paragraphs 4 to 8 of Schedule 1 to the Housing Act 1988, or

      (e) a letting of land in Scotland under what would be an assured tenancy but for any of paragraphs 3 to 8 and 12 of Schedule 4 to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988.".

      9. For section 15A (which was inserted by section 14 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1986) there shall be substituted the following section—
      "Payments etc. in community-based housing associations in Scotland.
      15A.—(1) In relation to a community-based housing association in Scotland the following are also permitted, notwithstanding section 15(1)—

      (a) payments made by the association in respect of the purchase of a dwelling, or part of a dwelling, owned and occupied by a person described in subsection (2) who is not an employee of the association; but only if—

      (i) such payments constitute expenditure in connection with housing projects undertaken for the purpose of improving or repairing dwellings, being expenditure in respect of which housing association grants may be made under section 41(1); and

      (ii) the purchase price does not exceed such value as may be placed on the dwelling, or as the case may be part, by the district valuer;

      (b) the granting of the tenancy of a dwelling, or part of a dwelling, to such a person; but only if the person—

      (i) lives in the dwelling or in another dwelling owned by the association; or

      (ii) has at any time within the period of twelve months immediately preceding the granting of
      128
      the tenancy lived in the dwelling (or such other dwelling) whether or not it belonged to the housing association when he lived there.

      (2) The persons mentioned in subsection (1) are—

      (a) a committee member or voluntary officer of the association; or

      (b) a person who at any time in the twelve months preceding the payment (or as the case may be the granting of the tenancy) has been such a member or officer; or

      (c) a close relative of a person described in paragraph (a), or (b).

      (3) For the purposes of subsection (1), a housing association is "community-based" if—

      (a) prior to the specified date, it was designated as such by the Housing Corporation; or

      (b) on or after that date, it is designated as such by Scottish Homes;

      and, in this subsection, "specified date" has the same meaning as in section 3 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988.

      (4) Scottish Homes—

      (a) shall make a designation under subsection (3) only if it considers that the activities of the housing association relate wholly or mainly to the improvement of dwellings, or the management of improved dwellings, within a particular community (whether or not identified by reference to a geographical area entirely within any one administrative area); and

      (b) may revoke such a designation (including a designation made by the Housing Corporation under subsection (3) above as originally enacted) if it considers, after giving the association an opportunity to make representations to it as regards such revocation, that the association's activities have ceased so to relate."

      10. In section 16 (general power to remove committee member), in subsection (4) for the words from "order to the High Court" onwards there shall be substituted "order,—

      (a) if it is an order of the Housing Corporation or Housing for Wales, to the High Court, and

      (b) if it is an order of Scottish Homes, to the Court of Session."

      11. In section 17 (power to appoint new committee members) at the end of subsection (1) there shall be added the words "and the power conferred by paragraph (c) may be exercised notwithstanding that it will cause the maximum number of committee members permissible under the association's constitution to be exceeded".
      12.—(1) In section 18 (exercise of powers in relation to registered charities), in subsection (1) immediately before the entry relating to section 41 of the 1985 Act there shall be inserted the following entries—
      "section 45 of the Housing Act 1988 (housing association grants).
      section 46 of that Act (revenue deficit grants)".
      (2) In subsection (3) of that section (appointment by Corporation of trustees of associations which are registered charities: appointments not to exceed maximum number of trustees) the words from "and the Corporation" onwards shall be omitted.
      13. In section 19 (change of rules under the 1965 Act), in subsection (3) for the words "given by order under the seal of the Corporation" there shall be substituted "given,—

      (a) in the case of the Housing Corporation or Housing for Wales, by order under the seal of the Corporation; and

      (b) in the case of Scottish Homes, by notice in writing."

      14. In section 21 (amalgamation and dissolution under the 1965 Act), in subsection (6) for the words from "are to an order" onwards there shall be substituted "are,—

      (a) in the case of the Housing Corporation or Housing for Wales, to consent given by order under the seal of the Corporation; and

      (b) in the case of Scottish Homes, to consent given in writing."

      15. In section 22 (Corporation's power to petition for winding up), in subsection (1) after the word "applies" there shall be inserted "(a)" and at the end there shall be added "or

      129

      (b) on the ground that the association is unable to pay its debts within the meaning of section 518 of the Companies Act 1985.".

      16.—(1) In section 24 (general requirements as to accounts and audit), in subsection (2) after the word "association" there shall be inserted "which is a registered charity".
      (2) In subsection (5) of that section after the words "different areas" there shall be inserted "or for different descriptions of housing associations or housing activities".
      (3) After subsection (5) of that section there shall be inserted the following subsection—
      "(6) For the purposes of subsection (5)(a), descriptions may be framed by reference to any matters whatever, including in particular, in the case of housing activities, the manner in which they are financed."
      17. In section 27 (responsibility for securing compliance with accounting requirements), in subsection (2) at the end of paragraph (c) there shall be added "or

      (d) section 50(9) of the Housing Act 1988 is not complied with".

      18.—(1) In section 28 (Corporation may appoint a person to inquire into the affairs of a registered housing association), in subsection (1) for the words "the Corporation's staff" there shall be substituted "staff of any of the Corporations" and at the end of that subsection there shall be added "and, if the appointed person considers it necessary for the purposes of the inquiry, he may also inquire into the business of any other body which, at a time which the appointed person considers material, is or was a subsidiary or associate of the association concerned".
      (2) In subsection (2) of that section at the end of paragraph (b) there shall be added "or

      (c) any person who is, or has been, an officer, agent or member of a subsidiary or associate of the association; or

      (d) any other person whom the appointed person has reason to believe is or may be in possession of information of relevance to the inquiry".

      (3) After subsection (3) of that section there shall be inserted the following subsections—
      "(3A) Where, by virtue of subsection (2), any books, accounts or other documents are produced to the appointed person, he may take copies of or make extracts from them.
      (3B) The appointed person may, if he thinks fit during the course of the inquiry, make one or more interim reports to the Corporation on such matters as appear to him to be appropriate."
      (4) After subsection (5) of that section there shall be added the following subsections—
      "(6) In this section, in relation to a housing association, "subsidiary" means a company with respect to which one of the following conditions is fulfilled,—

      (a) the association is a member of the company and controls the composition of the board of directors; or

      (b) the association holds more than half in nominal value of the company's equity share capital; or

      (c) the company is a subsidiary, within the meaning of the Companies Act 1985 or the Friendly and Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1968, of another company which, by virtue of paragraph (a) or paragraph (b), is itself a subsidiary of the housing association;

      and, in the case of a housing association which is a body of trustees, the reference in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) to the association is a reference to the trustees acting as such and any reference in subsection (7) to the association shall be construed accordingly.
      (7) For the purposes of subsection (6)(a), the composition of a company's board of directors shall be deemed to be controlled by a housing association if, but only if, the association, by the exercise of some power exercisable by the association without the consent or concurrence of any other person, can appoint or remove the holders of all or a majority of the
      130
      directorships.
      (8) In this section, in relation to a housing association "associate" means—

      (a) any body of which the association is a subsidiary; and

      (b) any other subsidiary of such a body. and in this subsection "subsidiary" has the same meaning as in the Companies Act 1985 or the Friendly and Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1968 or, in the case of a body which is itself a housing association,

      19. In section 29(1) (extraordinary audit) after the words "section 28" there shall be inserted "into the affairs of a registered housing association".
      20.—(1) In section 30 (general powers of Corporation as a result of an inquiry or audit) after subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
      "(1A) If at any time the appointed person makes an interim report under section 28(3B) and, as a result of that interim report, the Corporation is satisfied that there has been misconduct or mismanagement as mentioned in subsection (1),—

      (a) the Corporation may at that time exercise any of the powers conferred by paragraphs (b) to (d) of that subsection; and

      (b) in relation to the exercise at that time of the power conferred by subsection (1)(b), the reference therein to a period of six months shall be construed as a reference to a period beginning at that time and ending six months after the date of the report under section 28(4)."

      (2) In subsection (4) of that section (appeal against certain orders) for the words from "order to the High Court" onwards there shall be substituted "order,—

      (a) if it is an order of the Housing Corporation or Housing for Wales, to the High Court; and

      (b) if it is an order of Scottish Homes, to the Court of Session."

      21.—(1) In section 31 (exercise of powers in relation to registered charities), in subsection (1) immediately before the entry relating to section 41 of the 1985 Act there shall be inserted the following entries—
      "section 45 of the Housing Act 1988 (housing association grants), section 46 of that Act (revenue deficit grants)".
      (2) At the end of subsection (2)(b) of that section there shall be added the words "and such other activities (if any) of the association as are incidental to or connected with its housing activities".
      22. In section 33 (recognition of central association), in subsection (1) after "housing associations" there shall be inserted "in Great Britain or in any part of Great Britain".
      23. In section 39 (minor definitions) before the definition of "mental disorder" there shall be inserted—
      ""assured tenancy" has, in England and Wales, the same meaning as in Part I of the Housing Act 1988 and, in Scotland, the same meaning as in Part II of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988;
      "assured agricultural occupancy" has the same meaning as in Part I of the Housing Act 1988."
      24. In section 40 (index of defined expressions in Part I)—
      (a) after the entry relating to "appropriate registrar" there shall be inserted—
      ""assured agricultural occupancy"…section 39 "assured tenancy" … … … section 39";
      (b) after the entry relating to "the Companies Act" there shall be inserted—
      ""the Corporation"… … section 2A"; and
      (c) in the entry beginning "register", in the second column for "3(2)" there shall be substituted "3"."

  PART II

    AMENDMENTS OF PART II WITH RESPECT TO THE HOUSING CORPORATION AND HOUSING FOR WALES
    25.—(1) In section 63 (building society advances) for the words "the Housing Corporation", in each place where they occur in subsections (1) and (2), there shall be substituted "one of the Corporations" and in subsection (1)(b) for the words "the Corporation" there shall be substituted "that one of the Corporations which is concerned".
    (2) After subsection (2) of that section there shall be inserted the following subsection—
    "(2A) In this section "the Corporations" means the Housing Corporation and Housing for Wales".
    26.—(1) In section 69 (power to vary or terminate certain agreements) at the end of subsection (1)(a) there shall be added "(including such an agreement under which rights and obligations have been transferred to Housing for Wales)".
    2. After subsection (2) of that section there shall be inserted the following subsection—
    "(2A) In the case of an agreement under which rights and obligations have been transferred to Housing for Wales, the reference to a party to the agreement includes a reference to Housing for Wales.".
    27. In section 69A (land subject to housing management agreement) for the words "housing association grant, revenue deficit grant or hostel deficit grant" there shall be substituted "grant under section 45 (housing association grant) or section 46 (revenue deficit grant) of the Housing Act 1988".
    28.—(1) In Part I of Schedule 5 (residual subsidies)—

    (a) in paragraph 5(3) the words "at such times and in such places as the Treasury may direct" and "with the approval of the Treasury" shall be omitted; and

    (b) at the end of paragraph 6(2)(b) there shall be added "or Housing for Wales".

    (2) In Part II of that Schedule, in paragraph 5(3) the words "at such times and in such places as the Treasury may direct" and "with the approval of the Treasury" shall be omitted.

  PART III

    AMENDMENTS OF PART III WITH RESPECT TO ME HOUSING CORPORATION AND HOUSING FOR WALES
    29.—(1) In section 74 (constitution of Housing Corporation etc.), in subsection (1) after the words "Housing Corporation" there shall be inserted "and Housing for Wales, each of".
    (2) In subsection (2) of that section for the words "the Corporation" there shall be substituted "the Housing Corporation".
    (3) At the end of that section there shall be inserted the following subsections—
    "(3) In this Part "registered housing association" in relation to the Corporation, means a housing association registered in the register maintained by the Corporation.
    (4) In this Part,—

    (a) in relation to land in Wales held by an unregistered housing association "the Corporation" means Housing for Wales; and

    (b) in relation to land outside Wales held by such an association, "the Corporation" means the Housing Corporation."

    30. In section 75 (general functions), in subsection (1)(c) for the words "a register of housing associations" there shall be substituted "the register of housing associations referred to in section 3".
    31. At the end of section 77 (advisory service) there shall be added the following subsection—
    "(3) The powers conferred on the Corporation by subsection (1) and (2) may be exercised by the Housing Corporation and Housing for Wales acting jointly".
    32.—(1) In section 83 (power to guarantee loans), in subsection (3) (maximum amount outstanding in respect of loans etc.) for the words "the Corporation", in each place where they occur, there shall be substituted "the Housing Corporation".
    (2) After subsection (3) of that section there shall be inserted the following subsection—
    "(3A) The aggregate amount outstanding in respect of—

    (a) loans for which Housing for Wales has given a guarantee under this section, and

    (b) payments made by Housing for Wales in meeting an obligation arising by virtue of such a guarantee and not repaid to Housing for Wales,

    shall not exceed £30 million or such greater sum not exceeding £50 million as the Secretary of State may specify by order made with the approval of the Treasury".
    (3) In subsection (4) of that section (procedure for orders of Secretary of State) after the words "subsection (3)" there shall be inserted "or subsection (3A)".
    33.—(1) In section 93 (limit on borrowing), in subsection (2) for the words from "shall not exceed" onwards there shall be substituted "shall not exceed the limit appropriate to the Corporation under subsection (2A)".
    (2) At the end of subsection (2) of that section there shall be inserted the following subsection—
    "(2A) The limit referred to in subsection (2) is,—

    (a) in the case of the Housing Corporation, £2,000 million or such greater sum not exceeding £3,000 million as the Secretary of State may specify by order made with the consent of the Treasury; and

    (b) in the case of Housing for Wales, £250 million or such greater sum not exceeding £300 million as the Secretary of State may specify by order made with the consent of the Treasury".

    (3) In subsections (3) to (5) of that section for "(2)", in each place where it occurs, there shall be substituted "(2A)".
    34. In section 106(1) (minor definitions: general) for the definition of "housing activities" there shall be substituted the following—
    ""housing activities", in relation to a registered housing association, means all its activities in pursuance of such of its purposes, objects or powers as are of a description mentioned in section 1(1)(a) or subsections (2) to (4) of section 4.""—[Mr. Waldegrave.]
    Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

  Clause 45

    HOUSING ASSOCIATION GRANTS
    Amendment made: No. 246, in page 33, line 41, leave out 'Housing Corporation ("the Corporation")' and insert `Corporation'.—[Mr. Waldegrave.]
    Mr. George Howarth: I beg to move amendment No. 82, in page 33 line 43. at end insert —
    `Where the expenditure incurred has been financed by a loan from a local authority, the grant shall be paid to the local authority'.
    Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider new clause 33—Housing association grant on schemes sponsored by local authorities—
    '.—(1) Housing association grants shall be available under section 45 of this Act for housing associations schemes funded by local housing authorities within the meaning of section I of the Housing Act 1985.
    (2) The terms under which housing associations grants are available for such schemes shall, taken as a whole, be not less favourable to housing associations than the terms in respect of schemes directly funded by the Housing Corporation.
    (3) The Housing Corporation shall consult on grants for housing association schemes funded by local housing authorities with such associations as appear to them to be representative of such housing authorities and housing associations as regards:

    (a) the amount of grant available;

    (b) the procedures to be followed in relation to applications for grant;

    (c) the circumstances in which grant is payable;

    (d) the method for calculation and any limitations on grant;

    (e) the manner in which and time or times at which grant is paid.'

    Mr. Howarth: The Government have tried to constrain or prevent local authorities from funding housing associations directly. It seems rather strange that the Government should try to carve out a new role for local authorities as a strategic authority—they do not envisage

    133
    local authorities being landlords on any great scale—while removing their ability to fund other bodies such as housing associations.
    Many of us who have been deeply involved in housing for many years—as I have been, on Merseyside—have witnessed the good results of local authority funding of housing association schemes for the elderly and general family need, for example.
    There is a more alarming point. I have here a letter from the chief officer, programme and operational support division, in the Housing Corporation, who was asked to comment on whether the Housing Corporation would be able to fund housing co-operatives. Housing co-operatives involve the same funding mechanism as housing associations. In reply to the National Federation of Housing Co-Operatives, he concluded in his letter dated 9 May 1988:
    "In these circumstances, given the potential magnitude of calls upon our ADP resources, we have concluded that we have no option but to draw the line. Our present view is that we will not use ADP funds to enable council tenants to opt out of council housing through the formation of housing co-operatives or indeed through other housing association mechanisms."
    In other words, the Housing Corporation's ability to fund housing associations to help council tenants, who often live in dreadful conditions or in bedroom spaces which are in short supply, will be constrained, so quite where the new initiatives in council estates and inner cities will come from, I am at a loss to understand.
    Mr. David Alton: I strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman. Does he agree that, on Merseyside, there are some good examples—especially in the city of Liverpool—of people grouping together to form a housing co-operative with help from housing associations? Without the funding that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, which can act as a catalyst and get them off the ground, there is no way in which people will be able to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. It is not good enough to express the sentiment—the cash is needed as well.
    Mr. Howarth: That is absolutely right. The hon. Gentleman will remember the tenant rehousing programme in the city of Liverpool, which was a good example of what he describes. The local authority funded people to establish a co-operative scheme. That will not be possible under the new arrangements. The Housing Corporation has confirmed that it will not substitute those resources. I find that staggering and worrying. The Government support such initiatives, but they are removing all the funding mechanisms which go through the Housing Corporation or local authorities as a result of which those initiatives can come to fruition. Quite frankly, I am not quite sure that the Government realise the difficulties that they will create on the outer estates and in the inner cities. Even at this late hour, I hope that they will reconsider their position and produce a positive response to genuine fears.
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman raised points about resources which are at the heart of a great deal of the measure. We are continuing our debate in Committee, which was a good debate, about what mechanism should be used and whether our original suggestion that the disadvantages of double scrutiny in Housing Association grant funding between the corporation and local
    134
    authorities were so severe that we should cut through that by centralising it in the Housing Corporation. That had administrative gains, but there was the loss of pluralism in not having local authorities leading schemes. I well understand that everyone's capacity to do that depends on the resources available to them.
    We are discussing the mechanism. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the clause as drafted enables local authorities to continue leading HAG-funded schemes and for the corporation to give the grants. It is our intention, as I announced on 23 May, that that should continue. We shall try to deal with the problem of double scrutiny that has irritated everyone, probably including the hon. Gentleman in the past when he was involved in these matters, by putting all that in the hands of the corporation.
    Mr. George Howarth: Just to get the matter absolutely clear, is the Minister of State saying that the new clause as drafted will mean that local authorities can directly fund housing associations or co-operatives to house their tenants or anyone else in housing need?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The Bill as drafted enables the Housing Corporation to fund housing association schemes which have been established by local authorities, as in the past. It makes no change to those arrangements except that the corporation alone will be responsible for vetting the scheme for grant which will help to speed things up. That will be done by the administrative arrangements. The local authority alone should be responsible for deciding whether public resources should be committed to it. Of course, they will be subject to normal capital controls, and there is also the separate argument about resources.
    The Bill enables them to say, "We want to fund this housing association scheme to our housing investment programme allocation," as many boroughs in London, most famously the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea, have done for many years, and, "We shall have only single letting." I take it that my hon. Friend's new clause and the Opposition amendment were really probing amendments to make sure that that will continue to be possible. I can repeat the assurances which I gave in Committee and there is no question about them.
    Mr. George Howarth: Will the Minister answer another of my points? As recently as 9 May, the Housing Corporation said that it will not use ADP funds to support schemes that essentially rehouse local authority tenants. Therefore, in many cases the Minister's assurances will not apply. People in housing that is inadequate in one way or another will not be able to get housing association or housing co-operative schemes funded.
    Mr. Waldegrave: The schemes will be for the local authority to decide, as at present, and the Housing Corporation will pay HAG funding as in the past. The only change is that the vetting and scrutiny will be done only by the Housing Corporation.
    New clause 33 sought to give local authority associations the same right to be consulted on the HAG rules for local authority sponsored schemes as the housing association movement, which does not seem to be right. it should be for the local authority to lead on the schemes and for the housing association movement and for the Housing Corporation to decide on the details of the funding arrangements that finance the schemes. I hope that my assurances which meet the points that were raised

    135
    in Committee and the points raised by the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) tonight will enable my hon. Friend and the Opposition to withdraw the amendments.
    10.15 pm
    Mr. Alton: Before we move on, I should like to comment on one or two of the points made by the Minister. From my experience in Liverpool, where I was a housing committee chairman for some time and where we initiated a number of housing co-operative ventures, I am disappointed that the Government are not putting as much emphasis on the autonomous status of housing co-operatives as they are on housing associations. I agree with what the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) said about the general role of housing associations and how they can act as useful catalysts. I am an enthusiast for housing associations, but I would prefer to place the emphasis and the money on groups of tenants who would like to take control for themselves through the establishment of housing co-operatives.
    I am disappointed that we are not creating mechanisms that give tenants a chance to take over for themselves and to be able to establish and manage their housing co-operatives. We ought not to be placing obstacles in their way. I should like to see more resources allocated through the housing investment programme direct to council tenants. I do not believe that the Government have thought the matter through sufficiently.
    There is the problem of recalcitrant local authorities which do not agree with the Government's position. My authority was an example of that. For two years, it adamantly refused to allow groups of tenants who wanted to establish housing co-operatives to do so. I introduced a ten-minute Bill to give tenants the right to establish co-operatives in the communities in which they live. Only last week the Bishop of Liverpool, David Sheppard, and the Archbishop, Derek Worlock, presided over the opening of the Eldonians, a housing co-operative in the heart of Liverpool. It is on a site that the tenants had to fight tooth and nail to acquire. They had to fight against all the odds, including the local authority, which tried to prevent them from obtaining the site. Now, the old Tate and Lyle site at Love lane in Liverpool is an exciting new housing co-operative. I pay tribute to the Government for their part in helping the tenants achieve that.
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman was generous enough to forestall me. I had an exciting visit to the Eldonians the other day. Ironically, I was pressed strongly —we were able to accede to the request—to have the land transferred into the development corporation areas because it was felt that there would be much more co-operation. I hope that that will be the case.
    Mr. Alton: I do not deny that there will probably be greater co-operation. However, there is no local accountability through the Housing Corporation. The problem is that the tenants were not able, within their local authority, to establish a housing co-operative and obtain direct funding. It is not a question of coming under a development corporation or a local authority. The tenants wanted to be able to take control and establish their housing co-operative.
    136
    That is a good illustration of all the obstacles that can be placed in the way of tenants. I pay tribute to the Merseyside improved housing association for providing advice and helping the tenants through the minefield that they had to negotiate. These tenants are a classic example of what can be achieved by unemployed people most of them were unemployed—living in a rundown tenement block in the heart of one of the worst inner-city areas in the country. They were able to take over, but how much better it would have been if the resources, power and control had been given to that self-help group early on. How much better it would have been if the bureaucracy, red tape and obstacles placed in their path by the local authority and through the various planning consents they had to acquire could have been removed. A golden opportunity that could have been taken in the Bill has been lost.
    Mr. George Howarth: The Bill seems to be moving from muddle to chaos. Our amendment seeks to mitigate that. Therefore, we will press the amendment to a Division.
    Question put, That the amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 184, Noes 234.

    Division No. 349]

    [10.18 pm

    AYES

    Adams, Allen(Paisley N)

    Doran, Frank

    Allen, Graham

    Douglas, Dick

    Alton, David

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

    Ashdown, Paddy

    Eastham, Ken

    Ashton, Joe

    Evans, John(St Helens N)

    Banks, Tony(Newham NW)

    Ewing, Harry(Falkirk E)

    Barnes, Harry(Derbyshire NE)

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret(Moray)

    Barron, Kevin

    Fatchett, Derek

    Battle, John

    Fearn, Ronald

    Beckett, Margaret

    Fields, Terry(L'pool B G'n)

    Bell, Stuart

    Fisher, Mark

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Flannery, Martin

    Bennett, A. F.(D'nt'n & R'dish)

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Foster, Derek

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Foulkes, George

    Blair, Tony

    Fraser, John

    Blunkett, David

    Fyfe, Maria

    Boateng, Paul

    Galbraith, Sam

    Boyes, Roland

    Galloway, George

    Bradley, Keith

    Garrett, John(Norwich South)

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    George, Bruce

    Brown, Nicholas(Newcastle E)

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Buchan, Norman

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Buckley, George J.

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Callaghan, Jim

    Gordon, Mildred

    Campbell, Ron(Blyth Valley)

    Grant, Bernie(Tottenham)

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Grocott, Bruce

    Canavan, Dennis

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Carlile, Alex(Mont'g)

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    Clark, Dr David(S Shields)

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Clarke, Tom(Monklands W)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Clay, Bob

    Holland, Stuart

    Clelland, David

    Hood, Jimmy

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Howarth, George(Knowsley N)

    Cohen, Harry

    Howell, Rt Hon D.(S'heath)

    Cook, Frank(Stockton N)

    Hughes, John(Coventry NE)

    Corbett, Robin

    Hughes, Roy(Newport E)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hughes, Sean(Knowsley S)

    Cousins, Jim

    Hughes, Simon(Southwark)

    Crowther, Stan

    Illsley, Eric

    Cummings, John

    Janner, Greville

    Dalyell, Tam

    John, Brynmor

    Darling, Alistair

    Jones, Barry(Alyn & Deeside)

    Davies, Ron(Caerphilly)

    Jones, Ieuan(Ynys Môn)

    Davis, Terry(B'ham Hodge H'I)

    Jones, Martyn(Clwyd S W)

    Dewar, Donald

    Lambie, David

    Dixon, Don

    Lamond, James

    Dobson, Frank

    Leadbitter, Ted

    137

    Leighton, Ron

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

    Lestor, Joan(Eccles)

    Reid, Dr John

    Lewis, Terry

    Richardson, Jo

    Litherland, Robert

    Roberts, Allan(Bootle)

    Lloyd, Tony(Stretford)

    Robertson, George

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    McAllion, John

    Rogers, Allan

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Rooker, Jeff

    McCartney, Ian

    Ross, Ernie(Dundee W)

    Macdonald, Calum A.

    Ruddock, Joan

    McFall, John

    Sheerman, Barry

    McKelvey, William

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    McLeish, Henry

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    McNamara, Kevin

    Skinner, Dennis

    McTaggart, Bob

    Smith, Andrew(Oxford E)

    Madden, Max

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

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Soley, Clive

    Marshall, David(Shettleston)

    Spearing, Nigel

    Martin, Michael J.(Springburn)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Martlew, Eric

    Stott, Roger

    Maxton, John

    Strang, Gavin

    Meacher, Michael

    Taylor, Mrs Ann(Dewsbury)

    Meale, Alan

    Taylor, Matthew(Truro)

    Michael, Alun

    Thompson, Jack(Wansbeck)

    Michie, Bill(Sheffield Heeley)

    Turner, Dennis

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    Vaz, Keith

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Wall, Pat

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Wallace, James

    Morley, Elliott

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Morris, Rt Hon J.(Aberavon)

    Welsh, Andrew(Angus E)

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Welsh, Michael(Doncaster N)

    Mullin, Chris

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Nellist, Dave

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    O'Brien, William

    Williams, Alan W.(Carm'then)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Wilson, Brian

    Parry, Robert

    Winnick, David

    Patchett, Terry

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Pendry, Tom

    Worthington, Tony

    Pike, Peter L.

    Wray, Jimmy

    Powell, Ray(Ogmore)

    Young, David(Bolton SE)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Radice, Giles

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Randall, Stuart

    Mr. Frank Haynes and

    Redmond, Martin

    Mr. Allen McKay.

    NOES

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Alexander, Richard

    Burns, Simon

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Butcher, John

    Allason, Rupert

    Butler, Chris

    Amess, David

    Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)

    Arnold, Jacques(Gravesham)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Arnold, Tom(Hazel Grove)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Ashby, David

    Cash, William

    Atkins, Robert

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Atkinson, David

    Chope, Christopher

    Baker, Nicholas(Dorset N)

    Churchill, Mr

    Baldry, Tony

    Clark, Sir W.(Croydon S)

    Banks, Robert(Harrogate)

    Colvin, Michael

    Bellingham, Henry

    Conway, Derek

    Bendall, Vivian

    Coombs, Anthony(Wyre F'rest)

    Benyon, W.

    Coombs, Simon(Swindon)

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Cope, Rt Hon John

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Couchman, James

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Cran, James

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Critchley, Julian

    Boswell, Tim

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Bottomley, Peter

    Davies, Q.(Stamf'd & Spald'g)

    Bowden, Gerald(Dulwich)

    Davis, David(Boothterry)

    Bowis, John

    Day, Stephen

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Devlin, Tim

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Brazier, Julian

    Dover, Den

    Bright, Graham

    Dunn, Bob

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Durant, Tony

    Brown, Michael(Brigg & Cl't's)

    Dykes, Hugh

    Browne, John(Winchester)

    Evans, David(Welwyn Hatf'd)

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Fallon, Michael

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

    Farr, Sir John

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Favell, Tony

    138

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    MacKay, Andrew(E Berkshire)

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Maclean, David

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Forth, Eric

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

    Franks, Cecil

    Malins, Humfrey

    Freeman, Roger

    Mans, Keith

    French, Douglas

    Marland, Paul

    Fry, Peter

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Gale, Roger

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Gardiner, George

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Mates, Michael

    Gill, Christopher

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Miller, Sir Hal

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Mills, Iain

    Gregory, Conal

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

    Grist, Ian

    Moate, Roger

    Ground, Patrick

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Grylls, Michael

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Morris, M (N'hampton S)

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Moss, Malcolm

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

    Mudd, David

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Nelson, Anthony

    Harris, David

    Neubert, Michael

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Hayes, Jerry

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Hayward, Robert

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Heddle, John

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    Page, Richard

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Paice, James

    Hill, James

    Patnick, Irvine

    Hogg, Hon Douglas(Gr'th'm)

    Patten, John(Oxford W)

    Holt, Richard

    Pawsey, James

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Howard, Michael

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

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

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Portillo, Michael

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Price, Sir David

    Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Hunter, Andrew

    Renton, Tim

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Irvine, Michael

    Riddick, Graham

    Irving, Charles

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Jack, Michael

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Jackson, Robert

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Janman, Tim

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Jessel, Toby

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Rost, Peter

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Rowe, Andrew

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Rumbold, Mrs Angela

    Key, Robert

    Ryder, Richard

    King, Roger(B'ham N'thfield)

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Sainsbury, Hon Tim

    Knapman, Roger

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Scott, Nicholas

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Knowles, Michael

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Lang, Ian

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    Latham, Michael

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)

    Lee, John(Pendle)

    Shepherd, Richard(Aldridge)

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Shersby, Michael

    Lilley, Peter

    Speller, Tony

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Lord, Michael

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Luce, Rt Hon Richard

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Lyell, Sir Nicholas

    Sumberg, David

    McCrindle, Robert

    Thorne, Neil

    Macfarlane, Sir Neil

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    139

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Waldegrave, Hon William

    Walker, Bill(T'side North)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Wardle, Charles(Bexhill)

    Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd and

    Wheeler, John

    Mr. David Lightbown.

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Further consideration of the Bill adjourned. —[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]
    Bill as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow.

    ELECTRICITY (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL [MONEY]:
    Resolved,
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Electricity (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill ("the Act"), it is expedient to authorize—

    (a) any increase which is attributable to provisions of the Act raising to £3,000 million the limit imposed by and by virtue of section 29(1) of the Electricity (Scotland) Act 1979 in the sums payable out of National Loan Fund under section 24 of the said Act of 1979;

    (b) payment out of Consolidated Fund of any increase so attributable in the corresponding sums which may require to be paid by way of guarantee under section 25 of the said Act of 1979; and

    (c) payment of any sums into the National Loans Fund

  PETITION

    Opencast Mining (Mastin Moor)
    10.32 pm
    Mr. Harry Barnes: The petition is signed by Mr. and Mrs. J. Bowler of 7 Miller avenue, Mastin Moor, Chesterfield and by a further 694 of my constituents in Derbyshire, North-East who live in the Mastin Moor area. The petition has my full support. It says:
    "To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
    The Humble Petition of the residents of Mastin Moor Derbyshire
    Sheweth
    That proposals to introduce opencast mining on the Pinnock Site would
    Bring increased subsidence to the area resulting in further deterioration of your Petitioners' homes.
    Result in a devaluation of your Petitioners' homes.
    Be nuisance to your Petitioners by reason of the operation of plant and machinery 24 hours a day causing noise, dust and pollution.
    Mean that the Countryside and many forms of wildlife will be destroyed and local walks will be lost for ever.
    Cause an increase in heavy traffic thereby being a danger to pedestrians especially children and the elderly.
    Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will take measures to prevent the development of the Pinnock Site.
    And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will pray that your Honourable House will take measures to prevent the development of the Pinnock Site."
    To lie upon the Table.

    Council Estates (Security Patrols)
    Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]
    10.34 pm
    Mr. James Hill: I begin by quoting the report of the chief constable of Hampshire for 1987, which contains some chilling figures. One paragraph states:
    "Public disorder on the streets of Southampton has manifested itself in serious wounding offences including four murders."
    As there were only 14 murders—if I may say "only"—throughout the length and breadth of Hampshire, the House will appreciate the seriousness of the offences taking place because so many young people now carry knives. In Hampshire there were 95,267 crimes, a recorded increase of 2,726, with a detection rate of 32,618 or 34·4 per cent. —just one out of every three crimes.
    I called this debate because I felt that if even a small proportion of the thought, time and money expended on the terrible national problem of football hooliganism were spent on the seemingly insoluble problem of estate hooliganism, that problem would swiftly be solved. At present, we are just sitting down and letting it happen.
    Great concern has been shown about the problem. The Home Office has produced an excellent booklet, "Practical Ways to Crack Crime", which I hope will be the subject of mass distribution throughout the United Kingdom. Other elements in that concern include a one-day seminar in London on Tuesday 28 June on "Combating Vandalism to Public Services". The seminar is financed by TVS and British Telecom and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be speaking at it.
    There is clearly a hiatus somewhere. We are all becoming aware of the problems, unfortunately, but more through watching football matches than through watching the vandalism on council estates. I believe, therefore, that it is time to go round the estates again. In 1978 I put forward a programme for security patrols on housing estates. These were intended not to take over the duties of the police but to supplement them and to convey information to the police between the hours of 4 pm and midnight each day.
    My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and some chief constables are firmly convinced that neighbourhood watch schemes are a good thing. There are currently about 50,000 such schemes covering more than 3·5 million households and they seem to be doing a worthwhile job. I am worried, however, because this aspect is left entirely to the discretion of the chief constable concerned and I must tell the House with some regret that Southampton does not enjoy neighbourhood watch schemes of any importance.
    Community policing is extremely worth while but, as every Member of Parliament knows, each year brings requests for further increases in establishment.I have here a plea from the Hampshire police authority for an increase of 47 in the establishment for next year. From year to year, I have been perfectly willing to support the police in lobbying the Home Secretary.
    I am particularly concerned in that problem areas such as Lord's hill have not received any increase in police establishment. The chief constable of Hampshire and the Hampshire police authority are worried about manning
    142
    levels. They wish next year to take the full establishment to 3,175 men. Also, to enable experienced police officers to re-join the beat and be released from administrative tasks, they are continuing their programme of recruiting civilians. We need more civilians in police headquarters, and we need more security services provided by the private sector.
    If neighbourhood watch schemes will not work on large council estates—due to harassment of committee members or, perhaps, because of the feeling about "grassing" to the police—we must think of the next move. The next move is to encourage civilians to take part in neighbourhood watch schemes, to observe, distribute leaflets, and to communicate with the police—to become almost a civilian arm of the police force. If neighbourhood watch schemes cannot be set up in certain neighbourhoods, it is perfectly logical for the relevant local authority to set up a similar watching patrol. When I suggested that alternative some years ago, there was a good deal of acceptance by those living on council estates.
    Estate officers would have a terrible task. They would need to have a high profile, prevent vandalism and the incidence of graffiti and anti-social behaviour. They would have to try to prevent abuse of amenity areas, underpasses and play areas. They would have to establish links with tenants and their problems. They would have to identify problem areas and families for committee action as appropriate. They would have to be a liaison force with the police. If they found poor maintenance or vandalism—on some estates, whole brick walls have been pushed over —they would have to take the problems to the relevant part of the housing management and, of course, report repairs when needed. They would have a primary role.
    I have often thought that it is quite wrong for local authorities of whatever colour and persuasion to build estates worth many millions of pounds and then to say, "That is it. Put the people in and let them get on with it. If they do not get on with each other, so what?" As we all know, even if one asks for an unneighbourly family in a row of houses to be moved because they do not get on well with their neighbours, it is almost impossible to remove the rotten apple from the barrel.
    We have created vast concrete estates—I shall not call them jungles, as they are beautifully laid out, but many safety measures were not built into the architectural brief. We developed such estates throughout the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Thank goodness many local authorities, including my own, stopped high-rise building in the 1960s. Of course, the great problem in moving a man, his wife and a couple of little babies to a new estate is that, 15 years later, we shall have an army of teenagers. Some of them may be the most upright citizens in the world, but many of them join gangs.
    My supposition is that those gangs are a microcosm of the football hooligan group. If a person is to learn the basic arts of gang warfare, what better place than on a council estate—such as Lord's hill in Southampton—where the only opposition is one policeman? It is hard for my hon. Friends to believe, but there is only one policeman on a bicycle, who is the sole communicator with the police station almost two miles away. Of course, those gangs of youths, even if they are moved on because someone has phoned the police, re-form in a few minutes.
    Those gangs harass the elderly by their presence, by the bricks and rubble that they throw at windows and by the disgusting materials that they push through people's letter

    143
    boxes; and, of course, the least word that is said by those elderly people against them is greeted with a complete conversation of four-letter words.
    When helping the BBC and the ITV to make a programme on the estates so that they could see what was happening, there were many complaints but practically no one wanted to be identified. No one wanted to stand up and say, "Those hooligans are here every evening and I am not afraid of them." What they actually said was, "I will tell you everything, but I do not want my name and address to go forward." That is the first time that I have ever seen the British public afraid of the television camera. Normally, they gather around TV cameras like bees around honey. But the fear on the estate was radiated through to the television cameras. That is something that cannot be allowed to continue.
    Of course, if there are young children of five, six and seven developing this trend, it is they who will eventually become the teenagers who are the muggers, the rapists or the murderers. We have to think long and hard whether we will allow the collective strength of those groups—unopposed by any real force—to destroy children's playgrounds, pull down massive fences, kick in doors, smash windows and push unspeakable objects through letter boxes.
    I have great regard for the police, but even if the incidents are reported to the police, they can do little or nothing about most of them. Until a physical act takes place and the person can be identified—which is so difficult when dealing with a group—the police are helpless. That is why security patrols should come on to the council estates.
    Hon. Members may ask who will pay for this. In the days when I first suggested those security patrols, the council tenants were willing to pay 4p, 5p or 6p a week for them. Now the picture has slightly changed. We have sold off a lot of the council houses and it would be a terrible problem collecting a levy from every person who would be safeguarded by those security patrols.
    That may be one sector in law and order that the Home Secretary might wish to look at, with the idea of making it mandatory for local government to safeguard its own property—shops as well as flats and houses—but, most of all, its tenants. That can only be done by way of a subsidy. It would be a small sum and it could be taken out of the capital receipts from the sale of council houses. Although it would be a small sum, it would go a long way towards assisting the police. I hope that if my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gives the Hampshire police authority 47 more established places next year he makes sure that most of them are in the black areas that I have described.
    I should like to leave plenty of time for my hon. Friend the Minister of State to reply. I know that I have not given him warning of some of the points that I have raised, but as passionate Conservatives we must deal with the harassment that I have described. If that means spending a little money outside the police area, it would be well worth spending.
    10.50 pm
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) is well known to the people of Southampton for the
    144
    interest that he takes in such issues as this. I am advised that, for the three or four years that he was the distinguished chairman of the housing committee of Southampton city council, he took a special interest in trying to arrange the sorts of security and anti-vandal patrols on our great housing estates which he believed then and believes now—I have more than a shred of belief myself—could under certain circumstances, perhaps when all else has failed, have an effect.
    I welcome very much the welcome that my hon. Friend gave to what the Home Office is trying to do on crime prevention and the tribute that he paid to those who composed the booklet, "Crime—Together We Can Crack It". My hon. Friend asked how many of those booklets have now been distributed around the country. I advise him that demand has almost outstripped supply. We have distributed about 1 million copies of the booklet and will shortly have to reprint a revised and updated version. It has had a warm welcome.
    Many crimes in this country are eminently preventable —for example, one quarter of all domestic burglaries and perhaps one in five of all car crimes. People must and should, take more care of their property because one of the things that so contribute to the feeling of fear and uncertainty on our great housing estates is the fact that people read in the headlines that hundreds of thousands of crimes are being reported. However, many of those crimes are petty, and many are avoidable.
    About 95 per cent. of all crime is not against the person, but against property. However, crimes against the person, such as my hon. Friend referred to in Southampton, are important, as were the remarks made in the chief constable's report about violent crime. I was extremely disturbed to learn from my hon. Friend the facts about the incidents, which I judge to be stabbings and woundings, which have caused so much trouble in the streets of his beautiful and prosperous city.
    I advise people who go about armed with sharp-bladed instruments such as knives, stilettos, Stanley knives and other implements of wounding—and sometimes, alas, murder—that the Criminal Justice Bill, which returns to the Floor of the House on Thursday this week, introduces severe new penalties for those who are caught, not just using but even carrying sharp-bladed instruments in the streets without due reason. Over the years, the classic defence of the yob and the bully when he has been searched and found to have a knife on his or, more rarely her, person has been, "Oh, I use it for peeling oranges, guy, —or constable." That has been used time after time, but will no longer apply, and people will be severely treated for the offence.
    In the Criminal Justice Bill, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department is bent on introducing for the first time the prosecution right of appeal through our right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General against allegedly over-lenient sentences. That is something that people who go about armed, bent on causing trouble, in our great cities such as Southampton, should face up to.
    There are severe new penalties in the Criminal Justice Bill which I hope will act as a deterrent. I hope that, in a year or two, the chief constable's report will not need to refer to such tragic events. So much depends on excellent policing and the work of those who police cities such as Southampton. I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to

    145
    those who police our cities. I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is looking forward very much to the TVS seminar to which my hon. Friend referred.
    Law and order and crime are at the centre of public debate, and we must realise that. As I have said, so much is preventable. The effort that can be made, sometimes on very difficult housing estates is formidable where neighbourhood watch schemes have been started up and successfully implemented. When the Government came to power in 1979, there were no neighbourhood watch schemes. In 1982, the first such scheme was started, and now, in 1988, there are some 50,000. The number is growing fast; the momentum is unstoppable. I hope that my hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong, but I was sorry to hear that neighbourhood watch schemes in some parts of Southampton at least had not been progressing as fast or developing as well as my hon. Friend had hoped. However, perhaps I misunderstood my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Hill: My hon. Friend understood me very well. I have asked numerous questions to try to get the Home Secretary to ensure that the chief constable of Hampshire was happy to set up the neighbourhood watch schemes. He is more concerned with community policing. As we cannot set up neighbourhood watch schemes on the vast estates, we shall have to try another method.
    Mr. Patten: Those are operational matters for the chief constable to decide. Although the police have the primary role to play in crime prevention, they need not necessarily have the major role to play in setting up neighbourhood watch schemes. In many parts of the country, the local community has taken the lead and demanded neighbourhood watch schemes in those areas. I have seen that on numerous visits around the country.
    It is clear from recent published research—and by recent I mean within the past 14 days—that, on some of the most difficult housing estates in the country, concentrated neigbourhood watch schemes can produce radical reductions in crime. I do not think that neighbourhood watch works only in the leafy suburbs or in middle-class, well organised areas; it works extremely well in many areas where there are housing estates. The research to which I have referred deals with an estate in Rochdale. That estate suffered from difficulties similar to those experienced on the housing estate referred to by my hon. Friend. The estate in Rochdale housed 2,000 people, but in only seven months under an intensive neighbourhood watch scheme, domestic burglaries were reduced by 60 per cent. That depended a great deal on the commitment of local people and the police. It also depended on the commitment of all the people involved in running the estate.
    That is important, and that is where my hon. Friend's experience showed as a distinguished ex-chairman of housing in Southampton. He is aware how complex and difficult the problem is and how good management is at the root of so much that can be done on our estates to provide better housing that is desperately needed and a better environment, a better neighbourhood and a safer community in which people can grow up.
    The work being carried out by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning is very important. The Department of the Environment has assisted local authorities to try to manage estates better through the priority estates project, and a similar project is sponsored
    146
    by the Welsh Office. The priority estates project has achieved remarkable improvements in some very difficult estates through the twin process of devolving responsibility for essential management functions to the estate, rather than doing everything through the town hall, and involving residents as fully as possible in the running of estates.
    I am convinced that, in improving the environment, the neighbourhood and community safety, it is critical to use the active citizens who are to be found on all of our estates as much as possible. That is why my Department is impressed by what has been achieved and has mounted its own study into the effects of the approach I have mentioned on the level of vandalism on a sample of estates.
    I am delighted that the Department of the Environment in particular can give such formidable help to a number of local schemes around the country, in terms of additional finance, and that the Estates Action programme run by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is contributing so much to, for example, the arrangements to put caretakers into blocks of flats so that they may be properly guarded and secure, with entry and exit made fast.
    That has greatly turned around a number of high-rise blocks and estates which were hitherto very rundown. A recent pilot scheme in west London showed what can be achieved. It involved a typical, system-built block of flats, of the kind which can, I know, be found in my hon. Friend's constituency too, which suffered high levels of vandalism and other crime.
    The experiment was terribly simple but very effective. Two receptionists were installed. I greatly prefer the term "receptionists", which is a good English phrase, to "concierge"; I do not see why we should use "concierge" in our housing language. Those two receptionists working in shifts and operated a controlled scheme, monitoring those entering and leaving the block. It sounds simple but it was astoundingly effective. They also ran errands for the elderly living in the block and made sure that the lifts worked properly.
    As a result, vandalism there went right down, there were no personal attacks during the period of the experiment and there was only one burglary. That experiment has been linked to high levels of crime in blocks of flats not very far away. I have seen a similar scheme operate in Wolverhampton, where the crime rate in the block concerned was cut, but when I walked into other tower blocks in the area I was surrounded by residents screaming, "When are you going to do something about it?"
    That is not to say that under certain circumstances the security patrols suggested by my hon. Friend cannnot be of use. I am advised that they are being tried out in some of our midlands cities such as Nottingham, where they have been effective. One wants to go step by step, trying to do all that one can through neighbourhood watch, which I believe has enormous untapped potential, and through the introduction of receptionists, caretakers and intensive management. If necessary, perhaps one can then introduce patrols—but that must be a matter for local decison. In that way, substantial sums of money can be saved. In the case of the one block of flats I mentioned, in Brent, west London, there was an estimated net saving of £17,000 because vandalism, graffiti and other gratuitous damage were reduced. There are considerable lessons for local authorities to learn from that experiment.

    147
    Ultimately, the local community must take responsibility. I would dearly like to see in Southampton, and in other areas suffering from similar problems, the local communities themselves, with the encouragement of all involved, banding together to defeat these problems. One should not be afraid, from time to time, of looking back to practices 20, 30 or 40 years ago, when there was greater social control and more people prepared to say, "Oi! Don't do that!" when someone—perhaps a very young child—was about to cause trouble. Perhaps one of the keys for our
    148
    great housing estates, such as those in Southampton, would be for people—be they patrols, receptionists, caretakers, community policemen or community leaders involved in neighbourhood watch to say, "Oi! Don't do that." In that form of social control, which is not a case of people being nosey parkers but of being good neighbours to one another, we are likely to find some of the roots of a successsful anti-crime drive in this country.
    The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at four minutes past Eleven o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Health and Safety Legislation (Prosecutions)
  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to raise the maximum penalty in the magistrates' court for prosecutions under the health and safety legislation.

  Mr. John Patten
  We have no present plans to do so.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Acts 1974, 1976 and 1984 were subsequently convicted on the basis of confession evidence only; and how many of those convictions were contested by the defence.

  Mr. Hurd
  This information is not available.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many times access to a solicitor has been delayed under section 58(13) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act to individuals being held in police custody under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 since I January 1986; and for how long;

  (2) how many times section 56(11) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 has been invoked since 1 January 1986 to delay action to inform a relative, friend or person interested in the welfare of an individual being held in police custody under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984, and for how long.

  Mr. Hurd
  This information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether he will list the occasions on which he has met Sir Basil Feldman since 1 January and discussed Sunday trading deregulation;

  (2) on what occasions his departmental officials have met Sir Basil Feldman since 1 January; and which officials were in attendance at these meetings;

  (3) what information was available to his Department before it agreed to meet Sir Basil Feldman, concerning the nature of his fiancial involvement in the campaign for Sunday trading deregulation; and whether he will make a statement;

  (4) whether he will make it his policy to refuse to meet persons involved in the campaign for the deregulation of Sunday trading who are contracted to receive success fees in relation to that campaign; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  Sir Basil Feldman called on me on 25 January and on my right hon. Friend on 25 May to discuss 2
  Sunday trading. Private secretaries and officials concerned with this issue were present on each occasion. Officials have not otherwise met Sir Basil Feldman except at a conference organised by him on 17 February, which I also attended. Sir Basil Feldman has informed my right hon. Friend that his involvement in the Sunday trading campaign is voluntary and that he is under no contract to receive either a fee or a success-related fee in connection with the campaign.

  Mr. Stuart Holmes
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the South Yorkshire constabulary as to when the Sheffield police will return to Mr. Stuart Holmes his extendable banner, seized outside the Crucible theatre during the world professional snooker championships; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the chief constable of South Yorkshire police that the banner is being retained for evidential purposes and will be returned to Mr. Holmes when the legal proceedings are complete.

  Police Complaints Authority
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to grant the Police Complaints Authority powers to carry out itself the investigation of serious allegations against police officers.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No. My right hon. Friend is not persuaded of the need to extend the powers already possessed by the Police Complaints Authority, to which I referred in my reply to the hon. Member's question on 18 May, at column 462.

  Sex Discrimination Act
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will bring forward legislation to amend the Sex Discrimination Act to bring private clubs with both male and female members within the scope of the Act.

  Mr. John Patten
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to a question from the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) on 14 March, at columns 422–23.

  Endangered Species
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions involving wildlife trade have been taken under(a) the Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations 1985, (b) the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976 and (c) the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979; and in each case what penalties were imposed.

  Mr. John Patten
  Records available to me for 1986, which may be incomplete, show no prosecutions under the Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations 1985 and one prosecution under the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976 which resulted in a conviction and a fine of £600. The number of prosecutions under the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 which involved wildlife is not available separately.

  Neighbourhood Watch Schemes
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many neighbourhood watch schemes there were in the Chelmsford local authority area in each year from 1982 to the latest available year.

  Mr. John Patten
  I understand from the chief constable of Essex police that at the end of 1987 there were 160 neighbourhood watch schemes in the Chelmsford police sub-division, the boundary of which is roughly conterminous with that of Chelmsford borough council. The first scheme in Chelmsford was established in October 1984. There were seven schemes at the end of 1984, 49 at the end of 1985 and 108 at the end of 1986.

  Member's Representations
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects that the private office of the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), will respond to the telephone query of the hon. Member for Stretford of 6 June and the subsequent telephone calls of the hon. Member concerning the case of the passports of Mr. S. A. H. (Home Office Ref. Nos. H209976 and H 392426) and of his relation Mrs. A. B.

  Mr. Renton
  My Private Office supplied the information requested by the hon. Member on 10 June.

  Police Interviews (Tape Recording)
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to issue a code of practice on the tape recording of police interviews with suspects, in accordance with section 60(1)(a) and section 67 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

  Mr. Hurd
  In accordance with sections 60(1)(a) and 67(3) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, I have today laid before Parliament a draft code of practice on the tape recording of police interviews with suspects at police stations.

  The draft code published today has been produced after extensive consultations, but publication affords an opportunity for me to consider any further representations about the draft, which should reach my Department by 11 July.

  The Act provides for the code to be brought into operation by an order made by statutory instrument and approved by both Houses of Parliament. I propose to lay such an order before each House as soon as possible after 11 July.

  After the code has come into operation it will need to be applied in separate orders to particular police force areas. It is my intention to make the necessary orders, under section 60(1)(b) of the 1984 Act, in relation to individual police force areas, or parts thereof, when chief officers, in consultation with other agencies in the criminal justice system, have made satisfactory arrangements for the tape recording of interviews in the areas to be covered by the order. The effect of such an order will be to require the tape recording of interviews with persons suspected of specified offences in accordance with the provisions of the code. But police forces may proceed with arrangements for tape recording in advance of an order applying to their area, and most forces are already doing so.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Departmental Staff(Education)
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has as to the proportion of senior civil servants in his Department who were educated in(a) private schools and (b) state schools.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  One third of the Department's staff at grade 3 and above attended state schools and two thirds attended private schools.

  GCSE
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to review the current standards and administration of the general certificate of secondary education; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Secondary Examinations Council (SEC) and the GCSE examining groups are collaborating to review experience of the first GCSE examinations this summer and to make any necessary improvements quickly. My right hon. Friend looks to the SEC and its intended successor body, the School Examinations and Assessment Council, to report on the outcome of the review by the end of this year, and to recommend changes as necessary.

  Higgingson Report
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received concerning the Higgingson report; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend on 7 June, at column 436, to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), in which he announced the publication of the report.

  School Leavers
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of 16-year-olds leave school at the first legal opportunity.

  Mr. Dunn
  The proportion of pupils aged 16 at the end of August 1986 in England that had left school by January 1987 was 70·5 per cent.

  Derbyshire (Expenditure)
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will meet a deputation from Derbyshire county council to discuss its education capital expenditure for 1988–89 to 1990–91;

  (2) how many requests he has received from Derbyshire county council to discuss its education capital expenditure for 1988–89 to 1990–91.

  Mr. Dunn
  My right hon. Friend has received one substantive request. A meeting has been arranged for 27 June.

  Head Teachers (Early Retirement)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what estimates have been made of the cost of early retirement of head teachers during 1988–89 and 1989–90; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Government's expenditure plans for 1988–89, set out in Cm. 288, provide for spending of £80 million on the costs of premature retirement compensation in the schools sector. The costs of early retirement of head teachers cannot be separately identified within this sum. Detailed plans for 1989–90 have yet to be settled.

  Irish Citizens
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many citizens of the Republic of Ireland are attending United Kingdom universities and colleges of higher education.

  Mr. Jackson
  In 1986, the latest year for which figures are available, there were 1,042 students from the Irish Republic on higher education courses in the United Kingdom.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what evaluation studies will be carried out on the bursary schemes for initial teacher training in shortage subjects; what are his targets for the proportion of persons in receipt of such bursaries to take up a first appointment in the maintained sector; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  An evaluation of the bursary scheme is being carried out by Bath university school of education as part of a review of the major Government initiatives introduced to combat teacher shortage. A summary of phase 1 of the review, which was completed this spring, will be published this month and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  The evaluation confirmed that the bursary has made an important contribution to the increased numbers of students entering initial teacher training in the shortage subjects.

  All those in receipt of the bursary have to sign an undertaking that they intend to teach in the maintained sector on qualification and we expect all those who satisfactorily complete their training to do so.

  Mr. Paul Gray (Letters)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he is undertaking a leak inquiry into the leaking of the briefing given to him by civil servants about leak inquiries relating to the unauthorised disclosure of a letter from Mr. Paul Gray to Mr. Tom Jeffrey, regarding educational testing, in relation to questions for answer on 17 May from the hon. Members for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) and for Linlithgow.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  All unauthorised disclosures of information are investigated by whatever means seem appropriate.

  Education Reform
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from schools in the north-west in response to his proposal that state schools should be permitted to opt out of local authority control.

  Mr. Dunn
  All individual schools which have approached the Department have done so on the basis that their interest will be treated in confidence.

  Senior School Population
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are his latest estimates of numbers of 19-year-olds still at school.

  Mr. Dunn
  In January 1987 the number of pupils aged 19 and over in school was 2,707.

  "The Bangladeshis in Britain"
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will arrange for the document published by his Department "The Bangladeshis in Britain" to be made available in Bengali; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  "Bangladeshis in Britain" was not published by my Department. It was a report of the Home Affairs Committee in the 1986–87 Session.

  Technological Studies
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his assessment of the effect which the proposed technological studies course will have, if implemented, on the standard of technical drawing and on the number of students qualified in technical drawing.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  With the introduction of technology as a foundation subject in the national curriculum, all pupils will be introduced to the principles and practice of good design, the application of theoretical knowledge to practical problems and, within that context, the practical craft, design and communication skills needed for realising their designs in a range of materials. My right hon. Friend believes this will increase the opportunities for students to obtain qualifications in all aspects of design and technology and provide a sounder foundation for the development of specialised skills such as technical drawing.

  City Technology Colleges
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he is aware of any proposals or plans for a city technology college in Sunderland.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has as yet received no proposals to establish a city technology college in Sunderland. If there is support in industry and in the local community for doing so he would be pleased to consider any proposals which are put forward.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the amount of public funds payable to the City Technology Colleges Trust for each year since its establishment; what grant is planned for future years; for
  7
  what purpose this grant is payable; and what proportion the grant represents of the total income of the City Technology College Trust for each year.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Grant is being paid to the City Technology College Trust to support work in obtaining premises for CTCs and in briefing prospective sponsors. It is envisaged that the trust will also provide support for individual CTC bodies, for example, in curriculum and staff development. If so, the Department is prepared to make a temporary contribution to the cost of these activities.

  I envisage that grants to the trust for these purposes will not exceed £200,000 over the next three years, including the current financial year, and that the amount of grant will be limited to a maximum of two thirds of the trust's total relevant expenditure. The trust has secured money from private sources to meet the balance. The trust has submitted claims totalling £20,140 in respect of the financial year 1987–88 and is expected to submit claims totalling £90,000 in the current financial year.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list respectively, how many officials at what grade, and at what estimated cost(a) comprise his Department's city technology college unit, (b) work outside this unit but in respect of city technology colleges, (c) work on the abolition of the Inner London education authority and (d) work on grant maintained schools.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  (a) The city technology colleges unit comprises:

  1 Grade 5

  1 Grade 5 HMI for approximately ⅔ of his time

  2 Grade 7s

  1 Higher Executive Officer

  1 Executive Officer

  2 Personal Secretaries

  1 Administrative Officer

  The unit's salary cost is currently about £14,000 per month.

  (b) Staff in the architects and building branch are working on design and refurbishment of buildings for CTCs. Currently this involves:

  0·75 Grade 6

  1 Grade 7

  4 Senior Professional and Technology Officers

  1 Administrative Officer

  This level of commitment is recent and is likely to decline after the summer: the salary cost is currently about £11,000 per month.

  (c) The team working on the abolition of ILEA currently comprises:

  0·75 Grade 5

  1·5 Grade 7

  1 Senior Executive Officer

  1 Higher Executive Officer (Development)

  2 Higher Executive Officers

  2 Executive Officers

  1·5 Administrative Officers

  1 Personal Secretary

  1 Typist

  1·5 Casual clerical support staff

  I expect there to be a modest increase in the staffing of the team if and when the Education Reform Bill is enacted, but the staff salary costs are at present running at about £16,000 per month.

  A considerable amount of the time of many other senior officials and their staffs within the Department is also devoted to matters arising from the abolition of the ILEA.
  8
  (d) The team currently working on grant-maintained schools comprises:

  0·33 Grade 5

  0·75 Grade 7

  1 Higher Executive Officer (Development)

  1 Executive Officer

  1 Administrative Assistant

  The staff salary costs are about £6,000 per month.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science of what plans he is aware for the establishment of any trust or other body to support or encourage the development of grant-maintained schools; and what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards such trusts or bodies receiving finanical assistance from public funds.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I am aware that there are plans to establish an independent trust with the aim of supporting the development of grant-maintained schools. I welcome this initiative. If such a body were in due course to make an application to my Department for financial assistance towards specific activities intended to provide support or advice for schools which had acquired grant-maintained status, the Department would be prepared to consider it.

  Student Finance
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to be in a position to make a statement on the conclusion of the review of student finance and on when it will be published.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The student support review has not yet completed its work. The Government's proposals for the future of student support will be published in due course.

  Universities (Expenditure)
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give central Government spending on universities per head of university population since 1979 at constant prices, including planned expenditure per head for 1988–89 to 1990–91, together with the intake to universities of undergraduate students for each of these years.

  Mr. Jackson
  [holding answer 10 June 1988]: In the following table Government expenditure has been taken as University Grants Committee recurrent grant to universities in Great Britain plus home student fee income. Per capita figures for each financial year have been derived by dividing by full-time equivalent home student numbers. The figures are at constant 1986–87 prices as measured by the gross domestic product deflator. The full-time home undergraduate student intake shown relates to the corresponding academic year.

  Government expenditure per student

  New Undergraduate entrants

  £ (constant prices)

  000's

  1979–80

  5,421

  74·7

  1980–81

  5,773

  76·4

  1981–82

  5,589

  74·0

  1982–83

  5,796

  71·6

  1983–84

  5,830

  69·2

  9

  Government expenditure per student

  New Undergraduate entrants

  £ (constant prices)

  000's

  1984–85

  5,790

  70·5

  1985–86

  5,606

  70·3

  1986–87

  5,552

  70·7

  1987–881

  5,753

  72·0

  1988–891

  5,829

  73·6

  1989–901

  5,741

  75·7

  1990–911

  5,621

  74·2

  1 Based on estimated figures.

  Average expenditure (£) per pupil1

  (Maintained, Nursery, Primary, Secondary and Special Schools—England)

  Year

  Teacher salaries2

  Seconded teacher salaries

  Repair and maintained buildings

  Text and library books

  Educational equipment3

  School meals and milk

  Cash terms

  Real terms

  Cash terms

  Real terms

  Cash terms

  Real terms

  Cash terms

  Real terms

  Cash terms

  Real terms

  Cash terms

  Real terms

  1979–80

  365

  610

  2

  3

  n/a

  n/a

  6

  10

  14

  23

  50

  84

  1980–81

  473

  666

  2

  3

  n/a

  n/a

  7

  10

  16

  23

  49

  69

  1981–82

  539

  691

  2

  3

  29

  37

  7

  9

  18

  23

  50

  64

  1982–83

  586

  701

  3

  4

  34

  41

  8

  10

  21

  25

  53

  63

  1983–84

  627

  716

  4

  5

  39

  45

  9

  10

  23

  26

  57

  65

  1984–85

  665

  728

  6

  7

  41

  45

  9

  10

  25

  27

  59

  65

  1985–86

  716

  739

  7

  7

  41

  42

  9

  9

  26

  27

  60

  62

  1986–87

  800

  800

  11

  11

  48

  48

  11

  11

  32

  32

  64

  64

  1 Based on returns of expenditure to the Department of the Environment and of pupil numbers to the Department of Education and Science.

  2 Excluding seconded teacher salaries.

  3 Expenditure levels for different types of equipment are not available. The figures in the table show the overall expenditure on educational equipment.

  Note: The case figures for the earlier years have been repriced to 1986–87 real terms using the Gross Domestic Product (Market Prices) Deflator.

  Village Schools
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give the number of(a) village schools closed since 1979 and (b) the capital spending on local authority schools falling within metropolitan areas, in each year since 1979 at constant prices.

  Mr. Dunn
  [holding answer 10 June 1988]: In the period from 1979 to 1987, 590 primary and 27 secondary schools in rural areas were approved for closure as a result of proposals published by local education authorities under section 12 of the Education Act 1980 which were either approved by my right hon. Friend or his predecessors or determined by the local education authorities. Local education authorities have a statutory duty to implement all such proposals which have been approved or determined.

  The gross capital expenditure on schools by metropolitan district councils (excluding Greater London) in England is as follows:

  Year

  Expenditure at 1986–87

  Prices (£000s)

  11986–87

  82,350

  1985–86

  96,242

  1984–85

  97,639

  1983–84

  99,278

  1982–83

  107,628

  1981–82

  86,268

  1980–81

  129,475

  1979–80

  124,297

  Schools (Expenditure)
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give the average expenditure per pupil in local authority schools on(a) books, (b) scientific equipment, (c) computers, (d) sports facilities, (e) school meals and milk, (f) teachers, (g) in-service teachers training and (h) school buildings, at constant and current prices, for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Dunn
  [holding answer 10 June 1988]: The available information is set out in the following table:

  1 Provisional.

  Notes:

  1 Figures for 1985–86 converted from outturn prices to 1986–87 prices using gross domestic product market prices deflator.

  2 Source of information—Department of Environment capital outturn forms CO1.

PRIME MINISTER

  Scotland (Ministerial Visits)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Prime Minister to which Department is allocated the responsibility for publicity relating to(a) prime ministerial and (b) other ministerial visits to Scotland.

  The Prime Minister
  The prime responsibility for publicity in connection with prime ministerial and other ministerial visits to Scotland rests with the office or Department of the Minister concerned. Scottish information office provides valuable support.

  Graffiti
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Prime Minister what is her estimate of the cost of removing graffiti from all statues, vehicles, buildings, and other structures; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The information is not available.

  Psychological Operations (Ministerial Responsibility)
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Prime Minister which Minister in Her Majesty's Government is currently responsible for psychological operations activities in(a) Northern Ireland and (b) Great Britain.
  11
  The Prime Minister
  "Psychological operations" is a military term. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has primary responsibility for military questions.

  President Reagan (Visit)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the total cost of the visit to London by President Reagan on June 2; and what official gifts were given to the President.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 10 June 1988]: Since President Reagan came on 2 June as a special visitor rather than as a guest of Her Majesty's Government, the Americans were responsible for most of the costs. Her Majesty's Government's expenditure amounted to about £14,600.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Ethiopia
  Mr. Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about United Kingdom contributions of aid to Ethiopia during the last five years.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  United Kingdom public expenditure on aid to Ethiopia through bilateral and multilateral channels, over the calendar years 1983 to 1987, has been as follows:

  £ thousands

  Bilateral

  Multilateral1

  1983

  3,433

  11,920

  1984

  7,004

  14,150

  1985

  28,058

  23,200

  1986

  9,627

  n/a

  1987

  8,554

  n/a

  1 United Kingdom share.

  n/a—not available.

  The bulk of this aid has been in the form of assistance for famine relief and rehabilitation. Information on the United Kingdom share of multilateral expenditure in Ethiopia in 1986 and 1987 is not yet available. Since January 1987 the United Kingdom has committed over £45 million for famine relief in Ethiopia, including our share of European Community assistance.

  Budget
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current Overseas Development Administration budget expressed as a percentage of gross national product.

  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current level of overseas development spending.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The Overseas Development Administration budget for overseas aid for the current financial year is £1,337 million. What proportion of gross national product this will represent depends on developments in the economy during the year.

  Project Evaluation (Women)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his Department will institute the practice of evaluating the development projects it supports for the impact they have on women.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Since 1986 it has been the practice when evaluating projects to consider their impact on women. The terms of reference for all projects evaluations include this issue.

WALES

  Public Library Service
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received on his Green Paper entitled "Financing our Public Library Service" from individuals or organisations in Wales.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  At 1 June comments had been submitted by six individuals and organisations in Wales.

  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many unemployed people have started businesses in Wales in 1987 under the enterprise allowance scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  In 1987, 6,438 unemployed people started businesses in Wales under the enterprise allowance scheme. Since the scheme began in August 1983, over 21,000 unemployed people have joined in Wales.

  Long-term Unemployment (Clwyd)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to eliminate long-term unemployment in Clwyd; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The number of long-term unemployed people in Clwyd has fallen in each quarter since January 1986. At April 1988 there were 6,358 long-term unemployed people in Clwyd, 3,770 less than in January 1986.

  The reduction reflects the Government's comprehensive range of measures to help long-term unemployed people find jobs. In particular, employment training, which begins in September 1988, will offer a flexible training programme designed to meet individual needs, and is specifically aimed to give longer-term unemployed people the skills they need to get and keep jobs.

  Channel Tunnel (Job Creation)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of jobs that might accrue to Wales-based companies in the building of the Channel tunnel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  There are no available estimates of the total number of jobs directly resulting from construction of the Channel fixed link. I am keen that industry in Wales should be involved whenever possible and the Welsh Office is actively informing companies of construction opportunities that arise.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many manufacturing jobs have been lost in (i) Clywd and (ii) Wales since May 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  While comprehensive information regarding jobs lost is not available, Department of Employment estimates show that there were 109,000 fewer employees in employment in manufacturing industry (SIC 1980 divisions 2–4) in Wales in June 1987 than in June 1979.

  Equivalent information is not available for Clwyd, but my Department's regional data system (which is restricted to companies of over 10 employees and uses a slightly different definition of manufacturing industry) indicates there to have been a fall of 7,800 in the numbers employed in manufacturing in Clwyd between 1979 and the latest available results.

  Youth Training Scheme
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many young people who are in employment in (i) Clwyd and (ii) the Shotton travel-to-work area are participating in YTS.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Information is available only at Training Commission area office level. The most recent information relates to the end of April 1988 when 6,688 trainees were participating in YTS in the Clwyd, Gwynedd and Powys area.

  Restart
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people in Wales in the restart scheme are disabled and mentally handicapped; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested is not available.

  Skills Shortages
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his plans to tackle skills shortages in Wales.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The strength of the economy is leading to increasing demand for skills. The Government have made a massive increase in investment in training since 1979, when the Training Commission's expenditure in Wales was £31 million. Estimated expenditure in the next two years will be over £200 million.

  The Training Commission is continuing to develop its programmes, and employment training, which begins in September 1988, will provide unemployed adults with the skills employers need.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Singapore
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will review the use by the Singaporean Government of the internal radio transmitter formerly controlled by the British Forces Broadcasting Service.
  14
  Mr. Eggar
  We are aware of no internal radio transmitter, formerly controlled by the British Forces Broadcasting Service, and now used by the Singapore Government. The former BFBS transmitter at Tanglin was handed over to the BBC in the early 1970s and replaced in 1987 by a new FM transmitter which is used exclusively to relay the BBC world service to Singapore listeners.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Government of Singapore concerning the statements made by the Prime Minister of Singapore concerning possible legal action against a former President of Singapore.

  Mr. Eggar
  This is a private matter between Mr. Lee and Mr. Devan Nair.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will review the instructions given to British diplomatic staff at the Office of the United Kingdom high commission in Singapore following the recent expulsion of the first secretary of the United States embassy in Singapore for alleged political interference.

  Mr. Eggar
  Mr. Hendrickson's expulsion is a matter for the Governments of the United States and of Singapore. The British high commissioner and his staff will continue to discharge their duties in the normal manner.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will make representations to the Government of Singapore concerning the arrest, detention arid re-arrest of Singaporeans involved in political activities in the run-up to the 1988 Singapore general election;

  (2) if he will make representations to the Government of Singapore concerning the use of the Internal Security Act during the 1988 Singapore general election.

  Mr. Eggar
  We are not aware that any date has yet been set for the next general election in Singapore. Singapore's record on human rights has in the past generally been good. However, the recent detentions have caused concern to friends of Singapore. In the margins of the meeting of Foreign Ministers of the countries of the European Community and the Association of South East Asian Nations in Dusseldorf on 2 and 3 May, the 12 EC countries made their concerns known to the Singapore authorities. We have since heard that three detainees were released on 18 May, although the others of course remain in detention.

  Nicaragua (Arms Exports)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all approaches made to Her Majesty's Government since 1984 by the United States administration for help in securing the export of arms directly or indirectly to rebel forces in Nicaragua; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is our well established policy not to comment on matters of this kind. We have made it clear that we have never supplied arms to the Contras directly or indirectly, nor have we ever had any intention of doing so.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about the import of worked ivory into Hong Kong in each of the last five years, by weight and value, and what were the countries of origin.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Hong Kong Government's records of the importation of worked ivory are currently collated on the basis of value and of the previous country of export. Imports, by value, in the last five years are:

  Hong Kong dollars million

  £ million

  1983

  22

  1·6

  1984

  26

  1·9

  1985

  39

  2·8

  1986

  55

  3·9

  1987

  61

  4·4

  The bulk of this ivory was imported into Hong Kong from China, Macau, Japan and Singapore, all of which are party to the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to ensure that Hong Kong complies with the provisions of conf. 6·16 of the CITES regulation agreed in Ottawa in 1987.

  Mr. Eggar
  CITES resolution conf. 6·16 adopted in Ottawa in 1987 made a number of recommendations for the tighter control of worked ivory. The Hong Kong Government plan to introduce subsidiary legislation to implement these recommendations during July.

  We are in close and regular touch with the Hong Kong Government about this matter.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Hong Kong authorities intend to ban the sale of all medicinal products containing rhino horn as from July; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Hong Kong Government will ban the internal sale of rhino horn in July. They intend to implement a ban on the internal sale of medicinal products claiming to contain rhino horn as soon as possible. They have concluded that such a ban cannot be achieved administratively, as they had earlier intended, but will require new legislation, which they plan to introduce later this year.

  Elephants
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance is being given to east African countries to combat the poaching of elephants; and what information he has about the current levels of the elephant population in Africa.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Our aid includes the provision of Land Rovers for anti-poaching patrols in Tanzania, and three technical co-operation officers in the Kenyan Wildlife Department. We understand that wildlife experts put the current level of the elephant population in Africa at some 750,000.

ENVIRONMENT

  Dangerous Emissions
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution has as to the number of sites in England and Wales that have dangerous emissions of carbon dioxide and methane.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution has received replies to its letters on landfill gas of 18 December from the majority of English and Welsh waste disposal authorities, and is processing the responses. I await its report.

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, in the interests of the preservation of the habitats of many species of wildlife, he plans to introduce measures to reduce the destruction of hedgerows.

  Mr. Moynihan
  We believe the preservation of hedgerows depends on the voluntary co-operation of farmers and others. Agricultural advisers from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food encourage farmers to retain hedgerows wherever possible and to manage them effectively. MAFF gives grants for the planting of new hedgerows and for hedgerow laying. Where appropriate, the Countryside Commission and Nature Conservancy Council can also offer assistance.

  Local Authorities (Spending)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those local authorities whose budgeted total expenditure for 1988–89 exceeds their total expenditure for 1987–88 by more than 6 per cent. and those authorities whose budgeted total expenditure for 1988–89 exceeds their grant-related expenditure assessment by more than 5 per cent., ranking the authorities according to the amount by which their budgeted expenditure exceeds their grant-related expenditure assessment, and showing for each authority(a) the authority's grant-related expenditure assessment, (b) its budgeted total expenditure for 1988–89, (c) its total expenditure for 1987–88, (d) the percentage by which its budgeted total expenditure exceeds or falls below its grant-related expenditure assessment and (e) the percentage by which its budget total expenditure for 1988–89 exceeds or falls below its total expenditure for 1987–88.

  Mr. Howard
  I have today placed the information in the Library of the House. The total expenditure information for 1987–88 (revised budget) and for 1988–89 (budget) has been taken from the 1988–89 returns of expenditure and rates (RER89). Where these returns have not been received, the latest information available has been used and the figures are provisional.

  Urban Development Corporations
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his Department conducted any analysis of the achievements and difficulties of the London Docklands Development Corporation and the Merseyside Development Corporation, before deciding to establish more urban development corporations.
  17
  Mr. Ridley
  My Department continuously monitors both London Docklands Development Corporation and Merseyside Development Corporation. I took account of their experience when I decided to establish more urban development corporations.

  Right-to-Buy Forms
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will investigate the reasons why his Department has told Lichfield district council that it is out of stock of right-to-buy forms; how many other local authorities who are pursuing right-to-buy policies have been similarly informed; how long these forms have been out of stock; and what steps he is taking to have fresh supplies printed forthwith and to ensure that this situation does not recur.

  Mrs. Roe
  Supplies were unavailable between 6 May and 7 June, and local authorities which ordered forms during this period were so informed. The difficulty arose from a defect in the reordering system, which is being remedied, coupled with a greater than expected demand for the form earlier this year.

  House Sales (Corby)
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the sum raised by sales made by the New Towns Commission in Corby for each year since 1980.

  Mrs. Roe
  The sums raised from the sale of property in Corby by the Commission for the New Towns have been as follows:

  Year ending 31 March

  £'000

  1980

  615

  1981

  952

  1982

  580

  1983

  5,840

  1984

  2,517

  1985

  1,506

  1986

  1,826

  1987

  4,464

  1988

  10,564

  Clinical Waste (Disposal)
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what regulations govern the disposal by hospitals of clinical waste; what measures exist to prevent accidental infection being caused to waste disposal operatives by hypodermic syringes and similar articles; and if he has any proposals for establishing clinical waste incinerators as an alternative to the use of the normal public waste disposal arrangements.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Arrangements for the disposal of clinical waste from hospitals are a matter for health authorities. The Health and Safety Commission guidance document of 1982, and waste management paper No. 25, give guidance on disposal of clinical waste.

  Member's Correspondence
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to be able to provide a18
  substantive reply to the letters dated 7 March and 9 May from the hon. Member for Slough to the Minister for Housing and Planning about a right-to-buy case.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I sent my hon. Friend a substantive reply on 9 June.

  Civil Servants (Outside Activities)
  Mr. John
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Pontypridd of 23 May,Official Report, column 77, he will list the names and Civil Service grades of the 16 civil servants appointed as directors of public liability companies, building societies or other outside bodies specified therein; and of which such companies or other outside bodies they have been appointed;

  (2) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Pontypridd, Official Report,23 May, column 77, by what means and for what departmental purposes the 16 civil servants were appointed as directors of the outside bodies specified in the question.

  Mr. Ridley
  Following is the answer:

  Grade

  Company

  Mr. P. C. McQuail

  2

  Generation Securities Ltd.

  Mr. F. A. Osborn

  2

  Trafalgar House Oil and Gas Ltd.

  Mr. J. P. G. Rowcliffe

  2

  Bradford and Bingley Building Society

  Mr. C. J. S. Brearley

  3

  John McLean and Sons Ltd.

  Dr. D. J. Fisk

  3

  Hydraulics Research Ltd.

  Mr. P. J. Fletcher

  3

  John Mowlem Homes Ltd.

  Mr. R. J. Green

  3

  Butterley Brick Ltd.

  Miss D. A. Nichols

  3

  John Laing ETE Ltd.

  Mr. B. D. Ponsford

  3

  Smiths Industries Medical Systems Group

  Mr. R. J. A. Sharp

  3

  ARC Concrete Ltd.

  Mr. K. E. C. Sorensen

  3

  Balfour Beatty Construction International Ltd.

  Mr. N. W. Summerton

  3

  Redland Bricks Ltd.

  Miss E. C. Turton

  3

  Woolwich Equitable Building Society

  Mr. A. G. Watson

  3

  Denco Ltd.

  Mr. R. Johnson

  6

  Salveson Homes Ltd.

  Mr. M. Tucker

  7

  Thamesmead Town

  Dr. Fisk's appointment as a non-executive director of Hydraulics Research Ltd. arises directly from his official duties. The appointment of Mr. Tucker as a non-executive director of Thamesmead Town followed an approach to him by the directors of the company; he currently serves on secondment to the company. The other appointments as non-excecutive directors listed in the table were arranged by senior departmental officers with a view to providing opportunities for civil servants to obtain direct experience of the operation of the private sector.

  Planning Appeals
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list(a) the number of planning appeals made to his Department in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available, (b) the number of such appeals that were allowed and (c) the percentage that (b) represents of (a).

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The table shows the number of planning appeals received, withdrawn prior to decision, decided and allowed. The success rate given is the number of appeals allowed as a percentage of the total number decided in each year.
  19

  Year

  Appeals received

  Appeals withdrawn

  Appeals decided

  Appeals allowed

  Percentage allowed of those decided

  1978

  11,609

  2,671

  8,952

  2,504

  28·0

  1979

  12,990

  2,485

  8,933

  2,602

  29·1

  1980

  16,208

  2,921

  13,130

  4,044

  30·8

  1981

  16,637

  3,305

  14,451

  4,721

  32·7

  1982

  13,900

  2,591

  12,915

  4,003

  31·0

  1983

  13,699

  1,611

  11,221

  8,633

  32·4

  1984

  16,192

  2,475

  11,643

  3,773

  32·4

  1985

  17,053

  2,110

  14,639

  5,477

  37·4

  1985–86

  17,839

  2,143

  14,130

  5,581

  39·5

  1986–87

  19,856

  2,533

  15,613

  6,208

  39·8

  1987–88

  22,482

  3,173

  18,474

  6,955

  37·6

  Rating Reform
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether 19-year-olds still at school will receive any assistance with poll tax by way of rebates, student discount or total exemption; and from what resources he expects any residual liability to be met.

  Mr. Ridley
  Individuals aged over 18 who are still at school and in respect of whom child benefit is payable will be exempt from the community charge. Child benefit is not payable in respect of 19-year-olds still at school. They will be eligible for rebates of up to 80 per cent. of the community charge according to their incomes. The residual liability will be met from the same sources as their other living expenses.

  Companies (Local Authority Involvement)
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any proposals for regulating local authorities' involvement in Companies Act companies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  My right hon. Friend has today published a consultation paper setting out proposals for a statutory framework for local authorities' involvement in companies. Copies of the paper have been placed in the Library.

  The report of the committee of inquiry into the conduct of local authority business (the Widdicombe committee) highlighted a number of concerns about companies used by local authorities, under their control or influence, to conduct various activities. In the light of these concerns, the Government have examined the policy issues involved, with the help of specialist assistance from Coopers and Lybrand. As background to this work, my Department conducted a survey of local authorities about their involvement with companies, the results of which are set out in the paper. The survey found that companies are being used by authorities for a very wide range of activities and that their number and the scale of operation is tending to increase.

  The Government do not wish to prevent local authorities from becoming involved in companies where there are operational advantages in doing so. Local authorities' use of companies has proved useful in a variety of cases, particularly in joint ventures with the private sector.

  The Government have, however, concluded that it is anomalous that local authorities' interests in companies, and the control of influence that these can give, are outside various rules governing the conduct of local authority business, which are intended to ensure that local
  20
  authorities demonstrably conduct their affairs in accordance with the principles which should govern all public authorities. The proposals set out in the consultation paper are designed to remove this anomaly.

  The essence of the proposals is that where a local authority or authorities control a company or have a dominant influence on it, there should be, and should be seen to be, accountability and propriety in the conduct of its affairs; and that such companies should not be capable of being used as a means of avoiding the controls imposed by Parliament on local authorities. These objectives are more difficult to achieve in cases where local authorities do not control a company. It is therefore proposed that local authorities will be able to hold a minority interest in a company only in circumstances where an important policy end is served. The paper sets out the circumstances proposed by the Government.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is consulting separately on these proposals.

  Plumbers
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to ensure that unvented hot water storage systems are installed by registered plumbers under the terms of the scheme operated by the British Board of Agrèment.

  Mr. Trippier
  The installation of an unvented hot water system is covered by the safety requirements set out in part G3 of the Building Regulations 1984. Guidance has been given that such a system should be installed by an approved installer, but there is no legal requirement to this effect, although there are requirements that the building control authority must be told whether or not the installer of a system has been approved. We have taken steps to make building control authorities aware of the dangers arising from improper installation, and we have actively encouraged plumbers to seek registration as approved installers. Nevertheless, I am aware that the British Board of Agrèment remains concerned about this issue and my officials will be meeting it shortly to consider whether the present arrangements need to be reviewed.

  American Waste
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the danger of importing vermin with American domestic waste proposed to be dumped in the north-west and south-west of England.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 9 June, at column 654.

  Merseyside Task Force
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the future of the Merseyside task force.

  Mr. Trippier
  The task force has played a major role in the regeneration of Merseyside. My right hon. Friend has no plans to change this role.

  Pollution
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list those landfill sites identified by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution officials as emitting methane and/or carbon dioxide; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will estimate how many homes have been evacuated because of concern at the level of methane and carbon dioxide gas given off at sites (a) where new housing has been built on landfill sites and (b) where housing is built close to landfill sites; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 10 June 1988]: Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution has received replies to its letter on landfill gas of 18 December from the majority of English and Welsh waste disposal authorities, and is processing the responses. I await its report.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) Official Report, 1 March,

  Tax unit type

  Number paying charge

  Total gross community charge bills

  Number entitled to community charge rebate

  Total value of rebates

  (millions)

  (£ millions)

  (millions)

  (£ millions)

  Primary tax units

  Single pensioner

  3·0

  611

  1·8

  263

  One parent family

  0·7

  147

  0·3

  56

  Other single adult

  2·4

  514

  0·5

  77

  Couple—no children

  6·5

  2,592

  1·5

  348

  Couple—one child

  2·2

  863

  0·3

  81

  Couple—two children

  2·6

  1,008

  0·3

  87

  Couple—three or more children

  1·0

  404

  0·2

  68

  All

  18·4

  6,140

  5·2

  980

  Secondary tax units

  Single pensioner

  0·4

  85

  0·3

  40

  One parent family

  0·1

  18

  0·1

  9

  Other single adult

  3·8

  772

  1·0

  145

  Couple—no children

  0·1

  35

  0·0

  7

  Couple—one child

  0·0

  15

  0·0

  4

  Couple—two children

  0·0

  9

  0·0

  3

  Couple—three or more children

  0·0

  5

  0·0

  1

  All

  4·4

  939

  1·3

  208

  Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding.

  National Engineering Laboratory
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will give the asset value of the land, buildings and capital equipment for each of those categories at the National Engineering Laboratory, East Kilbride;
  22
  columns 560–62, he will retabulate those tables taking into consideration the 15 per cent. rebate taper and any other relevant modifications to the rebate scheme.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 9 June 1988]: The tables give the requested update of the figures provided by my right hon. Friend on 1 March 1988. As before, the figures should be treated as indicative only. They show that, as a result of reducing the community charge rebate taper from 20p to 15p in the pound, around 400,000 extra households are expected to contain individuals entitled to a rebate. Households where someone is presently projected to be entitled to less than the maximum rebate will also benefit from the reduced taper, with a total of 5 million adults gaining. As before, the estimated value of rebates does not include the benefit of uprating of income support in respect of the 20 per cent. minimum contribution to rates in 1988–89. The net cost of community charges to tax unit types is not therefore simply the difference between gross community charges and the value of rates. These figures relate to England only and are in 1986–87 prices, like the earlier table.

  Household type

  Number1 millions

  Single pensioner

  1·5

  Other single adult

  0·7

  Two adults

  2·7

  Three plus adults

  1·2

  All

  6·2

  Note: Numners may not add due to rounding.

  1 Households where individuals are expected to be entitled to a community charge rebate.

  (2) if he will list the Government Departments and non-Government agencies permanently on site at the National Engineering Laboratory, East Kilbride, listing the work undertaken by each of the organisations on site.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has today placed in the Library an information pack which contains the requested information which is currently available.

EMPLOYMENT

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the male and female rate of unemployment in each(a) development area and (b) intermediate area in April for Great Britain.

  Mr. Lee
  The following information is in the Library. The tables show the number of unemployed male and female claimants, expressed as a percentage of employees in employment plus the unemployed for each development area and intermediate area in Great Britain on 8 April 1988.

  Unemployment rate April 1988

  Region and development areas

  Male

  Female

  South West

  Falmouth

  18·60

  13·10

  Helston

  22·00

  13·20

  Newquay

  23·10

  17·30

  Penzance and St. Ives

  21·30

  12·00

  Redruth and Camborne

  20·10

  13·00

  East Midlands

  Corby

  11·70

  9·30

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Rotherham and Mexborough

  24·20

  12·20

  Scunthorpe

  15·60

  9·70

  Whitby

  21·10

  10·30

  North West

  Liverpool

  24·50

  10·90

  Widnes and Runcorn

  19·30

  11·70

  Wigan and St. Helens

  20·00

  10·50

  Wirral and Chester

  20·70

  9·80

  Workington

  13·70

  12·10

  North

  Bishop Auckland

  20·30

  11·20

  Hartlepool

  26·10

  12·10

  Middlesbrough

  24·60

  10·70

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  18·30

  8·60

  South Tyneside

  27·50

  13·40

  Stockton on Tees

  18·60

  10·70

  Sunderland

  22·90

  11·20

  Wales

  Aberdare

  28·20

  12·80

  Blaenau Gwent and Abergavenney

  21·50

  9·60

  Cardigan

  22·50

  20·90

  Holyhead

  22·10

  16·70

  Lampeter and Aberaeron

  18·80

  11·80

  Merthyr and Rhymney

  21·60

  11·70

  Neath and Port Talbot

  15·30

  11·20

  Pontypridd and Rhondda

  20·00

  9·20

  Shotton, Flint and Rhyl

  16·10

  10·10

  South Pembrokeshire

  24·70

  16·90

  Wrexham

  14·60

  9·80

  Scotland

  Arbroath

  21·50

  14·50

  Bathgate

  19·50

  10·80

  Cumnock and Sanquhar

  33·60

  16·70

  Dumbarton

  21·40

  14·50

  Dundee

  17·20

  9·30

  Glasgow

  20·30

  9·60

  Greenock

  25·10

  11·70

  Irvine

  25·90

  13·80

  Kilmarnock

  20·10

  10·00

  Lanarkshire

  22·20

  11·30

  24

  Region and intermediate areas

  Male

  Female

  South West

  Bodmin and Liskeard

  15·00

  9·90

  Bude

  13·70

  12·60

  Cinderford and Ross on Wye

  10·70

  10·40

  Plymouth

  14·60

  9·20

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  14·60

  8·60

  Coventry and Hinkley

  12·80

  9·20

  Dudley and Sandwell

  14·20

  9·60

  Kidderminster

  10·30

  8·40

  Telford and Bridgenorth

  15·20

  10·80

  Walsall

  14·40

  9·00

  Wolverhampton

  —

  —

  East Midlands

  Gainsborough

  15·30

  10·70

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Barnsley

  22·30

  10·00

  Bradford

  14·20

  7·20

  Doncaster

  20·70

  12·40

  Grimsby

  16·40

  8·20

  Hull

  16·30

  8·80

  Sheffield

  17·10

  9·20

  North West

  Accrington and Rossendale

  12·70

  8·20

  Blackburn

  14·60

  7·30

  Bolton and Bury

  16·50

  8·80

  Manchester

  15·00

  7·40

  Oldham

  14·80

  9·10

  Rochdale

  15·00

  9·00

  North

  Darlington

  14·70

  9·00

  Durham

  14·30

  7·60

  Morpeth and Ashington

  19·40

  8·70

  Wales

  Bangor and Caernarfon

  19·70

  10·80

  Bridgend

  17·40

  8·90

  Cardiff

  15·20

  6·70

  Fishguard

  18·70

  19·30

  Haverfordwest

  19·90

  11·60

  Llanelli

  17·90

  12·00

  Newport

  15·40

  8·70

  Pontypool and Cwmbran

  15·80

  10·00

  Porthmadoc and Ffestiniog

  13·40

  8·80

  Pwhelli

  21·00

  15·70

  Swansea

  18·70

  8·60

  Scotland

  Alloa

  22·50

  12·50

  Ayr

  16·10

  10·30

  Badenoch

  15·60

  9·80

  Campbeltown

  22·90

  13·70

  Dunfermline

  15·50

  11·10

  Dunoon and Bute

  19·10

  13·20

  Falkirk

  16·00

  11·70

  Forres

  24·20

  18·00

  Girvan

  29·90

  16·50

  Invergordon and Dingwall

  29·90

  12·70

  Kirkcaldy

  21·40

  10·90

  Lochaber

  17·60

  10·60

  Newton Stewart

  20·00

  16·40

  Skye and Wester Ross

  20·90

  14·90

  Stewartry

  11·40

  9·60

  Stranraer

  19·50

  14·10

  Western Isles

  28·00

  11·40

  Sutherland

  22·00

  13·10

  Wick

  24·50

  7·10

  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of job vacancies advertised in each(a) assisted development area and (b) intermediate area in April.
  25
  Mr. Lee
  The table shows the number of unfilled vacancies, excluding vacancies on the community programme, registered at jobcentres approximately corresponding to each of the development areas and intermediate areas in Great Britain on 8 April 1988. Nationally only about a third of all vacancies are reported to jobcentres; this proportion is likely to vary between areas.

  Unfilled Vacancies—April 1988

  Region and Development Areas

  Number

  South West

  Falmouth

  222

  Helston

  129

  Newquay

  522

  Penzance and St. Ives

  541

  Redruth and Camborne

  318

  East Midlands

  Corby

  566

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Rotherham and Mexborough

  539

  Scunthorpe

  452

  Whitby

  87

  North West

  Liverpool

  2,907

  Widnes and Runcorn

  380

  Wigan and St. Helens

  1,077

  Wirral and Chester

  1,696

  North

  Workington

  167

  Bishop Auckland

  612

  Hartlepool

  199

  Middlesbrough

  982

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  3,642

  South Tyneside

  222

  Stockton on Tees

  648

  Sunderland

  1,331

  Wales

  Aberdare

  138

  Blanau Gwent and Abergavenny

  432

  Cardigan

  177

  Holyhead

  156

  Lampeter and Aberaeron

  61

  Merthyr and Rhymney

  488

  Neath and Port Talbot

  642

  Pontypridd and Rhondda

  618

  Shotton, Flint and Rhyl

  993

  South Pembrokeshire

  221

  Wrexham

  467

  Scotland

  Arbroath

  71

  Bathgate

  585

  Cumnock and Sanquhar

  178

  Dundee

  462

  Glasgow

  4,525

  Greenock

  262

  Irvine

  1,421

  Kilmarnock

  536

  Lanarkshire

  1,175

  Unfilled vacancies—April 1988

  Region and intermediate areas

  Number

  South West

  Bodmin and Liskeard

  336

  Bude

  74

  Cinderford and Ross on Wye

  412

  Plymouth

  1,250

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  8,284

  26

  Region and intermediate areas

  Number

  Coventry and Hinkley

  1,577

  Dudley and Sandwell

  2,705

  Kidderminster

  660

  Telford and Bridgenorth

  1,044

  Walsall

  853

  Wolverhampton

  675

  East Midlands

  Gainsborough

  135

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Barnsley

  289

  Bradford

  1,875

  Doncaster

  382

  Grimsby

  335

  Hull

  1,431

  Sheffield

  772

  North West

  Accrington and Rossendale

  556

  Blackburn

  716

  Bolton and Bury

  6,194

  Oldham

  605

  Rochdale

  477

  North

  Darlington

  475

  Durham

  545

  Morpeth and Ashington

  553

  Wales

  Bangor and Caernarfon

  373

  Bridgend

  483

  Cardiff

  1,457

  Fishguard

  0

  Haverfordwest

  284

  Llanelli

  499

  Newport

  536

  Pontypool and Cwmbrian

  353

  Porthmadoc and Ffestiniog

  119

  Pwhelli

  171

  Swansea

  1,163

  Scotland

  Alloa

  148

  Ayr

  562

  Badenoch

  530

  Campletown

  25

  Dunfermline

  226

  Dunoon and Bute

  109

  Falkirk

  559

  Forres

  39

  Girvan

  101

  Invergordon and Dingwall

  70

  Kirkcaldy

  426

  Lochaber

  183

  Newton Stewart

  46

  Skye and Wester Ross

  154

  Stewartry

  48

  Stranraer

  67

  Western Isles

  69

  Sutherland; Wick

  163

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many job vacancies were registered at jobcentres in Tameside at the most recent available date.

  Mr. Lee
  On 8 April 1988 there were 548 unfilled vacancies, excluding community programme vacancies, at jobcentres covering an area closely corresponding to the Tameside local authority district.

  Engineering Industry
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his assessment of the effect of the removal of the Manpower Services Commission grant for industrial placement training on the engineering industry.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There need be no significant effect. This grant, which amounted to £850,000 in 1987–88, represented a small proportion of the total support the Training Commission gives to the engineering industry. Research indicates that many employers would have made a sandwich placement available without it. Moreover, I understand that the Engineering Industry Training Board has now introduced a modified scheme of grants for sandwich grant placement training for engineering undergraduates.

ENERGY

  Oil and Gas (Field Development Approvals)
  Mr. Sackville
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many field development approvals there have been for(a) oil and (b) gas in each month since January 1987.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  In 1987, 11 oil and two gas projects were approved. So far this year 11 projects have been approved; two oil projects in March, two oil and two gas in April, two oil and one gas in May and two gas in June.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Scretary of State for Energy when he expects to complete his consultations about statutory obligations and supply regulations in the electricity supply industry following privatisation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  A large number of responses to the supply code consultation document have been received, and these are being considered.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what effect he expects the privatisation of electricity will have on the numbers of people employed in the supply industry.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Manning levels after privatisation will be a matter for the industry, as is the case now.

  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will have further planning discussions with representatives of the area electricity boards prior to presenting future legislation on privatisation, in respect of the forthcoming operational framework for the boards' respective retail outlets.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend and I meet the chairmen of the area boards from time to time to dicuss a number of privatisation matters. The operational framework for the boards' retail outlets is still under consideration.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what further representations he has received about the proposals for privatisation of the electricity supply industry; and if he will make a statement.
  28
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I continue to receive many representations on electricity privatisation.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if, pursuant to his answer of 9 May,Official Report column 3, he will itemise all additional costs arising from his proposals in relation to the operational control of the national grid; what estimates of each of these costs he has received from Lord Marshall; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Government believe that any additional costs arising from the transfer of ownership of the national grid to the distribution companies will be outweighed by the benefits from increased competition.

  Power Stations (Gas Burn)
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what applications for permission to burn gas in power stations he has approved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has received an application from Thames Power and the Central Electricity Generating Board to establish a 1000 MW gas-fired power station at Barking Reach in east London.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Proposals to establish gas-fired power stations have been made by Thames Power Limited and Leicester Energy Limited.

  I am pleased to say that I have approved both the 990 MW combined cycle plant at Barking and the 290 MW combined heat and power plant at Leicester, in accordance with section 14 of the Energy Act 1976 and the relevant European Community directive.

  Hinkley Point C PWR
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has received the outline statement of the case, published by the Central Electricity Generating Board, in advance of the public inquiry into the proposed Hinkley Point C pressurised water reactor to commence this October, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I received the Central Electricity Generating Board's outline statement of case on 13 May. I also received an outline statement of case, on the same day, from Somerset county council on behalf of itself, West Somerset district council and a consortium of opposing local authorities.

  Oil and Gas Production (North Sea)
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what the current level of oil and gas production is in the British sector of the North sea; and for how long he expects the United Kingdom to maintain self-sufficiency.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Oil production from the United Kingdom continental shelf averaged 2·5 million barrels per day in the first quarter of 1988, while, according to provisional figures, gas production averaged 181·2 million cu m per day in the same period.

  On current estimates, the United Kingdom is likely to remain self-sufficient in oil and gas well into the 1990s.

  Coal Industry Privatisation
  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has had meetings with the chairman of British Coal to discuss future investment in the light of his policy towards future privatisation of the coal industry.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend and I regularly meet the chairman to discuss the corporation's capital programme.

  Fawley B Power Station
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has fixed the date for the public inquiry into the proposals by the Central Electricity Generating Board to construct the Fawley B power station and coal jetty.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  In making arrangements for the inquiry my right hon. Friend is statutorily obliged to make a statement of matters which he considers likely to be relevant to his consideration of the application. It is therefore clear that he must study the objections he has received very carefully before announcing the inquiry.

  Offshore Petroleum Licences
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he will announce a further round of offshore petroleum licences.

  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he is now ready to launch the eleventh round of offshore petroleum licensing.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My Department is still consulting interested parties about our proposals for an eleventh round of offshore petroleum licensing. My right hon. Friend hopes to launch the round formally before the summer recess.

  Power Stations (Coal Burn)
  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has recently met the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board to discuss future coal burn in power stations.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend and I have regular meetings with the chairman of the CEGB to discuss all aspects of the electricity supply industry.

  Coal Industry Dispute
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will now make it his policy to enter into discussions with the chairman of British Coal regarding the reinstatement of the miners sacked during the 1984–85 strike; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave the hon. Member on 15 February 1988, at column 695.

  Paper Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what consultations he has had recently with representatives of the paper industry concerning, and what steps his Department has taken to achieve, greater energy efficiency within Britain's paper manufacturing industry.
  30
  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My Departmemt, through the Energy Efficiency Office, continues to work closely with the paper industry to improve energy efficiency in paper manufacturing.

  Offshore Supply Industry
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what steps his Department is taking to encourage the United Kingdom offshore supply industry to increase its share of overseas markets.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My right hon. Friend and I are actively promoting the industry by visiting selected markets accompanied, where appropriate, by an industrial mission. In addition, my Offshore Supplies Office has substantially increased the resources it devotes to identifying export market opportunities and is encouraging and supporting the industry's efforts to increase its share of these markets.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what action he has taken in the last year to provide work opportunities for the United Kingdom offshore supply industry.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Last year my Department approved development plans for a total of 13 projects including seven new offshore oil and gas projects. So far this year 11 offshore, onshore and incremental projects have been approved. These developments will provide our supplies and fabrication industries with considerable work opportunities over the next few years.

  Fast Breeder Reactors
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on his policy towards investment in fast breeder reactors and fusion; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My Department funds a large programme of research and development on the fast reactor. This programme is currently under review. No decisions have yet been taken.

  The United Kingdom is making a major contribution to the Community fusion programme, including the Joint European Torus (JET) project at Culham.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what progress has been made in improving energy efficiency in cities.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  A large proportion of the £700 million gross annual savings attributable to the Energy Efficiency Office's programmes arises in cities. The EEO has also helped to launch 11 energy action cities, which harness a variety of resources to a broad campaign aimed at improving energy efficiency throughout the local economy.

  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what further efforts are being made to improve the energy efficiency of buildings.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Our research development and demonstration programmes in domestic buildings will
  31
  continue to sustain the momentum which has contributed to savings worth £1·1 billion per year. I have also recently asked the building societies to encourage investment in energy efficiency. In non-domestic buildings our programmes will continue to promote increased market awareness by developing energy targets and by supporting professionals in this field.

  Sullom Voe (Oil Throughput)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the volume of oil throughput at Sullom Voe in the first four months of 1988 and the first four months of 1987.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  In the first four months of this year, Sullom Voe handled 18·2 million tonnes of crude oil, compared with 17·3 million tonnes over the same period in 1987.

  Dounreay Fast Breeder Reactor
  Mr. Michael Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to take a decision in relation to future funding of the fast breeder reactor at Dounreay.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The fast reactor programme funded by my Department is currently under review. No decisions have yet been taken.

  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the expected life of the prototype fast reactor at Dounreay; and what plans there are for constructing a commercial fast reactor on that site or elsewhere.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The design life of the prototype fast reactor at Dounreay, when commissioned in 1974, was about 30 years. The Government have received no application to construct a commercial fast reactor.

  Fuel Disconnection
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received on the operations of the code of practice on fuel disconnection.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The code of practice is monitored by the electricity and gas consumers' councils, and by the Office of Gas Supply. In responding to the paper on a "Proposed Supply Code for the Electricity Supply Industry", a number of bodies have made general comments about the code of practice. These are being considered together with all other comments received on the paper.

  Hinkley Point A Power Station
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when the Hinkley A power station is likely to reach the end of its useful life.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is a matter for the CEGB, and I have asked the chairman to write to my hon. Friend.

  British Gas
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many British Gas shareholders have now paid the third instalment; and what is the total sum collected.
  32
  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Of nearly 3 million payments due in the British Gas third instalment, 99·5 per cent. have been received. The total sum collected amounts to £1,589 million.

  Continental Shelf (Gas Shares)
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what are the prospects for further sales of gas from the United Kingdom continental shelf; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  A number of gas sale contracts on the United Kingdom continental shelf have recently been agreed and others are under negotiation. There is a good prospect of gas from the United Kingdom continental shelf meeting our needs well into the second half of the 1990s.

  Research and Development Projects
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many research and development projects were approved for support by the Offshore Energy Technology Board in the last financial year; what was their total value; and how much the Government will contribute to them.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  In 1987–88, 41 new projects were approved for support. Their total cost was £17 million, and the Government contribution was £4·4 million.

  Natural Gas Imports
  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his policy on imports of natural gas from Norway.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Gas imports can have a major effect on the rate and pattern of the development of the United Kingdom continental shelf. In recognition of this, and of the importance the Government attach to maintaining the rate of activity on the United Kingdom continental shelf, British Gas has undertaken to consult the Government on any import plans as these develop. Any imports from Norway would be subject to the normal consent requirements for laying pipelines on the United Kingdom continental shelf and, where appropriate, the conclusion of intergovernmental treaties.

  Association of Independent Electricity Producers
  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the Association of Independent Electricity Producers.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend last met the association on 28 October 1987. Our officials are in regular contact with the association.

  Electricity Industry (Regulatory Framework)
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make it his policy, when drawing up the regulatory framework for the electricity industry, to require distributors to show that they have investigated all possibilities, including energy efficiency schemes, in order to meet their customers' requirements at the least cost.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The future regulatory framework for the electricity supply industry is still under consideration.

  Dumping at Sea
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what efforts are being made by his Department to show that there are no practical land-based alternatives to dumping flyash at sea and that flyash does not cause harm to the marine environment.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is a matter for the CEGB. I understand that it has already embarked upon studies into alternative disposal methods for its wastes. If sea disposal is to continue beyond 1989, the CEGB will need to satisfy

  000 tonnes

  Country of origin

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  German Democratic Republic

  1

  107

  117

  109

  86

  Belgium

  9

  102

  29

  17

  72

  United States of America

  —

  6

  24

  43

  24

  Federal Republic of Germany

  20

  943

  101

  —

  22

  Netherlands

  —

  11

  1

  9

  17

  Republic of South Africa

  —

  1

  36

  20

  12

  Norway

  —

  3

  3

  5

  12

  France

  2

  162

  34

  10

  4

  Japan

  658

  639

  1

  —

  —

  Other countries

  13

  24

  29

  —

  —

  Total

  703

  1,998

  375

  213

  249

  Source: Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.

  Plutonium (Japan)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what provision there is for review of the permission for the export of plutonium to Japan during the period of the proposed contract, should Japan decide that its proposed fast breeder reactor programme has no commercial future;

  (2) if he has made an independent assessment of the quantity of plutonium required by Japan for its fast breeder reactor and MOx fuel programmes to ensure that the conditions for the export of fissile material to a non-nuclear weapons state are adhered to.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My Department has not made such an assessment. The return of plutonium from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel at THORP to its country of origin or to any other destination will not take place for several years and will be made only on receipt of assurances covering peaceful use, application of safeguards, physical protection and controls on retransfer in line with the statement by the then Foreign Secretary, now Lord Callaghan, on 31 March 1976, at columns 514–16.

  Nuclear Safety
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what plans he has to meet the chairman of the advisory committee on the safety of nuclear installations.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend and I meet the chairman of ACSNI from time to time.

  Fluidised Bed Project (Grimethorpe)
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how much money was spent(a) from 1976 to 1984 and (b) from 1985 to date by British Coal and the Central Electricity Generating Board on the fluidised bed project at Grimethorpe; what proportion of this money was foreign investment; and from which country it came.
  34
  the licensing authority (MAFF) that there is no practical land-based alternative and that the waste will not cause harm to the marine environment.

  Coke
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what were the total imports of coke for each of the last five years; and what were the amounts from each country of origin.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Imports of hard coke for each of the last five years by total and by country of origin are as follows:

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Between 1976 and 1984, under the auspices of the International Energy Agency, the United States of America, Federal Republic of Germany and United Kingdom each contributed £20 million to the fluidised bed combustion project at Grimethorpe. Of the United Kingdom share, British Coal contributed £3 million, and the Department of Energy £17 million. British Coal also made contributions in kind. From 1985 to date the project has been the responsibility of British Coal together with the Central Electricity Generating Board. I understand from British Coal that during this period the United States of America contributed £10 million, in addition to expenditure by British Coal and CEGB of £28 million.

SCOTLAND

  Acute Beds
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give for each health board the numbers of acute beds in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is set out in the table.

  Average available staffed beds in acute specialties in National Health Service hospitals in Scotland, year ending 30 September 1987 (provisional figures)

  Number

  Scotland

  17,108

  Argyll and Clyde

  1,214

  Ayrshire and Arran

  1,065

  Borders

  347

  Dumfries and Galloway

  444

  Fife

  814

  Forth Valley

  672

  Grampian

  1,692

  Greater Glasgow

  3,958

  Highland

  695

  35

  Number

  Lanarkshire

  1,564

  Lothian

  2,817

  Orkney

  60

  Shetland

  60

  Tayside

  1,622

  Western Isles

  86

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what evidence he has received on the usefulness of including dates of birth in helping assessors establish the community charge liability of individuals.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The requirement in section 13(1)(d) of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 that dates of birth are to be included in the community charges register was added to the Bill as a result of representations made by local authority practitioners on the desirability of the provision being included and the information is being included in local authority systems as an aid to identification.

  Power Stations (Coal Burn)
  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement on the level of coal burned from pits in the Scottish coalfield in South of Scotland Electricity Board power stations.

  Mr. Lang
  I am advised by the South of Scotland Electricity Board that coal burn in the fiscal year 1987–88 was about 5·6 million tonnes, all from indigenous sources, both British Coal and private workings. For the fiscal year 1988–89, the board estimates that the total coal burn could be at a similar level, but the quantity and sources will be dependent on a number of factors, including the competitiveness of coal prices and the level of electricity trading.

  Social Workers
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions his Department has undertaken with the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work about the funding of social workers from voluntary organisations who wish to undertake professional training leading to the certificate in social services or the certificate of qualification in social work; and what is his policy towards provision for such students for the academic year 1988–89.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Since 1987 support of social workers from voluntary organisations undertaking professional training for the certificate in social services has been administered by the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work. The level of resources allocated for this support is under review by my Department following representations by CCETSW. I cannot predict the outcome. Support is not available for social workers in voluntary organisations wishing to undertake the certificate of qualification in social work.

  Radioactivity (Monitoring)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes to take on the recommendations 36
  of the Committee on the Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment in respect of (a) a series of detailed studies of leukaemia cases, (b) increased monitoring of diet, air, sea spray sediment and dust and (c) whole body monitoring and the measurement of radioactivity in placentae; and whether such action will relate to the areas around Chapelcross, Hunterston and Torness and those affected by the Sellafield drift, as well as Dounreay.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) on 8 June. This set out the responses of the Government to the report of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) on the possible increased incidence of leukaemia in young people near the Dounreay nuclear establishment. So far as action relating to other areas containing nuclear establishments is concerned, we will continue to be guided by the advice of COMARE.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the number of beds per hospital for(a) each hospital completed since 1979 and (b) each hospital approved in principle since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forysth
  The information is as follows:

  All projects completed since 1979

  Number of beds

  Argyll and Clyde

  Johnstone Hospital

  30

  Dunoon and District General Hospital

  30

  Merchiston Hospital Phase I

  120

  Merchiston Hospital

  30

  Royal Alexandra Hospital, Paisley

  720

  Ayrshire and Arran

  Crosshouse Hospital

  710

  Biggart Hospital

  30

  Borders

  Hay Lodge, Peebles

  50

  Borders General

  404

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Annan Hospital (geriatric)

  30

  Fife

  Glenrothes Hospital

  72

  Whyteman's Brae, Kirkcaldy

  180

  West Fife District General Hospital

  240

  Forth Valley

  Royal Scottish National Hospital, Larbert

  120

  Sauchie Hospital

  60

  Falkirk Royal Infirmary

  176

  Grampian

  Woodend Geriatric Hospital

  30

  Inverurie Hospital

  30

  Spynie Hospital, Elgin

  30

  Ugie Hospital, Peterhead

  30

  Woodend Hospital—Glenburn Wing

  24

  Woodlands Hospital

  120

  Greater Glasgow

  Blawarthill Hospital

  30

  Canniesburn Hospital

  30

  Gartloch Hospital

  30

  Gartnavel Hospital

  60

  Mearnskirk Hospital

  30

  Stobhill Hospital

  60

  37

  Number of beds

  Belvidere Hospital Phase I

  30

  Woodilee Hospital Phase I

  60

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary Phase I

  214

  Stobhill Hospital

  90

  Gartloch Hospital

  120

  Leverndale Phase I(a)

  240

  Lennox Castle

  120

  Lennox Castle (two intensive care units)

  24

  Highland

  Lochaber Hospital

  30

  Raigmore Hospital, Inverness

  680

  Caithness Hospital Phase II

  121

  Lanarkshire

  Kirklands Hospital Phase I

  120

  Kirklands Hospital Phase I(a)

  120

  Lothian

  Royal Edinburgh Phase I

  120

  Astley Ainslie Hospital

  90

  Herdmanflat Hospital

  72

  Royal Victoria Hospital, Edinburgh

  180

  Shetland

  Montfield Hospital

  60

  Tayside

  Irvine Memorial Hospital, Pitlochry

  12

  Murray Royal Hospital, Perth

  60

  Perth Royal Infirmary

  60

  Royal Liff Hospital, Dundee

  60

  Blairgowrie Cottage Hospital

  30

  Aberfeldy Cottage Hospital

  12

  All projects approved since 1979

  Number of beds

  Argyll and Clyde

  Ravenscraig Phase III(a) (Alcohol and Rehabilitation Unit)

  22

  Oban Hospital

  138

  Campbeltown Hospital

  62

  Dunoon and District General Hospital

  30

  Merchiston Hospital

  30

  Ayrshire and Arran

  Dunlop House

  60

  Seafield Hospital

  60

  Acute Hospital, Ayr

  288

  Biggart Hospital

  30

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Services for the Mentally Handicapped

  114

  Annan Hospital (geriatric)

  30

  Forth Valley

  Bonnybridge (psychogeriatric)

  90

  Royal Scottish National Hospital Larbert

  120

  Sauchie Hospital

  60

  Falkirk Royal Infirmary

  176

  Grampian

  Royal Cornhill

  564

  Woodend Geriatric Hospital

  30

  Inverurie Hospital

  30

  Woodend Hospital—Glenburn Wing

  24

  Greater Glasgow

  Parkhead Psychiatric Development Phase II

  120

  Rutherglen (geriatric)

  240

  Lennox Castle (two intensive care units)

  24

  Woodilee three by 30 bed units

  90

  Leverndale Phase I(a)

  240

  Lennox Castle

  120

  Lanarkshire

  Geriatric, Psychogeriatric and Psychiatric Project:

  (a) Hairmyres

  120

  (b) Udston (including 30 place day hospital)

  120

  Kirklands Hospital Phase I

  120

  38

  Number of beds

  Kirklands Hospital Phase I(a)

  120

  Lothian

  Princess Margaret Rose Spinal Paralysis and Rehabilitation Unit

  70

  Orkney

  Balfour Hospital

  30

  Tayside

  Perth Royal Infirmary

  236

  Western Isles

  Stornoway Lewis Hospital

  212

  Lothian Regional Council
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many organisations have made representations to him regarding his decision to enforce a reduction in Lothian regional council's 1988–89 budget, showing how many(a) supported and (b) opposed his decision; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Lang
  The table lists 11 organisations that have written to my right hon. and learned Friend on his proposed rate reduction in Lothian region. Some opposed the proposal and some supported it. Others have written on points of detail and on what the consequences might be for them.

  Lothian Region Joint Trade Union Committee

  Scottish Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux (and individual Bureaux)

  Lothian Marriage Counselling Service

  Edinburgh Chambers of Commerce and Manufacturers

  Lothian RAGE

  Wester Hailes Representative Council

  Lothian Rights Group

  Edinburgh and Lothian 'Women's Aid

  Sneddi Merchandising Ltd.

  Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations

  National Engineering Laboratory
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the implications for the Scottish economy of proposals to privatise the National Engineering Laboratory, East Kilbride; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  Following the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry's announcement on 7 June, interested parties now have until 22 July to submit proposals for taking the National Engineering Laboratory into the private sector. Each proposal received will be carefully assessed by my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in consultation with my right hon. And learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy towards the expenditure of public funds through the Scottish Development Agency or any other Government supported agency in support of a management buyout of the National Engineering Laboratory.

  Mr. Lang
  Any approach to the Scottish Development Agency by the management of the National Engineering Laboratory for assistance in support of a management buyout will be dealt with by the agency in accordance with its industrial investment guidelines. A copy of these guidelines was placed in the Library of the House when they were issued in 1980.

THE ARTS

  Public Library Service
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received on his Green Paper "Financing our Public Library Service."

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received from public librarians on his Green Paper "Financing our Public Library Service."

  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received from local authorities on his Green Paper "Financing our Public Library Service".

  Mr. Luce
  I have received about 200 letters, including a large proportion from public libraries commenting on the Green Paper and I expect to receive many more by 30 June, the closing date for representations.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how many complaints he has received in the last 12 months from library users that public libraries are not sufficiently client-orientated.

  Mr. Luce
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) on Tuesday 7 June, at columns 512–13.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what external economic expertise was available to him in the preparation of the Green Paper on the financing of public libraries.

  Mr. Luce
  The financial and statistical data contained in the library Green Paper were obtained from sources published by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. The economic expertise available within Government was adequate for my purposes in relation to the Green Paper.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what evidence he has on the extent of demand for competitive tendering for renting videos in public libraries.

  Mr. Luce
  Competitive tendering is, I suggest in my library Green Paper, one way of enabling library authorities to use their resources more effectively. No library authority in England has, I understand, put out to competitive tendering any direct service to its library users. I wish them to consider doing so.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he has met the Library Association to discuss the Green Paper "Financing our Public Library Service".

  Mr. Luce
  Yes. I met a delegation from the Library Association on 25 May and had a useful discussion with the association about the Green Paper.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he consulted with the Library Association on the contents of his Green Paper on financing the public library service prior to publication.

  Mr. Luce
  No, but I met a delegation from the Library Association on 25 May to discuss, among other matters, my Green Paper on financing the public library service. The association intends, I understand, to make a substantive submission to me shortly on the Green Paper.

  Public Libraries (Cost-effectiveness)
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what evidence he has on the cost-effectiveness of public libraries.

  Mr. Luce
  There are at present limited means for assessing the cost effectiveness of public libraries. However, my office has recently published a costing model, "A Costing System for Public Libraries". I am also currently funding, through the British Library, production of a manual of performance indicators for public libraries.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether the premium book subscription scheme, proposed in the Green Paper "Financing our Public Library Service", will apply to new children's books.

  Mr. Luce
  No.

  Haymarket Theatre, Leicester
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he next intends to visit the Haymarket theatre, Leicester.

  Mr. Luce
  I hope to visit the Haymarket theatre, and other arts bodies, when I visit the region this autumn.

  Arts-History Link
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what initiatives are planned by his Department to promote greater appreciation of the links between the arts and British economic history.

  Mr. Luce
  The collections in our museums and galleries and the work of artists, both living and dead, are influenced by the social and historical contexts in which they were created, and may be used to illustrate many aspects of British history. Their contemporary interpretation is a matter for individual institutions or artists.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether his Office has any plans for an arts festival to celebrate the year 2000.

  Mr. Luce
  I am sure that the nation will want to celebrate the year in some special way, but I have not yet embarked on detailed discussions with the arts world.

  South Bank Board
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what assessment he has made of the effects of the recently completed independence of the South Bank Board Ltd.

  Mr. Luce
  It is too soon to be clear about the effects of independence, but first indications are encouraging. I am confident that the South Bank Board Ltd., under the chairmanship of Mr. Ronald Grierson, will continue to manage its affairs efficiently and economically and to present arts events of the highest standard.

  Public Lending Right Scheme
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how much public funding has been allotted to the public lending right scheme in 1986–87, 1987–88 and 1988–89; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  Funding for the public lending right scheme is as follows:
  41

  £ million

  1986–87

  2·75

  1987–88

  2·75

  1988–89

  3·5

  The 27 per cent. increase in 1988–89 brings the fund to its highest level in real terms since its inception.

  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how many authors are presently registered under the public lending right scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  The number of authors currently registered for public lending right is 14,635.

  Acceptances-in-lieu
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on the outcome to date of the acceptance-in-lieu-of-tax scheme since its inception in July 1985.

  Mr. Luce
  In July 1985 the Government announced new arrangements which permit an annual call on the Reserve of around £10 million a year, taking one year with the next. This has greatly facilitated such offers. The table sets out the financial position and highlights those items whose acceptance was made possible by these arrangements. Additionally, the scheme has benefited from two further changes introduced in 1987. It is now possible to have interest charges on an offer waived while negotiations are proceeding towards acceptance of an item at the original agreed valuation, and it is also possible to offer an item whose "special price" is greater than the tax liability on the estate, if the institution for which the item is intended is prepared to make up the difference. Both the Picasso and the Gainsborough paintings were accepted in this way. There is no shortage of items in the pipeline—an indication that the scheme is proving an attractive one, and one which plays a vital role in preserving important items and land for future public benefit.

  Year

  Amount of tax satisfied

  1Call on the Reserve

  Item

  £

  £

  1985–86

  2,366,707

  520,000

  The Portland Archive

  1986–87

  2,947,842

  440,000

  Matthew Boulton Clock

  725,000

  Bellini "Madonna and Child"

  1987–88

  8,627,464

  1,200,000

  Picasso's "Weeping Woman"

  5,500,000

  Constable's "Stratford Mill"

  638,444

  Gainsborough's "Captain Wade"

  1 Although the total agreed call on the Reserve since July 1985 was £9,023,444, because of underspends in each financial year on the annual Vote of £2 million the amount actually spent from the Reserve was £7,942,013.

  Museums and Galleries Commission
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how much extra funding the Museums and Galleries Commission will receive in the next three years specifically for the purpose of promoting improvements in the management of non-national museums and galleries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  Over the next three years I have provided £270,000 within the Museums and Galleries Commission's42
  grant-in-aid to be used to encourage improved management and marketing in non-national museums and galleries. The commission recently announced an exciting programme of seminars, courses and studies for the coming year.

  Good management and effective marketing skills are vital if museums and galleries are to make the best use of resources. In addition to my allocations to the Museums and Galleries Commission to encourage improvements in the management and marketing of museums, I have provided some £600,000 for this purpose this year in the grants-in-aid of the National Museums and Galleries In March I announced also a major initiative on the training of museums staff, and a research study into the resource implications of collections management.

  Industrial Archaeology
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what recent discussions he has had on those aspects of industrial archaeology and the heritage related thereto which engage his ministerial responsibilities.

  Mr. Luce
  A number of the national museums and galleries which I sponsor have an interest in aspects of the industrial heritage and these feature, accordingly, in my discussions with the institutions.

  Arts Bodies
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what guidance he has given arts bodies on the benefits of participation in the community programme and job-splitting scheme.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what guidance he has given to arts bodies on the benefits of participation in the business expansion scheme and youth training scheme.

  Mr. Luce
  I am encouraged by the amount of support given to arts bodies by my colleagues in other Departments. The directors of regional arts associations and their officers are always ready to advise arts bodies and individual artists on the details of the various schemes.

  National Heritage Memorial Fund
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how much public funding has so far been awarded to the National Heritage Memorial Fund since its inception in 1980; and what assessment he has made of the outcome of the scheme to date.

  Mr. Luce
  The amount of public funding since the inception of the National Heritage Memorial Fund is £105,621,576. This is set out on an annual basis in the table. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I are jointly responsible for the operation of the fund. Lord Charteris and the trustees are to be congratulated on an outstanding record of achievement to date. The trustees have chosen carefully among the hundreds of applications for assistance, and I commend their annual reports to my hon. Friend for descriptions of the wide range of land, buildings, artefacts and works of art saved for the nation with contributions from the fund. I have every confidence in their continuing success.
  43

  Public funding of NHMF

  £

  £

  1980–81

  DOE

  7,047,773

  OAL

  7,047,773

  14,095,546

  1981–82

  DOE

  1,244,404

  OAL

  1,244,404

  2,488,808

  1982–83

  DOE

  5,500,000

  OAL

  5,500,000

  11,000,000

  1983–841

  DOE

  1,896,327

  OAL

  593,327

  Inland Revenue

  1,468

  2,491,122

  1984–85

  DOE

  29,000,000

  OAL

  4,000,000

  33,000,000

  1985–86

  DOE

  12,000,000

  OAL

  1,500,000

  13,500,000

  1986–87

  DOE

  1,500,000

  OAL

  1,500,000

  3,000,000

  1987–882

  DOE

  21,546,100

  OAL

  1,500,000

  23,046,100

  1988–89

  DOE

  1,500,000

  OAL

  1,500,000

  3,000,000

  Total

  105,621,576

  1 The 1983–84 figure represents a grant of £1,304 million from DOE, the unspent AIL allocations of DOE and OAL (£593,327 each) and £1,468 rebate from the Land Fund.

  2The 1987–88 DOE figure comprises of £20 million cash injection, 1·5 million annual grant and £46,100 from the proceeds of Heveningham Hall.

  Museums and Galleries
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will give the percentage charge in non-Exchequer receipts of the national museums and galleries between 1979–80 and latest available year.

  Mr. Luce
  Using the figures I gave in my written answer to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on 26 May, at columns 259–62, the percentage increase between 1979–80 and 1988–89 is expected to be some 800 per cent. in cash terms (393 per cent. in real terms).

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Protestant Task Force
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information is available to his Department as to the nature and activities of the Protestant Task Force.

  Mr. Stanley
  My Department is not aware of an organisation of this name.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has as to the interest rates of the countries in the European monetary system, both nominal 44
  and real; and what equivalent information he has for the other countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

  Mr. Lilley
  Various short and long-term interest rates are given for all the countries in question in "IMF International Financial Statistics", monthly. The same publication gives indices of consumer or wholesale prices which are often used to convert nominal interest rates into "real" terms.

  Balance of Trade
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has made an estimate of the effect on the United Kingdom's balance of trade with European Economic Community countries if it remains outside the European monetary system in 1992.

  Mr. Lilley
  No. Britain is a member of the European monetary system. I imagine my hon. Friend is referring to the exchange rate mechanism of the system. There is no reason to suppose remaining outside the exchange rate mechanism will significantly affect the balance of trade between the United Kingdom and the European Community.

  Government Expenditure
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give a figure for general Government expenditure in 1988–89 equivalent to that in table 1·4 of Cm. 288–1, recalculated on the assumption that there is a sustained(a) 10 per cent. rise and (b) 10 per cent. fall in the trade-weighted exchange rate over a period of one year from the level used in the formulation of the above table.

  Mr. Major
  The impact of exchange rate changes on the economy would depend on assumptions made about the financial policies being followed at the time. The impact of the subsequent economic effects on public expenditure cannot be determined uniquely either as this depends on the control regime being operated. A large part of the planning total is subject to cash limits where the presumption is that no adjustments are made for variations in prices or costs. Furthermore, the rates of social security benefits are determined in relation to price levels known before the start of the financial year. There is no unique relationship between changes in the exchange rate and debt interest.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many households receiving housing benefit pay income tax.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 4 May 1988]I have been asked to reply.

  Information drawn from the family expenditure survey suggests that some 1·7 million housing benefit recipients may also have paid income tax in 1985.

  Tax Forms
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many more tax forms have been sent to pensioners in this financial year than last;

  (2) if he plans to apologise to pensioners wrongly sent income tax forms;
  45
  (3) what is his estimate of the cost of sending 1 million tax forms.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 7 June 1988]I regret that due to a computer programming fault tax returns were issued to some pensioners who would not normally have been called upon to make a return. The Inland Revenue has taken steps to ensure that this will not recur.

  No separate figures are kept of returns issued to pensioners, but the Inland Revenue estimates that the number of returns issued to them in April 1988 is approximately 500,000 higher than last year.

  The estimated cost of sending 1 million tax returns is £137,250. This includes the cost of the returns, notes, envelopes and postage. The cost of issuing the 500,000 returns to pensioners is therefore £68,625.

  Nationalised Industries (Fixed Assets)
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the percentage increase in fares, prices and tariffs required for the British Railways Board, Electricity England and Wales, London Regional Transport, North of Scotland Hydro-Electricity board, Post Office, South of Scotland Electricity Board and Water England and Wales to meet the expenditure on fixed assets given for 1990–91 in table 4.4 of Cm. 288-I, assuming these industries financed all this investment internally from commercially generated funds.

  Mr. Major
  [holding answer 10 June 1988]Hypothetical projections on the lines requested would not justify the costs involved in preparing them. Assumptions would need to be made concerning general market conditions, the responsiveness of revenues to price changes and a wide range of factors affecting cost performance such as wage settlements, fuel costs and productivity growth. For reasons of commercial confidentiallity, the Government do not publish estimates of internal resources for the later years covered by the public expenditure plans, the assumptions on which they are based, or the effects of varying those assumptions.

  Local Authority Expenditure
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give for 1978–79 and 1988–89 to 1990–91 at constant 1988–89 and cash prices local authority capital expenditure in Great Britain broken down as in table 3.6 of Cm. 288-I.

  Mr. Major
  [holding answer 10 June 1988]The presentation used in table 3.6 of Cm. 288-I was introduced in the 1987 public expenditure White Paper (Cm. 56 table 4.5). That table provides information back to 1981–82 and figures are not available in this form for earlier years. For 1988–89 to 1990–91 the cash figures are published in table 3.6 of Cm. 288-I; corresponding figures in real terms (base year 1988–89) are in the table.

  Local Authority Capital Expenditure in Great Britain in real terms1 2

  £ million

  (base year 1988–89)

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Plans

  Plans

  Plans

  DOE/LA1 Gross Spending

  Housing

  2,934

  2,710

  2,550

  46

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Plans

  Plans

  Plans

  Transport

  800

  770

  750

  Education

  494

  490

  480

  Personal Social Services

  111

  100

  100

  Other services:

  Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food

  31

  30

  30

  Environment

  627

  610

  590

  Home Office

  40

  30

  30

  Other Departments

  22

  20

  20

  Total other services

  721

  690

  680

  Housing Association Grant

  114

  100

  90

  Total gross spending in DOE/LA1

  5,173

  4,860

  4,650

  Receipts

  Housing

  -1,876

  -1,850

  -1,800

  Transport

  -62

  -50

  -50

  Education

  -105

  -100

  -100

  Personal Social Services

  -28

  -30

  -30

  Other services:

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  -10

  -10

  -10

  Environment

  -542

  -520

  -510

  Home Office

  —

  —

  —

  Other Departments

  —

  —

  —

  Total other services

  -552

  -530

  -520

  Total receipts

  -2,623

  -2,570

  -2,500

  Total net local authority capital in DOE/LA1

  2,437

  2,190

  2,070

  Total DOE/LA1

  2,551

  2,290

  2,150

  HO/LA1

  132

  140

  140

  DOE/UA1

  Other environmental services

  272

  260

  260

  Other Departments

  24

  20

  20

  Other: Urban Development Corporations etc.

  222

  230

  230

  Total DOE/UA1

  519

  510

  510

  Memo item: Land drainage

  7

  10

  10

  England-Total

  2,864

  2,630

  2,490

  WO/LA1 Wales

  Transport

  —

  —

  —

  Employment

  1

  —

  —

  Home Office

  1

  —

  —

  Welsh Office

  285

  270

  270

  Other

  73

  80

  80

  Total local authority capital in WO/LA1

  287

  270

  270

  Total WO/LA1

  360

  350

  350

  Memo item: not in cash limit

  1

  —

  —

  Wales-Total

  295

  280

  280

  SO/LA1—non housing

  438

  470

  470

  SO/LA2—housing

  Local authority

  343

  390

  390

  Other

  182

  190

  200

  Total SO/LA2

  525

  580

  590

  47

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Plans

  Plans

  Plans

  Memo item: not in cash limit

  1

  —

  —

  Scotland-Total

  783

  870

  860

  Total local authority capital expenditure in Great Britain

  Net

  3,942

  3,770

  3,620

  Gross

  6,957

  6,670

  6,430

  1 Real terms figures are the cash plans adjusted to 1988–89 price levels by excluding the effect of general inflation as measured by the GDP deflator.

  2 See also footnotes to Table 3.6 in Cm. 288-I.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Agencies
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement about current proposals for the creation of agencies within his Department.

  Mr. Luce
  I announced on 9 May that the Civil Service College and the occupational health service are promising candidates for agency status. We are now closely examining each of them to assess their suitability. Like other Ministers, I shall continue to review the functions of my Department to identify any other areas which might be suitable.

  Funding
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if any extra funding will be made available to the Civil Service, in the light of recent policy announcements on(a) race relations and (b) the employment of women.

  Mr. Luce
  Civil Service equal opportunity policies on the employment of women and ethnic minorities form part of the normal personnel management work of Departments. Actions to implement these policies are taken within Departmental running costs. My Department is giving priority to increasing the effectiveness of Civil Service equal opportunity policies.

  Polygraphs
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will place a copy in the Library of the independent scientific study about the validity of polygraphic techniques.

  Mr. Luce
  I understand that the study is currently being assessed. No decisions have yet been taken about its handling, but, as indicated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 24 May, at column 192, there will be an announcement to the House in due course.

AGRICULTURE

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any proposals to discourage the destruction of hedgerows and to encourage the planting of new hedgerows.
  48
  Mr. Gummer
  The Government's voluntary approach to countryside conservation seeks to ensure that farmers are fully aware of the landscape and wildlife value of their hedgerows. This Department's Agricultural Development and Advisory Service encourages farmers to retain hedgerows where possible and provides advice both on their management and the planting of new hedgerows.

  Grants are available to farmers under the agriculture improvement scheme at the rate of 30 per cent. (60 per cent. in the less-favoured areas) towards the cost of planting new hedgerows and hedgerow laying. In addition, as a special measure, grants are available to farmers at 60 per cent. for the replacement of hedgerows damaged in the storm of 15–16 October last year.

  Set-aside Scheme
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he now expects to announce his proposals on the set-aside of agricultural land; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I shall be making a statement shortly.

  Sheep (Radioactivity)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will arrange for further sample monitoring of radioactivity levels in sheep in Devon and Somerset.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  My Department has undertaken an extensive monitoring programme—the results of which have been placed in the Library of the House—that gives complete reassurance as to the safety of all produce entering the food chain. Monitoring continues outside the restricted area where necessary, but I see no need to carry out sample monitoring of sheep in Devon or Somerset.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will arrange for further sample monitoring of radioactivity levels in sheep in non-restricted areas which had high levels of precipitation on 2 and 3 May 1986.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Live monitoring of sheep is continuing wherever it is necessary, but the significance of rainfall data has been superseded by the results of surveys of actual deposition and of monitoring.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he proposes to take, in the light of the research findings of Dr. Kenton Morgan, of the University of Bristol, on radiation contamination among sheep in Somerset and Devon following the Chernobyl disaster, a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers given today and on 1 December 1987 to the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), at column 542. No further action is required and I understand that Dr. Morgan has now made it clear that his work implies no risk to the food chain and no long-term contamination.

  Dumping at Sea
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the latest available figures for the amount of flyash dumped at sea at sites off the north-east coast of England.
  49
  Mr. Gummer
  In 1987 just under 375,000 tonnes of flyash were deposited at approved sea dump sites off the north-east coast of England.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the latest available figures for the amounts of colliery spoil dumped at sea off the north-east coast of England.

  Mr. Gummer
  In 1987 a total of 2,014,000 tonnes of minestone were deposited under licence on the beaches at Seaham, Easington and Lynemouth; a further 1,572,000 tonnes were disposed of at the approved sea dump site off the north-east coast.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the latest available figures of the amounts and types of chemicals in industrial waste dumped at sea at each of the various sites around the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Gummer
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will outline the investigations being carried out to demonstrate that dumping liquid industrial waste at sea does not harm the marine environment; and whether these investigations are carried out in their laboratory or in the field.

  Mr. Gummer
  All liquid industrial wastes for which application for sea disposal is made are examined in the Ministry's laboratory. Toxicity testing and chemical analysis are undertaken to ensure that potentially toxic or persistent bioaccumulatable substances are within internationally agreed limits and pose no likelihood of causing damage to the marine environment in the short or longer term. The probable initial dilution of the waste, its degradeability and its longer term fate are assessed. The minimum initial dilution required to avoid toxic effects is determined and imposed if necessary as a condition of any licence granted.

  Investigations at the disposal site are made by Ministry scientists to establish the nature of the marine species, water movements which may affect dilution and dispersion of the waste, and water quality. Once disposal commences, monitoring is conducted to confirm the absence of harm to the marine environment; this will usually include assessments of actual dilution, field bioassays, analysis of water and sediments and examination of fish and other species, including those living on the seabed.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will outline the efforts being made to find environmentally acceptable alternatives to dumping colliery spoil in the North sea and adjacent beaches.

  Mr. Gummer
  Each application for a licence under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 to dispose of colliery spoil at sea or on beaches is thoroughly examined by my Ministry. I make a careful assessment of all potential alternative means of disposal, drawing on comments obtained from consultations held by my officials with local environmental interests and local authorities. The Government also have available the results of research into disposal options commissioned by the Department of the Environment in 1986.
  50
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give details of any investigations which have concluded that there are no practical land-based alternatives to dumping at sea.

  Mr. Gummer
  All applicants for licences to dump waste at sea are required to demonstrate that land-based alternatives to dumping have been carefully considered. The practicability of land-based disposal options is thoroughly assessed in every case by this Ministry,drawing, where appropriate, on the advice of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.

  The composition and volume of most liquid industrial wastes hitherto accepted for disposal at sea has generally rendered them technically unsuitable for other disposal methods. As regards colliery spoil, the Department of the Environment commissioned research by Ove Arup and Partners Ltd. into the availability and cost of means of disposal other than beach tipping at Seaham; the Government concluded from that work in 1986 that there was currently no practical land-based alternative to dumping.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list any details of any investigations demonstrating the level of risk to the marine environment posed by sewage sludge dumped at sea.

  Mr. Gummer
  Investigations in the laboratory and at sea are carried out for sewage sludge in a similar way to those undertaken for liquid industrial wastes described in my reply today to another question by the hon. Member. Sewage sludge is a dispersion of organic rich solids and other particulates in water. The water content is usually more than 95 per cent. The organic matter is largely readily degraded in the sea and limits are set to the trace levels of any persistent organic chemicals and metals to ensure that no harm to the marine environment can be caused by their presence.

  Results of monitoring investigations at dump sites by this Ministry are published from time to time in the fisheries research technical report series. They show that disposal of sewage sludge at sea under controlled conditions has a minimal effect on the marine environment.

  Pâtè de Foie Gras
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to introduce a ban on the import of pâtè de foie grass,; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  My Department has no plans to impose a ban on the import of pâtè de foie gras as I am advised that such a step would contravene the treaty of Rome. In any case, it is for individuals to decide whether or not to buy or consume foie gras.

  Civil Servants (Outside Activities)
  Mr. John
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Pontypridd of 24 May,Official Report, column 139, he will list the names and Civil Service grades of the two civil servants appointed as directors of commercial companies; and of which companies they have been appointed directors.
  51
  Mr. Donald Thompson
  At present the following two officials hold appointments in commercial companies:

  Mr. C. J. A. Barnes, Grade 5, as a non-executive director with Booker Food Services (Booker plc) and

  Mr. G. M. Trevelyan, Grade 5, as an observer with Brooke Bond Oxo (Unilever).

  Surplus Food
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether tenders for either(a) the packaging or (b) the transportation of surplus European Economic Community food have yet been issued; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The arrangements for the provision of beef and butter stocks for distribution to the most needy require designated organisations to invite tenders for processing or packaging and to make the necessary arrangements for transportation. A number have already done so. Others are grouping together in order to minimise costs. Group tenders for the packaging of butter and butter oil have been invited and are awaited. An invitation to tender for beef will be issued shortly. I understand that the first distributions to eligible beneficiaries are likely to take place towards the end of this month.

  Lambs
  Mr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many lambs were marked blue and relased for further fattening in the United Kingdom between 28 September 1987 and 10 January 1988.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  A total of 6,497 lambs of not more than one year old were marked blue under the "mark and release" arrangements in the United Kingdom between 28 September 1987 and 10 January 1988.

  Marked blue and released for further fattening from 28 September 1987 to 10 January 1988

  Lambs

  Sheep

  Total

  Cumbria

  248

  135

  383

  Wales

  1,546

  209

  1,755

  Scotland

  4,689

  8,903

  13,592

  Northern Ireland

  14

  110 9,357

  124

  6,497

  9,357

  15,854

  Food Costs
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his latest estimate of the additional cost in food per average family in consequence of the common agricultural policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him on 31 March, at column 638.

  Rhizomania Infection
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has made for the inspection of beet fields for rhizomania infection during the current season.

  Mr. MacGregor
  We will carry out a very extensive inspection programme throughout the country while the 52
  1988 crop is growing. This will concentrate on sugar beet fields likely to be susceptible to rhizomania risk because of, for example, soil structure, poor irrigation or a history of low sugar yields. The fields will be identified by the local knowledge of inspectors, by British Sugar's records and by the results of aerial photography. Inspections will also be carried out on other fields of sugar beet and on fields of red and fodder beet.

  To ensure that infection had not been spread from the farm in Suffolk where rhizomania was found last season, prior to the discovery, we will inspect all fields growing beet this year within 5 km of the site and also crops on the farms visited by the sugar beet contractor who worked on the farm between 1981 and 1987.

  All these inspections will be carried out, under a joint programme, by the Plant Health and Seeds Inspectorate, Ministry field staff and British Sugar staff. Sample beets will be taken from each field inspected. These will be tested by the Ministry's Harpenden laboratory.

  We expect this inspection programme to cover about 2,000 fields. It is a formidable task, but I am sure that it is justified in order to maintain our protection against rhizomania disease. It follows widespread surveys last year and programmes of inspection in the three previous seasons, which found no sign of rhizomania infection.

  I am grateful to British Sugar for its co-operation in the inspections carried out in previous years and for the help it will again be providing in the coming season.

  Argentine Ant
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has on the dangers to native flora and fauna from the accidental import of the Argentine Ant.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have been asked to reply.

  Incidents of accidental infestations of the Argentine Ant in the United Kingdom are very rare and have been confined to permanently heated buildings. All currently available evidence suggests that the species cannot survive in the wild in the United Kingdom.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Severely Mentally Handicapped People
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement concerning the benefit entitlement of the severely mentally handicapped who have undertaken a community programme placement for therapeutic purposes.

  Mr. Scott
  Anyone receiving an incapacity benefit who performs work for which an employer might reasonably pay shows that he is capable of work and his benefit may be affected. This may apply to severely mentally handicapped people who have undertaken a community programme placement. The decision whether in practice a person is capable of work is for determination by the independent adjudicating authority.

  However, a person receiving any incapacity benefit may nevertheless earn up to £27 a week without loss of benefit provided he satisfies the adjudicating authorities that the work is therapeutic, by furnishing medical evidence to that effect.

  A severely mentally handicapped person is not entitled to income support if he is working 24 hours or more a

  53
  week on a community programme. But benefit may be payable if the work averages less than 24 hours a week. The first £5 or £15, as appropriate, of his earnings are disregarded in deciding entitlement.

  Departmental Offices (St. Helens)
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the current total social fund allocation for his Department's offices in St. Helens; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the current total social fund allocation for his Department's offices in the Manchester area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Members to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) on 4 November 1987, at columns 774–81.

  Twenty-four Hours Rule
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received regarding the application of the 24-hours-per-week working rule in respect of a family's eligibility for benefit.

  Mr. Portillo
  Representations have been received in certain individual cases where supplementary benefit was previously in payment but where there is no entitlement to income support under the new rules because 24 hours a week, or more, are being worked. Families with children can claim the new family credit, and families facing substantial losses may also be eligible for help under the transitional arangements announced by my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled on 28 April, at columns 253–54.

  European Cancer Initiative
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what contribution the Government have made towards the European cancer initiative.

  Mrs. Currie
  We have made £100,000 available to provide full or part funding of United Kingdom cancer charities' activities in support of the Europe against cancer initiative. In addition, we have taken the lead in cancer prevention by implementing the European Community's first comprehensive cervical cancer screening service based on computerised call and recall, the world's first nationwide breast cancer screening sevice, and by setting up the DHSS cancer screening evaluation unit at the Institute of Cancer Research to monitor existing cancer screening programmes and to assess the possibility of screening for other cancers. The Health Education Authority has also published an updated guide for the general public on how to reduce the risk of cancer by a healthy lifestyle.

  Meningitis
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the death rate from meningococcal meningitis.
  54
  Mrs. Currie
  The table gives the number of deaths registered where meningococcal meningitis was the underlying cause of death and the crude mortality rate per million usually resident population for the latest five years.

  Deaths with underlying cause as meningococcal meningitis (ICD(9)1 036·0): numbers and rates per million population England and Wales 1983–87

  Year

  Number

  Rate per million

  1983

  20

  0·40

  1984

  26

  0·52

  1985

  36

  0·72

  1986

  44

  0·88

  21987

  37

  0·74

  1International Classification or" Diseases 9th revision.

  2Provisional.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement about the incidence of haemophilus or pneumococcal meningitis.

  Mrs. Currie
  The table gives the numbers of notifications of haemophilus and pneumococcal meningitis for the latest six years available. In addition, the numbers of notifications where the organism was not specified on the notification forms are shown.

  Number of notifications of (a) haemophilus (influenzal), (b) pneumococcal and (c) unspecified meningitis England and Wales 1982 to 1987

  Type of meningitis

  Year

  Haemophilus

  Pneumococcal

  Unspecified

  1982

  177

  87

  145

  1983

  173

  74

  137

  1984

  217

  78

  149

  1985

  206

  82

  186

  1986

  268

  143

  232

  11987

  250

  109

  171

  1Provisional, January to September only.

  Aspirin
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what conclusions have been reached by his Department on the use of aspirin as preventive medicine for those who have suffered a heart attack and for those in the age categories where they are most vulnerable to such an attack; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  The use of aspirin in the prevention of heart attack is an area in which there have recently been some interesting research studies. Research is continuing,

  The best preventive measures against heart disease continue to be lifestyle changes such as stopping smoking and changes in diet.

  Household Income
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish a set of figures for 1979 on the same basis as contained in "Households Below Average Income 1981–1985".

  Mr. Portillo
  I have no plans to publish a full set of "Households Below Average Income" figures for 1979. However, "Low Income Statistics—Report of a Technical Review" proposes that data for an earlier year (perhaps 1971) might be included in a future edition. Copies of this report are available in the Library.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the figures allocated for the social fund to be claimed from the Seaham and Peterlee office of his Department for the financial year 1988–89 and the proportions of these which were(a) loans and (b) grants; and whether these figures will be revised if the demand for amounts from the fund exceeds the allocated amounts.

  Mr. Portillo
  Social fund allocations were announced by my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) on 4 November 1987, at columns 774–81. I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) on 4 March, at column 746, for details of the contingency arrangements.

  Community Care
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what financial arrangements are made in each health region when patients are transferred out of long-stay hospitals into community care; and how many patients were transferred out under these arrangements in each health region since 1984.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many patients formerly resident in long-stay mental hospitals have so far been discharged into the community as part of the community care policy in each regional health authority; and what has been the total amount of cost savings accrued as a result.

  Mrs. Currie
  In response to local circumstances and needs, regions have a variety of financial arrangements for funding the transfer of mentally ill or handicapped patients from long-stay hospitals to more community orientated patterns of care. In some cases funds are transferred with individual patients ("dowries") according to regional guidelines or are directly negotiated by district health authorities; in others development monies are earmarked by the regional health authority to fund specific projects. General development funds are, of course, also used to meet the costs of community care. Dowries are often permanent revenue payments uprated for inflation each year. A number of regions have set aside specific sums to bridge the cost of continuing to run old long-stay institutions while developing new services, but such funds are not the only ways of meeting such costs. The broad details of regions' financing arrangements are as follows. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of the regional health authority concerned for more detailed information.

  Northern RHA. Health Service developments funded from regional priority service fund. Arrangements for patients transferred from NHS to local authority or voluntary care individually negotiated. Bridging arrangements but no specific fund.

  Yorkshire RHA. Direct care costs transferred to patients "home" DHA. The balance of resources required to provide community care provided from general development funds. Arrangements for transfers to local authority and voluntary agencies separately negotiated at district level. Bridging fund.

  Trent RHA. Regional guideline for dowries of £13,800 for patients transferred between health authorities and of £6,900 for transfer to local authority or voluntary care. Bridging fund. (Policy under review.)
  56
  North Western RHA. Dowry of £21,400 per patient for all patients transferred as part of district package of which £4,300 is non-recurrent. Dowry of f 13,400 for transfers agreed on an individual basis. Bridging fund.

  Mersey RHA. Financial arrangements negotiatied by DHAs according to dependency level of individual patient. Bridging fund.

  West Midlands RHA. Dowry of 50 per cent. of average cost of mentally handicapped patients and 100 per cent. of average cost of mentally ill patients. Targeted bridging fund.

  East Anglian RHA. Funding arrangements negotiated individually by district health authorities. Bridging fund.

  North West Thames RHA. Dowries ranging from £13,000 to £20,000 according to type of patient. Additionally, there are development fund moneys available from natural decline. Bridging fund.

  North East Thames RHA. For health authorities, each DHA allocated funds either to pay for care in the existing long stay hospital or to provide its own service. Transfers to local authorities and voluntary agencies separately negotiated. Strategic reserve to top up costs of care in the community where necessary with ad hoc bridging finance provided by RHA to existing providing districts.

  South East Thames RHA. Dowry of £13,000 (plus London weighting if necessary) for mental handicap patients. For mental illness patients costs of hospital care apportioned to districts on the basis of numbers to be transferred. Bridging fund.

  South West Thames RHA. For health authorities dowries of £13,477 for mental illness and £11,334 for mental handicap patients admitted before December 1982. Separate negotiations for patients admitted after that date and for transfers to local authorities, voluntary agencies and across regional boundaries. Bridging fund.

  Oxford RHA. Development funds earmarked for specific projects.

  Wessex RHA. Dowry of £14,000 per patient for all agencies. Mental handicap bridging fund.

  South Western RHA. Dowry of £13,700 for mental handicap patients available for community provision by health authorities. Separate negotiation for mental illness patients and for all transfers to other agencies.

  Information is not available centrally on the numbers of patients discharged from long-stay care specifically under these arrangements. The tables show the number of discharges from NHS mental illness hospitals and units and mental handicap hospitals and units in England where the depth of stay was five or more years. Tranfers to other hospitals and special hospitals are excluded. 1986 is the latest year for which this information is available centrally.

  Information on cost savings is not available centrally.

  Discharges from Mental Illness hospitals and units where there was a stay of five or more years1

  Regional health authority

  1984

  1985

  1986

  England2

  981

  987

  1,082

  Northern

  48

  48

  54

  Yorkshire

  74

  67

  85

  Trent

  102

  105

  113

  East Anglian

  32

  29

  38

  North West Thames

  96

  65

  83

  North East Thames

  76

  76

  77

  South East Thames

  75

  70

  83

  South West Thames

  65

  59

  81

  Wessex

  53

  67

  99

  Oxford

  34

  39

  46

  South Western

  97

  110

  101

  West Midlands

  117

  114

  111

  Mersey

  65

  81

  50

  North Western

  46

  56

  61

  Special health authority hospitals

  1

  1

  0

  Source: MHE.

  1Excludes deaths, transfers to a special hospital, transfers to a

  57
  hospital psychiatric bed and transfer to a hospital non-psychiatric bed.

  2Excludes special hospitals.

  Discharges from Mental Handicap hospitals and units where there was a stay of five or more years1

  Year

  Regional Health Authority

  1984

  1985

  1986

  England2

  1,375

  1,523

  1,951

  Northern

  63

  58

  81

  Yorkshire

  71

  148

  175

  Trent

  129

  150

  300

  East Anglian

  58

  66

  60

  North West Thames

  50

  65

  58

  North East Thames

  72

  83

  53

  South East Thames

  148

  201

  275

  South West Thames

  119

  171

  277

  Wessex

  82

  75

  143

  Oxford

  38

  57

  74

  South Western

  304

  155

  133

  West Midlands

  70

  100

  104

  Mersey

  98

  72

  102

  North Western

  73

  122

  116

  Special Health Authority hospitals

  0

  0

  0

  Source: MHE.

  1Excludes deaths, transfers to a special hospital, transfers to a hospital psychiatric bed and transfer to a hospital non-psychiatric bed.

  2Excludes Special Hospitals.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if his Department currently issues any guidance to health authorities on the consultations which should be undertaken with patients, their parents and their relatives before individuals are discharged into the community from long-stay mental hospitals;

  (2) if his Department currently issues any guidance to health authorities on the consultations which should he undertaken with patients, their parents and relatives, and local residents before long-stay mental hospitals are run down as part of the implementation of the policy of care in the community.

  Mrs. Currie
  The Government's response to the report of the House of Commons Social Services Committee on "Community Care with Special Reference to Adult Mentally Ill and Mentally Handicapped People", circulated to all health authorities, reminded them of the need to consult patients and their families about discharge from long-stay hospitals. We will be considering the question of consultation with local residents as we review reports from the Health Service Commissioner which bear on this issue.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what mechanisms his Department has established to oversee the transfer of residents of long-stay mental institutions to the community.

  Mrs. Currie
  The development of mental illness and mental handicap services, including the shift to community-based services, is a regular feature of the annual review meetings which Ministers and the NHS Management Board hold with each regional health authority. The Department's Social Services Inspectorate maintains liaison with local social services departments and monitors the development of personal social services, including those for patients discharged from mental institutions.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his policy towards health authorities being 58
  required to consult neighbours before mentally handicapped people are moved into the community; what representations he has received in this respect for the Health Service Ombudsman, Mr. Anthony Barrowclough; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) on 10 June, at column 727.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received regarding the cases of former long-stay hospital residents who are ineligible for community care grants on discharge because they do not qualify for income support; what was the nature of these representations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  This information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Long-stay Hospitals
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what minimum standards exist for long-stay hospitals; when these standards were laid down; whether they are under review; and what steps he has undertaken to enforce these standards.

  Mrs. Currie
  Minimum standards for long-stay hospitals were first laid down in 1969, and other guidance bearing on various aspects of physical standards of provision for long-stay patients was issued between 1979 and 1982. The minimum standards were used by the national development team for people with a mental handicap and by the health advisory service, but there has always been a danger that these standards would be regarded as norms rather than minima. They fall well below current expectations in terms of services for long-stay patients and for this reason are now little used. Local managers are expected to look critically at the operation of services using quantified information, such as Health Service indicators, and using check lists of questions designed to expose poor quality of services.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many wards in long-stay hospitals do not meet the 1971 minimum standards of 8ft between bed centres and 70 sq ft of bedroom space per resident; and in which health districts these wards are located;

  (2) what proportion of wards of long-stay hospitals in each health region fail to meet the standards of 8ft between bed centres and 70 sq ft of bedroom space per resident.

  Mrs. Currie
  I regret that the information is not available.

  Disabled Child Premium
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what financial provision he has made to assist single parents, unable to work because of the needs of their handicapped children, to supplement their income support, other than the £6·15 additional disabled child premium; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The income support of a single parent with a disabled child would normally include, in addition to the disabled child premium, an age-related personal
  59
  allowance for the claimant and each child, the lone parent premium (of £3·70) and the family premium (of £6·15). In addition, attendance allowance, mobility allowance as well as invalid care allowance might be payable. A person on income support would receive maximum housing benefit, free prescriptions, dental treatment, free school meals and other benefits in kind.

  Cranage Hall Hospital
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has received any recent representations concerning the proposed closure of the Cranage Hall hospital.

  Mrs. Currie
  No.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has any plans to meet residents of the Cranage Hall hospital or their parents and relatives.

  Mrs. Currie
  We have received no requests to meet them and therefore we have no plans to do so.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will call for a report from the chairman of the Mersey regional health authority and Crewe district health authority into the handling of the proposed run-down of Cranage Hall hospital.

  Mrs. Currie
  Proposals for Cranage Hall hospital are being formulated by the Crewe health authority in collaboration with the Cheshire social services department. These proposals are still at an early stage, but we will be monitoring progress through the review and planning processes.

  Crewe Health Authority (General Manager)
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will call for a report from the chairman of the Mersey regional health authority into the resignation of the former general manager of the Crewe health authority, the ex-gratia payment and the subsequent re-employment of the ex-general manager by the Mersey regional health authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  Employment and contractual matters are entirely the responsibility of individual health authorities.

  Post-abortion Stress Disorder
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to be able to publish the results of the investigation currently being conducted at his request by the Manchester branch of the Royal College of General Practitioners into post-abortion stress disorder.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) on 30 March, at column 540.

  Physiotherapy (Data)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied with the arrangements which health authorities have made for the calculation of data for physiotherapy services under the revised arrangements 60
  recommended by the fourth and sixth Körner reports; what he estimates the cost of this to be; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  We are satisfied that those health authorities which are not already doing so, will begin the collection of the full Körner data requirements on physiotherapy services during 1988–89. Authorities currently without computer systems have made interim arrangements to collect basic statistics. The cost of collecting the Körner data will vary between health authorities, depending upon the particular system in operation, the size and number of departments and existing data collection arrangements. This costing information is not available centrally.

  Child Guidance Units
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his policy towards the continuance of multi-professional, multi-agency work for children with emotional difficulties, through child guidance; what proposals he has to secure the future of child guidance units in inner London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  Our current policy is that children with emotional difficulties should be able to look for help from professional staff, including psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers, who spend most of their time working in the child and adolescent fields. The organisation of these services in London after the proposed abolition of the Inner London education authority is a matter for consideration by the health and local authority services concerned.

  Wakefield DHA (Inquiry)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will take steps to prevent the Yorkshire regional health authority from proceeding with its inquiry into the management of Wakefield district health authority; and if he will establish an independent public inquiry in its stead.

  Mr. Newton
  No. Where problems occur within a district health authority our expectation is that matters will be settled locally by the authority putting its own house in order. If the DHA concerned proves to be unable to resolve its problems internally the regional health authority, as the next management tier, and the one to which the district is accountable, has a duty to act. I therefore support the decison of the RHA to establish its own inquiry.

  Nurses (Prescribing)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on his policy towards the prescribing of medicines by nurses.

  Mr. Newton
  As we made clear in "Promoting Better Health" (Cm. 249), we see merit in giving nurses more freedom to prescribe some items and use their professional judgment in other related matters. A joint working group (mainly members of the Standing Medical, Nursing and Midwifery and Pharmaceutical Advisory Committees) has recently been appointed to help us take this forward.

  Nurses (Grading Structure)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what progress has been made in respect of the implementation of the clinical grading structure for nurses.

  Mr. Newton
  Management guidance on the implementation of the new clinical grading structure has been issued to all health authorities and they have been asked to complete the regrading exercise by 31 October.

  Social Security Management Board
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many meetings of the Social Security Management Board he has attended in the last year.

  Mr. Scott
  The Social Security Management Board is a body chaired by the permanent secretary which reports to Ministers as required. We would not therefore expect to attend meetings of the board.

  Project 2000
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what is the ratio of qualified nurses to nursing auxiliaries being sought under the recently announced Project 2000 proposals; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what is his assessment of the likely funding requirements for the implementation of Project 2000.

  Mr. Newton
  The implementation of Project 2000 will be phased over a number of years. The final cost will depend upon the final shape of the whole package of proposals, in which much detail remains to be settled.

  The number of qualified nurses and support workers will be decided by district health authorities, which must determine their own requirements for staff.

  Social Services (Private Companies)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many local authority social services departments currently allow private companies to undertake their statutory services.

  Mrs. Currie
  Information about contractual arrangements between local authorities and private companies for the provision of social services is not collected centrally.

  Social Work Staff
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many local authority social service departments offer additional incentives over and above basic grade salaries in order to assist their recruitment of social work staff.

  Mr. Newton
  I regret that this information is not held centrally.

  Conductive Education
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what action he proposes to take, in the light of Warwick university applied social studies department's report entitled "Come Wind, Come Weather," about conductive education, a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he will make a statement.
  62
  Mr. Scott
  I am aware of the recommendations contained in the report to assist British families at the Peto Institute in Budapest. The Peto method of conductive education is one of a wide range of services for disabled children and adults. Proposals for its introduction in Britain would have to take into account existing health and education provision as well as the evaluation being undertaken by Birmingham university of the research project of the foundation for conductive education. I have arranged to visit a number of organisations to look at the range of services available in these fields. A team of officials from DES and DHSS recently visited Budapest to obtain more information about the difficulties faced by the British families at the Peto Institute and the part that conductive education plays in the provision of services in Hungary.

  Inquest (Carlisle)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if the Registrar General has yet determined whether the requirements of the legislation governing the registration of births and deaths should be applied to the case which was the subject of a recent request to the Secretary of State for the Home Department by the coroner in Carlisle for the holding of an inquest; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  Following the decision made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department not to direct that an inquest should be held, the Registrar General has made her own inquiries and these indicate that the requirements of the legislation governing the registration of births and deaths do apply in this case.

  Hospital and Community Health Service
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give a table showing(a) current spending and (b) capital spending per tax unit on the hospital and community health service in England and the United Kingdom in 1988–89.

  Mr. Newton
  The information is as follows:

  Current (gross)

  Capital (gross)

  £

  £

  United Kingdom

  750

  60

  England

  700

  60

  These figures are based on the estimated number of tax units who pay income tax.

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on his future plans for financial support to the Myalgic Encephalomyelitis Association; and why financial assistance has not yet been given.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 7 June 1988]: In recognition of the valuable work of the Myalgic Encephalomyelitis Association we have decided to make a grant for the first time of £5,000 for the current financial year.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Upper Waiting Hall (Exhibitions)
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Lord President of the Council why it is necessary for an hon. Member to obtain the agreement of the appropriate Government Department before applying to the Serjeant at Arms to arrange an exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Wakeham
  This measure has been approved by the Services Committee to ensure that exhibitions mounted by right hon. and hon. Members do not contain items of advertising or commercial interest nor material explicitly intended to further the aims of any political party or group. It was considered that by using their background knowledge of the subjects of exhibitions the Government Departments could help meet the wishes of the House.

  In addition, the Services Committee recently resolved that Members' applications for exhibitions should be submitted to the Chairman of the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee as well as to the relevant Government Department.

  Sittings of the House
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will publish in the Official Report a consolidated list of the occasions on which the House has sat later than 1.30 am since 1958.

  Mr. Wakeham
  [pursuant to his reply, 10 June 1988, c. 714]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to his previous written question on 13 April 1988, Official Report, columns 166–68. It would be inappropriate to republish this information in a consolidated form.

  The following tables set out the revised figures for the current Session (1987–88) to date and also the total number of occasions in each Session since 1958 when the House sat after 1.30 am.

  Table I

  House sits after 1.30 am

  Session

  Number of occasions

  Time at which adjourned (am unless stated)

  Date

  1987–88 (to date)

  24

  1.34

  14 July 1987

  1.40

  17 February 1988

  1.45

  27 April 1988

  1·50

  9 February 1988

  1.53

  6 July 1987

  1.53

  7 July 1987

  1.53

  15 December 1987

  1.57

  13 April 1988

  2.11

  10 May 1988

  2.20

  8 February 1988

  2.23

  30 March 1988

  2.29

  23 May 1988

  2.31

  2 December 1987

  2.47

  2 March 1988

  2.55

  29 March 1988

  2.56

  3 February 1988

  3.27

  20 July 1987

  4.01

  21 October 1987

  4.07

  9 March 1988

  5.58

  25 May 1988

  8.30

  10 March 1988

  9.24

  8 December 1987

  9.27

  13 July 1987

  18.55

  10 November 1987

  64
  1 pm.

  Table II

  Occasions when the House sat after 1.30 am

  Session

  Number

  1959–60

  8

  1960–61

  16

  1961–62

  10

  1962–63

  9

  1963–64

  4

  1964–65

  27

  1965–66

  7

  1966–67

  40

  1967–68

  21

  1968–69

  24

  1969–70

  9

  1970–71

  33

  1971–72

  30

  1972–73

  24

  1973–74

  4

  1974

  10

  1974–75

  35

  1975–76

  39

  1976–77

  23

  1977–78

  21

  1978–79

  8

  1979–80

  41

  1980–81

  28

  1981–82

  22

  1982–83

  13

  1983–84

  34

  1984–85

  35

  1985–86

  18

  1986–87

  6

  1987–881

  24

  1 To date.

DEFENCE

  Southampton University (Contracts)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the contracts for research and development that have been awarded to Southampton university by his Department for each of the last five years, together with the purpose and cost for each contract.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Ministry of Defence has currently 805 research agreements and 76 contracts with a wide range of United Kingdom universities, polytechnics and other institutions of higher education.

  It is not our policy to give details of these arrangements. It is for the universities themselves to confirm their involvement.

  Departmental Costs
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he proposes to make any changes to the 1988–89 running costs limit for his Department.

  Mr. Younger
  The running costs limit for the Ministry of Defence will be reduced by £50,000 from £5,407,883,000 to £5,407,833,000. The reduction falls on class 1, vote 1 and reflects an agreement by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (OPCS) to take over responsibility for producing some analytical work required by the MOD. This reduction will be matched by a corresponding increase in the OPCS's running cost limit to be shown on class 20, vote 16. The transfer of this work will not affect the MOD block cash limit, nor the cash limit on class 1, vote 1, as the MOD will be charged on the non-running cost part of the Vote for the work undertaken by OPCS.

  Woolwich Arsenal
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what proposals he is presently considering for major housing development on land at Woolwich Arsenal;

  (2) what consultations he has undertaken with the London borough of Greenwich concerning redevelopment of land at Woolwich Arsenal.

  Mr. Freeman
  The royal arsenal west and royal arsenal east sites are principally occupied by the directorate general defence quality assurance. The future location of the directorate general is under study and, until this has been concluded, we cannot determine what land disposal may be possible on these sites. I can, however, confirm that we would expect to discuss plans for the development of any land to be released with the planning authority at an

  Session

  Report Number

  Description of PAC Report

  Related C&AG Reports

  1979–80

  16th

  Matters Relating to the Ministry of Defence:

  Paras 17–30 Class 1 Vote 8 Defence Procurement: Sea Systems

  Appropriation Account 1978–79 Volume 1 Class 1 Vote 8

  1980–81

  3rd

  Matters Relating to the Ministry of Defence:

  Paras 18–54 Class I Vote 2 Defence Procurement

  Appropriation Account 1979–80 Volume 1 Class 1 Vote 2

  1981–82

  9th

  Chevaline improvement to the Polaris missile system

  No C&AG report

  1981–82

  16th

  Ministry of Defence:

  Provision of Army Vehicles; Estimating, monitoring and control of Expenditure; Pricing and post costing of non—competitive contracts. Paras 17–29

  Appropriation Account 1980–81 Volume 1 Class 1 Votes 1, 2, 4 and 5

  1982–83

  5th

  Matters relating to the Ministry of Defence:

  Paras 42–53 Class 1 Vote 2 Defence Procurement

  Appropriation Account 1981–82 Class 1 Vote 2

  1983–84

  19th

  The United Kingdom Trident Programme

  HC 287

  1983–84

  33rd

  Economy of Stores Support

  HC 359

  1984–85

  1st

  Maintenance of major RAF equipments

  HC 481

  1984–85

  16th

  Major Projects Statement 1983–84

  No published C&AG report

  1984–85

  25th

  Profit Formula for non—competitive Government contracts, etc

  HC 243 1984–85

  1984–85

  28th

  The Torpedo programme

  Hc 291

  1984–85

  35th

  Design and Procurement of Warships

  HC 423 1984–85

  1985–86

  18th

  Supplies for the Armed Forces

  HC 465 1984–85

  1985–86

  23rd

  Production Costs of Defence Equipment

  HC 505 1984–85

  1985–86

  35th

  International Collaborative Projects for Defence Equipment; Major Projects Statement

  No published C&AG report

  1986–87

  6th

  Control and Management of the Development of Major Equipment

  HC 568 1985–86

  Note:

  In addition to the reports referred to above:

  (1) The PAC have taken evidence in their current session on the following procurement subjects although the reports have yet to be published: The Torpedo Programme and Design and Procurement of Warships; Control and Management of the Trident Programme Annual Statement on Major Defence Projects; Control and Management of the Development of Major Equipment Procurement Irregularities; Demountable Rack Offloading and Pick-up System (DROPS)

  The Profit Formula

  EH 101

  (2) The Appropriation Accounts (Volume 1 Class 1) for the period 1983–84 to 1986–87 also contain reports on defence matters by the C&AG.

  Rally Sport
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much income has been derived in each of the last five years by the use of his Department's land in Epynt, Otterburn and Salisbury Plain for all forms of rally sport.

  Mr. Freeman
  Income derived from all forms of rally sport on defence land at Epynt in Brecon, Otterburn and Salisbury Plain over each of the last five years is as follows:

  Epynt

  Otterburn

  Salisbury Plain

  £

  £

  £

  1983–84

  3,342

  967

  4,121

  1984–85

  4,202

  1,485

  7,092

  1985–86

  5,729

  1,518

  9,815

  1986–87

  7,268

  1,379

  7,253

  1987–88

  4,360

  2,066

  5,259

  66
  early date. Any such plans would need to take account of the nature of the area and, in particular, of the historic buildings on the royal arsenal west site.

  Procurement (Overspending)
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all overspending by his Department on defence procurement as identified by the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee since 1979.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Information in the form requested is not held by my Department. However, the following is a list of reports by the Committee of Public Accounts since 1979, most of which have been based on reports by the Comptroller and Auditor General, and which have addressed aspects of defence procurements:

  Service Personnel (Taxation)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, in any country in which they are stationed, members of the armed forces pay any form of local taxation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Members of the armed forces who are operating abroad under the provisions of the NATO status of forces agreement are exempt, under article X of the agreement, from any local taxes that result from residence or domicile in the receiving state, or on the salaries and emoluments paid to them in respect of their employment as members of the armed forces. Outside NATO, we always seek to ensure that similar arrangements apply. The armed forces do not, however,
  67
  enjoy any exemption from taxes or duties relating to purchases and services chargeable under the fiscal regulations of the receiving state.

  Low-flying Areas
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what geographical area, expressed(a) by county and (b) by parliamentary constituency, is covered by low-flying area 4.

  Mr. Freeman
  Low-flying area 4 covers(a) the county of Hereford and parts of the counties of Gloucestershire, Oxfordshire, Shropshire, Staffordshire, Warwickshire and the west midlands and (b) the parliamentary constituencies of Cheltenham, Worcester, Mid-Worcestershire, Worcestershire South. Wyre Forest, Leominster, Gloucester and Hereford and parts of the parliamentary constituencies of Ludlow, Staffordshire South, Bromsgrove, Stratford-on-Avon, Warwick and Leamington, Banbury, Witney, Cirencester and Tewkesbury, Stroud and Gloucestershire, West.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what geographical area, expressed(a) by county and (b) by parliamentary constituency, is covered by low-flying area 6.

  Mr. Freeman
  Low-flying area 6 covers(a) the county of Northamptonshire and parts of the counties of Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Cambridgeshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Norfolk, Nottinghamshire and Warwickshire and (b) the parliamentary constituencies of Rutland and Melton, Leicester, East, Leicestershire, South, Leicester, West, Harborough, Peterborough, Corby, Mid-Bedfordshire, Bedfordshire, North, Huntingdon, Wellingborough, Kettering, Northampton, North, Northampton, South, Blaby, Milton Keynes, and Luton, North, and parts of the parliamentary constituencies of Loughborough, Rushcliffe, Gedling, Sherwood, Newark, Grantham, Stamford and Spalding, Holland with Boston, Norfolk, North-West, Norfolk, South-West, Cambridgeshire, North-East, Cambridgeshire, South-East, Cambridgeshire, South-West, Saffron Walden, Stevenage, Hertford and Stortford, Hertfordshire, North, Hertfordshire, West, Bedfordshire, South-West, Buckingham, Daventry, Banbury, Stratford-on-Avon, Rugby and Kenilworth, Nuneaton and Bosworth.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the restrictions on use of afterburners by military jet aircraft flying at low level(a) in the United Kingdom low-flying system as a whole and (b) in the central Wales, Borders and northern Scotland tactical training areas.

  Mr. Freeman
  Aircrew are instructed to use engine reheat (or afterburners) as little as possible when flying overland at low level, particularly over inhabited areas. Where use is necessary, for example, during take-offs and properly authorised display and trials flying, and emergencies and related training, it is discouraged at levels below 1,000 ft minimum separation distance (msd) or 500 ft msd for Jaguar aircraft. These instructions apply to the United Kingdom low-flying system as a whole, including tactical training areas.

  Ex-Service Personnel (Rejoining)
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy concerning Army ex-service men and women rejoining the Army when they have a criminal record.

  Mr. Freeman
  Whether or not an ex-service man or woman with a criminal record is allowed to re-enlist into the Army would depend on the individual nature of the offence. However, a person who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment is normally ineligible for re-enlistment.

  RAF Feltwell
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which unit of the United States Air Force space command at Falcon air force station, Colorado, will control the proposed deep space tracking station at RAF Feltwell.

  Mr. Freeman
  The 18th space surveillance group from Falcon air force base, Colorado, will have operational control of the deep space tracking station at RAF Feltwell.

  Maritime Concepts
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals on the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation concept of maritime operations his Department is producing for the Eurogroup maritime concepts subgroup; what the timetable is for the review of maritime operations by the Eurogroup; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The Ministry of Defence contributes fully to the work of the Euro long-term working group. Details of this are classified.

  B-52 Bombers
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the purpose and function of exercises of B-52s at (i) RAF Fairford, April to May, (ii) RAF Fairford, June and (iii) RAF Marham, June.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Five United States Air Force B-52 aircraft deployed to RAF Fairford for the second of this year's Busy Brewer exercises, between 3 and 13 June. Such exercises, which involve deployments within the United Kingdom and continental Europe, are designed to rehearse the aircraft's wartime role in conventional support of NATO. The previous Busy Brewer exercise was held at Fairford between 29 April and 16 May. Two B-52 aircraft will deploy to RAF Marham between 15 and 24 June to participate in joint training exercises with the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force.

  Exercise Tristar
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many ground troops and vehicles will be taking part in Exercise Tristar; what is the role in their exercise; and in what areas they will be exercising;

  (2) what is the purpose of Exercise Tristar; how many and what types of aircraft will be participating; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Exercise Tristar 88 is a routine training exercise which is being held in southern Scotland
  69
  and northern England from 10 to 26 June and involves a small number of troops, vehicles and aircraft. It is not our general practice to give details of such exercises in advance.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations have taken place with the National Farmers Union and local authorities concerning Exercise Tristar.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The usual consultations for an exercise of this size have taken place with the various authorities concerned. No consultations have taken place with the National Farmers Union, although, in the usual way, there have been consultations with individual landowners as necessary.

  Search and Rescue Helicopters
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has yet made a decision about the future deployment of search and rescue helicopters at RAF Leuchars; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will announce his decision over the future deployment of A flight, 22 Squadron, RAF Chivenor.

  Mr. Freeman
  My hon. Friends will be aware that the Ministry of Defence has been conducting a detailed study, in consultation with the Department of Transport and other interested Government Departments, into the deployment of military search and rescue helicopters in the United Kingdom. Certain aspects of that study, as they affect deployment on the east and south coasts of England, have been completed and announced.

  I am well aware of the concern felt by my hon. Friends and other hon. Members about the future of search and rescue helicopter services as they affect the remaining areas of the country. To enable all these concerns to be further considered by the Government, no decisions will be taken until later this year.

TRANSPORT

  LRT (Chairman)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has any plans to appoint a new chairman of London Regional Transport.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  No.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport by what route trains from the north of England will be directed through London to the Channel tunnel; what infrastructure work will be required for this; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  This is a matter for the British Railways Board. I understand it intends initially at least to use the existing west London line, which will be upgraded and electrified for this purpose.

  East London River Crossing
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what additional evidence about the east 70
  London river crossing he has received from the London borough of Greenwich in the light of his Department's decision to alter the criteria for assessing the economic performances of new road schemes; and what response he has made;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to take into account his Department's revised criteria for assessing the economic performance of new road schemes when reaching a decision on the proposed east London river crossing;

  (3) when he now expects to be able to announce his decision on the proposed east. London river crossing.

  Mr. Channon
  The London borough of Greenwich has submitted its consultants' assessment of the effect of the revised values of travel time and accident prevention on the east London river crossing scheme. I have confirmed that my Department's reassessment, together with that of the London borough of Greenwich, will be taken into account by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and me in reaching our decision on the statutory orders for this scheme. We hope to announce our joint decision soon.

  Driving Test Fees
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to assess the value for money of the service provided by the Driving Test Organisation in the light of the proposed increase in the driving test fee to £16·50.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The 10% increase proposed represents a total increase of 15% since 1984. This is below the increase in the retail prices index. The new driving test fee of £16·50 is required to cover increased costs and the move to a reduced examiner work schedule later in the year. Significant efficiency improvements are being made following the review of driver testing to improve the service provided to the public, improve productivity and reduce unit costs.

  Drivers (Minimum Age)
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his assessment of the effect on the number of serious injuries and deaths of raising the minimum age requirement for the driving of(a) motor cars and (b) all motor vehicles to 18 years.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  In 1986 a total of 266 deaths and 5,697 serious injuries occurred in accidents where the driver or rider of a motor vehicle was under 18 years old. It is impossible to predict how many of these casualties might be saved by raising the minimum age to 18, because a significant factor in accidents to this group is lack of driving experience rather than simply a question of age. We have no plans to raise the current minimum age requirement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his assessment of the effect on the volume of traffic of raising the minimum age requirement for the driving of(a) motor cars and (b) all motor vehicles to 18 years.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The effect on the volume of traffic of raising to 18 years the minimum age requirement for the driving of both(a) motor cars, and (b) all motor vehicles,

  71
  would probably be a reduction of about one quarter of 1 per cent. There is no intention at present of altering the age requirements for driving licences.

  Toxic Waste (Switzerland)
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what special measures his Department is taking to monitor the transportation in the next few weeks of toxic waste from Switzerland to the ReChem plant at Pontypool.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The transport of the waste will, I understand, take place under the terms of the European agreement covering the international carriage of dangerous goods by road (ADR). Special monitoring is unnecessary. In addition to the requirements of the agreement, a consignment note must be raised at the port of entry in Great Britain when imported waste is special waste under the terms of the Control of Pollution (Special Waste) Regulations 1980.

  Manor Drive, Kirkham
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps his Department proposes to take in order to determine the ownership of Manor drive, Kirkham, Iancashire.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Lancashire county council has agreed with us that the land off Manor drive in which the Department once had an interest now vests in the council.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Japan (Imports)
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what he estimates to be the annual cost to the consumer of the car industry's voluntary agreement to limit car imports from Japan.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written answers I gave on 26 April,Official Report, columns 92–93, to my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) and on 7 June, Official Report, column 429, to my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon).

  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what items from Japan are subject to import quotas or voluntary restraint agreements by the European Community or the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  There are no quantitative restrictions on imports into the United Kingdom from Japan. There are, however, some informal inter-industry voluntary arrangements with Japanese producers, details of which were given in the written answer of 30 March,Official Report, columns 478–79, to a question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon).

  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what imports from Japan are subject to European Community tariffs.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I refer my hon. Friend to the common customs tariff of the European Communities. There are no preferential arrangements with Japan.

  Net Book Agreement
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what he estimates to be the annual cost to the consumer of the net book agreement.

  Mr. Butcher
  Although there have been several studies of the effect of the net book agreement, I have not been able to establish that any estimates have ever been made. Any attempt to quantify the cost would be dependent upon so many uncertainties that its usefulness would be limited. I therefore have no such estimate.

  Hearing Aid Council
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish in the Official Report the names of the chairman and members of the Hearing Aid Council, together with the dates upon which their appointments expire.

  Mr. Butcher
  The information requested is as follows:

  Date appointment ends

  Chairman

  Mr. N. Grant

  December 1990

  Members

  Mr. R. S. Eldridge

  December 1988

  Mrs. M. B. Nobbs

  December 1988

  Mr. A B. Day

  December 1988

  Mrs. I. Gilbert

  December 1988

  Mr. D. P. Ormerod

  December 1989

  Mr. A. J. Douglas

  December 1989

  Miss A. Spokes

  December 1989

  Dr. D. N. Brooks

  December 1989

  Dr. S. Bellman

  December 1990

  Mr. N. J. King

  December 1990

  Mr. I. E. Munro

  December 1990

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish in the Official Report a list of the bodies he consulted before appointing two members of the Hearing Aid Council capable of representing the interests of registered dispensers until December 1990.

  Mr. Butcher
  There are only two trade bodies which represent the interests of hearing aid dispensers, the Hearing Aid Industry Association and the Society of Hearing Aid Audiologists. Both were consulted before the appointments referred to by the hon. Member were made.

  Manufacturing Output
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has as to the percentage change in manufacturing output in each of the European Economic Community countries, including the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Canada and Japan, taking the 1979 level as 100.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information is in the following tables:

  Changes in manufacturing output between 1979 and 1987

  Per cent.

  Belgium

  4·4

  Denmark

  ..

  France

  1-1·6

  Federal Republic of Germany

  7·8

  Greece

  -0·8

  Ireland

  46·2

  73

  Per cent.

  Italy

  8·8

  Luxembourg

  21·5

  Netherlands

  13·1

  Portugal

  136·9

  Spain

  11·3

  United Kingdom

  0·2

  United States

  20·9

  Canada

  19·3

  Japan

  28·4

  .. = not readily available

  1 estimate

  Sources: Central Statistical Office. OECD.

  Polyurethane Foam
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what ignition tests on polyurethane foam were carried out or arranged by his Department in preparation for the proposed Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations.

  Mr. Butcher
  Manufacterers of polyurethane foam, independently and in co-ordination under the British Rubber Manufacturers Association, have been involved in more or less continuous fire testing of their products. As a result, claims were made during 1987 about new combustion-modified types of foams and their resistance to BS 5852 ignition source 5.

  One of these manufacturers also undertook work in 1987 on a possible weight loss test in connection with envisaged regulations.

  Following a statement by my hon. Friend the then Minister for Consumer Affairs on 11 January 1988, at column 23–24, my Department requested that the industry should concentrate on a test to distinguish "combustion modified" foam from the standard foam and high resilience foam, which we proposed to ban. This work was then drawn together by a BSI technical committee which first met on 5 February. Agreement on the requirements for an ignition test to indentify combustion-modified foam was announced in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) on 10 May, at column 69. In parallel with this, some confirmatory testing was incorporated into a study of the fire behaviour of the various foams arranged at the fire research station of the Department of the Environment. The results of this study are not yet available.

  Fire Safety
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) if he will list the programmes currently being pursued by the Department of Trade and Industry to promote consumer awareness of the need for greater domestic fire safety;

  (2) if he will list the sums allocated in 1986, 1987 and 1988 by the Department of Trade and Industry to promote consumer education in domestic fire safety.

  Mr. Butcher
  Publicity on fire safety in the home other than fire safety of consumer goods is the responsibility of the Home Office. But my Department does promote home safety awareness campaigns which include some safety messages on how to avoid the dangers from fire in the home, for example, Electricity Can Kill, Electric Blankets, Nightwear and Fire, Fireworks, Furniture and Fire.

  It is not possible to separate the element of expenditure on fire safety from the total costs of these campaigns.

  Contracts (Cancellation Forms)
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in the light of the changes in the law after 1 July relating to contracts signed away from business premises and in particular to that part of the contract that deals with cancellation forms, he will state how this law will be enforced, with particular regard to those firms which are not members of trade associations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  The new regulations (SI 1987/2117) provide that if the consumer does not receive a written notice informing him of his right of cancellation the contract will not be enforceable against him. My Department has taken steps to alert traders to the new legal requirements by publishing a guidance booklet which has been distributed to trading standards departments throughout the United Kingdom as well as to interested trade associations. The Office of Fair Trading will also be alerting consumers to their new rights in a revised version of its leaflet "How to cope with doorstep salesmen" to be published shortly.

  Companies
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was(a) the total cost of administration of companies registration offices in Great Britain in the year 1987–88, (b) the total revenue from fees charged by companies registration offices in Great Britain in the year 1987–88, and (c) the sum of profit or loss resulting from the difference between (a) and (b).

  Mr. Maude
  Provisional figures for 1987–88 show that expenditure on a memorandum trading account basis at the companies registration offices amounted to £21 million. Fees and charges to cover these costs, together with a contribution towards the costs of running a system of registered companies, amounted to £28 million in the same period.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total number of company searches carried out at each of the public search rooms in Great Britain, and by the postal search services at each office, during the year 1987–88.

  Mr. Maude
  The number of searches carried out during the period at the London, Cardiff and Edinburgh search rooms was 3,021,000, 872,000 and 206,000 respectively. In addition, the Cardiff and Edinburgh offices handled 58,000 and 8,000 postal searches respectively.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the total of inspection fees collected for inspections carried out at each of the public search rooms of companies registration offices and at each of the postal sales units.

  Mr. Maude
  The total of inspection fees collected in 1987–88 was £3·8 million of which £0.8 million was collected at Cardiff, £2·9 million at London and £0·2 million at Edinburgh. Income from postal searches amounted to £130,000 at Cardiff and £20,000 at Edinburgh.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the postal sales service of
  75
  company information which was introduced by companies registration offices in December 1983 is accommodated within the existing buildings of companies registration offices.

  Mr. Maude
  Yes.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what additional recurring costs, apart from staff costs, have been incurred by companies registration offices as a result of the introduction of the postal sales service for company information in 1983.

  Mr. Maude
  The introduction of the postal search service has resulted in recurring non-staff costs to cover postage, stationery, printing, micrographics equipment, office machinery and departmental overheads.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will give the total cost of maintaining the Companies House facility in London during the year 1987–88.

  Mr. Maude
  Provisional figures for 1987–88 show that the cost of maintaining the Companies House facility in London on a memorandum trading account basis was £4·4 million. These costs exclude those services at Cardiff which support this facility.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the number of company searches carried out at each of the companies registration offices in Great Britain on behalf of Departments of Her Majesty's Government during the year 1987–88; if such services are charged to the requesting Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  In 1987–88 some 176,000 searches were carried out for the CROs' own working purposes and those of other parts of the Department of Trade and Industry. Searches for other Government Departments attract the normal search feee and are, therefore, not always separately identified, but total at least 68,000.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the number of staff employed in directly meeting the requests for company information, as opposed to collecting and collating company records, at(a) each of the public search rooms and (b) each of the units handling the postal sales services.

  Mr. Maude
  The number of staff (full-time equivalents) employed in the CROs, as at March 1988, in meeting requests made for company information at London, Cardiff and Edinburgh were 282, 68 and 12 respectively. For postal sales services from Cardiff and Edinburgh the numbers were 18·5 and 2 respectively.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total number of live limited companies registered at each companies registration office in Great Britain at the end of the year 1987–88.

  Mr. Maude
  The number of companies registered in England and Wales and in Scotland at the end of the financial year 1987–88 was 1,063,811 and 53,706 respectively. A number of these were either in liquidation or in course of removal from the register, leaving the number regarded as "active" as 880,000 and 47,000 respectively.
  76
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total number of new companies registered at each companies registration office in Great Britain in the year 1987–88, and the total number registered in each case with a total paid-up capital of £100 or less during the same period.

  Mr. Maude
  The number of new companies registered at the Cardiff and Edinburgh offices in 1987–88 was 120,000 and 6,300 respectively. An analysis of paid-up capital is not yet available, but the number of new companies with a nominal capital of £100 or less is estimated to have been 47,600 and 3,200 respectively.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the number of microfiches required to carry the average company records at companies registration offices in Great Britain; and what is the material cost of reproducing a single microfiche at companies registration offices.

  Mr. Maude
  An average of five microfiches carry each company record. The cost of film and processing materials for each microfiche is about 3p.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the significant elements in his calculation that an increase in company search fees is necessary at companies registration offices; and how each proposed new charge for the company search services was arrived at.

  Mr. Maude
  The main elements of search service costs include staff, equipment, accommodation and overheads. The new fees have been set at a level to ensure that the income received will cover the full costs of providing the services.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster why, in relation to the company registration offices, an increase in search charges is proposed.

  Mr. Maude
  Search fees have remained unaltered since 1981. For some time the income from these services has fallen short of the costs of delivering them. The new fees have been set at a level designed to ensure that, taking one year with another, the income received will cover the costs of the services involved.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the level of the statutory search fee at each of the companies registration offices' public search rooms in 1978 and 1983; and what is the proposed figure for 1989.

  Mr. Maude
  The statutory inspection fees were 5p (formerly one shilling) in 1978 (as it had been since 1844) and £1 in 1983. The proposed £2·50 fee from 1 July 1988 will be subject to annual review.

  Aerospace (Launch-aid)
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the total amount of support from his Department to aerospace companies for launch aid since 1979, project by project and year by year.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Since 1979 lauch aid has been provided by the Department of Trade and Industry to aerospace companies as follows:
  77

  £ million

  Project

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  11988–89

  Total

  British Aerospace

  A320

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  46·5

  73·0

  86·0

  44·5

  2-0·

  3249·3

  Rolls-Royce

  RB211–22B

  3·4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3·4

  RB211–524B

  —

  —

  0·3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·3

  RB211–524

  29·5

  34·7

  32·3

  15·0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  111·5

  Growth programme

  RB211–535

  45·9

  32·4

  60·3

  38·6

  14·6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  191·8

  RB211–535E4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  60·0

  10·0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  70·0

  V2500

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10·0

  22·7

  27·3

  —

  —

  60·0

  Total Rolls—Royce

  78·8

  67·1

  92·9

  53·6

  74·6

  20·0

  22·7

  27·3

  —

  —

  437·0

  Westland

  W30

  —

  —

  —

  10·0

  10·7

  14·0

  4·6

  —

  —

  —

  39·3

  EH101

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3·7

  3·9

  5·7

  8·1

  0·3

  421·7

  Total Westland

  —

  —

  —

  10·0

  10·7

  17·7

  8·5

  5·7

  8·1

  0·3

  61·0

  Total payments

  78·8

  67·1

  92·9

  63·6

  85·3

  84·2

  104·2

  119·0

  52·6

  -0·4

  747·3

  Receipts5

  5·2

  9·6

  8·6

  12·9

  8·0

  10·2

  14·6

  18·8

  25·2

  60·1

  113·2

  Net Total

  73·6

  57·5

  84·3

  50·7

  77·3

  74·0

  89·6

  100·2

  27·4

  -0·5

  634·1

  1To date.

  2 Relates to the repayment by British Aerospace to DTI of an overpayment of aid.

  3Up to £450 million is also expected to be made available to British Aerospace between 1988 and 1992 in connection with its participation in the Airbus A330/A340 programme.

  4Total launch aid for this project will be £60 million.

  5Levies received so far relate only to Rolls-Royce, including contracts where launch aid was paid prior to 1979–80.

  6 Yet to be notified.

  British Shipbuilders (Cuba Order)
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to respond to the request by British Shipbuilders for intervention fund support for the potential order from Cuba.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have not yet received a formal application for support for this order, but I have told British Shipbuilders in response to inquiries that I would consider any application from it with great care in view of the considerable losses over and above agreed support that the corporation has made on other orders.

  Shipbuilding
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on what occasions and for what purposes his Department has made formal complaints to the European Community Commissioner concerning breaches of the fifth or sixth directives on support for shipbuilding by other member states of the Community.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  We have asked the European Commission to investigate the use of state aid in the following bids: from the Netherlands for a floating crane in April 1985 and two trawlers in October 1985; from France for a cross-channel ferry in January 1987; from Portugal for a fishing boat in May 1987; and from Spain for a stern trawler in March 1988. We have been concerned to ensure fairness of competition for United Kingdom yards with others within the Community.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has about the accrued losses of(a) the Italian, (b) the West German and (c) the French merchant shipbuilding industries since 1979.
  78
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  This information is not available to us. The losses owners are prepared to bear is a matter for them.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has about the accrued losses of the South Korean shipbuilding industry since 1979.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  There is no reliable information.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been, year by year since 1979, the amount of money provided by his Department to British Shipbuilders as intervention fund under the fifth and sixth directives of the European Community.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Payments of intervention fund to British Shipbuilders since 1979 have amounted to £259 million. Year by year totals from 1979–80 have been £31 million, £40 million, £46 million, £44 million, £34 million, £18 million, £22 million, £14 million and £10 million, respectively. The figures include payments made under the fourth directive, which was effective until 27 April 1981. No payments have yet been made in 1988–89.

  British Shipbuilders (Losses)
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will give his estimate for the accrued losses of British Shipbuilders since 1979, excluding those mixed and naval yards that are now in the private sector.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The total cost to the taxpayer of keeping British Shipbuilders merchant shipbuilding business alive since 1979 has been over £1,850 million. The
  79
  accrued losses on a profit and loss basis, excluding the warship yards and Scott Lithgow, have been approximately £1,050 million.

  United Kingdom Balance of Trade in Manufactures 1

  £ billion

  Balance of payments basis

  Overseas trade statistics basis

  European Community

  Rest of world

  European Community

  Rest of world

  Twelve months to:

  March 1988

  210½

  22

  -11·6

  +0·7

  April 1988

  ..

  ..

  -11·9

  +0·2

  1 Standard International Trade Classification (Rev. 3) Sections 5 to 8

  2 Estimate

  .. Not available

  Note: Figures on a balance of payments basis are available only quarterly. On the overseas trade statistics basis imports, but not exports, include the cost of insurance and freight charges.

  Source: United Kingdom Overseas Trade Statistics.

  Department of Trade and Industry.

  Departmental Research Establishments
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will place in the Library a copy of the review study undertaken into his Department's research establishments.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  No. The review was part of my Department's advice on the policy that my right hon. and noble Friend should adopt towards by Deprtment's research establishments. His conclusions were explained to the House in the answer I gave on 7 June.

  Furniture Safety
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received on the Draft Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations, issued by his Department on 1 March; and if he will consider implementing these regulations sooner than 1 March 1989.

  Mr. Butcher
  I have received approximately 260 seperate representations on the draft Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Relugations. A number of these contain suggestions about the dates for them to come into operation both for manufacture and for retail sale. I am considering proposals for an earlier date of implementation for one of the requirements.

  Civil Servants (Outside Activities)
  Mr. John
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Pontyridd of 24 May,Official Report, column 114, are the names and Civil Service grades of the seven civil servants appointed as directors of public liability companies; of which companies they have been appointed directors; and how much expenses they received in the last full year of such directorships.

  Mr. Butcher
  The following is the information on the seven civil servants referred to in the earlier answer:

  Manufacturing Trade
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the most recent 12-month surplus or deficit in manufacturing trade with the EEC and the rest of the world, respectively.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The latest information is in the following table:

  Grade

  Company

  Mr. J. V. Hagestadt

  5

  British Aerospace Flying College Limited, a subsidiary of British Aerospace plc.

  Mr. R. A. C. Hewes

  3

  Comforto-Vickers, a Division of Vickers plc.

  Miss M. T. Neville-Rolfe

  3

  Rolls Royce Motors Limited, a subsidiary of Vickers plc.

  Mr. R. Priddle

  3

  Film and Television Division of Rank Organisation plc

  Mr. P. Salvidge

  5

  Marine Engineering Division of Vickers plc

  Mr. N. R. Thornton

  5

  Medical and Scientific Equipment Division of Vickers plc

  Dr. A. J. Wallard

  5

  Rank Cintel, a subsidiary of the Rank Organisation plc.

  Since that time Mr. Thornton has resigned from that appointment and Mr. J. P. Spencer, a grade 5, has been appointed to the board of GEC Avery, a division of GEC plc. The only expenses received are the expenses which the individuals incur in attending board meetings and otherwise visiting the companies.

  National Engineering Laboratory
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the actual or estimated staffing levels for each category of staff employed at the National Engineering Laboratory, East Kilbride, for the period 1979 to 1990 inclusive.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The staffing levels of industrial and non-industrial staff at the National Engineering Laboratory on 1 April for the years 1979 to 1988 were:

  Industrials

  Non-industrials

  Total

  1979

  294

  531

  825

  1980

  267

  523

  790

  1981

  246

  495

  741

  1982

  237½

  468½

  706

  1983

  226½

  456½

  683

  1984

  193

  458½

  651½

  1985

  185

  461

  646

  1986

  186

  448

  634

  1987

  168

  463

  631

  1988

  156

  472

  628

  81
  The projected level for 1989 and 1990 is a total of 620 staff.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster from which firm his Department commissioned a study into the future of the Government-run research establishments, including the National Engineering Laboratory; and on what date it was submitted to his Department.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  No such study has been commissioned by my Department.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster under what authority he proposes to effect the sale of the National Engineering Laboratory at East Kilbride; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The National Engineering Laboratory is a division of the Department of Trade and Industry. Its transfer will be effected under the prerogative power to determine the organisation of the Department which is exercised as Secretary of State by my right hon. and noble Friend.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) if he will give details and dates in the last 12 months of discussions his Department has had with representatives of(a) the British Hydromechanics Research Association and (b) the Production Engineering Research Association on the future of the National Engineering Laboratory;
  82
  (2) on what date the British Hydromechanics Research Association lodged an interest with his Department in an optics paper drawn up by the firm of Cooper and Lybrand on the future of the National Engineering Laboratory; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The British Hydromechanics Research Association and the Production Engineering Research Association independently approached the Department to express an interest in the National Engineering Laboratory during the course of the review of the research establishments. Following normal practice, details are commercially confidential. The BHRA subsequently sent the Department a paper giving its views on the future development of NEL.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the British Hydromechanics Research Association was notified of the Government's intention to sell off the National Engineering Laboratory in advance of the public announcement in the answer of 7 June,Official Report, columns 431–32.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  No. However, the British Hydromechanics Research Association was informed of the likely timing of an announcement because it had expressed a close interest in the future of NEL. It was given no advance information about the content of the announcement and the results of our review of research establishments.

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

Gibraltar Airport: Proposals
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the present position in respect of the proposal of the Spanish Government as to the joint use of Gibraltar airport.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, it is for the Gibraltar House of Assembly to decide whether it wishes to amend Gibraltar's legislation to permit the implementation of last December's joint declaration on Gibraltar airport. We firmly believe it is in its interests to do so.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the Gibraltar Government have asked Her Majesty's Government for details of the operation of the agreement and of the proposed system? Can he say whether it has been possible to provide those details?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, yes. We have already provided a commentary on the Anglo-Spanish declaration on Gibraltar airport which deals with the matter fully.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we understand that the new Chief Minister, Mr. Bossano, visited London recently and had talks with the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. Can the noble Lord say whether the agreement was discussed at those talks, and is he able to say what the results were? Secondly, the Minister referred to the Gibraltar House of Assembly. Can he say when the matter is to be debated there?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I understand that this was one of several matters discussed during Mr. Bossano's visit. I am afraid that I am not in a position to give details because essentially the matter is for the people of Gibraltar to decide. Can the noble Lord repeat his second supplementary question?
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, it was whether the Minister can say when the Gibraltar House of Assembly is likely to debate the matter.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I apologise. I am afraid that I am unable to say because it is a matter for the House of Assembly to consider. I understand that no deadline has been set on the procedure. The first step is for the House of Assembly to adopt the amendments to the Gibraltar customs and immigration legislation. That would be the legislative vehicle to achieve this, but no time has been set. been set.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the Minister help your Lordships' House by indicating the attitude of the new Gibraltar Administration towards the agreement? Is he able to say whether they are supportive of it?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I believe there to be anxieties in Gibraltar. It may be useful if I say to the noble Lord that any concerns about the agreement making concessions on sovereignty are totally invalid. The airport would remain under British control and there are significant economic and commercial advantages for Gibraltar if the declaration comes into force. However, it is a matter for final decision by the Gibraltarians.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the British Government have submitted proposals to which there has been no response and that this must mean that the ball is now firmly in the court of the other side? Is it likely that we shall be told about any response so that the whole position can then be re-examined?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. The ball is firmly in the court of the people of Gibraltar at the moment. If they reject it the airport agreement will not go ahead and Gibraltar will be unable to benefit from EC aviation liberalisation measures which would otherwise remain unaffected.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the information given by Her Majesty's Government to the Gibraltar Government covers the question of the size of the gate leading from the Gibraltar-owned airport into Spanish territory? Is it to be the kind of gate through which an aeroplane can go or only passengers?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as far as I am aware it is not a gate through which an aircraft can pass; it would be for passengers only. And the arrangements for the new terminal relate to that. I shall provide my noble friend with a copy of the commentary which will explain the matter more fully.

Oxford University: Appointments to Chairs
2.41 p.m.
Lord St. John of Fawsley Lord St. John of Fawsley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they expect to be in a position to make recommendations within the foreseeable future for the Regius Chairs of Modern History and Greek in the University of Oxford.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Education and Science (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, these Chairs are expected to fall vacant within the next two years. It is for the university to decide when to make appointments. The Government will become involved in making recommendations only when that decision is made by the university.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. Is she aware that there is widespread anxiety in the university world about the reduction in public funding? Is she further aware that in Oxford 112 posts have been abolished and 72 academic posts have been suspended? Can she hold out any hope of an improvement in the future?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I understand that the university has decided to fill the Regius Chair of Greek in 1990. In the case of the Chair of Modern History, the university has given a higher priority to filling two other prestigious Chairs in history. I understand that at Oxford there are a total of 10 Chairs in history, of which three are vacant. Of these, one is being filled, one has been advertised and the third has been left vacant for the time being. We believe that universities need to bring their income and expenditure into line in ways which are academically sound.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in intervening I find it more difficult to strike the correct balance between interlocutor and respondent than on any Question I have asked or answered in either House over 40 years? May I interrogatively assure her that the—
Noble Lords: No.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she is aware—if that is the more acceptable form—that the University of Oxford looks forward to being able, by its own efforts, to overcome the austerity imposed upon it by the Government in time for the Prime Minister, if she is so minded (I hope, after consultation with the university) to appoint even the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, to one of those high posts?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I think I must reply by saying that it is right that decisions concerning priorities within a university are for the university itself to take.

Teachers: Professional Competence
2.44 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David asked Her Majesty's Government:
On what grounds they are proposing that unqualified people should be employed as teachers.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State wants to encourage many more talented people with relevant qualifications and experience to become teachers. He proposes, therefore, to change the regulations on the granting of qualified teacher status for those who have not trained in England or Wales. These regulations have long been in need of reform. Under my right honourable friend's proposals, no one will be granted qualified teacher status until he or she has received any necessary training and their professional competence has been fully tested. The existing arrangements do not provide such a safeguard.
Baroness David: My Lords, is it right that the training is to be given by the various LEAs round the country, or organised by the governors of grant-maintained schools or city technology colleges? What monitoring will there be of the training? What monitoring will there be when qualified teacher status is finally given?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the training arrangements will vary according to the needs of the teacher concerned. Some overseas-trained teachers may require very little additional training, whereas an untrained person with no previous teaching experience would clearly need more extensive training. On the whole, that will be the responsibility of local education authorities. In due course the department will make available guidance on appropriate training for licensed teachers.
Baroness David: My Lords, may I follow up that by asking whether the Government will help LEAs with the expense of this extra in-service training?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, in the sense that the regulations provide nothing new, the arrangements will follow current practice. The regulations will enable the Government to clarify the situation. Already we have about 10 per cent. of teachers who enter under the routes which are described in the consultation document. The consultation document clarifies the entry arrangements. It will not make an enormous difference to the follow-up training that is required.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, can the Minister say how this extra training is to be paid for in a context where local authorities have been substantially cut back and are finding difficulty in maintaining a number of services in the field of education? Can the Minister also say how professional competence is to be tested?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the costs of training will be eligible for support under the local education authority training grant scheme and the grant-maintained schools grant. As I said, guidance on monitoring will be issued after the responses to the consultation document in which monitoring is referred to.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I understand from the Government's consultation paper that if a governing body or a local education authority wants a teacher for a specific school, it can apply for that teacher to be given a licence. How long is it likely to be before a licence is granted? If a period of, say, two years' training intervenes, the need for that teacher may have disappeared before he is on the staff. How long will the school have to wait?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the proposal in the consultation document is that qualified teacher status will be granted on the recommendation of the local authority or school governing body after the licensed teacher has taught satisfactorily during a period of no fewer than two years and no more than three years. During that period a licensed teacher with no or insufficient pre-entry training would have had to undertake a training programme tailored to his or her needs.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the replies she has given are completely unsatisfactory and will be rejected by almost everyone in the teaching profession and those associated with it? I ask the noble Baroness to refer to exactly the same experience which we had in the 1960s. Although there were some natural born teachers at that time, they were very few and far between. It took a great deal of effort, time and I may say (because I was engaged in it), a great deal of human suffering in trying to remove the other people from the profession. Finally, does not the noble Baroness agree that if training means anything, it must be the training which we have now? We do not have untrained lawyers, doctors, and so on.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Lord. A number of people have already warmly welcomed the proposals, and more will do so when they have considered the consultation document. We hope and expect that the new arrangements will attract more people to teaching. Indeed, the work of the Teaching as a Career unit has shown that many older people are attracted to teaching but are put off by the pre-service training requirement and the lack of clarity in the present arrangements for granting qualified teacher status on the basis of experience. We hope that the proposed arrangements will also help to attract more candidates from the ethnic minorities who perhaps possess overseas teaching qualifications. That must be to the benefit of the schools.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the proposals which are outlined and which are being challenged at the moment by the noble Baroness will go an enormous way to help in the shortage subjects by getting people with science and technology backgrounds into the classroom with the appropriate training? The proposals will also meet some of the requirements of the new curriculum.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as my noble friend said, and as I said previously, we expect this scheme to attract many new entrants.
Lord Peston: My Lords, the document itself refers to the licensed teacher undertaking such training as the employer deems appropriate, but my noble friend asked how we shall know that each employer deems the same kind of qualities appropriate as each other employer. Perhaps I may also ask whether a teacher who achieves this status in one LEA will be eligible for employment with any other LEA.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I can probably say "Yes" to the second part of the supplementary question asked by the noble Lord. The arrangements for the training of licensed teachers will he subject to the same kind of central supervision as all other teacher training.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, can the Minister give the House information as to the level of the salary scale at which the licensed teachers will be joining the profession before the two years' training, and afterwards? At what level of the salary scale will they be placed?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, no change will be necessary to the regulations which govern teachers' salaries. During the period of licensed teaching, special arrangements will apply. Obviously, after qualified teacher status has been acquired the normal provisions of the teachers' pay and conditions document will apply.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one needs only one attribute to be a good teacher, and that is to have a teaching nature?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. That is one of the most important aspects of teaching. By presenting these regulations as proposals at this stage, the Government hope very much to attract to the profession people with that particular indefinable quality.
Baroness David: My Lords, do I understand from the Minister that when teachers first enter the profession under licence they will have less salary than a qualified teacher?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, yes.

Teacher Training Materials
2.53 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch asked Her Majesty's Government:
What further action is planned following the launch on 17th May of the new educational materials designed to equip trainee teachers with an understanding of industry and commerce.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Government are funding a major programme for the dissemination of these materials to teacher training institutions. In particular, each institution will receive a free set of materials.
The project directors will also he undertaking a government-funded survey to review current industrial and commercial awareness work in initial teacher training courses. The survey results should provide helpful guidance as to the most effective use of industrial and commercial perspective materials within teacher training.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her reply, and I congratulate the Government on a particularly exciting programme. With effect from 17th May and the launch of this scheme we are dealing with teachers who are in training but who are not yet in the classroom. I ask the Minister whether the scheme can be extended to those teachers who are willing to participate in the scheme and who are already in the classroom.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, initially, all industrial and commercial perspective materials arc to be distributed in the widest possible way to initial teacher training institutions. The means of dissemination will include conferences, workshops for tutors, consultancy services and the publication of project materials and their free distribution to teacher training institutions. We hope to widen the spread of distribution as much as possible.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Local Government Finance Bill will he adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Report stage of the Access to
8
Medical Reports Bill and the Committee stage of the Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Rear Seat Belts by Children) Bill will be taken.

Barlow Clowes
2.55 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now make a Statement on Barlow Clowes.
Your Lordships will be aware of extensive recent publicity surrounding the affairs of Mr. Peter Clowes and the companies in the Barlow Clowes group. In view of the public concern on this matter it is right that I should inform the House of the situation and of the action that the Government are taking.
There are many companies involved here. Those most in the public eye have been Barlow Clowes Gilt Managers Limited, a UK investment management company, and Barlow Clowes International Limited, a similar company but registered in Gibraltar. The holding company of the group is James Ferguson Holdings plc. Investigators were appointed in November last year, under Section 106 of the Financial Services Act 1986, to examine the affairs of Barlow Clowes Gilt Managers Limited. The interim report of the investigators has been received and formed the basis for the winding up petition of that company. The Official Receiver has been appointed provisional liquidator, and special managers of its assets have been appointed at the instance of the Securities and Investments Board. My department is in close touch with the special managers, who have been at the company's premises over the weekend. Mr. Clowes has been co-operating during this period with the special managers. At present it cannot be said with any certainty what the return to creditors will be. Papers have been passed to the serious fraud office, and investigations are being carried out by the police.
On Friday of last week the Section 106 inspectors, Mr. David Ziman, a solicitor, and Mr. Walter Hoffman, an accountant, were appointed under Section 432 of the Companies Act 1985 to look into the affairs of James Ferguson Holdings plc. This will in turn enable the affairs of all that company's subsidiaries to be looked at.
The Gibraltar company, Barlow Clowes International Limited, is being wound up at the instance of the holding company under the supervision of the Gibraltar courts. The joint liquidators are two British firms, Cork Gully (who are the special managers of Barlow Clowes Gilt Managers Limited in UK) and Ernst and Whinney.
Public concern has been expressed about the role of my department in relation to these companies. I have decided that this should be examined objectively and independently, and I shall appoint an independent person of standing to investigate and report to me as soon as possible on the facts of my department's handling of the matter. Subject to there being no legal impediment, either as to content or as to timing, I propose to publish that report.

9
Meanwhile it will be of interest to the House to know of the earlier decisions taken in relation to these companies. In 1984 the department approached the Barlow Clowes partnership to establish whether they should be licensed under the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act 1958. Rumours about the partnership were subsequently reported by the National Association of Securities Dealers and Investment Managers. After pressure from the department the partnership applied for a licence and in October 1985, after prolonged negotiation and the receipt of assurances, a licence was granted. In October 1986 it was renewed. In October 1987, in the light of dissatisfaction by the department and with the monitoring of returns from Barlow Clowes, and of other information, it was decided to appoint investigators. The company's licence was renewed while this investigation was in progress.
The main priority at present must be to safeguard as far as possible the interests of investors. I cannot at present comment on the amounts which may be at stake or on the position of individual investors. I am sure, however, that the liquidators in London and Gibraltar will seek to resolve the situation as quickly as possible in the interests of investors. I shall make a further statement when I am in a position to do so.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, the Secretary of State, for making that Statement on this very serious situation. In particular, we on this side welcome the frankness with which the Secretary of State has announced an objective and independent inquiry into his own department. It must be an extremely difficult action for a Secretary of State to take, but he has grasped the nettle and we are grateful for this.
Who does the noble Lord have in mind as the independent inquirer, if that is the expression, because the identity of the gentleman or lady in question is a matter of serious concern to the Opposition? Will the inquirer have all possible access to papers and be able to take evidence on this matter under oath? Those seem to be the fundamental principles under which the Secretary of State might wish the inquiry to he conducted.
The affairs of Barlow Clowes International are now to a certain extent sub judice. We welcome the reference to the serious fraud office. We hope that the police will be successful in unravelling the extremely difficult series of transactions that obviously lie behind the position the noble Lord has described. For the moment we shall suspend judgment on the question of the role of the Department of Trade and Industry until we hear further from the noble Lord as he has promised.
Will he, however, let the House know, first, what responsibility lies with the parent company, James Ferguson Holdings plc, in respect of the obligations of its subsidiaries? As I understand it, the parent company asked for a liquidation of Barlow Clowes International. Is it possible for a parent company simply to ask for a liquidation and walk away from the results, or is there any residual liability? Secondly, are there any inherent criticisms of the accountants
10
Spicer and Pegler who were mentioned in the report of the Securities and Investments Board, and who in 1986 apparently failed to draw attention to the transfer and possible mingling of United Kingdom and Gibraltar funds through a Geneva account? Is the noble Lord satisfied that those criticisms are well founded?
Thirdly, have the Government in mind any arrangements for compensating those investors who have perhaps—we do not know—lost their money as a result of fradulent practice by Barlow Clowes? I return here to my first question as to the responsibility of the parent company to start organising something, perhaps with the co-operation of the Government. Under the Financial Services Act, as I understand its provisions, if this were to happen now there would be some compensation for those who lost their money.
We are dealing with approximately 11,000 private investors who invested approximately £140 million. Those sums were invested not necessarily directly but were placed by intermediaries who were relying on the licence granted under the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act by the Department of Trade and Industry. It is an important matter. We welcome the Government's stated intention to try to stamp out once and for all this kind of business. We regard this as another sleazy operation, licensed by the DTI, operating through various tax havens and perhaps even failing to distinguish between client and own funds. We look forward with great interest to further statements from the Government.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord Williams, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Young, for making this Statement, and in expressing appreciation for the prompt action of the DTI in setting up this inquiry to deal with the public comment so far made on the issue. I should like to address two questions to the noble Lord; one affects licensing procedures and the other compensation.
As to licensing, the noble Lord, Lord Young. made it clear that there was some delay in these securities dealers obtaining a licence in the first place. It was due to approaches from the DTI that finally they came into line but at the same time the National Association of Securities Dealers and Investment Managers was expressing some doubts about their operations. This ultimately led to an inquiry in October last year although a licence was at that time granted. Investors continued to invest. In fact, according to newspaper reports, they were investing right up to 27th May this year. The question that I should like to ask—I believe it is independent of the inquiry to be conducted—is whether in cases of this kind, where the DTI is perturbed about the operations of the dealers and where inquiries are ultimately being mounted, some warning should be given publicly that this is being done. While all this was occurring people were in a bona fide manner investing their savings right up to 27th May this year. That is a general point to the noble Lord.
My second point is compensation. I am not at all clear where those who are likely to lose as a result of this will stand in relation to the compensation fund

11
set up under the Financial Services Act. Perhaps the noble Lord can elucidate their position.
I should like to add a general comment. Having been involved fully in the debates on the Financial Services Act I am concerned that although the intention was to protect investors small investors are beginning to lose out. Not only are they being advised, as in this case, by apparently reputable organisations to invest in bodies to some degree suspect, but the charges being made to smaller investors are also much higher than they were previously. Can we not use this as a reason for having a look at the position of the small investor in the new financial circumstances in which we find ourselves?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. I hope very soon to be in a position to announce the name of the person who will head the inquiry. I wish to assure the House that when I announce the name it will be perfectly satisfied with the individual who is chosen. The terms of inquiry must first be agreed with the person who will head the inquiry. Under this procedure there will not be any power to examine under oath. Both I and my permanent secretary will instruct the officials of my department, who are so required under their terms of employment, to cooperate fully. This is an inquiry to determine the facts of what actually happened within the department and to determine whether or not the department is to blame in any way or whether procedures could be improved in the future.
To go back to the origins of the affair, there were lessons to be learnt. The Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act 1958 was deficient in some ways and the Financial Services Act went out of its way to remedy those deficiencies. It is far too early to talk about compensation. We have first to ascertain what the losses are, if there are losses. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that at present I am neither satisfied nor dissatisfied in that respect. What I want to do is to see what the inquiry turns up and to have a good, dispassionate look at the facts.
In one area I fear I must depart from the noble Lord, Lord Williams. I should like to think that whatever we do now will stamp out this business once and for all. However, I have a less sanguine view of human nature and I suspect that these things happen from time to time. We must ensure that it happens as infrequently as possible.
It is early at this stage to make these judgments. The Financial Services Act will show that this kind of incident should not happen in the future. It is serious and I should like to assure the House that I view with the greatest possible seriousness what may have happened to some individuals who attempted to invest life savings into this kind of enterprise. It is a matter to which I have no doubt we shall return.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I have a small question on the actual words of the Statement, and I wonder whether the noble Lord can assist me. The text of the Statement as released through the
12
Government Whips' Office, in referring to the inquiry, states that it will
"report to me"—
that is, the Secretary of State—
"as soon as possible on the department's handling of the matter".
However, the Secretary of State added the words,
"on the 'facts of my' department's handling of the matter".
Is it the words of the noble Lord or the words of the Statement which are authoritative?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, notwithstanding the advances of modern technology, words are occasionally left out. Indeed, it should be:
"The facts of the department's handling of the matter"
We want to establish the facts and see what actually happened, so that judgments can be made.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that a cold chill of apprehension will have run down the spines of many small investors as a result of this particular affair? Many people, especially non-taxpayers, have invested their money in overseas or offshore funds because the Chancellor of the Exchequer has monopolised all savings upon which interest is paid without deduction of tax. Therefore, a huge number of people, non-taxpayers and others, have invested their money in offshore gilt funds. Indeed, there are many well-known names, but it would be invidious to mention them. However, on hearing about this particular affair many people will be most concerned that their money may not be safe after all.
I understand that the Financial Services Act does not give protection to people who invest in offshore funds; and, indeed, there are many millions of such people at present. Therefore, will the noble Lord take the opportunity to give to those people who have so invested their money some assurance that their savings are not in danger? Further, will he undertake that the Government will try to take some steps to ensure these people do become covered by the Financial Services Act?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, much as I should like to do so, there is nothing I can say about offshore funds or about activities outside the jurisdiction of the courts, or of the Government. There has long been a saying that you cannot separate risk and reward, and that if people look for above-level rewards then they might be taking above-level risks. However, that is not a matter which we are here to discuss today. I shall look again at the Financial Services Act, but I must say in all conscience that it would be impossible for this country to supervise funds throughout the world. All we can do is to ensure that the funds over which we have supervision and control are run properly.
Lord Peston: My Lords, will the noble Lord make some comment on the speed of the matter? Speaking for myself, I am appalled by the slowness of the affair. I understand that in October 1987, despite expressions of dissatisfaction, and so on, investors nonetheless went on investing. I am certain that the

13
noble Lord would not justify all that in the words of the great "economist", W. C. Fields; namely,
"Never give a sucker an even break".
This is an extremely serious matter of investor protection, and yet matters continued from October 1987 until the present day before virtually anything happened. I wish to know how vigorously and rapidly the current investigations will proceed; that is, in regard to the affairs of the company itself, in regard to the operations of the serious fraud office and the police, and also in regard to the noble Lord's own department. Can we be assured (without any of this being done superficially, but so that it is all done fundamentally) that it will happen rapidly and that we shall know something about serious action being taken within the foreseeable future?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, one of the reasons why I came to your Lordships' House to suggest an independent inquiry was to satisfy the type of doubts that have just been expressed. It may seem that it has taken a long time but there are many interests which must he taken into account, not least of which are those of the existing investors in the funds and the steps which must be taken in that regard. We have to be sure beyond doubt that such matters are taken into account. I have little doubt that the inquiry will establish how well, or otherwise, my department has acted. Further, I am more than content for the facts to speak for themselves.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in the Statement the noble Lord referred to the investigations that were decided upon in October 1987 in the light of dissatisfaction by his department with the monitoring returns from Barlow Clowes, and other information. Is it the case that in October 1986, when the permit was renewed—notwithstanding the long negotiations in 1985—the department had no information in its possession indicating that there was some doubt about the matter and that the monitoring returns submitted by Barlow Clowes up to October 1986 were perfectly in order?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I see little point in appointing an investigator to carry out an inquiry without actually being bound by the terms of its findings. I think it would be best if we were to wait until such time as the results of the inquiry are available. They will be published, so all Members of your Lordships' House will be able to form their own views.

University of Wales College of Cardiff Bill [H.L.] formerly University of Wales, Cardiff Bill [H.L.]
3.15 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Imperial College Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Road Traffic Bill [H.L.]
3.16 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This is the first of three Bills on the Order Paper in my name. If I may, I shall speak to all three together, and then move the other two formally, together with the consequential Motion in connection with the third. I should like to offer my compliments and thanks—and I trust also those of the House—to the Law Commission, the Scottish Law Commission and the draftsman who have made such an excellent job of this enormous task of consolidation.
The last major consolidation of the Road Traffic Acts was in the Road Traffic Act 1972, which has been considerably amended by primary and especially by subordinate legislation. Part III of the Transport Act 1982 set up a new procedure for punishing certain road traffic offences by fixed penalty. Provisions relating to prosecution and punishment of offences were consolidated in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.
The structure of the Road Traffic Bill corresponds to that of the 1972 Act, each part covering similar subject matter to that of its predecessor, but the consolidation has provided an opportunity to shorten the length of sections, and to simply the language and make it consistent.
The consolidation differs in structure from the previous consolidations in its treatment of the provisions about the prosecution and punishment of offences. These have been consolidated, with the provisions about fixed penalties, in the second Bill under my name, the Road Traffic Offenders Bill.
Thirdly, there is the Road Traffic (Consequential Provisions) Bill, which is ancillary to the two main Bills. It deals with a number of technical and transitional matters, including repeals and consequential amendments, and it re-enacts or amends some provisions which have not been brought into force.
The consolidation gives effect to two Bills of the present Session, the Criminal Justice Bill, and the Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Rear Seat Belts by Children) Bill, neither of which has been enacted. 'Any changes which may be made in those Bills will have to be reflected by amendment to the draft consolidation Bills.
The Law Commissions have, in accordance with usual practice, issued a report on the consolidation in which they make a number of recommendations for minor technical amendments to remove anomalies and inconsistencies which came to light during the consolidation exercise so that the law can be stated in a clear and straightforward fashion.
There is a special Motion on the Order Paper relating to this consolidation. The Road Traffic (Consequential Provisions) Bill is an essential part of the consolidation, but is not, in the strict sense, a Consolidation Bill. It is most conveniently dealt with, along with the other two Bills, by the Joint Committee, but the rules of the House require that

15
the House must refer it to the Joint Committee specifically. The other Bills will go through to the Joint Committee in the ordinary course.
I beg to move that the first of the three Bills be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Road Traffic Offenders Bill [H.L.]
3.20 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Road Traffic (Consequential Provisions) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a second time.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, for the reason that I sought to explain in my opening submission, I beg to move that the Bill be referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.
Moved, That the Bill be referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to desire their agreement.

Local Government Finance Bill
3.22 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Schedule 8 [Non-domestic rating]:
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare):Perhaps I may remind the Committee that if
16
Amendment No. 119A is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 120.
The Earl of Caithness: I moved Amendment No. 119A last Thursday night. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Following is the amendment:
Page 114, line 21, leave out sub-paragraph (6) and insert—
("(6) The relevant population in relation to an authority shall be calculated by—

(a) taking the number of those members of the population of the authority's area who fall within such description as is specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State, and

(b) making such adjustments (if any) by way of addition or subtraction (or both) as are specified in, or calculated in a manner specified in, the regulations.").

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: As I understand it, the way in which this matter has been dealt with means that I am entitled now to speak to Amendment No. 120 although if Amendment No. 119A is accepted I shall not be able to divide the Committee on my amendment. I had not intended to divide it on the amendment, but I want to hear the Government's answer on the matter.
When I heard the noble Earl move Amendment No. 119A, it was clear to me that it could answer all our problems; but, on the other hand, it might not answer any of them because, although it enables him to do everything that we want to help the City of Westminster and other parts of inner cities throughout the country, it does not insist that he does it. I am looking to him to spell out in more detail something that would help us all.
On Thursday night I declared an interest in the City of Westminster because I have just finished as Lady Mayoress and I am a resident of Westminster. My husband is a councillor. The amendment would cover more than just Westminster; it would cover all inner cities and all areas which have a considerable commuting population coming in each day. I shall speak mainly about the City of Westminster because I know it best. The situation in Westminster is different from anywhere in London except the City of London.
Westminster has an adult resident population of 150,000. It has a daily commuting population—this is based on the 1981 statistics from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys—of an additional 400,000 a day. Even the City of London, according to those figures, has fewer than 300,000 a day.
Clearly, it would be unjust for 150,000 residents to have to produce sufficient money through their community charge to bear all the necessary expenses incurred for that much larger commuting population. The City of Westminster receives no rate support grant. Indeed, it pays an equalisation levy of £77 million, which helps other boroughs; but it is assessed for grant-related expenditure because that is used for other calculations. Under the new system the borough will receive a grant. My question is: will it be a more realistic assessment that the present one?
At present, the assessment is that those services provided for commuters are worth£18 million a year. An independent study carried out by Peat Marwick

17
indicates that it is closer to £35 million, so that the grant-related expenditure assessments for London are unrealistic. I believe that it is acknowledged that historically they never have been realistic.
At present, the City of Westminster raises a rate of £550 million. It has its own direct spending of £100 million, and the rest goes in various forms of precepts. Under the new arrangement, the business rate, which is at present £460 million, will go into a central pool. I noticed that the Minister made a comment last Thursday on that point (at col. 1600 of Hansard). It will all flow into one big purse. That is what the amendment is about. What will come back out of that purse? At present the city controls its own expenditure wisely and well.
I have seen notes from the Minister which have been somewhat critical of the fact that Westminster has underspent by 5 per cent. I have often heard criticisms in this place of boroughs that overspend. If one balances one's budget carefully, it often means that one ends up with a little in the kitty. That is something of which Westminster should be proud rather than upset. Instead, when the new system comes in. it will be desperately short of money.
Westminster will have a shortfall every year on the present rate of return that has been promised, based on the resident population, of £38 million a year. How will that deficiency be made up? We cannot ask 150,000 people to make up a deficiency of£38 million a year when it is to be spent on other people who are nothing to do with the City of Westminster. There will be a great disincentive to clean the streets, provide public conveniences, libraries, and licensing, of which we do a great deal, including the sex shops in Soho, and something which should be dear to the hearts of everyone here at the moment: the inspection of food premises. That is one of our major expenses. We all know that that has been close to home recently. Policing in Westminster is another major expenditure. There are marches, demonstrations, and international conferences that are not special to Westminster. They just happen to occur geographically in Westminster. Westminster has to pick up the tab for them.
Let us say that under my amendment it was assessed that one would add 20 per cent. of the number of commuters daily onto one's resident population when calculating one's relevant population. If we did that, there would be gains of course. The biggest gain would be for Westminster because it suffers most under the new scheme.
However, there would also be gains for many other cities throughout the country. There would be some gainers and some losers but the calculation shows that even the greatest loss under this amendment would be £13 per annum for anyone who is a community charge payer anywhere. That is 25p a week. So the benefits for the inner cities would be very great. The disbenefit is that the maximum for anyone would be 25p a week. Westminster is different; the thought is very worrying that it has £460 million now but that in 1990, when what we think will be £581 million produced from the business rate goes into the central pool the amount that comes back will be £17
18
million which is 2 per cent. of what is collected. That will make an enormous difference.
In Westminster 800,000 tonnes of rubbish, 65 per cent. of it from commercial users, is collected every day. That is three times as much as anywhere else in the country except the City of London; it is two-and-a-half times as much as any other London borough. If the rubbish were not collected but instead dumped in Trafalgar Square, in six months Nelson would be just visible, peering over the top of the heap. To clear and dispose of business refuse at the moment costs us £7 million a year. Westminster spends three times as much on street cleaning as anywhere in the whole country including the City. I think that might not be accurate; it might be three times more than anywhere in London, including the City.
Another factor is that the business rates are paid promptly. We have been very fortunate over the years in that interest on this money has enabled Westminster to provide services for businesses. The interest alone is producing £14 million at the moment. Under the new system, as I have said and as the Minister commented, all would go into one big purse. When it comes out again, so far as I know it will not come out with any interest on it. Of course, a much smaller amount will be coming out.
The cost of collection of the community charge and the uniform business rate will be double the present cost. There is a significant point here for the whole of London. I should like to quote my experience on the London Electricity Board. In the best and most stable part of our distribution area we have a turnover of 18 per cent. of households per year. In areas with the greatest turnover it is as high as 30 per cent. a year. The electricity board is looking for only one person in each home to meet the electricity bill. It will he quite difficult trying to locate each person in a home. Nothing has been said about the water rate, yet residents keep asking me what will happen. I should be grateful for a comment from the Minister.
Perhaps we may look further into matters which go wider than London. Westminster council spends £4 million a year on the arts: the Open Air Theatre, the Institute of Contemporary Arts, the Photographers Gallery, the Mall Galleries, the Wigmore Hall, the Serpentine Gallery and the Unicorn Theatre for Children. These are just a few. But £1¼ million each goes to the English National Opera and the London Festival Ballet. How can community charge payers, who are so hard pressed already trying to cope with the number of commuters, possibly think of these things?
The Lord Lieutenant of Greater London, Lord Bramall, a Member of this House, is not able to be here today. However, he has asked me to express his concern and to say that had he been here he would certainly have supported the view that London and particularly the inner city need some help. Of course, Westminster has taken over providing accommodation for him but the services he renders are available throughout the whole of London. He has seen the need that exists.
There is another significant point on which I was very concerned to read the Minister's comments. I have been in local government long enough to see the

19
effect of electoral pressures. When there is an election in the counties—and all governments have done this—it seems that more of the rate grant goes to the counties. When the election is back in the cities, the grant moves back. This produces a very unstable effect. At col. 1598 of Hansard on 9th June the Minister commented that the present system is unstable. I am worried that the amendment may not meet our problems. The Minister says that we cannot do away with grant shifts. In other words, under the new system we shall still have the old effect of the money bouncing backwards and forwards according to where the electoral pressures are.
The other point to be appreciated is that there will be electoral pressures on the councillors being elected in every borough where there is a commuter area. These people will say, "Why should you spend money on businesses at our expense?" There will be a great disincentive for business to come into the inner cities. Acording to statistics, Westminster council is most affected. However, to give Members of the Committee a few examples, others affected are Manchester, Newcastle, Portsmouth, York, Liverpool, Birmingham, Bristol and Exeter. They would all gain from my amendment, to say nothing of other inner London boroughs.
I believe I have stated the case very clearly; my amendment would cover all London. I believe however that Westminster is a special case with a huge gulf between the City of London and all other areas. The Government have recognised that situation; they are making special provision for the City. But there is another huge gulf between Westminster and everyone the next step down. The Government should look again at the whole issue. They could consider treating Westminster as a special case. I have not done so in the amendment because I thought it would be fairer to help many areas, not just Westminster. I look for a definite statement from the Government.
The Minister said at col. 1599 of Hansard on 9th June:
"We would have to make radical changes and make the grant system simpler. The key simplification is that grant will depend only on assessed need and not spending".
There are many statements the Minister has made, including those at cols. 1598, 1599 and 1600 of 9th June. All the way through the Minister implies that these things are a matter of choice as to what we spend and what people are paying for through their community charge.
I hope from the arguments I have put foward today that Members of the Committee will see that the choice will not be there. The obligations are there, and if the choice is made on the basis of what the voters of Westminster want it will be a disastrous situation. I hope the Minister will make some specific comment on, and commitment to, assessments being based on the actual daytime population and commuter changes in these areas.
The Earl of Caithness: Perhaps it might be appropriate for me to take the unusual step of replying to my noble friend at this stage because I
20
know that a number of Members wish to speak on this important point. I do so for one reason. I believe that my noble friend has a point in what she is saying but that she is also labouring under a misapprehension about our proposals. It might be for the convenience of the Committee if I clear that up now.
The amendment would alter the population basis on which the proceeds of the NNDR pool are to be distributed. As I explained on Thursday, the distribution of NNDR proceeds is to be pro rata to population. The question is: which population? The Bill provides at present that "relevant population" means:
"Those members of the population of the authority's area who fall within such description as is specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State".
The amendments I have already introduced would enable us to take account of students and exemptions. Amendment No. 120 would add to the population as defined in regulations a proportion of the daytime net in-flow of people.
I do not think that this is the right basis for distribution and I shall explain my reasons soon. But even if we were to conclude that it is, I can assure my noble friend that the Bill as drafted will already allow us to specify the proposed definition. I think it is important to retain the flexibility offered by the current position, which allows us to define a population basis in regulations rather than to write into the Bill a definition which could then be amended only by primary legislation. From that point of view alone the amendment is not an improvement on the current position. But, as my noble friend so clearly said, the purpose of the amendment is to give more NNDR to areas with more commuters and tourists, and, as I understand it, the idea is to use NN DR to compensate for need to spend on daytime visitors and commuters.
I see, however, that my noble friend has said nothing about the situation of those areas with a net outflow of commuters and tourists, for of course more NN DR or grant for Westminster as a tourist and business centre must mean less for the dormitory towns of the South-East. We have made some quick calculations of what would happen if the whole of the NNDR were distributed on the basis of daytime adult population—this is something that could happen under the amendment of my noble friend—and the results will be of interest to the Committee.
As one would expect, business and commercial centres receive more NNDR and their community charge goes down. Camden, for example, would receive an extra £208 of NNDR per person, thus bringing its community charge down by that amount. Manchester would receive an extra £91, and Islington an extra £86; but the great majority of districts would lose. Epsom and Ewell would lose £41 per head, Mid-Sussex £42, Gillingham £56, and so on. The biggest gainer, of course, would be Westminster, which would receive an extra £675 approximately of NNDR per resident adult, enabling it to do away with the community charge altogether and to make a refund of over £300 to each of its residents. As a resident of Westminster that might be

21
beneficial to me, but I do not think that it is something that I can recommend to the Committee. If we took just a small proportion of the daytime inflow, the effect on almost all authorities would he negligible, but in Westminster the charge might still he zero. That is because such an arrangement overcompensates Westminster by giving it more income than it requires to meet its spending needs.
This leads me to my main objection to this amendment, which is that it goes against the whole purpose of the new grant system. My noble friend might very well want that as her ultimate aim, but as the Committee knows our reform consists of three parts: the community charge, NNDR and the grant system. I have to say to my noble friend that to undermine one part of the equation cannot but affect the other two parts which we are changing.
But, as I said earlier, my noble friend has a genuine concern behind her amendment, and one with which I agree. Of course different areas have different needs, and it is right that these should be allowed for. As we have explained on a number of occasions, it is the grant system which will compensate in full for differences in need as measured by needs assessments. The NNDR is not a means of compensating for differences in need, but is designed to provide a general support to authorities' requirements for revenue.
As my noble friend knows, the present GRE system makes allowance for net daytime inflows and we are considering what allowance it would be appropriate to make in the needs assessments in the new system. I am sure, however, that it is through the grant system and not through the basis for distributing NNDR that we should continue to seek to equalise different levels of need to spend.
My noble friend commented on the cost to a local authority of commuters. She suggested that insufficient allowance may be made for costs of services for the daily inflow of tourists and commuters, especially to such areas as the City of Westminster and other popular tourist haunts. I think we need to consider carefully what these extra costs really are. Tourists and commuters will not, of course, have any effect on the major services such as education, which accounts for around half of local authority expenditure, or personal social services, which account for another large slice. But it is argued that authorities do have to provide certain extra services, such as carparking, public conveniences, parks and so on. I can see that this would make an area more attractive to tourists, and I know that some authorities will argue that tourists will come to their area whether or not they are encouraged by the local authority, and that they still have to be catered for. All this may be true, but I think we should also consider whether these services have to be provided at the expense of the local charge payer. I am not convinced that all authorities have fully explored ways in which their services for visitors can be made more self-financing taken as a whole.
But looking at the position of Westminster, I see that last year it spent in total less than its assessed spending needs. That suggests that the grant system did make sufficient allowance for daytime visitors,
22
and also that Westminster is operating efficiently. I believe that the grant system will continue to make adequate allowance for Westminster's situation.
To sum up, my answer to my noble friend is that in so far as commuters impose additional costs, these can be taken into account in the needs assessment for grant purposes. Therefore, I can reassure my noble friend that grant will compensate for them in full. We believe it would be double counting for NNDR also to compensate for these costs. But should we change our views entirely and decide that compensation should be provided by adjusting the basis for distribution of grant and NNDR, we can do that within the terms of the Bill as it now stands.
Lord Leatherland: Before the noble Earl sits down, may I remind him that he has made several references to "MNBR". What is "MNBR"?
The Earl of Caithness: It is NNDR, which means national non-domestic rate.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Carr of Hadley: I am sometimes tempted myself to use the old geometric proof of a reductio ad absurdum. But even as a resident of Westminster I should not wish to carry the purpose of the amendment of my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes to the point of obtaining a handout of £300 to all the residents of Westminster, or even of £1. For reasons that I have made clear in this Chamber on other occasions, I feel that the whole concept of this charge is unfair as I shall benefit very greatly, whatever the conceivable level of the community charge in Westminster may be, compared with what I am at present paying in rates. But that is not the point that I rise to make.
I notice that my noble friend the Minister says that the Government already have the power to alleviate the problems which must be alleviated. Of course I must accept that, but I have to say to my noble friend the Minister that so far he has not really convinced me, at least, that the Government do understand the scale of the problems, or are showing a sufficient determination to deal with them.
I have never been able to accept the Government's contention that there was a standard level of community charge of about £180 a year which, together with the two grants to be made by central government as at present defined in the Bill, would enable all councils which were reasonably efficient to provide adequate services for the residents in their areas. An average of £180 throughout the country is perhaps possible, but a standard community charge of£180, or something like it, for every council is absolutely impossible. When one examines it one sees that it is a nonsensical proposition, simply because there are very fundamental and very large differences in the circumstances and the needs that have to be met in different areas. There is a great variation around the average in the needs that have to be met and, therefore, the costs of meeting them.
The most obvious cause of these variations in the average, but not the only one, occurs in relation to those councils whose areas cover the centres of big

23
cities, but not the surrounding suburbs and travel-to-work areas from which commuters pour in and out to work daily, to which shoppers and other tourists from this country and abroad come to enjoy themselves. The most extreme case of this is, of course, the City of London. That is already specially provided for. The next most extreme case is the City of Westminster; but there are other city centre councils in other parts of the country which suffer from the same problem, even if not to anything like the same extent or the same degree as does Westminster.
I want to put in broad brush terms once again, in a slightly different way, the position of Westminster, not as a special case but as an example—the most extreme example, perhaps—of the inequities for which I believe the Government really must take responsibility; and I seek assurances from the Government that the powers they are taking, or which they already have, will be used adequately to redress these gross inequities which I believe are in danger of arising at the moment.
I emphasise that I cannot speak with the detailed knowledge of local government and other local services possessed by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes. I shall therefore make a rather broad and general statement of the situation. As I understand it, Westminster City Council expenditure as projected under the new arrangements and for which it falls to be responsible will he of the order of £200 million per year calculated at current levels of expenditure. I emphasise that that is a broad figure. Of that amount, approximately half—that is to say, about £100 million—will be accounted for by the services for which Westminster council is directly responsible already. The other half—that is, another £100 million or thereabouts—is precepted by authorities over which the Westminster City Council has no control presently. In due course, once ILEA has been abolished, it will take over responsibility for education. Therefore, by far the largest single element of the £100 million precepted expenditure will, in the foreseeable future, fall under its control; but not yet.
On the expenditure side we must see how the new sources of income for Westminster and other councils will meet that expenditure. Under the Bill, they will receive funds in three ways as the Minister has said. They will receive funds from the revenue support grant from government. I stress that I am not an expert in those matters. However, I understand from the papers which I have seen that the estimated grant from government is of the order of £103 million.
The second source of income arises from the distribution of their share of the uniform business rate. I understand that this is estimated by the Government at £35 million. There is also the community charge, which is the third leg of income. If Westminster City Council were to levy on its 150,000 adult residents a community charge at the so-called standard rate of £180 or thereabouts, it would raise approximately £27 million. The total figure—a result of adding £103 million, plus £35 million, plus £27 million—gives a projected income of £165 million against a projected expenditure of
24
£200 million. As I understand it, that leaves a gap in broad terms of some £35 million.
How is that to be met? So far as I can see, there are only four ways. The first method is for the Westminster City Council to raise the community charge from the so-called standard level rate to a level of nearly £400 per person. That is more than double the so-called standard charge. Another way to close the gap would be for the Westminster City Council to reduce its level of expenditure by something approaching 20 per cent. The reduction would not be quite as much as that, but it would not be far short of it.
The third way of closing the gap would be an increase in the prospective yield of the main grant from the Government. I hope I am correct in calling it the revenue support grant. The gap could be closed by raising the present estimated level from £103 million up to a maximum of £138 million. That would be £35 million higher than is presently estimated. The fourth method would be to increase Westminster's share of the uniform business rate by £35 million. That is the direction in which the amendment of my noble friend is moving.
I ask the Government which of the four methods or what mixture of them they foresee a responsible council using to balance its income and expenditure account. I do not think that it is sufficient for the Government to speak theoretically. They must come down into the market place and deal with concrete problems. I have oversimplified them. However, I believe that I am substantially correct. I have oversimplified them to make the basic realities as understandable as possible.
The first two of the four projected methods which I have mentioned for closing the gap are within the control of Westminster council. The second two are under the control of the Government. If the Government refuse to act or are unable to act, either by increasing the main grant or by increasing Westminster's projected share of UBR distribution, then the council will have to increase its community charge to a level which is more than twice the so-called standard level or cut its expenditure by a figure approaching 20 per cent.
Surely it would be grossly unfair to expect Westminster residents to pay a community charge so far above the so-called standard level. In accordance with the Government's constantly-repeated principle of electoral accountability—a part of the Bill with which I strongly agree—I am sure that the majority of the electors of Westminster City Council would not stand for it. Presumably the council would be compelled by accountability questions to go down the expenditure-cutting road in order to close the gap. What would that mean? As I have already said, about half of the £200 million expenditure to which I have referred arises from policies within the council's control. However, the Government's assessment of what is reasonable for that half of the council's expenditure is slightly higher than what the council spends on those matters. Clearly the Government do not think that the Westminster City Council is extravagant or wasteful, or that it can or

25
should make major cuts in those areas. Indeed, the Minister made that clear in his recent remarks.
Therefore, we come to the other half of the expenditure which is presently precepted. Out of that, some £80 million, which is accounted for by the precept from ILEA, will, in the foreseeable but not the immediate future, come under the council's direct control. I am sure that the Government are right to believe that under Westminster City Council some significant economies will be made in that expenditure. However, do they really believe that £80 million can be reduced by something approaching £35 million? That is not far short of a 50 per cent. reduction. If they believe that, I do not believe that they have their feet on the ground.
How do we square those figures with reasonable fairness, both to the residents who have to pay the community charge and to the nearly half a million daily commuters and the nearly half a million tourists who come into Westminster and require services? How will that circle be squared? The huge disproportion between resident and non-resident population in Westminster makes it impossible to think in terms of anything like a standard community charge unless Westminster is given far more than the amounts presently estimated by the Government from the two forms of grant which the Bill proposes.
Why should 150,000 adult residents of the City of Westminster bear the burden of costs created principally but not entirely by providing for the needs of not far short of half a million daily commuters and nearly half a million tourists from other parts of this country and from abroad? Does the Minister understand the practical scale of the problem? I believe that I have painted a fairly accurate broad picture, although I may not have the precise details.
My second question is: if the Government really understand, can they assure the Committee in rather more concrete and less generalised terms than they have used so far that they are taking adequate action—under their Amendment No. 119A and existing powers raised earlier—to meet the problem which I have outlined?
should like to put down a marker in relation to a supplementary but very important point which we shall discuss fully when we come to Amendment No. 140 which stands in my name. In addition to the expenditure caused by the huge disproportion of daily residents in London as opposed to residents living in London, the Westminster City Council also makes grants to important arts bodies, particularly to English National Opera and the London Festival Ballet. They make those grants by arrangement with the Government following the Government's abolition of the GLC. That charge really cannot just be passed on, because it represents about £15 on the community charge. That is not a proper expenditure to pass on to the local community charge payers. We shall come to that subject later on but I wished to put down a marker at this stage.
Finally, although I have exampled my case by reference to Westminster, I want to emphasise that all the same arguments, both about floating daily population and about contributions to other bodies, apply (although to a considerably lesser degree) to
26
other city centre councils throughout the country. Therefore, although Westminster is a special case in scale, it is by no means a special case in the country as a whole in principle. Other councils such as perhaps Newcastle, Liverpool, Birmingham and Manchester all have this kind of problem to some degree or another. It will he inequity on a grand scale if the Government cannot adapt their proposals or convince the Committee that their proposals are sufficiently flexible to meet those needs with equity and not with inequity as appears likely at the moment.
4 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: All of us who work in the City of Westminster, whether paid or unpaid, must have an instinctive sympathy for the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, and her amendment. We must be grateful to her not only for introducing this important subject but for her own contribution. We must be particularly grateful for the very remarkable speech which we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley. If I may say so—and I do not mean this in any sense as a criticism—it is a speech which would have graced the Second Reading as much as it has graced the Committee this afternoon. It was notably thoughtful and raised very clearly some of the major issues which are still slipping through at a level of abstraction which does not do the Chamber or the Committee any credit. There is still a level of imprecision in the Government's thinking—and often also of had thinking—which needs to be exposed more clearly.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, made a very effective speech against the practicalities of the Bill, not just in relation to the City of Westminster (although that is the area on which she concentrated) but against the whole theory by which local government finance is to be raised from three different sources. In particular, she talked about the national non-domestic rate—which I prefer to call the national business tax. It is quite clear not only from what she said but also from the way in which the tax is proposed that it is a peculiarly bad tax. It is to be raised from businesses not on the basis of their ability to pay, which would be assessed as is corporation tax by their profits, not even as in the bad old days of the selective employment tax which Was on the basis of the pay roll and therefore reflecting some indication of their size. It is to be based on the size of their premises. That has a very poor relationship with their ability to pay.
Having committed a very serious crime in the taxation world of creating a national business tax, the Government then propose another crime, which is to hypothecate it to local authority services. With that we are moving back to the bad old days of the road fund. That never worked and this will never work. Taxes all go into a common pool, not only for local authority purposes but also for the purposes of the Exchequer. Since the tax will go through the Consolidated Fund it clearly contravenes another fundamental principle of taxation.
Thirdly, still on the subject of the national business tax, we have the purely arbitrary decision of the

27
Government to allocate it to local authorities on the basis of resident population. I cannot say that the principle of a day-time floating population is right or wrong; but nor can I say that the principle which the Government have adopted of a flat rate on resident population is right or wrong. It is purely arbitrary. It had to be put there because something had to be put there, but it does not stand up to rational justification.
Once one starts to expose the inadequacies of the national business tax, one then comes to the inadequacies of the other parts of local government finance, as the noble Lord, Lord Carr, made very clear in his speech. The theory behind the Bill is that accountability can be adequately expressed by all residents paying an amount which will be a flat rate regardless of ability to pay. That flat rate will be determined by all of the obligations of the local authority whether or not they are related to the services which the residents receive. In other words, as has been made clear in this debate, the individual personal community charge will be affected by the need of the local authority to raise money in order to provide for extra refuse collection services, and so on, for tourists and businesses.
Once one starts to knock away those two legs of the three-legged stool one then starts to worry about the third leg of the stool, which is the community charge itself. I think that we have come very close to a better appreciation of what is wrong with the personal community charge, not just in social terms. Obviously the noble Lord, Lord Carr, is right to oppose a Bill which makes him, me and other people who are better off still better off and makes poor people worse off. That must be correct and that was recognised by the amendment which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, three weeks ago.
The three elements of the Government's new system of local authority finance are crumbling as we look at them. Today is not the day and perhaps we shall have to do a lot of thinking—certainly the Government will have to do a lot of thinking before Report stage—but we must have an opportunity to look at the irrationalities, the illogicalities and the injustices which have been exposed by the debates in Committee and in particular by this amendment.
I have to say that as concerns Amendment No. 119A I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carr, and indeed with the Government, that it is better to deal with such matters through the revenue support grant. I am confirmed in that belief by a letter from the leader of Birmingham City Council—which incidentally would benefit from the noble Baroness's proposal—in which he says that he thinks that it would be better for it to be dealt with through the resources of the rate support grant. I am sure that that is the answer.
Although I am opposed to the noble Baroness's amendment, I think that the solution which the Government are putting to the Committee—that it is up to the Secretary of State to do what he likes, just as we shall see when we come to discuss grants that it is up to the Secretary of State to adopt any principle
28
he likes for the allocation of grants—is not good enough and it will be seen not to be good enough.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The last two speakers made very clear their opposition to the main principles of the Bill. I am in a different position since I am a supporter of the main principles of the Bill. I speak briefly this afternoon on that basis although my comments will be directed toward the specific amendments under discussion. Perhaps I may add that I do not have to declare an interest in respect of Westminster. My London home is half the width of a street outside the City of Westminster. That half-width of the street costs me an additional several hundreds of pounds a year in rates because the borough in which my home is located charges a higher rate than does the City of Westminster. I should be only too happy if that halfwidth of the street could be eliminated.
The point about the City of Westminster was extremely well put by the noble Baroness. Perhaps I may be permitted to say that, following a year in which she gave considerable service to the City of Westminster as its lady mayoress, she has rendered it perhaps even greater service this afternoon by bringing out so clearly, effectively and authoritatively the difficulties that could face Westminster if rectifying measures are not taken under this Bill.
My noble friend the Minister indicated that in his view the remedy for Westminster would be by way of the grant. He did not like the idea of adjusting the NNDR and preferred the means offered by the grant. Certainly there is an argument to be made out either way. I do not wish to take a particularly dogmatic line about it.
My reason for intervening in this debate is to ask my noble friend the Minister whether he would be a good deal more specific than he has been as to what the Government intend to do if they are going to use the grant method to deal with the situation. Obviously I shall not ask him to go into detail since it would be a waste of his time and that of the Committee to go into precise figures; but I should like some assurance about the principles on which the Government intend to operate in respect of grant in places such as Westminster. As has been mentioned several times this afternoon, Westminster is the second most dramatic example in the country of a city which has a very large daytime population and quite a small night-time population. What exactly do the Government propose to do when using the grant method?
As the Committee has heard, the City of London, which offers the extreme example, lies outside the discussion, and as has been rightly pointed out, there are other cities elsewhere where the problem arises; however, as I understand it, in none of those places is the situation anything like as acute as in the City of Westminster. It will help many of us—especially those who, like myself, favour the general approach of the Bill—if my noble friend can be a good deal more precise in indicating the principles that the Government propose to apply, using the powers offered by their own amendment and using their other powers under the Bill, in order to prevent the

29
grave injustice to the residents of Westminster to which the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, so eloquently and fully referred. When he comes to reply, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to help us a little on this matter.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Sandford: I rise as yet another Westminster ratepayer with a considerable direct interest in the way this matter is settled. First, I support the Bill and agree with my noble friend Lady Gardner that there is indeed a case to be answered. I was glad to hear my noble friend in his intervention say that he recognised that point. I should like to follow up the comments made just now by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. There are a number of specific points which the Minister has not yet made and which I think the Committee hopes to hear either this afternoon or at the next stage.
I part company with my noble friends Lady Gardner and Lord Carr in thinking that it would in any circumstances be right to deal with this case by adjusting the national non-domestic rate. That would be to say that the kind of costs generated by the commuters who come to work in Westminster are of the same order as those generated by the residents who live in the city; and that cannot he the case. The residents generate costs by virtue of the children who have to be educated, the demands on the social services, and so on. Those costs are far ahead even of the costs of filling up Trafalgar Square in the dramatic way indicated by my noble friend Lady Gardner. No, the right answer is the one given by my noble friend: to use the rate support grant.
However, I am sure he will agree that the rate support grant and the GRE factor that controls it have fallen into a considerable state of disrepute—perhaps it has always been so. When I was president of the ADC, I recall this measure being introduced to us by our right honourable colleague Mr. Heseltine. He claimed that it was a factor that the Government had thought out which would be useful to vigilant ratepayers in assessing the competence of their own authority. Of course one could not argue against such a lofty concept. However, it has never been used in that way. It has always been used—as clearly it was intended by civil servants to be used—as a way of controlling local government. When Militant Tendency made it absolutely essential for central government to pick up the tools available to hand, the Government did not hesitate. It has to be rescued from its present status and made more respectable. My noble friend Lady Gardner indicated another way in which rate support grant and GRE in particular have been abused, and that also must stop.
In responding to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will indicate that some of the shortcomings and all the abuses to which the rate support grant and GRE have been subject in the past have now been recognised, and that Ministers will attend to a serious reform of the whole business and keep it in good order. If' that is done, I am quite satisfied that rate support grant can be the answer to Westminster's problems.
Lord Birkett: I rise to speak to this amendment, I confess, mostly out of a worry about what may happen to the arts in Westminster as a result of this Bill. As the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, pointed out, the arts do very well in Westminster. Westminster has a very large raft of companies and galleries which it supports. As has already been mentioned, it includes the English National Opera and the London Festival Ballet. The Committee will not need reminding that those are large companies of national status and international renown.
When the GLC was about to be abolished, I prophesied gloomily that almost no London borough would be either willing or able to take up the challenge of funding the arts in the way that the GLC had done. I know of no more cheeful spectacle than a prophet of doom who has been proved wrong, so I was very happy indeed swiftly and powerfully to be proved wrong by Westminster. I believe that it has done exceedingly well for the arts as a result. It would he tragic and ironic if this Bill were to damage all that. I cannot believe that such was the Government's intention.
I am not an expert on the finances of local government; and certainly the complicated formulae referred to by the noble Baroness and by the noble Lord. Lord Carr, are rather beyond me. I wish to say only that if this amendment (or the Government's acceptance of at least the major principle of it) ceases to endanger the arts—as we know the arts in Westminster are endangered—I shall thoroughly support it. I must not speak any more about the arts this afternoon because the noble Lord, Lord Carr, has said that he has tabled an amendment, Amendment No. 140A, on the matter which is broader than this one. Not all the danger to the arts will come from boroughs whose daytime population is out of balance with their night-time population, so to speak. There must be dangers other than that one. I am sure that the amendment of the noble Baroness cannot cope with the entire problem of the arts, and I am sure that she never meant to do so. It would however deal with the situation in Westminster. Since I know perfectly well that there will probably not be an opportunity to support the Motion of the noble Baroness, I think it best for me to say that if the arts are to be endangered by this Bill, and if this amendment is not the way to cope with the problem, then something else must be found to deal with the situation.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I shall not be speaking at great length. However, I wish to reiterate the point that the noble Lord, Lord Carr, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, raised, that the situation does not affect only Westminster. One has heard a lot about Westminster, and Birmingham has been mentioned. Birmingham has not only a large day-time population, but also a large night-time population who come to listen to the City of Birmingham orchestra, to see the ballet from London, and to hear the opera that comes from London twice a year. The provisions will not affect only a few thousand people. There are over 1 million people living in the city of Birmingham. Therefore a much greater number of persons is involved in this discussion.

31
The chief executive officer at Westminster wrote to the chief executive officer of Birmingham. As my noble friend says, Birmingham comes down on this side of the argument. The needs grant must be much more seriously considered in order to help the cities. As the noble Lord said, if we accept the provisions of the amendment there would be some winners and some losers. Perhaps I may give an example from the Birmingham area. While the Birmingham citizens would benefit, Solihull—and I feel sure Solihull is on a level with Westminster—would lose because it is a net exporter of people. One has to listen therefore to what the Minister said: there are losers and gainers under the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner.
However, we have listened to what the Minister has said. I was not very happy at what I thought I heard. We are assuming that the national non-domestic rate will be distributed separately from the needs grant. That is the impression that I have gained from the Minister. I understand that the Department of the Environment is now proposing to pay those two amounts together in a lump sum. Therefore any increase in what one might receive from the national non-domestic rate will correspond with a decrease of one's needs grant. In other words, we are back to where we were under the old rates system. It is the Government giving with one hand and taking away with the other—and with grand multiplication tables that no one understands. It is therefore important that the Minister tells us this afternoon whether the national non-domestic rate will be separate from the needs grant so that those cities, such as Birmingham, Manchester and Sheffield, which are involved in this problem, will be able to see that they are also getting their fair share of the needs grant.
Lord Plummer of St. Marylebone: I do not wish to attack the main principles of the Bill. However, as a Westminster ratepayer I feel that the Minister must be more explicit on how it will affect the city council. In the absence of further details on how the needs grant will be allocated, there is no doubt in my mind that the Westminster City Council will be worse off.
I fully support all that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, and the noble Lord, Lord Carr, have said. I do not wish to go over those figures again. But listening to those speeches I thought that I might try to re-write the amendment in the name of the Minister, which could quite easily read, "I sentence you to hanging and will make such adjustments, if any, by way of addition or subtraction to the rope as are specified or calculated in a manner specified in the regulation, when I get round to it". Westminster City Council is entitled to know exactly what it will end up with.
As someone who has wrestled with problems of ratepayers for some time perhaps I may deal with further practicalities. One can take an extreme example. The Government say that one of the main principles of this Bill is to make the ratepayers examine the finances of the council more closely. The citizens of Queen's Park, and even of St. John's Wood, who are somewhat remote from the very
32
centre of Westminster, could say, "Why am I paying all this money to clear up the roads around the Palace of Westminster? Why am I clearing up all the mess that the tourists make in Oxford Street? It should perhaps be left to someone else. When I come to vote in the next city election I shall demand that this is extracted from the sum which I find on my bill." One has to deal in local government with practicalities. While the Government are seizing yet another lever of power over the finances of local government, they must come forward now with greater information.
Lord Beloff: The case that has been made by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Carr, is unanswerable. I think that the Government have accepted this. I urge upon them that the solution they produce—when they come back with one—is capable of being generalised and is not too particular and specific.
The course of our debates on this Bill, both at Second Reading and at Committee stage, have shown that we are in grave danger of having to do this job again. Those of us who have to sit through these debates are reluctant to contemplate this. Perhaps I may say that this is my only personal interest since I live many miles from the City of Westminster.
It is clear that the structure of local taxation in this country, which goes back a long way historically, has been permanently affected by the increasing divorce between residents on the one hand and work and the pursuit of pleasure on another. People do not very often work where they live. When they seek forms of recreation it is not only across local government boundaries, but, as has been pointed out in relation in particular to the City of Westminster, it is across national boundaries. We live in an age of increasing mobility. A system of taxation that does not take this into account is bound to produce the kind of anomalies to which the noble Baroness referred.
On the other hand, one must never extrapolate too rapidly. It may be that in some respects this will change. As Members of the Committee know, I understand nothing of technology. I understand that it will be possible for much of the work in the offices in the City of Westminster to be done by people at home tapping on some machine or looking at some screen. We might therefore have a reduction in the comparative day-time population of Westminster, London, Birmingham and Manchester, or wherever it may be. Therefore if a system is to be durable one needs to take into account that the patterns of social life—and consequently the services required, and where they are required—are likely to change at a much greater rate than was thought possible when the foundations of our system were laid; or that might have been considered possible by the Government when they suggested the current amendments.
That makes it difficult, because it is also the case that if you looked at this dispassionately and from a distance you could come up with the idea that local taxation itself is an anomaly; that service is required to be provided on the spot, but that the money raised is something which can never be allotted for any long period of time to a particular geographically defined group. But that I know is something which upsets

33
people on both sides of the Committee about equally. and I will not pursue it.
I will simply go back to my point that I hope the Government will not come forward and say, "We are going to give Westminster this", or, "We are going to do that for Birmingham", but will come forward with a formula which will take account, at any rate for a number of years to come, of the fact to which attention was called by the noble Baroness and by the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley—the fact that we are dealing with a situation in which where one receives services may have nothing to do with where one beds down for the night.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: I intervene only very briefly because, like other noble Lords, I have been concerned with these matters over a good many years. I will not repeat the arguments of my noble friends, with which I fully agree. I should like also to emphasise that this does not concern just either Westminster or Birmingham. For example, it is a matter of concern to Newcastle and it is a matter of concern to all cities which are at the present time giving support to the arts. That is a matter to which we shall come again later on.
I listened very carefully to my noble friend the Minister. He said that all these matters can be dealt with within the context of the Bill as its stands. The trouble is. as I said when we were discussing the national business rate, that this is skeletal legislation with even more than usual provision for everything to be done by regulation. I therefore believe that it is very important that the Government should make clear here and now—indeed, my noble friend said it on the business rate—that they will have further consultation with all the bodies concerned.
I do not at this stage attach importance to any particular set of figures. I cannot do so. But I believe, with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that the Government must be willing to get down to the detail and to give a much clearer indication than they have been able to do so far of how the principles and the practices that they have in mind will be implemented in a workable and equitable way.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him whether he would not agree that since what is being proposed is, in effect, a zero sum gain—in other words, no additional money, or less money, is to be extracted from the national business tax—everybody in the country will he concerned; Westminster, Newcastle and Birmingham on the one side and the authorities which will lose on the other side?
Lord Rippon of Hexham: I agree that I do not know what combination of amendments would be appropriate. The value of this debate is that it has raised the anxieties, and I am sure it will help my noble friend the Minister in his discussions with the Secretary of State and others if he is able to show, which I do not think he will have much difficulty in doing, the mood of this Committee.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I, too, should like very shortly and briefly to support this amendment which was so eloquently spoken to by my noble friend on behalf of the Cities of London and Westminster. I heard with sonic concern the words of my noble friend the Minister. Ministers change and good intentions fade. That is my chief concern at the moment. If I were to credit my noble friend with some kind of immortal existence on that Bench, then I should have no worries. But when he is replaced. may be, in due course by someone else it could be that his good intentions will disappear and will not be as well fulfilled as I am sure they would be by him.
I have another reason for supporting this amendment and for the sympathy which I feel with the Cities of London and Westminster. There are a number of bodies which look to them for support and encouragement. Not least among those is the London Zoo, the Zoological Society of London. It is with some confidence that we look to the council for considerable support and assistance in the future. It would be distressing to charities of that kind if the means available to the city council were unduly constrained by a measure such as is now contained in the Bill. I must say again to the Minister that I do not feel at all happy with the rather unfurnished statement that the powers to do what is asked are already in the Bill. I look for something more.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: As your Lordships know, I cannot press or even move my amendment although as it happens, in a strange way, Amendments Nos. 119A and 120 have come together. But I should like to thank those Members who have spoken on the amendment, because they have made the point very clearly to the Minister and I hope and believe that he will now go away and think more on this matter.
I thought the point made by my noble friend Lord Beloff, that it should be something of a general nature, was an excellent one, and my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter made a very good contribution when he said that we want something explicit. I think everyone wants to know whether or not the commuting will be a particular thing and what will be the factors taken into account in setting this rate support grant.
The Minister said in his speech—and I will check later in Hansard to see that this is correct—that the grant will compensate for them in full. If that is true. and if he really will do that, I think we can all he reassured. But the point just made, that good intentions fade, is a most relevant one, and that is why we all hope there will be something more specific coming out either in the form of regulations to be seen by your Lordships' House or in a statement or an amendment brought forward by the Government at a later stage.
I thank those who have participated, and particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, from Birmingham. She is quite right in saying that what you give with one hand you lose with the other, and the effect of my amendment would, financially, have been absolutely nil. The only point on which I must take issue is the Minister's statement that

35
Westminster are putting forward something which will give them a net profit per person. That was not the intention, because the wording stated that the Government would be able to set a percentage, and I made clear in my speech that we were only considering 25 per cent. of the people coming in. Also, my noble friend Lord Sandford made the point that people coming in are not using the same quantity of services. That is why we thought that 20 per cent. was the kind of figure to use as a base, when our greatest net loser would have lost £13 a year. Therefore the Minister has been working on quite a different calculation, and that makes the point again very clearly that we want to know in future what calculations we are to work on so that we have the same answers.
The Earl of Caithness: Perhaps I may respond to some of the points raised, because that would be fair to the Committee. In particular, I should like to deal with some of the points raised by my noble friend Lord Carr. I can assure him that grant will be distributed so that if all authorities spent at the level of their spending needs assessment they could all levy the same charge. Everyone would pay the same charge for the same level of service. So let me make it clear that the needs assessment for Westminster, as for all other authorities, will take account of all that the present system does.
I referred my noble friend Lord Peyton to one of the establishments supported by Westminster. It is very dear to his heart and in recent weeks it has become very dear to mine. It is the London Zoo, where the Government have also been able to help. That is why at the moment Westminster's GRE is approximately £1,200 per head. That compares with Reading, for example, where some commuters travel from, where the GRE is £613 per head. It is clear from that that needs are taken into account at present and I confirm that they will continue to be taken into account in the future. If councils spend at that level they will be charged at the standard level of £810 for 1987-88, to which my noble friend referred. There is no doubt that the needs assessments are capable of reflecting the varying needs of the authorities. The corollary is that all spending above the needs assessment level will fall on the charge payer. That is what accountability means.
My noble friend referred in particular to the overspending which arises from the spending of ILEA. That has nothing to do with commuters or tourists and therefore the amendment which we arc discussing would appear to be a quite inappropriate way of dealing with the matter. The Government believe that ILEA could provide a good education service for far less than it spends. We expect the London boroughs to be able to Lind considerable savings. They will not be able to do that overnight. To anticipate our discussions on Part VI of the Bill, dealing with grants, I assure the House that the transitional safety net grant arrangements will mean that changes in the amount to be raised from local taxpayers will be phased in over four years. Therefore London will not be paying any more than is now being paid for the services as a whole.
36
My noble friend Lord Carr of Hadley also raised the question of the ENO and LFB, as did the noble Lord, Lord Birkett. It might be appropriate if in that connection I respond more fully to Amendment No. 140A. Of course the needs assessment will take into account our galleries, museums and so forth, as they do at the moment.
Perhaps I have not spelt out specifically how the amendment would undermine the accountability of the new system and why we favour operating through the grant system rather than national non-domestic rates. It is central to the accountability of the new system that there should be a common level of community charge for a standard level of expenditure. Under our proposals that will be possible but under the amendment the cost of a standard level of service will vary depending on the size of the daily shift in population. That will not help in getting across the clear message that we seek to promote local accountability. I fully accept that for that to work the cost of a standard level of service must be properly assessed. We believe that we have that about right now. We assess the cost of services in Westminster to be almost twice the cost of those in Reading, where some commuters travel from. We are reviewing the needs assessments and I assure the Committee that the cost of the extra services in city centres—Westminster, Birmingham or wherever—will be fully taken into account.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked me to he more specific and I hope to be so in dealing with Clauses 82 to 94, the grant section. When speaking to Amendment No. 136 I should like to say more about the grants and how we propose that they should work. That may be the right time to take the opportunity of making a general statement. However, my noble friend was right to recognise the fact that it is too early to be totally specific.
I assure my noble friend that the general approach will be to reflect the cost of providing services, taking account of the number of people likely to use each service. For example, the assessment for education will depend on the number of pupils. There will also be special allowance for the extra costs in London. It will be open to the Secretary of State to reflect the net daytime inflow as one of the indicators in assessing the needs. I believe it likely that he will wish to include a factor in order to reflect the point we have been discussing; the point made by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes. I confirm that we shall be having discussions with the local authority associations later this year. That fulfils the hope expressed by my noble friend Lord Rippon of Hexham.
My noble friend Lord Beloff was right to raise the point about flexibility in the formula. The Committee will be aware that more than 60 items are taken into account in the rate support grant. Fewer items will be taken into account in respect of the revenue support grant. However, they will cover much the same ground as the rate support grant and therefore the needs of individual authorities can be assessed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, expressed concern about national non-domestic rates and the revenue support grant and the way it will be assessed and distributed. Each receiving authority will have a

37
grant entitlement and an NNDR entitlement. My department has indicated that we propose to make the payments—that is to say, hand over the cash—in one go, taking account of the grant and any NNDR that we owe the authority and the NNDR which it is due to pay into the central pool. Those payment arrangements will not affect the authority's entitlements, so we shall not be slipping back into the difficult system that we have at the moment.
I was rather surprised by the total dislike of the NNDR expressed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, because it is in effect the rating system which we now have. I had not realised the extent to which the noble Lord disliked the current rating system for businesses—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There is a slight difference between a non-domestic rate set by local authorities and a national business tax, the level of which is set entirely by central government.
The Earl of Caithness: I apologise for misinterpreting some of what the noble Lord said. I thought he was criticising the fact that businesses paid rates. That was the message that I received from the noble Lord.
I should like to take up a point made by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes at the beginning of her speech. She made reference to a remark that I made at an earlier stage. It was that:
"We cannot do away with grant shifts between tiers".
When I made that statement I was referring to the existing RSG system. Under our new system we shall be paying grant to the collection fund for the whole area and not to separate tiers. Therefore we shall not have the instability that we have at present.
After raising such an important point my noble friend reassured me that she had taken on board the point I made in an earlier intervention. It was that it is through the grant system that we shall take account of exactly those points she raised—such as commuters—and not through the NNDR. We believe that that is the right way to do so because it maintains the principle of what we are trying to achieve in altering the whole balance of local government finance under the three headings of community charge. NNDR and the grant system.
Lord Jay: I do not believe that the Minister has answered the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, at the beginning of the debate. He said that in order for Westminster City Council, which is unusual but not unique, to carry on a spending level at a point agreed by the Government it must either double the domestic rate or make reductions in expenditure below the level of approximately 20 per cent., if not more.
The only suggestion made in the debate as to how the gap may be covered is that the Government must sufficiently increase the rate support grant to cover the gap. If the Government have given no assurance that that will be done, the Committee is, in effect, left not knowing what will happen. The impression made on me by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carr, is that the Bill as it stands in that case is virtually
38
unworkable. After all, in Westminster that is not a unique case.
The Minister might have said that what will happen, in effect, is that this gap will be covered by the rate support grant. However, he did not say that. If I understood him right, he said that the Government will continue to take account of the various needs, such as the arts, London Zoo, and so on. He did not say that, in taking account of that, he would cover the financial gap. Until he does that, it seems to me that he leaves the Committee at a loss. He has not answered the obvious implication that the Bill as it stands, quite apart from its injustice, which we are not discussing this afternoon, is virtually unworkable.
The Earl of Caithness: The Bill is not unworkable. It has been thought out extremely carefully. I did not comment on my noble friend's figures because I found it extremely difficult to do so without studying them in detail and knowing the basis on which they have been arrived at. My intention, which I should have made clear, is to look at what my noble friend said and reply to him in writing, putting a copy in the Library.
Lord Carr of Hadley: Perhaps I may say to my noble friend before he sits down that I will attempt, perhaps also in writing, to clarify my figures, which arc difficult to put over in the course of a speech.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: We understood them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 120 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Listowel): Before calling Amendment No. 121, I should point out to the Committee that, if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment Nos. 122 or 122A.
[Amendments Nos. 121 and 122 not moved.]
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment 122A:
Page 115, line 15, leave out sub-paragraph (5) and insert—
("(5) The relevant population in relation to a council shall he calculated by—

(a) taking the number of those members of the population of the council's area who fall within such description as is specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State, and

(b) making such adjustments (if any) by way of addition or subtraction (or both) as are specified in, or calculated in a manner specified in. the regulations.")

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 52 and 53 agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Non-domestic rating: administration):
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 122B.
Page 117. line 49, at end insert—
("(d) allowing winding up").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 123.
Page 118, line 20, after ("is") insert ("reasonably").
The noble Lord said: This paragraph deals with the

39
information which a person may be required to pass to a valuation officer. At the moment a valuation officer issues forms to people which they are required by law to return. Most of them are returned but he follows up requiring further information. The Bill specifies:
"A valuation officer may serve a notice onߪan owner or occupier of a heraditament requiring him to supply to the officer such information as is required by him for the purpose of carrying out functions conferredߪon him by,"
that part of the Bill.
The power to serve such a notice is obviously essential, but the exercise of that power was previously always tempered by the word "reasonably" so that a person was under an obligation to supply only that information which was reasonably required by the valuation officer. Frankly, I see no reason why that safeguard should be removed and I believe that most people in the profession agree. Why should we give a valuation officer the unfettered right to demand information?
The people most concerned about the absence of the word "reasonably" are in those professions dealing with licensed premises. The established basis of valuation for public houses has been determined over many years by decisions of the Lands Tribunal. For the revaluation which is now taking place the valuation office of the Inland Revenue is canvassing other means by which licensed premises may be valued. To this end, it is embarking on what is believed to he a fishing expedition. raising issues which have previously been beyond its powers of inquiry.
Leading counsel's opinion has already been sought on what the valuation office might properly require. It could be that the argument on the construction of the word "reasonably" may, if the Government decide not to listen to our pleas, proceed from an action at the local valuation court to the Lands Tribunal itself. Counsel is firmly of the opinion that the extended enquiries currently pursued by the valuation office range too far, and go well beyond what might be reasonably required for the purposes of making a valuation list.
People are therefore concerned that Schedule 9, paragraph 5(1) has been drafted so that a valuation officer may serve a notice on a person who is an owner or occupier of a heraditament requiring him to supply that officer such information "as is required". The word "reasonably" does not appear. I fairly assume that this is because of the problems experienced at the moment by the valuation office in canvassing these alternative methods of valuation. Since then, enquiries have given cause for dispute, and the valuation officers are seeking to make life easier for themselves on any future valuation by asking for that word to be removed, thereby providing themselves with more far-reaching powers of enquiry than exist now and beyond what the Lands Tribunal might possibly grant on any appeal over the present contentious matters.
I feel that we should not move away from the existing situation and that the word "reasonably" should appear in the Bill. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lytton: Perhaps I may be permitted to speak to this amendment. to which my name also appears, and to support the noble Lord. Lord Ross of Newport.
There are commercial undertakings where the type of information that could be required or obtained falls into the category of what can be described as commercially sensitive. While some of these matters might be pertinent to the enquiry of a valuation officer, others certainly might not be pertinent in strict terms to the discharge of his functions in the preparation and valuation of properties to be included in the list. Therefore, I support this amendment, which sets out to return the situation to what it was previously.
In all probability the Minister will—at least I hope he will—take this point on board because he was at pains to point out to me on another occasion that all government officers are subject to a test of reasonableness. I am sure that all the officers I worked with in the valuation office were reasonable beyond any doubt whatever. Nevertheless, governments and the aspirations of those in public service alter and if it is the case that all public servants are subject to a test of reasonableness I see no reason why. for the benefit of the peace of mind of ratepayers, the word "reasonably" should not he incorporated in the Bill.
The Earl of Caithness: During Monday's sitting we considered a similar amendment to Amendment No. 123 in relation to Clause 6 and the power of the community charges registration officer to seek information. Today the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport. has raised the issue in connection with information sought by the valuation officer. The point I made earlier applies equally in this case.
The concept that a valuation officer may only seek such information as he reasonably requires for the exercise of his function is already implicit in Schedule 9, paragraph 5(1). As the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, reminded the Committee. I explained during our discussions on the equivalent amendment to Clause 6 that I had obtained unambiguous legal advice on this point.
All public officials, including the valuation officer, are under a general duty to act reasonably and they can have their actions reviewed by the courts if they fail to do so. There is extensive case law on this subject and many Members of the Committee will be familiar with the term "Wednesbury unreasonableness" after the small Black Country town distinguished by its former council having given its name to a leading case.
Thus, if the valuation officer were to demand information that was not reasonably required for the purposes of his statutory functions and were to begin proceedings to enforce his demand, he would not get very far. In practice, there is very little history of valuation officers seeking to act unreasonably. There is a good understanding between them and outside professional advisers as to the information they can reasonably require.
Thus, as I explained as regards an earlier amendment, adding the word "reasonably" would be

41
otiose to the Bill. It could do harm since it might suggest that some other test of reasonableness was intended. The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, reminded the Committee that the equivalent provision in the General Rate Act 1967 uses the word, but I remind the Committee that that derives from legislation drafted long before the modern doctrine of unreasonableness was developed.
I hope to convince the Committee that there is no intention on the part of the Government to slip through unnoticed an extension to the power of the valuation officer in this case.
5 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport: I thank the Minister for his reply and for reminding us of his earlier reply as regards another instance which has already been debated in this Bill. I hope very much that what he said is taken on board by valuation officers and that people, particularly in the licensed trade, if they believe that information is being sought from them that they regard as unreasonable, arc not obliged to pursue the case through the valuation court to the Lands Tribunal. I think that would be unfortunate and I am sure the Minister would agree that they should not be put to that expense.
I hope very much that the department will draw the attention of valuation officers to the reply that the Minister has given to the Committee this afternoon. The Minister is nodding. I am very grateful for that response and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 54 [Hereditaments]:
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 123ZA:
Page 29, line 12, leave out ("lands'') and insert ("all lands, whether or not beneficially occupied. including those which would not otherwise he subject to rates but for this provision except for the exceptions made in this Act;").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 123ZA. perhaps I may reassure the Minister at the start that I do not intend to give a long treatise on land value taxation or site value rating or to quote from the works of Henry George or the efforts of Mr. Mark Wilks. However, I believe it is right that as this Bill is going through we should at least put down a marker for land value taxation. In fact, the amendment would extend the definition of land to be rated to cover all land, including undeveloped land.
I hasten to add that would not include agricultural land and there would be some exemptions. Personally. I believe that we should have rated agricultural land long ago, but probably we should not do so now because agriculture at the moment is going through a had time and this would not be the right time to introduce such a measure.
We believe that the owners of land should be taxed because the land itself is part of the community and in that sense it belongs to the community. Added value is created by the community through building of roads and the use of public transport, and if all land were taxed there would he less incentive to hold
42
land, speculatively. There would be an incentive to either develop or sell, hoping to remove the large areas of wasteland in our inner cities. I draw that point particularly to the attention of the Minister.
We are talking about the rating of empty property; namely, empty houses after six months, leaving some to the discretion of the local authorities. Why are we not including land which has already been zoned for development and upon which outline planning consent has been given? People are deliberately holding back on such land and they are blocking from development whole areas in our inner cities and main towns. If they were obliged to pay rates, perhaps an increasing amount. they would put that land on the market. I believe that will appeal in particular to the present Secretary of State.
However, perhaps I may point out that a tax on vacant, undeveloped land is actually supported in a booklet recently produced by the Institute of' Economic Affairs. Therefore, we are not on our own after all in what was formerly the Liberal Party, which has always given some support to the idea of land value taxation.
As I have said. I am not pressing this amendment to a vote because I do not believe I should get very far at the moment. I recognise that such a measure would take about 10 years to introduce and there would have to be an enormous job of revaluation. I believe it to be an alternative that should have been looked at before this Bill was brought before the Committee.
I put to the Minister the point that land scheduled for development in inner urban areas should he taxed in one way or another to bring it onto the market. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: Since this is a somewhat technical issue, it may be for the benefit of the Committee if I set out some of the background. At present, to he rated, a property has to be beneficially occupied. This means that, in addition to the various categories of property which are specifically exempt, a number of other types are effectively exempt because no one derives a benefit from occupying them. They include land awaiting or undergoing development, public highways, and open moorland. The Bill, by preserving the present case-law definition of occupier in Clause 55(2), preserves this position.
The amendment would bring these properties into the definition of relevant non-domestic hereditament in Clause 54(4), and would thereby require them to be entered on rating lists under Clause 38. However, it would take more than that to make anyone pay rates on them. If the valuation officer had to value a derelict site, he would give it a nil or negligible value, because no one would pay rent for it in its present state. It may have development potential, but that would be worth nothing to a tenant.
What the amendment is seeking to do is to introduce so-called site value rating. As the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, said, that is an old chestnut of the Liberal Party. It means rating people not on what their property is worth in its present use, but on what it might he worth if it had been developed for a more valuable use, provided that permission for that use would be given. I ask the

43
Committee to consider whether that is really fair. We often hear complaints from small shopkeepers that their rents are driven up by competition from banks and building societies. To some extent, although we may sympathise, we have to say that that is the law of the market. I wonder whether they know that the noble Lord's amendment would mean that they would be paying rates as if their shops had already been taken over.
Of course, it is desirable to bring land back into use, especially in the inner cities. This was a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport. Rather than rating that land on its potential value, we believe that the action the Government have taken to bring it back into use is perhaps the more appropriate way of doing it. As Members of the Committee know, we have achieved much in that area. I do not believe that it is sensible to proceed by asking people to pay rates on property out of which they can obtain no current benefit.
Lord Monson: Is the Minister aware that one of the briefs on this Bill put out by his department implicitly supports the concept of site value taxation, doubtless without meaning to? I have not got the brief with me, but, as I remember, it was explaining why the Government propose to exempt caravans from the provisions of the Bill but not second, holiday homes. The reason was that whereas caravans depreciate in value, houses appreciate. Houses as such depreciate in value, albeit perhaps not as fast as caravans: this situation is masked by the housing boom which we have now. What appreciates is the site on which the houses stand. Without realising it, the Government have an excellent argument for site value taxation in their own briefing.
The Earl of Caithness: The noble Lord does not have the brief and neither do I.
Lord Ross of Newport: Perhaps the noble Lord saw the brief from the Institute of Economic Affairs. I shall try to find it and send it to the Minister.
I thank him for the reply, which is on the lines that I expected. As I have indicated, I am not pushing this amendment to a vote. However, I take the view that though the Minister is claiming that by government action and pressure on local authorities land is coming into development, local authorities are not the only owners of land. I have just taken over in my home town of Newport a site that has remained derelict for 10 years. I persuaded the Co-op to allow us to turn it into a private car park. I had no help from the local authority and this project has already cost £20,000. At the moment everyone is parking on the site for free and we have not yet erected the electric barriers. When I put around a notice saying that the charge would be £5 a week it was not liked very much. That is putting some of this land into general use because the Co-op has not felt that it is yet time to build a new store. It is looking at what is going on in other parts of the town.
44
There is no incentive for it to do so. I believe that the Co-op should be rated and I have told it so. There is further disincentive in that we now have planning charges. I strongly oppose the introduction of planning charges in this country. They are a very heavy cost these days and people will not spend several hundred pounds, in some cases over £1,000, to put in planning applications. They would rather wait or not do it at all.
There is no incentive to bring some of the land on to the market. One can put pressure on local authorities to sell, and one can oblige them to sell now, but one cannot do it in respect of private owners. An opportunity is being missed. In 1973 the noble Lord, Lord Barber, introduced this idea in a Budget but the Finance Bill fell. I suggest that the Minister and his department should look at the proposal and I believe that there would be general support for it throughout the country. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 123ZB:
Page 29, line 22, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
("(5) Subsection (5A) below applies in the case of a hereditament provided and maintained by an authority mentioned in subsection (6) below for purposes connected with the administration of justice, police purposes or other Crown purposes.
(5A) Any rules as to Crown exemption which would have applied apart from this subsection shall not—

(a) detract from any duty to show the hereditament in a local or central non-domestic rating list,

(b) prevent a person being subject to a non-domestic rate as regards the hereditament under section 39, 41 or 46 above, or

(c) prevent the person being liable to pay in respect of the rate.").

The noble Lord said: I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 129A and 129B. This is a further group of drafting amendments designed to clarify the provisions relating to buildings occupied by local authorities in connection with the administration of justice. police or other Crown purposes.
Amendment No. 123ZB makes clear that those hereditaments are not subject to the rules regarding Crown exemption and must be shown in a local or central rating list, and that the occupier is liable to pay non-domestic rates. Amendments Nos. 129A and 129B add liability to pay in respect of the rate to the similar provisions in Clause 73 relating to residual rating. I beg to move.
On Question. amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 123ZC:
Page 29, line 42, at end insert—
("(9A) A hereditament shall be treated as wholly or mainly used for charitable purposes at any time if at the time it is wholly or mainly used for the sale of goods donated to a charity and the proceeds of sale of the goods (after any deduction of expenses) are applied for the purposes of a charity.").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 103. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 54, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 55 agreed to.
Clause 56 [Domestic property]:
5.15 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 123ZD:
Page 31, line 3, leave out from ("But") to ("wholly") in line 4 and insert ("property is not domestic property if it is").
The noble Lord said: With this amendment, it may be convenient to the Committee if I speak to Amendments Nos. 123ZE, 123A, 123AB, 123B and 123C. The grouping may seem rather strange because the amendments deal with three subjects—caravans, self-catering accommodation and residential care homes. I understand that, if they were considered separately and the government amendments were accepted, the later amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Stanley and Lord Ross of Newport, would be pre-empted. I have no wish to prevent debate on the points that they intend to raise.
The government amendments, Amendments Nos. 123ZD, 123ZE. 123B and 123C, are concerned with the classification of caravans and houseboats. They mesh with amendments already agreed in Clause 3 on the standard charge. Together with the earlier amendments they honour a commitment made by the Government during Committee stage in another place to take holiday caravans and houseboats out of the standard community charge and hack into domestic rating. They would provide that caravan pitches and houseboat moorings should be classified as non-domestic property and therefore be liable to non-domestic rating except where they form someone's sole or main residence or where a caravan is situated on a protected site—a protected site is one where caravans are stationed not for holiday use but for year-round residential occupation. In such a situation the caravan owner would be liable to the standard community charge. This approach is in line with the Scottish Act and has been accepted by representatives of the caravan industry.
I have no doubt that my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley will wish to speak on his amendment and that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, will wish to speak on his, and so I shall not cover their points until they have had a chance to speak. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: One of the ways in which farmers and others who live in the countryside can create employment and wealth is by letting accommodation as holiday flats or homes. This amendment, which is supported by the Tourist Association and the National Farmers' Union, suggests that the best way to rate these holiday lets is by having them rated under the national non-domestic rate rather than under a multiplier of the community charge. There are two reasons for preferring this method of charging. First, the charge will be predictable, which is important for a business. Secondly, the charge will be geared to the size of the business. If, as I hope, the Government concede that this is how they believe holiday lets should be dealt with, I have a query or two to put to my noble friend. My queries would apply even if he does not accept the principle.
Can my noble friend help me on the position of the owner who moves out of his house in the summer and
46
lets it as a holiday home and then lives in a shack or cattle yard? That happens a good deal in Wales. Secondly, what is the position of a person who uses the holiday home himself for the summer and then lets it in the winter? Even if my noble friend would like to ponder these two questions I hope he will accept the principle of the amendment that these should be rated under the non-domestic rate.
The Earl of Radnor: I should like briefly to support the amendment to which I have put my name. It seems logical and sensible that self-catering accommodation should not be domestically rated. Most people believe that it is used for business and there it should lie. It should benefit from that regime which would be more suitable not only to the farmer running his self-catering business to protect himself against ever-increasing hard times but also to anybody who has self-catering accommodation, in the town or at the seaside or wherever it may be.
I should like to anticipate a problem which was referred to by my noble friend Lord Stanley. There may be a dual use for this form of accommodation. A degree of cheating might come in and the owner might use accommodation to live in for long periods. I scanned through the Bill and I thought that in that case my noble friend might put the matter right by borrowing phraseology from another part of the Bill and adding at the end of this amendment:
"In determining whether a house which is used for or in connection with self-catering accommodation is solely so used no account shall he taken at any time during which it is used in any other way if that time does not amount to a substantial part of the time during which the building is used".
My noble friend on the Front Bench will know that that provision applies to an alternative use of fish ponds but it seems to apply equally well to self-catering accommodation.
Having said that I am thinking of all types of self-catering accommodation, I should like to re-emphasise my noble friend's point about the farming industry and remind the Committee that the more beautiful parts of our land are often the worst for farming. This is where farmers will want to turn to this source of income. If it is beneficial to them to put self-catering accommodation under a business regime I hope that will be taken into consideration and that farmers will be helped as much as possible. I support the amendment, and I hope that something sensible will be sorted out along the lines described by my noble friend.
Baroness Stedman: I should like also to express my support for the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley. Having made the exceptions on caravans, it is perfectly proper that we should also make exceptions on the grounds proposed. The Government are asking the farming industry to take some land out of farming and to use their buildings to good effect and thus help to create more leisure industry on the farms and in the farming areas. Therefore this might well be one incentive which would help them to do so.
I should like to go further than the subject of self-contained accommodation. Is the Minister able to say what the effect of the community charge is on those

47
people in the more popular areas of our country who offer casual bed-and-breakfast facilities? Will they have any particular difficulties dealing with the section of their property which is used casually for bed-and-breakfast?
Lord Ross of Newport: I am grateful for the Minister's courtesy in allowing me at least to air the principles behind Amendment No. 123AB. This was prompted to some extent by the exchange which took place the other evening between the Minister and his colleague the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. It concerned the question of the rating of residential homes and nursing homes which are now eligible to qualify for a 100 per cent. rate rebate under the provisions of Section 2(2)(a) and (c) of the Rating (Disabled Persons) Act 1978. I am told that such provisions were first thought to apply only to such premises as homes for the mentally ill or physically disabled. However, it has become apparent that most establishments caring for and accommodating the elderly can he shown to qualify for the rebate.
Paragraph 15(1) of Schedule 5 to the Local Government Finance Bill provides for the exemption from rates of certain premises providing facilities for the ill and disabled. The four categories in question have been directly extracted from the rebate provisions of Section 2(2)(b), (d), (e) and (f) of the 1978 Act. However, the two references there to "residential accommodation- do not appear in the Bill. Paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 to the Bill—the one we are debating at present—provides for exemption from the community charge of residents of nursing and residential care homes. Clause 56 as it stands would leave the home itself. even though it may be a business—of course it is a business—to be regarded as a domestic property and therefore outside the scope of the non-domestic rate.
There has been a proliferation of nursing homes and especially of private care establishments, in recent years. In my constituency alone we had over 90. Perhaps it is just as well that I am no longer the Member of Parliament for that area. If I were, no doubt I should lose all their votes by moving the amendment. We have had to put a stop on the situation. Indeed, both planning authorities have had to say that they are not prepared to grant any more conversions, especially of hotels and guest-houses, into homes for the elderly because they are beginning to represent too big a proportion of our population. Obviously it is seen as a good way to make sizeable income. If you run a good home—I accept that most of them are very well run indeed—there is no questioning the fact that there is much money to be made, especially in regard to nursing-homes.
Therefore, the view has emerged from local authorities and especially from rating practitioner members of the Rating and Revaluation Association—who prompted the amendment—that the opportunity should now be taken to seek to ensure that such businesses start to pay the non-domestic rate from 1990. Although I cannot move the amendment, I am most grateful to have had the opportunity to air my concerns.
Lord Glenarthur: My noble friends Lord Stanley of Alderley and Lord Radnor have put their fingers on a most difficult issue. It is one which arises at the boundary between domestic and non-domestic sectors. However, I am sure they appreciate that fact. We are concerned with property which, on the one hand, is used for the purposes of living accommodation and would normally be domestic but which, on the other hand, is run as a business and, arguably, like other business premises, should pay the national non-domestic rate. The position is further complicated by the fact that many buildings are not used for self-catering accommodation throughout the year. My understanding is that while in summer the accommodation is generally let to holidaymakers for short periods, in winter it may be let for longer periods to people who use it as their main residence. Further, there may even be several changes of use during the year.
Holiday self-catering accommodation falls somewhere between hotels, which are clearly businesses and can be rated as such, and second homes which are domestic and subject to the standard charge. We are anxious to ensure that self-catering accommodation is treated fairly and in accordance with the principles of the Bill. To that end, perhaps I can tell my noble friends that officials from the Department of the Environment have had discussions with representatives of the self-catering industry in the light of which we are now considering precisely how self-catering accommodation should be treated. I can assure both my noble friends that I will look closely at the arguments they have put forward in favour of treating self-catering accommodation as non-domestic. Nevertheless, I hope that they will appreciate that the issue is far from being clear-cut and that it is most important that we arrive at a fair and workable arrangement which would suit both my noble friends.
I should like to deal with the two specific points raised by my noble friend Lord Stanley. A person will be liable to pay the personal community charge at his sole or main residence whether that is a house or caravan. The person's liability to pay the personal community charge will therefore remain unchanged, assuming he stays within the same charging area. However, if he moves to another charging area he will then become subject to its community charge.
The position of the house which he vacates will depend on many factors. First and foremost, it will depend on whether the person changes his sole or main residence when he moves out of his house. Assuming that his sole or main residence changes, he will be liable to pay either the standard community charge or non-domestic rates for the period when he is not resident in the house. Which of the two he pays will depend, as I said earlier, on the boundary between domestic and non-domestic sectors. That is where it is difficult to draw the line at present.
The second example, given by my noble friend, was the person who uses a holiday home for himself in summer and then lets it during the winter. The answer is the converse of the one I have just given. The person will pay the personal community charge while he is mainly resident in the house in summer and, assuming he is no longer resident there in winter, will

49
be liable to pay either the standard community charge or rates for the winter period.
My noble friend Lord Radnor raised the matter of treatment of empty property. Again, the question is much the same; that is, whether the property is subject to the standard community charge or to rating. In the case of the former, property which is empty and unfurnished will not be liable to the standard community charge for the first three months. Thereafter, local authorities will have discretion to set a standard of between zero and two-times the personal community charge. If holiday let accommodation is placed in non-domestic rating it will also have a three-month period of grace where it was unoccupied; thereafter, if it remained unoccupied, it would attract 50 per cent. rates relief.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, asked about casual bed-and-breakfast accommodation arrangements. Accommodation which is offered for bed-and-breakfast accommodation is analogous to the hotel situation and would therefore, I am advised, be rated accordingly. The owners of bed-and-breakfast accommodation will of course pay the personal community charge in the normal way and the accommodation they personally occupy would not be rated.
I turn now to the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport. I must say that it is not an exceptional proposal. To set the scene perhaps I may take Members of the Committee back a year or so to the passage of the Scottish legislation. As introduced, that Bill made no specific provision for residential care homes or nursing homes.
During the Committee stage many Members of the Committee put forward persuasive arguments in favour of according residents of such institutions special treatment. Indeed, one of the reasons given for exempting residents of homes was, so far as I can remember, that it would bring public and private hospitals into line. We had of course already proposed to exempt long-term patients in National Health Service hospitals. I accepted that those in residential homes would have relatively little contact with the local democratic process, and that accountability could not be expected to operate properly. It was not proposed, nor would we have accepted, that we should discriminate against those who happen to be in privately run nursing homes. Merely because a nursing home is run as a business does not mean that the residents are less entitled to benefit from the exemption. I hope that the noble Lord sees the force of that point.
It would not be the owners of such homes who would suffer as a result of the noble Lord's amendment: it would probably be the old people themselves. If the owner were required to pay an additional £1,000 a year in rates he would be likely to increase charges to cover the increased expenses. We should be in the position, therefore, of giving with one hand, through the exemption, and taking it away with the other, by rating the property.
I did not detect from the noble Lord's remarks that he was attempting to tax the profits of those homes; but, as I have said, the purpose behind the amendment is unhealthy. I should perhaps point out
50
to him that most residential homes do not pay rates at present. The large majority of them are exempt from rating under the provisions of the Rating (Disabled Persons) Act 1978. If we were to put such homes back into rating they would almost certainly be exempt by virtue of that Act, so in practice the amendment would have a limited effect. I hope I have answered most of the points which my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Ross, have raised.
5.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I had not intended to intervene in what are to some extent, as the Minister said, marginal matters; but I was appalled by something the noble Lord said about bed and breakfast accommodation. Do the Government intend that those who offer one or two rooms as bed and breakfast accommodation in the summer should not only be subject to the personal community charge for the house in which they live but should he solemnly assessed for non-domestic rating on the basis of one room which may be occupied for a total of a month or two through the summer and then revert to being family accommodation for the rest of the year? I cannot believe that the Government can seriously mean that. It would be a total nonsense. It would be administratively wildly extravagant. It would act as a deterrent to people offering bed and breakfast accommodation. I cannot believe that if that is the Government's intention they have consulted the tourist boards or the tourist industry.
Lord Glenarthur: I am not sure that the situation does not already exist in much the same way for accommodation which is used only occasionally. As things stand, if it is used occasionally it may not come to the attention of the valuation office and so could escape rating. It is not a new problem; it exists now. It is not one which arises from the changes brought about by the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is not the case. Property is being rated anyway because we have a domestic rating system. The domestic rating system is being abolished and replaced by the community charge, which does not involve any rating assessment. In order to catch the people who provide a service to this country, the tourist industry and probably the balance of payments, these places will have to be solemnly visited, rated and assessed in a way they would not otherwise be. I cannot think that that is what the Minister intends. I should be grateful if he would write to me about the matter before we reach another stage of the Bill.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: Perhaps I may have a copy of the letter because the same point had occurred to me. It is highly unlikely that in the case of a farmhouse or country cottage, which is occupied and where there is a room available for letting for bed and breakfast, anyone has for one moment thought of denying to part of that house the 18.5p domestic rate which would of course be applicable if the house were wholly rated as a domestic hereditament. If it were not, it is difficult to see why it should now come in for rating under this part of the Bill.

51
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, had a point when he said that the tourist boards might well have something to say about the proposal, because a great deal of summer accommodation in holiday areas is offered by people who have a spare room or couple of rooms and want to turn an honest penny. I cannot believe that it would be right that the whole machinery of the non-domestic rating system should be brought to bear on a couple of bedrooms or a bedroom and a sitting room. It does not seem to me to make sense. I hope that when my noble friend looks at this matter again he will feel able to come to the same conclusion.
Lord Tordoff: I wonder whether the Minister is aware of the casual basis upon which many of these bed and breakfast accommodation places work. Some of them may be used only half a dozen or a dozen times in a whole year. Presumably, from what the Minister said, those people would be swept up into this great net at the same time. Please may we also have a copy of the letter?
Baroness Stedman: I had not thought that the amendment would produce this hare and run as long as this. Having raised the matter, may I also have a copy of the letter?
Lord Glenarthur: I have not yet committed myself to writing at all. but I certainly shall in view of the enthusiasm with which the letter will be greeted. I should like to look at what has been said. Obviously some important points have been raised. I cannot leave the matter at that. As I understand it, such bed and breakfast properties would only be rated in relation to those rooms for the period during which they are offered as bed and breakfast accommodation.
Perhaps I may finish before the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh bursts into fits of laughter. There is another side to the matter. which is that if it were not to be done in that way it seems that the system would discriminate against the larger-scale bed and breakfast operators. My goodness! I realise as one who has had responsibility for tourism in at least part of the country for some time just how valuable a job is done by those people. The suggestion would discriminate against larger-scale bed and breakfast operators. Having said that, I shall take up the offer of a letter made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and write to him to explain the point in detail.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am most grateful to the Minister. Will he accede to my other request, which is that the letter should come before Report stage? Secondly, will he consult the tourist hoards? Even if he consults only the major tourist boards it would be a step in the right direction.
Lord Glenarthur: I guarantee to write speedily to the noble Lord in the course of the next day or two when I have reflected upon what has been said. I shall also establish precisely what consultation has taken place on this issue with the tourist boards and make that part of the letter.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: Before my noble friend withdraws the amendment, I must say that I was somewhat staggered by the point brought up by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I had assumed that the position would continue as it is now and that ordinary bed and breakfast would not attract any charge. Perhaps I may ask my noble friend two questions. First, will he accept the principle of my amendment, which is for what I call fair long-term holiday letting to be rated under the non-domestic rate? Because, as I understand it, when the rating officer comes round to rate he will have a fair idea whether that flat or holiday accommodation will be let for a month, two months or three months, and will set the charge as such. I hope that my noble friend will feed that in. My next question is one which my noble friend probably will not like, but I should like to have an answer to the question whether such properties will be rated under the national non-domestic rate by Report stage, if possible; otherwise, I shall feel obliged to table a similar amendment again.
Baroness Faithfull: Perhaps I may ask a question. We have talked about bed and breakfast in terms of the tourist trade, but what about bed and breakfast for homeless families?
Lord Glenarthur: My noble friend has introduced a further complication. but an important one, to what I thought was a fairly self-contained clement to do with self-catering accommodation. which is what the amendment of my noble friend Lord Stanley is all about. Perhaps I may also look at that point. It is possible that some homeless people use that type of accommodation in that way, but I cannot give my noble friend a categorical answer on that immediately. I undertake to look at what she has said.
As regards responding on the detail of the point of my noble friend Lord Stanley about the self-catering accommodation. I have told the noble Lord that we are looking at this now in the light of discussions which the department has had with the representatives of the self-catering industry. I have no doubt whatsoever that my right honourable friend and indeed my noble friend Lord Caithness will note carefully the urgency with which my noble friend seeks an answer. Beyond that I cannot go.
On Question. amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 123ZE:
Page 31, line 8, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 123A and 123AB not moved.]
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 123B:
Page 31, line 10, at end insert—
("(2A) A pitch for a caravan is domestic property if one or both of the following conditions is fulfilled—

(a) it is part of a site which is a protected site;

(b) it is occupied by a caravan which is the sole or main residence of an individual (construing sole or main residence in accordance with section 2 above).

53
(2B) A mooring is domestic property if it is occupied by a boat which is the sole or main residence of an individual (construing sole or main residence in accordance with section 2 above).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 123C:
Page 31, line 12, at end insert—
("(3A) In applying subsection (3) above no assumption may be made that a site which is not a protected site will become one.
(3B) Whether anything is a caravan shall be construed in accordance with Part I of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960.
(3C) Whether a site is a protected site shall be construed in accordance with Part I of the Caravan Sites Act 1968.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 56, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 57 [Interpretation: other provisions]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 123CA:
Page 31, line 35, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
("(7) A relevant provision applies on a particular day if (and only if) it applies immediately before the day ends: and for this purpose relevant provisions are sections 39(6) and (Discretionary relief) (2) above.").
On Question, amendment agreed to,
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. I23D:
Page 31, line 41, at end insert—
("(8A) A hereditament shall be treated as shown in a central non-domestic rating list for a day if on the day it falls within a class of hereditament shown for the day in the list; and for this purpose a hereditament falls within a class on a particular day if (and only if) it falls within the class immediately before the day ends.").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 123D. This is a purely drafting amendment to put right an oversight in the drafting of Clause 45(2). I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 123E:
Page 31, line 41, at end insert—
("(8A) A charity is an institution or other organisation established for charitable purposes only or any persons administering a trust established for charitable purposes only.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 123F not moved.]
Clause 57 agreed to.
Clause 58 [Charging authorities affected]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 123:
Page 32, line 7, leave out ("£130") and insert ("£200").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to reduce the number of authorities to be included in the provisions of dual rating.
Throughout the process of developing this legislation the Government have been aware of the need to provide for a swift but smooth transfer from domestic rates to the community charge. Equally, there is a need to ensure that the transition does not impose too sudden or excessive burdens particularly
54
on those people who have not themselves previously been responsible for paying rates. In November last year, after considerable public debate and careful consideration of the issues, the Government announced that they would be introducing the community charge at one go for most areas of England and all of Wales, so that the full benefits of the new system would be realised as soon as possible. There will, however, be a safety net which is contained in Part VI of the Bill; this is designed to moderate changes in the burden of paying for local government between one area and another.
The size of the community charge, when the new system is fully in force, will relate directly to the level of spending in each area in relation to the Government's assessment of what needs to be spent to provide a standard level of service. In some parts of London—either as a result of the spending behaviour of the boroughs concerned, or ILEA, or both—the full community charge would be very high.
Introducing the community charge in one go in these areas would place a substantial additional burden on some adults within the first few years after 1990. We therefore decided that it would be right to phase out domestic rates over a number of years in areas where spending is highest. This will mean that the burden will transfer gradually from ratepayers to community charge payers. It will also mean that boroughs in inner London will have time to reduce expenditure to a more sensible level before the community charge is fully in place in 1994–95. The proposed abolition of ILEA in 1990 will provide a major opportunity for them to take charge of their own spending levels. This will ensure that charge payers never need to face bills as large as those implied by 1987-88 spending levels.
Since the Bill was first published we have given further consideration to the level of overspending that would attract the provisions of Part IV, both in the light of representations made by authorities affected and in the light of preliminary returns of expenditure plans for 1988-89. As my right honourable friend announced in another place, we have concluded that it would be right to move the threshold for inclusion in these transitional arrangements from an overspend of £130 per head to one of £200. This would remove the authorities of Kensington and Chelsea, Waltham Forest, Wandsworth and Westminster from dual running.
We are clear that the spending plans of these authorities are such that the levels of the community charge to be raised in these areas during the early years will be sustainable. The authorities concerned have given us sufficient assurance that they will be able to reduce their spending to bring the charges down to levels not dissimilar to those found elsewhere. For other authorities still in dual running, we are proposing, by an amendment to Clause 94, to make a grant available to support the costs of administration. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I rise simply to say that what the Minister has proposed goes some way towards ameliorating the impact of the nexus of the

55
residual rating idea. However, I am bound to say that the arguments that he has used for excluding the four authorities that he has mentioned do not square with the facts. The basis upon which the Minister has asked the Committee to believe that this special treatment for those four should be given—and I wrote this down—is where spending is the highest. These are not the ones where the spending is the highest.
I support the amendment, but there is an amendment down immediately following this that Clause 58 shall not stand part of the Bill. It is in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh. I intend to speak more fully and very strongly at that stage about the clause.
Lord Tordoff: Perhaps I may ask for clarification for the Committee. Was it the case that the noble Lord was also speaking to Amendment No. 144B?
Lord Glenarthur: I apologise to the Committee. I should have said that I was speaking to Amendment No. 144B, which is the amendment that relates to the clause after Clause 94, a new clause.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 58 shall stand part of the Bill?>
Lord Hayter: There are four names down, one of which is mine, to oppose the Motion that this clause shall stand part of the Bill. We wish to delete the whole of this residual rating, but it is better to discuss it in connection with this clause.
The idea behind residual rating is that the community charge be phased in while rates are phased out. That is the term that is used; it is residual rating. The background to residual rating is rather strange. First, in the Scottish Bill, apparently it was going to apply throughout the whole of Scotland. Then by a miracle it was removed so that Scotland has no residual rating at all.
The next thing that happened was that the Government proposed, in the Green Paper called Paying for Local Government, to phase in the community charge by having a general scheme of residual rating throughout the whole of England and Wales. This scheme was intended to act as a cushion to reduce the effects on households where the charge would have a substantial financial impact as compared with the rates they had been paying.
The most obvious example of this would be in households with adult children whose presence at home had not altered the rates Bill but who will have an effect in connection with the community charge. So phasing in this charge over a number of years, with a progressively reducing residual rating element, meant that for many households the impact of the change to the community charge would be spread over a number of annual instalments. Then at that point the Government had second thoughts. I am not quite sure why, and perhaps the Minister will be able to explain that to us. With the publication of the Bill the Government abandoned the idea of residual rating altogether for England and Wales except for
56
13 London boroughs and the City of London. Now, as we heard in the discussion on the previous amendment, they have had third thoughts, and those 13 London boroughs and the City of London have now been reduced to nine boroughs and the city. That reminded me somewhat of Agatha Christie's play,The 10 Little Nigger Boys. Perhaps we might be able to bring this number down to the point where, in our opinion, residual rating is of no great concern.
The London Boroughs Association and the Association of London Authorities together represent all the remaining authorities now subject to residual rating. We have checked with them, and neither association believes that a real case can be made out for retaining residual rating at all, in view of its abandonment for England and Wales generally. They therefore feel it should go. That view is shared by CIPFA.
Members of the Committee might well ask why, if the Government are trying to be kind, these remaining boroughs and the City of London do not want this concession. There are four reasons for that. First, as the basis for retaining the residual rating has been that without it some households would experience steep increases if the charge were introduced in one go, that should mean that the authorities to which the residual rating will apply are the authorities with the highest projected community charge. But this is not the case. For example, the projected charge for Greenwich in 1990, using the Government's own figures, is £265.
Again using the Government's figures, there are no fewer than 26 authorities not subject to residual rating which have higher projected charges. If a resident in Greenwich needs to be cushioned against paying £265 for the first time in 1990, surely the residents in those 26 other authorities who will be paying greater amounts need the cushion even more? The inconsistency is even greater in the case of Hammersmith and Fulham, which will have to operate the residual rating scheme. That authority has a projected community charge in 1990 of £299. The Committee will hardly believe this, but there are 103 authorities in this country not subject to residual rating with higher projected charges than Hammersmith and Fulham. It is very difficult to resist the temptation to think that this is illogical. I was almost inclined to say that it is damned silly.
If one considers the effect of the Government amendment to Clause 58, which has the effect of reducing the number of authorities subject to this residual rating from 14 to 10—the ones we have just heard about—one sees that the anomalies multiply. Taking again the basic premise on residual rating—that it should act as a cushion for people paying for the first time in 1990—logic would indicate that the four authorities that we have just been hearing about which have been taken out should be those with lower community charges than the 10 which remain. But that is not the case. I shall not give the Committee the figures; it can take my word for it.
The second reason why these authorities and the City of London do not want residual rating is extremely important. Residual rating, as one will discover if one takes the trouble to read the nine

57
pages in this Bill on residual rating and the 16 different clauses, will generate a very considerable administrative burden. Of course it will be costly to implement because every authority will have to recruit, to train and to pay additional staff to administer two different sets of bills and two different sets of this complex rebate system. They will need that staff only for a matter of four years. It will not be all that easy to get individuals to come for four years when they know that they will be kicked out at the end of that period.
As regards the computer side, it is again obvious that the software used in the computers for the residual rating will apply only to those 10 authorities we have just been talking about. The people who manufacture the software will not be in all that much of a hurry to satisfy that particular need. All of this will come at a time when the community charge is being introduced for the first time and when education, competitive tendering and housing legislation also have to be tackled. The scale of the additional work involved in implementing residual rating can be judged by the fact that a whole Part of this Bill is devoted exclusively to this subject.
Now I come to the third reason to support the view that residual rating should go. The basis of selection for residual rating in Clause 58 hinges on a local authority's spending per head above set standard criteria, using 1987 to 1988 figures. Even if the formula used in Clause 58 identified the authorities with the highest community charges in 1990, which I have demonstrated it does not, the use of these figures would still not necessarily give a proper indication of the authorities which should be selected. There are so many things that can change before 1990 and which could reduce the community charges of those authorities now subject to residual rating. From April 1989, for example, polytechnics will be funded directly by the Government and not through local authorities. Then there are the consequences of the abolition of ILEA and other matters. Those are all facts which confuse the issue.
The fourth reason against residual rating is associated with that word which has been used already this afternoon—accountability. For four years after the introduction of the community charge electors in the authorities subject to residual rating will not be able to make straight comparisons between the financial performance of their own authority and that of other authorities where the normal community charge is operating. Given that one of the main reasons for introducing the community charge is to increase accountability, that is surely undesirable and contradictory.
So, if there were cogent reasons to require (by the way, this is compulsory) these 10 authorities to operate a complex dual system of rates and the community charge when it has been dropped for all other authorities, Part IV of the Bill could be justified. But in my opinion such reasons simply do not exist. Residual rating is a complication which these remaining local authorities should do without. They want to do without it, because they think that it is in the long-term interests of the ratepayers concerned.
58
I said last week in connection with another amendment that there was a great element of guesswork in this Bill. I have just provided a few of the facts, but perhaps in the Government's eyes there is still some guesswork. So why should the Government be so obdurate? Why not put the onus on the other side—the London Boroughs Association, the Association of London Authorities and the City of London? If they are right, the Government will have graciously given them their head. If they are wrong, the Government will have nothing with which to reproach themselves. The Government had offered residual rating and those organisations had refused it; therefore, it would be their fault. For all the reasons I have put forward, I feel convinced that residual rating is wrong and that we should oppose this particular clause as a gesture of our opinion on the subject.
6 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Hayter. As he has said, residual rating was originally to apply to all authorities in England and Wales. Then, as he went on to say, it was to apply to 14 London authorities. Now it is just 10, and of those 10 four have been removed today.
As residual rating was designed to mitigate the effect of the redistribution of the tax burden in local authority areas where this would have the most pronounced effect, one might expect that these authorities now selected for residual rating would be those facing particularly acute redistributive effects from the community charge. It appears, however, that the Government had no general data about redistributive effects and relied on a simpler approach.
The most acute case in the Government's view would be that of a non-dependant currently making no specific contribution to the household rate bill and facing a full community charge bill for the first time in 1990. On that basis, the new system would he most in need of the cushioning effect provided by residual rating in those areas with the highest community charge. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, has said, the authorities selected are not those which face the highest community charges in 1990. That is because government grants will have the effect of phasing in the full community charge during 1990 to 1994. Clearly the Government have adopted the wrong approach in selecting those authorities to which residual rating is, in its own terms, appropriate. The fault lies in the approach.
The fault in the approach is the use in Clause 58 of the simple spending-per-head formula as the criterion for applying residual rating. That may act as a pointer towards high community charges ultimately. However, it wholly ignores the effect of government grants between 1990 and 1994—the very period for which residual rating is intended. Those grants will affect the amount of community charge which people in an authority will have to pay. That is exactly what we are concerned about with residual rating.
The government amendment to Clause 58 will, as the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, has said, have the effect of taking four boroughs out of the residual rating

59
scheme. As the Committtee has heard, they are Kensington and Chelsea, Waltham Forest, Wandsworth and Westminster. Without residual rating, the community charge for Westminster in 1990 to 1991, using the Government's figures, will be £471. By 1994, when residual rating ends, it will be £396. By comparison, in Islington, for example, the community charge will be £294 in 1990 to 1991, rising to £483 in 1994 to 1995. The 1994 to 1995 figures will be the same whether or not residual rating applies because the residual rating scheme only operates up to 1994.
We therefore need to concentrate on what happens to the community charge in the intervening years. We find that an adult son or daughter living in the family home in Westminster will be paying in each of those years up to 1993 to 1994 substantially more than his or her counterpart living in Islington. Using the Government's own figures, the Westminster resident will be paying £312 more in community charges over the transitional years when residual rating applies. Yet according to the government amendment, the person in Westminster does not need to be cushioned while the person living in Islington who is paying less does. My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes would no doubt support me, if she were present in the Chamber, in saying that that is quite illogical.
I have not picked that example because it is isolated. Hammersmith and Fulham has a projected community charge in 1990 of £220, rising to £465 in 1994. Wandsworth figures for the same period are £217 and £435. Hammersmith and Fulham will be subject to residual rating. Wandsworth will not. That seems difficult if not impossible to understand and to justify.
From what the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, and I have said, since the Government have decided that people in the four London boroughs taken out by the amendment to Clause 58 would not be protected by residual rating it must logically follow that residual rating should go in the other authorities as well. Therefore, I conclude by saying that, first, if one considers people paying rates and people who will be paying a community charge, they will not be greatly helped. Secondly, the situation is quite illogical and, as the noble Lord has said, it will be very expensive. Therefore, I believe that the clause should not stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Stedman: I also believe that the clause should not stand part. We must look at the clause in terms of the 1986 Green Paper. It was then envisaged that there would be a 10-year period of phasing in for the community charge. In July 1986 the Government announced that the 10-year period would be reduced to four years. In November 1987, that proposal was abolished in favour of introducing the community charge in one instalment except for 14 London boroughs and the City of London.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, has said, as a result of the previous amendment the Government have reduced that number by four. That seems to raise the question of whether we should have residual rating at all. The London Boroughs Association, together with the City of London and CIPFA,
60
oppose the idea of residual rating. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, asked whether the Government had taken note of the effects of their proposal. What data have the Government used concerning the redistributive effects of the proposal? Have they used data only from per capita high spending authorities? Why has the City of London been included? There are only 5,000 residents within the City of London. There are some 300,000 day workers for whom the City must provide a variety of services. In addition, facilities such as the Barbican are of interest and use to the whole of London.
The noble Earl, Lord Jenkin, when he was Secretary of State, said on 25th January 1984 that the GRE was based predominantly on the size of an area's resident population. That is a largely irrelevant statistic in the City of London. How did the City come to be included in the system of residual rating? The community charge will not be easy to administer. It will be expensive for those authorities who must operate it and, at the same time, implement residual rating. Where will the extra staff come from? They will he expected to serve inner London boroughs, some of which are already rate capped. Who will pay for the extra staff? Surely those people will realise that there will be no jobs for them after five years when residual rating is phased out. Will that encourage them to stay with the authorities or will they look for jobs with a long-term future elsewhere? Are the Government satisfied that with such a small number of local authorities involved the computer software for billing and housing benefit will be ready in time? Indeed, it is likely that many of the people who will depend on housing benefits will not even know what their entitlement is when bills arrive.
The Government have said that a specific grant will be available towards the costs of collection. Will that specific grant cover all the costs? Not only will the extra staff have to be recruited, trained and paid: they will also have to be housed somewhere to carry out the job. What are the extra costs for the office accommodation that will be provided? Residual rating will not make authorities more accountable and the relationship between spending levels and the community charge will be very obscure. Have the Government thought, as the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, asked, of the extra burdens they are placing on London boroughs as a result of other legislation which is going through, or has gone through, this Chamber? What about the financial, staffing and accommodation problems involved in the abolition of ILEA and in the setting up of new education departments within the boroughs? What about new capital controls, new housing legislation and the compulsory competitive tendering which now has to be undertaken? We are overloading local authorities at a time when there will be a major problem in implementing satisfactorily those responsibilities which we have already placed upon them.
Finally, since the Government changed their minds about Scotland and there is no residual rating in Scotland why do we have to have it here?
6.15 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Although he probably has a brief which says "resist", I very much hope that

61
the Minister is prepared to listen not only to views expressed from the Conservative Benches, the Cross Benches and the Alliance Benches but also from the Labour Benches. I honestly believe that—outwith the main raison d'étre of the Bill, which is not in dispute in relation to this clause—he ought to take on board what people outside this Chamber tell us will be the impact of the Bill.
Those speaking on this issue, including myself, are not only repeating to the Committee what we have been told but we are also using our intelligence and experience in assessing that information. The more I look at the burdens which the Government are piling not only upon themselves but also upon good hardworking local council officers and councillors the more I despair. The whole basis of this clause may very well have started off with the Government feeling that there was a need for an additional cushion, but there are safety nets and other measuring rods. This may very well have been seen by the Government and those who advise them as something that would be right. But as all other speakers have pointed out, once down to the nitty gritty it was quite clear that this was not welcomed. It was argued against and the arguments were accepted by the Government save in respect of 14 authorities.
In the amendment just agreed which I support the Government have recognised that there is no need for the four named authorities to be included. The Association of London Authorities—of which I have the honour to be president—and the London Boroughs Association, which together represent all the London authorities, and CIPFA, say that they do not want anything to do with residual rating and Clause 58.
The fact that those who have to try to operate it do not want it will not of itself be sufficient argument to move this Government. Powerful arguments have been presented. I cannot understand why, if the Government decide to resist the objections to Clause 58 standing part of the Bill, they are not prepared to take on board the concern about the burdens which those outside the Chamber tell us will be placed upon them.
Initially, when the Government introduced the concept they rested on the premise:
"The move from rates to a community charge will inevitably affect the personal finance of households since single-adult households gain at the expense of multiple multi-adult households. The Government considers that the change should be made gradually by introducing the community charge initially at a low level".
The noble Lord, Lord Hayter, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Faithfull and Lady Stedman, have pointed out that things have moved on since then. Great changes have taken place which will affect the whole basis and raison d'étre of residual rating. Perhaps I may give the Minister just one example which I believe has a bearing on what we are arguing about. When the Government produced their estimates of the 1987–88 community charge they said that, for example, in Camden the charge would be £782. Yet the local authority associations say that in 1988–89 the community charge estimate for Camden is £639, which is £143 lower. That reduction is due to changes which the Government have brought about.
62
The Government estimate of the community charge for Hackney for 1987-88 was £691; the local authority associations estimate a reduction to £577. For Lewisham the reduction is from £677 to £577 and for Tower Hamlets from £639 to £636. The Government are sticking to the principle when not only the ball game has been changed and the goal posts moved but the whole premise upon which the need for residual rating was based has gone.
The point I want to labour, but not at great length, is the impact upon authorities which over the period from 1990 to 1994 are faced with horrendous problems and burdens. Those of us with some experience in local government will already feel sympathy for the authorities. As has been pointed out to the Government, the picture has changed. The situation with regard to rate limitation is one change, the abolition of ILEA, the funding of polytechnics and the needs assessment are others. Who will tell us what the needs assessments will be? No one can give a firm answer on that particular point.
I hope that the Government consider sympathetically what authorities have to undertake. Those 10 authorities will be the only ones which have the job of dual running. Three systems will be required: a system of dual running for rent rebates, rate rebates and the community charge benefit. I am told by the community charge implementation subgroup that decisions have not yet been taken on the details of a rebate scheme for those authorities which are affected. It is quite clear that the DHSS will have to be involved because of the interlocking nature of the impact upon local authority administration of those matters.
How can the Government plan to introduce residual rating without having a clear view as to how important aspects of it will work? An hour ago the Government accepted the sense of what the Committee said in respect of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes; namely, that when the authorities examine the impact of the Bill as it affects them they come up with what appear to us to be quite unacceptable consequences. In supporting the proposal that this clause should not stand part of the Bill, like all of those who have spoken we do so as a device. It is a device to register publicly and plainly that we are unhappy with the clause and that we do not want it. I speak only for myself, but if the Minister were able to say anything when he replies that would satisfy those outside the Chamber who have to implement the provision I am prepared not to press the issue to a vote. Unless he does so I am prepared to press it to a vote.
Lord Glenarthur: When I moved Amendment No. 123G I explained the Government's basic thinking on the need for phasing in the community charge over a four-year period in certain high-spending authorities. I understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and other noble Lords, about the need to protect local authorities and I accept the force of their argument, but I must point out that the overriding need is to protect the charge payer, particularly the first-time charge payer, from the very high levels of charge that they would otherwise experience in the early years of the new system. The spending levels of

63
the authorities concerned are very high indeed, whichever way one looks at it, and whatever the excuses for that expenditure may be.
This clause provides the basis for the selection of authorities in the provisions of Part IV. The authorities concerned will need to know the basis on which they are to raise revenue at an early stage following the enactment of this legislation, so that they can plan to establish or maintain the necessary procedures for collection. The clause allows for this. It does so by selecting authorities on the basis of current levels of overspending relative to the authorities' grant related expenditure assessments for 1987–88. These figures are already established, as therefore is the selection of authorities. As I mentioned earlier, the figures that are now becoming available for 1988–89 change the picture in detail, and have given us the confidence to raise the threshold of overspending to £200. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, at least welcomes that advance. For the remaining authorities, although there are some reductions in expenditure, it is continuing to run at excessive levels and we do not see signs of it coming down to acceptable levels before 1990.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful to the Minister, but if he rests his case on the basis that the purpose of residual rating is to reduce the final community charge bill to the charge payer, that does not square with the facts. I am told, for instance, that in Camden with no residual rating there will be an increase of £80. With residual rating it will be £171, because once the safety nets have gone and one arrives at the year 1994 there is no assistance whatsoever. In Lewisham, with no residual rating it is £76 and with residual rating it is £144. I do not know from where the Minister gets his figures. My figures come from the local authorities—the LBA, the city of London and the ALA—who will have to make the system work.
Lord Glenarthur: So far as I can give an answer in relation to other figures which I have not seen validated, I must say that I have not yet completed deploying my arguments and I shall endeavour to do so in due course. What the noble Lord says bears on the present spending levels and the course of them, but I do not think it is necessarily profitable to run over old ground again.
Before picking up some of the specific arguments that have been raised, perhaps I may answer one general point; namely, the concern expressed by authorities about the burden of operating both residual domestic rates and the community charge. We recognise that extra work will be involved, which is why we proposed Amendment No. 144B, so as to make available a specific grant to support the extra costs. With that provision we believe that authorities will be able to deploy the necessary resources to do both jobs. It is true that the community charge is new ground for them, as it is for all authorities, and officials are taking considerable pains to guide authorities in its implementation. But the management of residual domestic rating will involve
64
little more than a continuation of the existing system, albeit in a simplified form. Some changes in procedure will be required and officials will be discussing with the authorities how best to implement them so as to ensure the smooth operation of residual domestic rating.
As I have said, the clause seeks to protect the charge payer. I am therefore surprised that the authorities which object to these provisions include those which profess the greatest concern for protecting the interests of their residents. I think that they should welcome dual running rather than treat it as an imposition.
The noble Lord, Lord Hayter, suggested that we should abolish altogether dual running, and cited Scotland as an example. I know that the London authorities have expressed an interest in being allowed to move to the community charge in one go, but their levels of initial community charge would be very high and would increase substantially over the first few years of the system. The authorities exempted by the amendment that I moved earlier have signified their determination to reduce spending and thereby hold down the level of the charge. The fact is that others have not given that signal. As I have already said about three times, our concern is to protect the charge payer in those circumstances.
I am aware of the fact that a request has been made by local authority associations for the abolition of dual running. It was only fairly recently, I understand, at a rather late stage in the development of this legislation, that the associations made such representations. I can assure the Committee that my right honourable friend is giving careful consideration to the arguments put to him and he will be responding to the associations as soon as possible.
Part of the argument put by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, which he used particularly in relation to the earlier amendment that I moved, seemed to be that the first year community charge would be higher in some authorities not covered by Part IV of the Bill than it would have been in some who were covered had there not been dual running, and he cited examples of authorities outside London. It may seem anomalous that in a few areas outside London the first year community charge is likely to be higher than that which would have been found in some inner London boroughs had they moved to the community charge in one go, but that is an effect of the safety net provisions which ensure that the impact of the changes in grant and non-domestic rates income are phased in over that four-year period.
The initial community charge of the authorities outside London will include a net per capita contribution of £75 in the first year which will reduce progressively, thereby lowering the level of the community charge in that area. Conversely, the computed community charge payable in inner London is moderated by a very substantial contribution from the safety net in the first year. As that disappears their community charges will rise to levels very much above those found elsewhere. To protect the inner London charge payer from the prospect of those excessive charges we need the provisions for residual rating to give the charging

65
authorities time to bring their expenditure under control. As for the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, when he queried the ranking of first year charge levels, I believe that that point has already been covered by the answer that I have just given.
Perhaps I may return to a point that was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, when she referred to the City of London. She asked why the city is included in dual running. I must tell her that it is partly because it bears the burden of ILEA overspending, a fact which the noble Baroness certainly did not mention in her arguments. I hope the Committee will agree that its first year charge of £477 is a very high community charge. The fact that it bears an element of burden on behalf of ILEA is an important factor which must be taken into account.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull asked about Westminster. She is quite right. Although Westminster has a high initial charge level, it is a major contributor to the safety net. Its charge will go down during the transition. Other authorities in dual running benefit from the safety net and their charges will go up. So there is movement in each direction across the board. I hope that that is at least in part an answer to my noble friend.
On the question of administration, and the need to administer two systems, a point clearly made by the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, I accept that dual running will involve more work, although the extra work is in the nature of maintaining the existing domestic rating system rather than running a new one.
With regard to staff, we are talking about fairly small numbers. It is interesting to note that many of the authorities about which we are talking have over the past few years increased their staff quite substantially. It is therefore my belief that they should be able to cope.
In the same way I believe that they should be able to manage on the matter of computing. With residual rating we are only talking about the adaptation of existing computer systems to run for a further four years. Although my knowledge of computer systems is not so great as that of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, I believe that it is easy to overstate the problems to which local authorities are drawing attention on this point.
I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, yes, there will be a number of challenges for local authorities to face with regard to burdens of implementing other legislation. I have no doubt that they will manage. But I am sceptical that the establishment of a new system of educational administration will have much impact on how residual domestic rates are collected because that, after all, is a continuing task.
The noble Lord, Lord Hayter, also suggested that the selection criteria were wrong. If I understood him correctly, he hinted that the wrong year was being used. Authorities will need to know how they are to raise revenue in 1990–91 as soon as possible and we therefore need firm criteria for their selection in the Bill. Although the 1988–89 budget data are likely to be published shortly, we do not expect them to show any significant change in the ranking of authorities to
66
be included in dual running. There are likely to be some substantial reductions in the full community charge levels when computed on the 1988–89 data. However, these will still leave authorities' charge levels very much higher than those of authorities outside dual running. We hope that the downward trend will continue in future years. Rates limitation may need to continue to play its part although this can only restrict the worst overspending. However, without a clear determination to reduce spending on the part of the authorities concerned, it is difficult to see how spending could be brought down to reasonable levels by 1990.
I am not sure whether I heard the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, correctly. If I understand correctly what he said about the increase in charges, he was comparing the year on year increase with and without residual rating. The former—with residual rating—starts from the base of a low first year charge—about£100—and rises year by year as residual rates disappear. They are of course greater than the rises which would occur if only the disappearance of the safety net were being considered. But surely it is better to give the charge payer as much protection as possible in the early years for the reasons that I gave in answer to the earlier amendment. That is the time that they will face the initial impact of the community charge.
I conclude by saying I believe that it is extremely important that this clause—with all that it does to protect the charge payer, for whom a great deal has been said during the passage of this Bill—stands part of the Bill. We have, I believe, selected the authorities most in need of these provisions. We are providing the resources to allow them to manage the provisions effectively. We have heard that expenditure may go down. That is to be welcomed, even though it is mostly by encouragement and perhaps by the Government's efforts to persuade them, rather than the authorities' own. I believe that the charge payers will welcome the cushioning which is provided here, while still recognising where the responsibility for sensible spending rests.
I urge the Committee to consider carefully the point about the charge payer. His interest must he protected. I understand the arguments about local authorities. I believe that I have met most of the arguments that have been put forward. I beg to move that this clause stand part of the Bill.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may say that I am staggered at what he has said on the problems that we have put to him. He sums it up in the phrase, "I have no doubt that they will manage". This is typical of what the Minister and his colleagues have said throughout this Bill. They have recognised the burdens. They have recognised the changes. They have recognised the punishment. But they have then said to local government, "We have no doubt that you will manage".
The people whom the Minister has no doubt will manage are telling us that they cannot manage because of the burdens that are being placed upon

67
them. When the Minister seeks in a different context to put the burden of the residual rating system on London authorities, what he has failed to perceive, and to take advantage of as a politician, is that there is a new realism about. The Minister can say what he likes on how that has come about. However, there is a new realism in London local government. It recognises the realities. It recognises not only that this Bill will become an Act but that local government has major responsibilities, as it always has had. It recognises that it has to come to terms with these responsibilities.
I do not speak on behalf of Conservative authorities, but Labour authorities are arguing this point also. All authorities are saying, "We do not want residual rating". The Minister is saying, "Whether you want it or not, we want to add this additional veneer of control, or tightness". On the figures that are produced, I say to the Minister, as he may say to me on the figures that are produced for him, this is what I am told. The burden of the Government's actions will make it more punitive upon the community charge payer in those London authorities than otherwise. I wait to listen very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, will say, because his name is first on the list; but I know what I shall do.
Lord Hayter: It strikes me how completely illlogical it is, when one thinks of the hundreds of authorities in England, Wales and Scotland, that one has this enormous part of the Bill dealing with 14 local authorities, now reduced to 10. Logic and common sense are on my side. I shall vote against the proposal that this clause stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Faithfull: Before we take a decision, perhaps I may ask for some help from the Minister. We all want the payers to be cushioned so far as possible. However, we differ on our figures. Is the Minister convinced by the figures that he has used? A number of us have used figures that we have received from local authorities. Ought we not to look into this more carefully before we make a final decision? Is he convinced that the figures he has given are absolutely correct'? Does he not think that we ought to consider them again?
Lord Glenarthur: I do not think that I gave one single figure. Figures have been bandied about throughout the passage of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, produced figures, which I do not dispute, about the full community charge values in 1994–95 for Camden and Lewisham. I believe that he quoted one other. I am not sure upon what basis the noble Lord gave the figures in relation to the change that would be effected as a result of moving from the safety-netted provision to a community charge without dual running in 1990. If I had more data on those figures I would certainly look at them, but I do not believe that my figures are in any way incorrect.
Baroness Faithfull: Without quoting figures, what I was saying was that the reason for this residual rating
68
is to cushion those authorities which are having to pay the highest. From the figures we have, it seems to me illogical that residual rating authorities are not necessarily those whose payers are paying the highest. I think that was my only point.
Lord Glenarthur: I will look at those figures, but I do not really think it changes the purpose of Clause 58. The whole object of the exercise is to provide the protection which, as I understand it, my noble friend wants them to have. The figures that we have been using in other discussions on this Bill did not seem to be wildly out of line. The fact is that this is, if you like, a means of safety for those who are paying, for the charge payers, and it is their interests which these provisions seek to protect.
Baroness Stedman: If the noble Lord is to look at figures again, will he also look at some of the briefing which many of us have received, which puts a very different complexion on the matter? We are told that the projected community charge in Greenwich, to which residual rating will apply, is£265. We are also told that there are 16 other authorities around London with projected community charges higher than£265 and yet they are not to be subject to residual rating. We are furthermore told that Hammersmith and Fulham has a projected charge of£229, and yet there are 77 other authorities with a higher figure which are not to be subject to residual rating. Perhaps if those are the figures, and they are substantiated, the Minister will understand more easily why some of us are so concerned about these nine or 10.
Lord Glenarthur: I appreciate that concern and I think that this material has been widely seen. These are complex figures that appear on various charts. I too have one in front of me which goes into the details of which local authorities have budgeted to spend £80 or more at the area level above GREAs in 1987 and 1988. There are whole lists of figures, and the figure of£265 which the noble Baroness quoted for Greenwich is the safety-netted community charge without dual running in 1990. I do not think that that at all removes the importance of what I have said as regards protecting the community charge payer in these expensive local authority areas.
6.43 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 58, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 118; Not Contents, 84.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Caccia, L.

Arran, E.

Caithness, E.

Beaverbrook, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Beloff, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Belstead, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Bessborough, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Carnock, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Colwyn, L.

69

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Marshall of Leeds,, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Merrivale, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mersey, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Milverton, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Mottistone, L.

Deedes, L.

Munster, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Dundee, E.

Nelson, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Northesk, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Onslow, E.

Erroll, E.

Orkney, E.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Ferrers, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Foley, L.

Pender, L.

Fortescue, E.

Penrhyn, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Gainford, L.

Pym, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Reigate, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Renwick, L.

Greenway, L.

Richardson, L.

Gridley, L.

Rodney, L.

Halsbury, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

St. Davids, V.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Harvington, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Hemphill, L.

Sandford, L.

Henley, L.

Selborne, E.

Hesketh, L.

Sharples, B.

Hives, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Hood, V.

Strange, B.

Hooper, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Swansea, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Swinfen, L.

Killearn, L.

Swinton, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Terrington, L.

Knutsford, V.

Teviot, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Layton, L.

Trafford, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Long, V.

Trumpington, B.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Vinson, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Windlesham, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Marley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Foot, L.

Airedale, L.

Gallacher, L.

Amherst, E.

Galpern, L.

Ardwick, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Atholl, D.

Aylestone, L.

Grimond, L.

Barnett, L.

Hampton, L.

Blease, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hayter, L. [Teller.]

Bottomley, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Hughes, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Jacques, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Jay, L.

Carter, L.

Jeger, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Cobbold, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Listowel, E.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Lockwood, B.

Ennals, L.

Longford, E.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Faithfull, B.

Lytton, E.

Falkender, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Feversham, L.

McNair, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

70

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Stedman, B.

Mayhew, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Monson, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Mountevans, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Nicol, B.

Tordoff, L.

Northfield, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Oram, L.

Underhill, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Whaddon, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

White, B.

Seear, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Serota, B.

Wise, L.

Shepherd, L.

Young of Darlington, L.

Stallard, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 58, as amended, agreed to accordingly.
6.51 p.m.
Clause 59 [Valuation lists]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 124:
Page 33, line 15, at end insert—
("(2A) Any valuation list maintained by the sub-treasurer of the Inner Temple or the under-treasurer of the Middle Temple under the 1967 Act on 31st March 1990 shall be maintained by the Common Council in accordance with this Part in respect of the transitional period; and for the purposes of this Part the list shall be treated as the Common Council's in respect of the transitional period.
(2B) Before 1st April 1990 the sub-treasurer, the under-treasurer and the Common Council shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that the Common Council assumes responsibility for any such list, and that it is accurately maintained, on that date.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I should like also to speak to Amendments Nos. 126, 127, 128 and 130. These are a series of technical amendments which each have the same purpose. At the present time the Inner and Middle Temples are separate rating authorities for the limited amount of property within their areas. In the future, although they will continue to discharge their functions as local authorities, they will fund this by precepting for their expenses on the Common Council of the City of London. They will not, themselves, be collecting authorities for the community charge or for residual or non-domestic rates.
The residual rating system with which this part of the Bill is concerned relies in part on 1973 valuation lists prepared under the General Rate Act 1967. To provide for the continued collection of residual domestic rates, it will be necessary to transfer the valuation lists currently maintained by the Temples to the City of London, which will then be able to collect the amounts due from Temple residents.
Liability for residual domestic rates is defined (in Clauses 63 and 67) in terms of the liability that a ratepayer would have had under the General Rate Act. For Temple residents this liability relates to the valuation lists formerly held by the Temples. Since these bodies will no longer be collecting rates, it is necessary to transfer the arrangements for the liability of their ratepayers to the lists held by the City; this is what the two new clauses do.
These amendments close a small but important gap in the provisions for residual rating in the City of London. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 59, as amended, agreed to,
Clause 60 [Hereditaments identified in lists]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 125:
Page 33, line 19, leave out ("entries in its valuation list") and insert (", in a valuation list maintained by it under section 59 above, entries").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 125A and 125B:
Page 33, line 28, leave out ("on") and insert ("for").
Page 33, line 35, leave out ("on") and insert ("for").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 60, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 61 [Deletion from lists]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 125C:
Page 34, line 19, after ("in insert ("for any day").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 61, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 62 [Values to be shown in lists]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 125D and 125E:
Page 34, line 23, leave out ("on") and insert ("for").
Page 34, line 36, leave out ("on") and insert ("for").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 62, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 63 [Liability]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 125F and 125H:
Page 35, line 2, leave out ("on") and insert ("for").
Page 35, line 44, leave out ("on") and insert ("for").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 125G had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 63, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 64 agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 126:
After Clause 64, insert the following new clause:
("Section 63: the Temples.
.—(1) In the case of a hereditament situated in the Inner Temple or the Middle Temple, section 63 above shall have effect subject to the following modifications.
(2) For subsection (1)(b) there shall be substituted—
"(b) the ratepayer would have been liable to pay anything in respect of a rate in the nature of a general rate as regards the hereditament if this Act had not been passed, the sub-treasurer of the Inner Temple or the under-treasurer of the Middle Temple (as the case may be) had made a rate for the
72
year, and the hereditament had been included in a valuation list in force for the year for the purposes of the 1967 Act."
(3) For subsection (3) there shall be substituted—
"(3) In construing subsection (1)(b) above—

(a) an order of the sub-treasurer of the Inner Temple or the under-treasurer of the Middle Temple under section 55(1) of the 1967 Act (rating of owners) shall be treated as having effect throughout the transitional period if it would have had effect on 1 st April 1990 had this Act not been passed, but

(b) for the purposes of rescission the order shall be treated as having been made by the Common Council, and if in that period the Common Council makes an order rescinding the order it shall be treated as rescinded at the end of the transitional year in which the rescinding order is made."

(4) For subsection (4) there shall be substituted—
"(4) In construing subsection (l)(b) above—

(a) an agreement entered into by the sub-treasurer of the Inner Temple or the under-treasurer of the Middle Temple under section 56 of the 1967 Act (payment or collection by owners) shall be treated as having effect throughout the transitional period if it would have had effect on 1st April 1990 had this Act not been passed, but

(b) for the purposes of determination the agreement shall be treated as having been entered into by the Common Council, and if in that period notice to determine the agreement is given by the Common Council to the owner or by the owner to the Common Council the agreement shall be treated as determined at the end of the transitional year in which the notice is given."

(5) In subsections (5) and (8) for "authority" there shall be substituted "Common Council".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 65 agreed to.
Clause 66 agreed to.
Clause 67 [Liability]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved amendments Nos. 126A and 126C:
Page 37, line 15, leave out ("on") and insert ("for").
Page 38, line I, leave out ("on") and insert ("for").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 126B had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 67, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 127:
After Clause 67, insert the following new clause:
("Section 67: the Temples
.—(1) In the case of a hereditament situated in the Inner Temple or the Middle Temple. section 67 above shall have effect subject to the following modifications.
(2) For subsection (1)(b) there shall be substituted—
"(b) the ratepayer would have been liable to pay anything in respect of a rate in the nature of a general rate as regards the hereditament if this Act had not been passed, the sub-treasurer of the Inner Temple or the under-treasurer of the Middle Temple (as the case may be) had made a rate for the year, and the hereditament had been included in a valuation list in force for the year for the purposes of the 1967 Act".
(3) In subsection (2)(c) for "resolution" there shall be substituted "order".
(4) For subsection (3) there shall be substituted—
"(3) In construing subsection (1)(b) above—

(a)an agreement entered into by the sub-treasurer of the Inner Temple or the under-treasurer of the Middle Temple under section 56 of the 1967 Act (payment or collection by owners) shall be treated as having effect throughout the transitional period if it would have had effect on 1 April 1990 had this Act not been passed, but

73

(b) for the purposes of determination the agreement shall be treated as having been entered into by the Common Council, and if in that period notice to determine the agreement is given by the Common Council to the owner or by the owner to the Common Council the agreement shall be treated as determined at the end of the transitional year in which the notice is given".

(5) In subsections (4) and (8) for "authority" there shall be substituted "Common Council".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 68 [Alteration of lists]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 127A:
Page 38, line 27, at end insert—
("(bb) as to the period within which a proposal must be made,".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 68, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 69 agreed to.
Schedule 10 agreed to.
Schedule 11 agreed to.
Clause 70 [Cases where owners are liable]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 128:
Page 39, line 23, after ("resolutions") insert ("or orders").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 70, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 71 agreed to.
Clause 72 agreed to.
Schedule 12 [Residual rating: administration]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 128A:
Page 122, line 38, at end insert—
("(ee) allowing winding up;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 129 not moved.]
Schedule 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 73 [Hereditaments and domestic property]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 129A and 129B:
Page 40, line 4, leave out ("or").
Page 40, line 6, at end insert (", or
(c) prevent the person being liable to pay in respect of the rate.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 73, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 74, [Interpretation.: other provisions]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 130:
Page 40, line 17, leave out from ("is") to end of line 18 and insert—
("(a) the valuation list so maintained by the authority concerned, or
(b) where the authority is the Common Council, a valuation list so maintained by the Common Council.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 74, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 75 [Precepts to be issued]:
[Amendments Nos. 130ZA to 130ZD not moved.]
Clause 75 agreed to.
Clause 76 [Precepted authorities]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 130A:
Page 41, line 36, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
("(7) The relevant population in relation to an area or part shall be calculated by—

(a) taking the number of those members of the population of the area or part who fall within such description as is specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State, and

(b) making such adjustments (if any) by way of addition or subtraction (or both) as are specified in, or calculated in a manner specified in, the regulations.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 76, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Hesketh: I suggest this might be a suitable moment to break for dinner. I propose that we return at eight o'clock. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Access to Medical Reports Bill
7 p.m.
Considered on Report.

Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Rear Seat Belts by Children) Bill
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Nugent of Guildford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MURTON OF LINDISFARNE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Compulsory wearing of rear seat belts by children]:
Baroness Macleod of Borve Baroness Macleod of Borve moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 9, after ("vehicle") insert ("with more than three doors").
The noble Baroness said: I congratulate my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford on bringing this Bill to the House. I also apologise for my absence at Second Reading; it was not possible for me to be here.
I have tabled this amendment as almost a probing amendment because my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara, in winding up on Second Reading, said that the Minister for Roads and Traffic would give an undertaking during "consideration" of the Bill in another place that the Government would consult

75
widely about the drafting of the regulations. There is one aspect that I am particularly worried about which is the reason why I have tabled this amendment. I refer to the carrying of children in cars with only two doors.
I have driven a car with only two doors for a long time. I am well aware that people—children or adults—who are in the rear of the car when an accident takes place cannot possibly get out. It is not possible for anyone, whether the fire service or people on the spot, to release children and get them out of the car, perhaps over the heads of the adults in charge of the car.
I hope the Minister will bring this amendment to the notice of his right honourable friend because although, in my view, the principle of the Bill is right, in that it could save lives, I believe it is important to take this point on board. I have tried to get one of my grandsons out of the back seat of a car with myself and another adult in the front unable to move following a feigned accident. It was not possible. In that spirit, I beg to move.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: I thank my noble friend Lady Macleod for her congratulations to me on bringing forward this Bill. I thank her also for expressing her support for the principle of the Bill, which I would certainly expect because clearly it is going to save lives and reduce the number of injuries to children.
The problem concerning the amendment is that if included in the Bill it would exclude over one-third of all motor cars on the road—that is, some 7 million—which have two doors, usually with a hatchback of some kind. Therefore, the effect of the amendment would be to remove from one-third of all motor cars the additional safety we are hoping for with the progressive use of rear seat belts for children. An overwhelming case would have to be made out before accepting the amendment.
In fact, there is no experience—other than what my noble friend said concerning her own experiment in trying to release a child from the back of a car with two doors—in accident records of children being trapped in the backs of cars in accidents. This of course, is in accidents generally and especially in the most anxious conditions where motor cars are on fire or have plunged into water, with the consequent danger of drowning.
In fact, the Department of Transport set up an inquiry after compulsory front-seat belts were agreed to by Parliament. That inquiry, headed by two independent assessors (two professors from the London School of Economics), reported on those particular aspects. The assessors found that there was no increase in deaths by fire or drowning and no evidence of entrapment by seat belts.
Therefore, while I sympathise with my noble friend's amendment, I have to tell her that it would knock a large hole in the intention of the Bill by excluding one-third of all motor cars. Without convincing evidence that it was justified, we could not accept the amendment. I hope that my noble friend, while by all means asking my noble friend the
76
Minister to hear evidence from anyone who puts forward in the course of consultation points about two-door cars, nevertheless will agree that there is not a sufficiently strong case to write the amendment into the Bill. I hope therefore that she will be willing to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Monson: I warmly support the amendment so ably moved by the noble Baroness. However, I have to say that whatever the theoretical objections—and I appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, said—I suspect that those who are inclined to resist it cannot understand the practicalities of life as it is lived by families today.
Assuming they have a choice and that they have not been landed with a two-door company car or that they can only afford the cheapest model in a range—and that is normally a two-door car—most families will opt for a four-door car, especially now those cars are fitted with childproof locks. The difficulty of getting carrycots and, even more so, recalcitrant children out of the back of two-door cars needs no emphasising. Nevertheless, inevitably some parents are obliged to convey their offspring in two-door or three-door cars from time to time, whether on a permanent or temporary basis.
What happens if the car crashes and the parents notice that petrol is spilling from a fractured petrol tank, or if the car is driven into a drainage ditch or reservoir and the parents find that either the door or the seat tilting mechanism has jammed? Most modern cars are fitted with padded head rests or head restraints which are hard but hollowed out for purposes of visibility. I have found that it is difficult, even where relatively neat, padded headrests are fitted, to transfer either a raincoat or small parcel or carrier bag from the back seat without having to get out of the car. It is even more difficult when much larger head restraints are fitted where there is a much smaller gap between the top of the restraint and the roof lining of the car. In the experience of most people, both head rests and head restraints are extremely awkward to remove from the back of the front seat even at the best of times, let alone in the panic circumstances of a crash.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, when he virtually denies that people are killed when cars catch fire, or drown, as I said at Second Reading, more people are drowned in their cars than in boating accidents each year. The motoring correspondent of the Observer, who is almost fanatically in favour of this Bill, admits that 120 cars catch fire every day, so I do not believe that it can be maintained—
Lord Brougham and Vaux: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Does he realise that anyone can drown in three inches of water, even in a bath?
Lord Monson: Why add to the number drowning? Just imagine trying to rescue a child or children trapped by a jammed seat belt buckle in the circumstances of a potential fire or drowning. It need not be the car itself which catches fire; it could be the car or lorry it has crashed into. Theoretically, matters ought to be easier in a three-door car involved in a crash because one should be able to get in through the

77
tailgate and rescue the child from there. However, if the car in question has been rammed in the rear by another car or goods vehicle, as often happens, that avenue of escape is barred as well. It is for that reason and not because of any desire to be pernickety that I warmly support this amendment.
Lord Underhill: I appreciate the spirit in which the noble Baroness has put forward this amendment, but listening to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, it seems that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, need hardly have spoken. The noble Lord ignored almost every fact that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, put before the Committee, including the evidence gathered over the past five years.
I rest the whole matter on the provision in the Bill that there will be regulations which will include vehicles of a prescribed class. If the wide consultations prove the case put forward by the noble Baroness, it can be looked at. However, that would mean disproving all the evidence of the past five years. There is provision in the Bill if we really want to check the position.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: I apologise for interrupting, but my noble friend Lord Nugent took the line that to accept my noble friend Lady Macleod's amendment would in effect remove practically all the value from the entire measure. The noble Lord seems to be suggesting that evidence given to the Department of Transport might in due course lead it to accept the exclusion of two-door cars. He has accused the noble Lord, Lord Monson, of ignoring what my noble friend Lord Nugent said against this clause. Would the noble Lord himself accept that an amendment along these lines, if it were substantiated by evidence given to the Department of Transport before it introduced regulations, could be perfectly compatible with the purposes of the Bill?
Lord Underhill: I believe that if evidence were found on the lines proposed in this amendment, then to a great extent the Bill would not become completely valueless but its value would be considerably diminished. That would depend on any new evidence. By passing the Second Reading, we have agreed that there shall be the widest consultations. I believe most of the amendments before the Committee are ones that can be covered by consultation. I believe that the facts that we have at present mean that we should not support this amendment. The wider consultations may bring further evidence beyond that which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, mentioned, but I doubt it.
The Earl of Halsbury: I supported the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, in 1981, and I again give him unconditional support in 1988. I believe that the best contribution I can make to the proceedings of this Committee is to say that I support him through thick and thin and that I shall make no further intervention.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): I accept my noble friend Lady Macleod's concern
78
about the possibility of entrapment in a vehicle in the case of an accident. Such a possibility exists, but as my noble friend Lord Nugent pointed out, the fear is more imagined than real.
The chance of being injured in a crash or collision is very real and much greater. A TRRL study about the effects of seat belt wearing published in 1985 found that, in 1983, 13 occupants of cars and light vans drowned in their vehicles and 26 died in fires. In that year the total number of car-occupants deaths was 2,109. The total car-occupant casualties exceeded 130,000. The risk of death and serious injury can be dramatically reduced by wearing seat belts. The TRRL study and the parallel study by Professors Durbin and Harvey indentified at least 200 fewer deaths and 7,000 fewer injuries per year as a result of compulsory front seat belt wearing. The advantages far outweigh the disadvantages. Anyone who has seen—
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: I apologise to my noble friend for interrupting, but perhaps he will allow me to make one point. He is quoting the evidence relating to front seat belt wearing, but we are talking here about the wearing of rear seat belts. What evidence do we have to demonstrate that what is relevant to the one is relevant to the other?
7.15 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am using the evidence of front seat belt wearing as an example of the kinds of savings in life that can take place. I have every reason to believe, as I said before and shall say again, that the impact of making children wear rear seat belts will make a significant improvement in the accident rate. Anyone who has seen the short film which has been produced showing how children are thrown about in cars involved in accidents will have no doubt at all about the value of this Bill in encouraging the use of restraints. I remind the Committee that over 60 children are killed and over 7,000 injured each year while travelling unrestrained in the backs of cars. I believe it is irresponsible of us as drivers to expose them to unnecessary levels of risk.
This Bill does not introduce any limitations or constraints as to the number of rear seat passengers that can be carried. It does not require that all children in the rear of cars should be restrained, but only that restraints which are fitted and are suitable should be used. Therefore, as I said at Second Reading, the Government are happy to support this Bill. As has been said, there are many issues that need to be resolved when drawing up the enabling regulations. We shall consult widely with all interested and expert bodies; namely, the police, who support the Bill; family organisations, motoring organisations and taxi drivers' associations.
I can also give an undertaking that we shall include in the consultation process those noble Lords who have expressed an interest in and some misgivings about how the law will operate. We shall not rush the regulations; we shall proceed step by step. There is now a growing body of public opinion that recognises the vulnerability of children as car passengers and considers that they should be restrained. Restraint

79
reduces by two-thirds the chances of a child passenger being killed or injured in a crash. I submit that this Bill is in step with that shift of opinion. Wearing rear restraints is estimated to reduce child fatalities by 75 per cent. and to reduce injuries by two-thirds. Therefore, the Government cannot support this amendment or any of the amendments before the Committee. I know that my noble friend Lord Nugent will be able to deal with them most effectively and I shall not intervene again unless it is absolutely necessary.
Perhaps I may be allowed a personal view from the Dispatch Box. Having children aged five and two-and-half years, my wife and I will be affected by this Bill when it becomes law for quite a long time to come. We always try to strap in our children, and I fully agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, when he said at Second Reading that it is much easier to persuade children to put on their belts when the law says that they must. I must confess that I rather jumped the gun and I am already using that argument.
My wife takes part in the school run and we sometimes carry the children of friends. I have every confidence that the regulations will cover these kinds of situations. Apropos a future amendment, the children sleep quite happily when strapped into their seats. I hope that the Committee will allow this Bill to go forward unamended.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Monson, for his assistance. I feel very strongly about the two doors. I cannot agree with what the Minister said. I do not think it has been proved because so few children have had the ability, as he would say, to wear seat belts. They are not provided in most cars. However, as I said at the beginning, I brought forward the amendment in order to ask the Minister to take another look at the matter and to see whether he could incorporate it into the regulations. I do not wish it to be part of the Bill but it should he looked at as part of the regulations. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne Lord Bruce-Gardyne moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 9, alter ("vehicle") insert ("in excess of 30 miles per hour").
The noble Lord said: I should like to—
Lord Nugent of Guildford: Will my noble friend be kind enough to give way for a moment? With the informality of a Private Member's Bill there are no formal arrangements about grouping amendments. However, it appears that Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are almost identical. I wonder whether my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Monson, will agree to these amendments being debated together.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: It is in the hands of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, but, so far as I am concerned, that would seem to be a sensible way of proceeding. I was about to make that suggestion myself because it is a matter of argument as to where the precise words should appear in the Bill.
80
I was a little concerned to hear my noble friend the Minister state that he did not intend to intervene unless it was absolutely necessary. I should have thought that, at least on some of the amendments, it would be reasonable and desirable that we should have an expression of the Government's opinion. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will not regard that as a total vow of silence.
This amendment is a relatively modest proposition. It is designed to suggest that regulations introduced under the provisions of Clause I would not apply where the car was being driven at less than 30 miles an hour. I was much impressed by the arguments advanced at Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold. I hope it is not too late to compliment the noble Lord on an admirable maiden speech. I only wish that I had been present to hear it although I have subsequently read it.
The point here is a simple one. It concerns a family that is on what I believe is known as the milk round, taking the children to school and in all probability travelling, as a family does for this purpose, a relatively short distance and at a modest speed. Children are collected at various points along the journey. I did not often do this myself but my wife did it over a period of years. Children are collected at regular intervals on the way to school by a car travelling at a modest speed. Of course an accident can happen but equally there is the certainty that children are getting into the car at regular intervals along the route. The problem of making sure that each and every one of them—so long as there are not more than two on the back seat—is at any given time strapped in for the remainder of the journey to school is rather greater than the promoters of the Bill would have us believe. I would not relish being in the position of the upholders of law and order who had to make sure that this legislation was enforced on the highway when children are being picked up at regular intervals and the vehicle is travelling at a modest speed. In those circumstances the danger of a collision is diminished.
I do not suggest that the amendment would transform the purpose of the Bill but, as the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, suggested in his maiden speech, it might relate the legislation slightly more to the realities of a day-to-day life for the average family. I beg to move.
Lord Cobbold: In supporting the amendment I take up a point raised by the Minister. It is important to be clear that what is at issue is not the wearing of seat belts as such. All of us agree with the Minister that seat belts are an effective safety device and that they have saved many lives and reduced injury on almost all occasions when they have been put to the test. The amendments are not concerned with the libertarian issue. Whatever may be the view of the Committee on the extent to which the state would be empowered to interfere with the freedom of individuals—it is one of the fundamental duties of the Chamber to give the individual the benefit of the doubt—we are concerned this evening that the Bill contains many anomalies which will make it extremely difficult to enforce in practice. It will be difficult for parents to decide how to operate it and it runs the risk of bringing the law into disrepute.

81
While I am happy to support the alternative amendment, Amendment No. 3, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, Amendment No. 2 seeks to enable the continued operation of the all-important school run. I should like to ask the Minister how, when he takes other people's children to school, he makes the decision whether to strap in those children or his own. That is a difficult decision with which parents would be faced in those circumstances.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: It is simple. The first in is strapped in.
Lord Cobbold: I am grateful for that reply. The amendment does not materially alter the Bill but would enable this perfectly natural and very much used operation of taking schoolchildren to their place of education to proceed as normally. It is sensible and will be welcomed by parents. It will reduce the risk of children being made to walk or cycle to school and therefore being put at even greater risk.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Monson: In speaking to Amendment No. 2, perhaps, as suggested, I may speak also to Amendment No. 3, which is tabled in my name. Amendment No. 3 is a possible alternative to Amendment No. 2. The slightly different wording of Amendment No. 3 has no special significance, but I contend that it would slot in at a much more natural point in what is a long and potentially rather confusing sentence. The purpose of the alternative amendments is to protect and ensure the survival of the well-known school run.
It is true that the Minister in another place on 13th May (at col. 645 of Hansard) appeared to favour the retention of the school run. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, pointed out in this Chamber only some three hours ago, when speaking in Committee on the Local Government Finance Bill, the trouble is that Ministers change. The present Minister, whom we all know to be an extremely sensible man, may well be replaced in due course by someone far less reasonable and far less liberal, in the true sense of that word. Indeed, he may even be replaced by someone from another party altogether, which could lead to even more drastic changes.
It is not without significance that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, in his Second Reading speech indicated considerable disapproval, not of the school run itself but of the fact that it normally entailed many children being carried in the back of the car. He said that notwithstanding the fact that so many Members of the Committee and their wives (as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, pointed out) have practised the arrangement for many years without the slightest mishap. Therefore, unless some safeguard is written into primary legislation the situation could change for the worse in relation to parents.
Admittedly these amendments are a somewhat rough and ready method of achieving the desired aim. After all, not all school runs are confined to built-up areas. Nevertheless, they normally do not involve great mileage; for example, even in the
82
country a four-to-five-mile run would be the most one would expect.
It is most important to remember what the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, pointed out. If children are forced to walk or cycle they are actually at far more risk than if they are in the back of a car, even in an unbelted state. As I said, it is not too much of a hardship to limit one's speed to 30 mph—or, in practice, to 35 mph—for a distance of only four to five miles. After all, there is no way that the police can tell at a glance whether a parent has been given an exemption for a school run.
I should also point out that although it is true that accidents can happen at speeds below 30 mph, films which use dummies do not recreate genuine situations. It is most rare for cars to be driven smack into brick walls; most accidents in urban areas are sideways accidents or involve glancing crashes of some type. Further, I have been advised that the heads of the plastic dummies used in the simulated film versions of accidents fracture at an impact speed of 17 mph, whereas a human head can hit a toughened screen, as opposed to a laminated one, at a higher speed than that and frequently incur only minor injury.
If the Government can bring forward a workable and enforceable solution to the problem I shall he glad to hear about it. However, failing that, I think the amendment proposes the best workable solution available.
Lord Tordoff: From these Benches I oppose the amendment on many grounds. First, if ever I saw a wrecking amendment, this is it. It removes the effects of the Bill from most urban areas. Basically I think that the people who move the amendment are really unaware of the dangers involved in impacts of cars against other bodies, whether they are glancing, head-on or going straight into a wall. The fact of the matter is that the amount of energy created by a moving body—which a child is when it leaves the back seat and hits something in front of it—is half MV2. I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, will confirm that fact. When one starts squaring up "V" one begins to have an awful lot of energy released. That is why three bodies moving through a car and hitting a windscreen, the back seat or the person in front can do a great deal of damage, whether it is at 15, 20 or 30 mph. The restriction to 30 mph does not make sense in practical terms. Apart from anything else it completely rules out the operation of the Bill in any urban area. Therefore I hope that Members of the Committee will oppose it.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: I should like to say one word in response to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. Like the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, I too oppose the amendment and, indeed, all the others. I think the noble Lord, Lord Monson, used the word "adult". We are not dealing with adults; we are dealing with children whose heads have not yet formed properly and which are therefore still very soft.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: I thank my noble friend Lord Brougham and Vaux for his kind support, and

83
also the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. I am indeed glad that I have found one point on which I can agree with the noble Lord, Lord Monson, because it is not often that I agree with him. Amendment No. 3 is drafted better than Amendment No. 2. Even so, I am afraid that I do not advise Members of the Committee to accept it.
First, may I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and indeed my noble friend Lord Bruce-Gardyne, that the school run will continue. In another place my honourable friend the Minister, Mr. Bottomley, explained what will happen in regard to seat belts in the backs of motor cars. He said that children would be required to wear them. For example, if there are two children then they would both be required to wear a seat belt; if there are three children then they would all be required to wear a seat belt. Further, if there are more children in the car than that, then the other children will not be able to wear seat belts merely because there will not be any available to them.
Just how my noble friend the Minister will draft the regulations I cannot say, obviously it will be difficult. However, this is the principle of the Bill. In so far as seat belts are fitted, we want them to be worn because they will protect children—
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: I apologise to the noble Lord for interrupting him, but perhaps I may ask him whether he has ever been involved in a school run where children are picked up and possibly deposited at different points because they do not always go to the same school. Has the noble Lord really contemplated the practicality of having the adult in the car legally responsible—regardless of the circumstances—subject to legal pains and penalties if a child picked up at one point has not immediately attached the seat belt; and if another child, picked up at another point (replacing a child which has perhaps been deposited at a different school on the way around) has not done so? I say again, has he really contemplated the practicalities in terms of the school run?
Lord Tordoff: I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, whether he agrees that adults should be legally responsible for children under the age of 14, or does he seek some wider change in the law of this country?
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: If the noble Lord will forgive me, I am not sure that is a suitable subject for discussion this evening. Of course the parent or guardian is legally responsible for the safety and performance of under-age children; there is no argument about that. The issue of practicalities does not always receive the attention it deserves.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: I think that perhaps I should continue my speech because we seem to be getting somewhat out of order. Of course we are pretty flexible in this place but there are limits to how far we can stretch that flexibility. I accept that it is inconvenient to introduce this law. I also accept that it will be most difficult to draft amendments in order
84
to accommodate the school run, which will obviously continue. However, that is what my noble friend and his honourable and right honourable colleagues are willing to do, and therefore we should ask them to do it.
It is a difficult and practical point. However, the practical point that I return to is that those of us who want children to have the protection of wearing seat belts in the backs of cars are conscious of the fact that more than half of the accidents and injuries that occur on the road occur in built-up areas. Therefore, if we accept the amendment we will have knocked out more than half of the motor-car miles that we wish to cover. In those circumstances it is not acceptable, and we are left with the practical problem (outlined most cogently by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne) of just how the school run is to be accommodated.
It must be said that the police are willing to accept the Bill—and, indeed, they support it. They believe that enforcement will not present them with a problem. Obviously, the school run will be a delicate affair. There must be a bit of give and take over it. All I am interested in trying to achieve is that, insofar as there are seat belts in the back of a car, children should wear them. In that context the amendment is not acceptable because it will knock out half the mileage that we wish to protect. I hope that my noble friend Lord Bruce-Gardyne and the noble Lord, Lord Monson, will not press an amendment that knocks out half the Bill.
Lord Monson: Before the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, sits down, I am grateful to him for his kind compliments. Despite his assurances that the school run will definitely be maintained, how can he be sure that in future less reasonable Ministers of Transport will not reverse the decision unless we write the safeguard into primary legislation?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I have already made it clear that in drafting the regulations we shall consult widely. I have made it clear that we shall accommodate the school run. The amendment limits the speed to 30 miles an hour, and I see no connection between that and the school run. Many school runs take place in rural areas and drivers will do more than 30 miles an hour.
Secondly, as my noble friend Lord Nugent has said, about 70 per cent. of accidents occur in built-up areas. It would be unfortunate to eliminate that protection from the Bill's coverage. As I said, we shall consult widely. The regulations will be in the form of an affirmative resolution in this place. Any change that might be brought forward by some future Secretary of State will also be in that form, and there will be an opportunity then for debate.
Lord Monson: I appreciate that point. However, does the Minister agree that neither he nor his honourable friend in another place can possibly bind their successors?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I have just said that we cannot bind our successors; but the regulations will have to be made by affirmative resolution and therefore they will have to be debated.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: Perhaps I may ask my noble friend whether he is also taking into consideration the fact that a number of minibuses do the school run nowadays. Minibuses, not just motor cars, also have to be taken into consideration.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I shall take that point into consideration when we come to draft the regulations. As I have said, we shall take into consideration all the points made by noble Lords. I am not sure whether minibuses would have to have seat belts fitted.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: I listened carefully to the response by my noble friend Lord Nugent. It reminded me slightly of a story I heard many years ago from the brother of my noble friend Lord Home, Mr. William Douglas-Home, who wrote a play called The Chiltern Hundreds which was essentially about his father. The actor who was playing the role of the father was called upon in the play's directions to cross the stage, answer the telephone and carry on a conversation with someone off stage. The actor, a distinguished old gentleman called A. E. Matthews, was 83. One evening he apparently "dried", as the theatrical profession says, and was unable to recall the lines that he was supposed to speak. He turned to the leading lady on stage and said, "It's for you, my dear".
I am bound to say that that seems to be the attitude of my noble friend in his response to the amendment. He does not know how the school run will be maintained within the legislation. He turns to the Government and says that it is for them to come up with a good solution. But, after all, this is not government legislation; it is my noble friend's legislation. I do not believe that his reply was satisfactory. However, I accept with reluctance his unwillingness to have the amendment written into the Bill and I therefore beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
7.45 p.m.
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Serota): In calling Amendment No. 4 I should point out to the Committee that if the amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 5.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 10, leave out from ("there") to ("in") in line 12 and insert ("are in the rear of the vehicle not more than three persons some or all of whom are children under the age of fourteen years who are not wearing seat belts").
The noble Lord said: I shall speak at the same time to Amendment No. 5 to which I added my name but about which I must confess that I have subsequently had second thoughts. Amendment No. 5 is a somewhat stronger and simpler alternative, but I am not sure that it will be wholly acceptable to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, and his friends.
Once again, some of us feel strongly that safeguards should be written into primary legislation. What reinforces that belief is the evidence of some confusion and cross-purposes within the
86
Government and among the Bill's supporters. Some of them have suggested that all existing seat belts in the rear of a car will have to be used by children if the Bill becomes law. A moment's thought would demonstrate the difficulty of working that out. If there are four or five children and two of them have to wear belts, the others will be squeezed into a tight space in the centre and their arms and legs will be entangled and so forth.
The Minister in another place pointed out in Standing Committee on 27th April 1988 at cols. 14 and 15 that if three adults and two children were packed in the back of a car, in practice none would be able to wear seat belts. There would be two seat belts that could not be used. Some confusion is already becoming apparent. On 6th June the Minister said, at col. 1180 of Hansard, that it would equally not be practicable to use rear seat restraints if there were four or five children squeezed up in the rear seat.
What the Minister said this afternoon rather contradicts that. He said that if four or five children were squeezed on the back seat two or three of them would have to wear belts. One can see that there is confusion among the Bill's supporters and in government circles. For that reason, I beg to move.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. I dare say that it is drafted with a good deal more skill than my Amendment No. 5 and so I am happy to subsume my amendment in the terms of Amendment No. 4.
Here, it seems to me that we are touching upon what is potentially one of the more intractable and unenforceable aspects of the legislation. As the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, in his maiden speech pointed out, and as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, reminded us, one will frequently have substantially more than two children on the back seat of a car, especially on the school run, and yet apparently the police arc expected to adjudicate as to which children should wear seat belts and which children are properly not equipped in that way. The reality is that when one has three or four children on the back seat of a car, as one may well have especially on a school run, there will be no prospect of sorting out which children are wearing scat belts and which are not. I seriously suggest to my noble friend that this is one of the aspects of the Bill which will create quite intractable problems of adjudication and grave difficulties of enforcement from the point of view of the police and the courts, if it comes to the courts having to adjudicate in cases of this kind.
It is not good enough, I submit, for my noble friend, our colleague in another place or the Minister in another place to say, "That is quite all right. If we have more than two children on the back seat then two will wear seat belts and the remainder will not". This will create impossible problems of enforcement. I should have thought that it was calculated to bring the law into contempt. We must have a better explanation from the promoters of this Bill on how precisely they expect this aspect of the legislation to operate than we have been given hitherto. I am happy to support the amendment.
The Earl of Erroll: I very nearly stood up before on several of the other amendments, for the simple reason that I cannot understand why we pass legislation which does not say on the face of the Bill what we all agree is intended to be done eventually through regulations.
It seems to me extremely dangerous that we should pass a Bill which says that if there are any seat belts fitted in the back of the car then everyone in the back seat must wear seat belts. In other words, if there is one seat belt, then one person must wear a seat belt and there cannot be any others in the car. That is what it says, "except as provided by regulations". The regulations have not been made, they are not there and we do not know what they will say. If we intend that school runs should go on and should be permitted, then I think that should be on the face of the Bill. That is what we are here to determine, not to pass the buck to civil servants.
Having said that, it seems to me that one of these two amendments, Amendment No. 4 or No. 5, is the solution to the school run problem and taking the children to the village fete, to parties and all the other social things that may happen in life. I do not think we wish to destroy social family life and therefore one of these two amendments is essential.
The other reason which I feel has been expressed very well by other speakers whom I support, is that if you have five bodies across the back seat you cannot fit two of them into seat belts and then have three crammed into the tiny space left in the middle. It does not work. You either have everyone sitting in the hack seat wearing seat belts because there are only three or less, or you probably have none of them. If someone can fit in, so be it but it should not be made compulsory by law. I think we must put something in the Bill which says what we mean and not have lots of vague promises. That is what we are here for.
Lord Underhill: I had not intended to speak on this amendment but, in view of the remarks of the noble Earl, I hope that noble Lords will bear in mind what I said on Second Reading. I believe that this is a most useful Bill, one which ought to get Royal Assent as soon as possible and we could then permit the regulations to be fully discussed. Frankly, I am one of those who believes that we should write on to the face of the Bill as many details as possible. But in this case I believe that the regulations will require the utmost consultation. That has been promised to us by the Minister.
The Bill provides for consultation and most of the points which are the subject of these amendments are detailed, in Clause 1, to be the subject of consultation. I should like this Bill to go through. One or two of the points which have just been raised will require most serious consultation, but what I want to see is the Bill approved by this House with consultations taking place. Then the regulations can be drafted accordingly on the affirmative procedure.
The Earl of Erroll: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may say that I think it is very wrong in principle to hurry legislation through just because it seems to be a good thing in principle and then pray that we can sort it out later. We do not debate the
88
regulations: this is our chance to put on the face of the Bill what we mean. We are not going to debate the regulations, and to hurry this through is bad legislation.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: Noble Lords have merely gone over the same ground again about the problem of the school run. It is a problem; we have all agreed on that. While I listened with interest to the intervention by the noble Earl, he has done no more than repeat the arguments which have already been put forward by my noble friend Lord Bruce-Gardyne and the noble Lord, Lord Monson, on the last amendment.
Yes, of course there is a problem about the school run, we all agree with that and it was very fully debated in the other place. I thought that the general principle was fairly well adhered to by the Minister there, that in so far as there were seat belts he would expect them to be worn. I also have to agree that, if the congestion became sufficiently great, perhaps the regulations would have to provide that they should not be worn.
I think that the noble Earl's experience of legislation is rather limited if he thinks that it is possible to put all these detailed provisions in the Bill. What regulations are for is to cover details after minute consultations. Certainly the noble Earl will be able to come along and be eloquent when the order becomes before us. It will be in the affirmative form. If he feels strongly enough about it he could invite the House to divide against it. Whether he would carry a majority remains to be seen. Certainly he will have every opportunity to debate the matter.
However, we really are going over the same problem again. What those of us who wish this Bill to go through want to see is a beginning of the wearing of seat belts by children who are sitting in the back of motor cars. That will preserve life and limb which are now being lost. We know that there are problems with the regulations; we know that they will have to be flexible. After a great deal of consultation I hope that my noble friend and his honourable and right honourable friends in another place will get the best answer they can. In due course we shall see the affirmative order, which will come along for us to approve or not, as we wish.
Thus I hope that noble Lords will not continue to press this amendment but will accept that this is exactly the same problem as we have already discussed, and that they will be good enough to withdraw their amendments and trust to the fact that regulations must be produced which will, so far as is physically possible, provide for the school run to continue and that as far as possible seat belts, where they exist, will be worn.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: I hope that my noble friend will forgive me for suggesting that his response to the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, was to some extent somewhat dismissive. As he knows very well, it is all very fine that these regulations will come before us under the affirmative resolution procedure. But suppose we are dissatisfied with them? We can vote them down and they can be reintroduced the next day. So while we certainly need to look at the procedure under which

89
such regulations shall he carried through under the Bill, nevertheless there is no substitute for having these details written into the Bill itself, I suggest, before it passes through this House.
Lord Monson: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, has made a very telling point. Theoretically we can vote down an order when it is brought in but in practice we hardly ever do. I cannot remember the last time it happened: it must be once every 10 years or thereabouts.
My amendment is simply designed to embody the Minister's admission, made in the Standing Committee by Mr. Bottomley, that if three adults and two children were placed in the back of the car, in practice none of them would be able to wear seat belts. There would be two seat belts which could not be used. This was confirmed by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, when he said that it would not be practical to use seat restraints if there were four or five children squeezed onto the rear seat. That was in column 1180 of Hansard of 6th June.
I. suppose that my amendment goes fractionally further, in that I specified three persons. If I had said four. I think I should have felt entitled to press this amendment to a Division, I should be doing no more than two government ministers have already admitted is feasible. But, in view of the fact that my amendment goes fractionally further than what they had indicated would be acceptable, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure for one minute.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8 p.m. to 8.1 p.m.]

Local Government Finance Bill
House again in Committee.
Clause 77 [General and special expenses]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 130B:
Page 42, line 6, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 130C, 130D and 131A. These technical amendments are needed to Clause 77 to ensure that certain Welsh community charge payers do not have to contribute twice to the cost of the public library service. As Members of the Committee will know, county councils usually provide library services but four districts in Wales are library authorities for their
90
areas, and one more district library authority is proposed. I hope the Committee will agree that these are highly desirable technical amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: This, on the face of it, looks like a technical amendment. Will the Minister tell us what consultations have taken place with the local authority associations and perhaps, in addition, with the library association? As the Minister will be aware, the library movement feels that it has been badly treated from time to time by the impact of certain aspects of the Government's legislation.
Not only the Welsh ratepayer but any ratepayer would jib if he had to pay twice for a single service. As the Minister is aware, amendments have been moved to make sure that the services which are paid for are actually received. That was the burden of the earlier amendments. I hope that the Minister can tell us that the bodies concerned, who have the right to speak on behalf of the ratepayers, are satisfied with the proposal. If he can tell us that, we shall be satisfied with it also.
Lord Glenarthur: I can give my assurance to the noble Lord that the local authorities have been consulted in the role which the noble Lord described, and they are happy. The noble Lord might wonder why it is just Wales that is affected. The Local Government Act 1972 recognised the special factors in Wales which make it desirable for some district councils to be library authorities. These factors consist of such things as sharp transitions in population distribution, industrial concentration and language usage. District councils are able to apply to the Secretary of State at 10-year intervals to be constituted library authorities for their area in place of the county council. I am advised that there is no parallel in England.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful to the Minister for those remarks, which were very helpful. I listened carefully to what I call the "excluding criteria". I can see that all of them could apply almost anywhere, except the final factor that the Minister mentioned, which was language. I believe that the Minister said that one of the qualifying bases upon which this provision would apply in Wales was the language factor.
I should be grateful if the Minister could repeat the other criteria, because they seemed to me to apply to rural, small, specially affected parts of almost any other community. We understand, as must the Minister, that there are special circumstances in Scotland in general. I also acknowledge that there are special circumstances in Wales in general, but other than the one that the Minister mentioned about language I do not understand why the other factors were referred to. I should be grateful if the Minister would explain them to me.
Lord Glenarthur: What we are talking about here is the Local Government Act 1972, which provided those particular factors—the population factor, the industrial concentration factor and the language factor. I shall come back later, if I may, to the details

91
of the language factor. But I hope that the noble Lord will realise that there are four districts providing library services in Wales at the moment. They are Rhondda, Merthyr Tydfil, Cynon Valley in Mid-Glamorgan and Llanelli in Dyfed. From 1st April next year it is intended that Newport in Gwent shall also be a library authority.
In order to ensure that the residents of these five districts do not contribute to the expenses of the library service provided by their county council outside their districts—in other words, to prevent them from effectively having to pay twice so to speak—it is necessary to ensure that these expenses are reflected only in those precepts issued by the county council to district councils which are not library authorities. This can only be achieved if the expenses of a county council are, in such circumstances, special expenses under this clause of the Bill. County councils would then adjust their precepts accordingly under the provisions contained in Clause 76. That is what these amendments will achieve.
I think the other amendments are largely self-explanatory. The noble Lord asked me if I could go into further details about how the factors were reached. I cannot give him an answer as to why the point about language usage was reached in 1972. I shall very happily look at that for the noble Lord and come back to him on it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 130C:
Page 42, line 11, at end insert ("and
(c) if it is a Welsh county council whose library area consists of part of its administrative area, its expenses in exercising its functions as library authority in its library area are its special expenses.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 130D:
Page 42, line 17, at end insert—
("(4A) Expenses which are special by virtue of subsection (2)(c) above relate to the part of the council's administrative area which consists of its library area.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 131 not moved.]
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 131A:
Page 42, line 34, at end insert—
("(10) "Library area" shall he construed in accordance with the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 77, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 78 and 79 agreed to.
Clause 80 [Information]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment 131B:
Page 43, line 28, after ("2") insert (", 9 or 12").
The noble Lord said: This is a simple drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 132 and 133 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 80, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 81 [Levies]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 133A:
Page 43, line 41, leave out (", district council or London borough council") and insert ("or charging authority").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 133B, 164K, 175A, 181B, 181C and 196A. The amendments are technical. They seek to provide that the existing arrangements for combined police authorities and so on will continue as at present without the need for further regulations under the Bill; that the Common Council and the Isles of Scilly will be treated like other charging authorities with respect to levying bodies; and that reference to certain authorities is in the correct part of the Bill. I commend the amendments to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The amendment speaks of leaving out,
"district council or London borough council".
The Minister, in pleading his case, brought in the Scilly Isles. Perhaps he can explain the purport of that inclusion. As I understood it, he said that it appeared in the wrong part of the Bill. Will the Minister take on board our previous discussions concerning London boroughs? I am interested in why a London borough council should he struck out of this part of the Bill.
Lord Glenarthur: There are many bodies which at present obtain some or all of their revenues by making demands, under a variety of statutory provisions, on certain local authorities. Many of these provisions are framed in terms of the rating system and hence can no longer apply in the new system of local government finance. The Bill—the provisions of Clause 121—would repeal all these provisions and in their place set up under Clause 81 a wide regulation-making power which would enable us to replicate existing arrangements for these bodies to obtain their revenue but in a form consistent with the new local government finance system.
For combined police authorities such as the Thames Valley Police Authority, combined fire authorities, magistrates' courts committees and probation committees this whole process of seeking to replicate existing arrangement through regulations is unnecessary as in these cases the existing statutory provisions, unlike many other cases, are not framed in terms of the rating system and hence would be entirely satisfactory after 1st April 1990. Amendments 133B and 181C would provide that combined police authorities, combined fire authorities, magistrates' courts committees and probation committees would not be levying bodies and hence would continue to raise their revenue under existing powers.
Turning to Amendments Nos. 133A, 181B, and 164K, as the Bill stands the Common Council and

93
Isles of Scilly would not be able to take account of any levy issued to them after 1st April 1990 and any levying bodies in their area would no longer be able to issue a precept, make a levy or have their expenses paid by either of these two authorities. This would exclude, for example, bodies such as the London Residuary Body and the Lee Valley regional park from making a levy on the Common Council. This is clearly not right and these amendments seek to redress the situation by bringing all charging authorities within the scope of Clause 81(1)(b).
Before turning to one final point, perhaps I may dwell briefly on Amendments Nos. I 75A and 196A. The noble Lord will have observed that the effect of those amendments is merely to delete from Clause 115 the three subsections that define what is meant in subsection (2) by a waste disposal authority, a combined police authority and a combined fire authority, and reinstate them in their proper place in Clause 142. That clause, together with Clauses 143 and 144. provides for the interpretation of the terms used in the Bill as a whole. It is therefore a small piece of tidying up.
The amendments delete references to specific charging authorities. I believe that that is the point about which the noble Lord expressed concern. The clause refers to charging authorities which include London boroughs, district councils, the Isles of Scilly and the Common Council. I believe that that covers the point made by the noble Lord; I assure him that the amendments are purely technical.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I appreciate what the Minister has said and I am grateful. However, it puzzles me that clearly nothing has happened in the course of the passage of this Bill which has caused his advisers to come to that conclusion. In other words, the first premises on which the Bill was drafted were clearly incorrect, since nothing has happened since. Either second thoughts, wiser counsel or retrospection has prevailed. I only wish that that would happen more often.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 133B:
Page 43, line 43, at end insert (", combined police authority, combined fire authority, magistrates' courts committee or probation committee.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Teviot Lord Teviot moved Amendment No. 133C:
Page 44, line 6, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: I am afraid that we shall move into much lower gear with this amendment. It is a technical amendment. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 174A. They are probing amendments. I have already expressed my concern to the Committee about the Government's proposal to give passenger transport authorities levying rather than precepting powers. The Committee has decided that issue. The present amendments concern the Government's powers to further control a PTA's finances.
As the Bill is drafted, the Government have two powers to control PTA finances. First, there is the power on Clause 81(3)(b) which enables the Secretary of State to impose a maximum limit on levies. Secondly, Clause 104 allows the Secretary of State to community charge cap a district council whose expenditure includes the proportionate amount of the levy from the Passenger Transport Authority.
Effectively those powers mean that the Secretary of State can subject the spending of a PTA to attack on two fronts. That seems to me to be wrong in principle and it does not appear to apply to any other form of local government expenditure. It is particularly serious in respect of the power in Clause 81 to impose a maximum limit on the levy against which the PTA is not given any right of appeal. Surely it has been established that where the Secretary of State exercises a discretion on the level of expenditure of an authority, that authority has a right of appeal. Is it an oversight on the part of the Government that that right is not included in the Bill or is it their intention to cover the matter by regulations?
The amendment to Clause 81 seeks to remove the power of the Secretary of State to impose a limit on the levy and simply rely on the power to charge cap a district. That would surely be adequate as the threat of charge capping a district would be an effective deterrent to PTA overspending.
I now turn to the related amendment, Amendment No. I74A, which seeks to provide that in deciding whether or not to charge cap a district the Secretary of State shall disregard the amount of levy on that district from the PTA. I hope that I have firmly establised that PTAs have very good relationships with their district councils. They have expressed concern that the PTA levy could be the factor that causes them to be community charge capped. One can understand that concern, particularly in the circumstances where the levy involves substantial expenditure which may not directly benefit that district. For example, a light rapid transport system in a regional centre such as Manchester, Birmingham or Leeds may not be felt by adjoining districts to be to their immediate benefit.
As the Bill is currently drafted, the Secretary of State could impose a limit on a PTA levy and then community charge cap a district whose proposed expenditure has gone over the limit because of the size of the PTA levy. Surely that is unreasonable because it does not apply to other elements of local government expenditure.
I should be content if the Government would confirm, first, that a right of appeal would be given to the PTA against the Secretary of State's decision to impose a maximum limit on the levy, and, secondly, that the levy will be disregarded in deciding whether a district is to be community charge capped. I could then accept the Secretary of State's retaining the power to set a maximum limit on the levy.
I realise that this is a very complicated technical amendment, and perhaps I have not done justice to it. I have been through it about six times. I understand it but perhaps I have not made it clear. However, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, who will follow me, will make it as clear as daylight. I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: I am sure that noble Lords have followed what the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, said. I thought that he put his case very cogently. He reminded the Committee that last Tuesday we debated the question of the precepting of passenger transport authorities being changed to levying. I remind the Committee that on that occasion nine noble Lords spoke and not one of them supported the government attitude on this matter. I was the only speaker from the Labour Opposition. That indicates the all-round support. We may still have to determine certain aspects of the matter in the light of the proposition put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, who said that he was considering the possibility of a suitable amendment at Report stage.
I must echo the question as to why the Government are seeking to take power in Clause 81 to impose by regulation a maximum limit on any levy that may be charged. Perhaps I may remind noble Lords what has happened in recent years. I think my dates are correct. In 1983 we had the Act which made it necessary for a passenger transport executive to seek government approval for its financial plans. We had what we commonly term the PEL—the protected expenditure limit. We then had in the 1985 Transport Act control of the precept for the first three years of the new joint transport authorities in the metropolitan areas; namely, the passenger transport authorities. The Committee will recall that the noble Lord. Lord Jenkin of Roding, reminded the Committee that we are still in the third year of that transitional arrangement.
Now the Government seek under Clause 81 to control the maximum amount of levy. Yet the main argument put forward for the change from passenger transport authority precepting to levying was one of accountability. The proposal to set a maximum limit on levies suggests very little faith in accountability. Either the Government have no faith in accountability—although that was their argument for changing precepting of PTAs to levying—or alternatively it is a further step seeking yet further reduction in expenditure on public transport in the metropolitan areas.
In Standing Committee in another place a similar Amendment—to delete paragraph (b) of Clause 81—was put forward. On that occasion, on 8th
March (at col. 1326 of Hansard), Mr. Christopher Chope, Under-Secretary of State, said:
"The clause does not contain a capping power. It has a levy limiting power. The purpose is to set limits on levies where none currently exists".
At that time there was no levying power for passenger transport executives. That came afterwards, in the Report stage after all the work of the Standing Committee in another place had been completed. How does that statement by the Under-Secretary of State in the Standing Committee in another place fit in with the decision taken on Report to introduce levying for PTAs in place of precepting? As the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, has said, the amendment must be considered with the provision in Clause 104 for the designation of a charging authority; that is, community charge capping on the same basis as there is presently rate capping.
96
I want to emphasise, as the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, mentioned in his opening remarks, that we could find a passenger transport authority having its expenditure controlled in two ways: directly by the limit placed on the levy of a PTA under Clause 81, and indirectly by a district council being charge capped under the provision in the Bill for community charge capping. There is the possibility that the district council may consider that the levy from the PTA must be curtailed to help to bring the district council's expenditure to a level which the Secretary of State may consider necessary. The district council may need to decide what curtailment of expenditure is necessary and it could decide to curtail the expenditure of the passenger transport authority.
Such a procedure, under which excessive expenditure could be dealt with twice, seems both unnecessary and unreasonable in the light of the power under Clause 81 to set a maximum limit on a levy. Any such pressure by a district council would lead inevitably to all the dangers which noble Lords stressed in the debate last Tuesday. I remind the Committee that not one noble Lord spoke in support of the government proposal. Noble Lord after noble Lord stressed the importance of a passenger transport authority being responsible for carrying out county-wide services. Should there by any necessity for a district authority to seek to curtail the expenditure of a PTA it would undoubtedly hit the provision of county-wide services. Yet noble Lords from the government side stressed that it was the provision of county-wide services which was the very reason for PTAs being set up in the first place.
Amendment No. 133C seeks to delete paragraph (b) from Clause 81, removing the power of the Secretary of State to set a maximum limit on levies, thereby adhering to the Government's own faith in the accountability of elected members. In addition, Amendment No. 174A, to Clause 104, proposes that where the Secretary of State designates a district council to proceed with charge capping, the amount of any levy from the PTA shall be disregarded in calculating the district council's expenditure. I think I am correct in saying that under the precepting procedure the precept of a PTA would not be taken into consideration for the local council's expenditure because it is the precepting authority's expenditure and not the local authority's expenditure.
Under the present rate capping provisions there is the right of appeal to the Secretary of State and the right of challenge under Clause 108 for the proposed community charge capping. I shall repeat the question which I believe was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot; namely, why is there to be no provision for any right of appeal by a levy-charging body against any maximum levy which might be set by the Secretary of State.
If there is to be a maximum levy set by the Secretary of State, I cannot understand why there should not be a right of appeal against it. At the moment we have an appeal against determination for rate capping and there is also provision for any challenge against the precept level. We ought at least to have a right of appeal on the matter of any maximum levying. I hope that the Minister will see the common sense in these two amendments, bearing

97
in mind what I have said about the statement made by the Under-Secretary of State. I shall not read out to the Committee what Mr. Christopher Chope said as it is reported in Hansard at col. 1326, but I hope that the Minister will read his remarks very carefully. In addition to the point from his speech that I mentioned, he spoke of the types of authority covered which the Government thought to deal with by this levy provision. He referred to the Wimbledon and Putney Commons Act 1971, said that it had not been passed by a Labour Government—and indeed I do not think it was—and went on to speak of other minor authorities. When the clause was discussed and passed in the Standing Committee there was no intention to bring forward the maximum position to deal with public transport authorities. That came forward only at the Report stage in the other place.
For those reasons I hope that the Government will at least take these two matters back and carefully look at these two important amendments.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: As my noble friend explained very clearly, these amendments concern the future control to be exercised over passenger transport authority expenditure. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, reminded us that the Government have been exercising precept control over PTA expenditure for the past three years. Our aim now is to create an environment in which that is no longer necessary. I trust therefore that I can demonstrate that the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord Teviot and by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, are unfounded.
I turn first to the power to set a maximum on the levy. This power applies to all levying bodies and is not designed simply as a means of limiting PTA expenditure. Rather the power is needed to preserve existing statutory limits over those levying bodies which are at present bound by them. These bodies will generally be small boards which have in their legislation a maximum levy expressed in terms of existing rating legislation.
I can give another example to add to the one referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill: the Tunbridge Wells conservators with an existing maximum of one-third of a penny in the pound. Without the power which my noble friend's amendment seeks to remove, it would not be possible to set a new maximum expressed in terms of community charge legislation. The conservators and many other boards like them would thus be left without a statutory limit on their levy. While it may well be doubted whether the Tunbridge Wells conservators will rush to take up this new found freedom, I am sure that the Committee can appreciate the difficulties the loss of this power would present overall.
I do not believe these are difficulties that we need face, because I can assure my noble friend and the Committee that we have no present intention of using this power to set limits on PTA expenditure. Indeed, we would not wish to do so except in very exceptional circumstances—both because of the very absence of a statutory mechanism for consultation and appeal,
98
to which my noble friend Lord Teviot and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, referred, and because the whole thrust of the change to direct billing is that it is the districts who should take a greater responsibility for PTA spending decisions and not central government. There is no intention of running a dual control system of levy and charge limitation as my noble friend suggested.
I turn now to my noble friend's amendment, Amendment No. 174A, on charge limitation. If districts are to take full responsibility for PTA spending decisions, then the PTA bill must be treated as part of their expenditure for all purposes, and that includes charge limitation. If this amendment were carried districts would be able to support excessive PTA expenditure without fear of being charge capped. Concern has been expressed that the charge to billing will lead directly to some districts being charge limited. If that is indeed the case then those districts must already be overspending significantly.
A district's share of PTA expenditure will be just 6 per cent. of its total expenditure and the transfer of PTA expenditure to the districts will he adjusted for in selecting districts for precept limitation. Districts have control over PTA budgets. A district on the edge of charge limitation can instruct its representatives to press for a lower level of expenditure. If that fails, it will have to make cuts in other areas of its budget just as it would to accommodate any other fixed expenditure items. Furthermore, I can assure the Committee that should the district still be precept limited the fixed nature of the PTA bill would be taken into account in determining the appropriate limit. With the increased accountability which will result from the change to the community charge we naturally hope that no districts will give cause for charge limitation.
My noble friend has asked me to give two assurances: that a right of appeal should be given to the PTA against the imposition of a maximum limit on the levy; and that the levy should be disregarded in deciding whether a district is to be charge capped. I cannot give him precisely those assurances, but I can give him two which I believe will meet his concerns. Firstly, I can assure him that in the remote event—and I emphasise that it is remote—of our proposing to use the power to impose a maximum on the levy, we should discuss the matter fully with the PTA concerned before final decisions were taken. Secondly I can assure him that in the process of charge capping the fact that the PTA bill was fixed would have a bearing—not at the point of deciding whether to charge cap a district but at the stage of determining the limit. The fixed nature of the PTA bill would, like other items of relevant information, be taken into account at that stage by the Secretary of State. I hope that my noble friend can accept what I have said on those two points and that on reflection he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Underhill: Before the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, tells us his intentions on this amendment, perhaps I may ask the Minister to clarify two statements that he made which I may have misheard. I believe in the first part of his remarks he said that the Government had no intention of fixing a

99
maximum limit on the levy for a a PTA. Later, toward the close of his speech, he said that if any maximum levy were to be set they would have discussions with the PTA concerned. Which is the Government's intention? If it is the former I hope that the Government will introduce an amendment to Clause 81 excluding that maximum from PTAs.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Let me repeat what I said at the beginning of my remarks. I said that we had no present intention of using this power to set limits on PTA expenditure and that we would not wish to do so except in very exceptional circumstances. However, I cannot give an undertaking that it might never be done.
Lord Teviot: I feel much happier about his matter. One result of being attacked on two fronts has been that my noble friend has absolutely allayed any fears. He was kind about my speech. I had felt that a smelly old schoolmaster in his pipe-smoked tweed coat and grey flannel trousers would give Teviot four out of 10 and Underhill eight out of 10 for their contributions. I do not think he would have had to say anything about my noble friend.
I feel much happier about the matter and I shall read every word of the discussion. I am very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, spoke when he did. I think that everything is now fairly clear. However, I have a duty to take advice and I may have to come back at a later stage. At this time I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 81, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 82 [Interpretation]:
[Amendments Nos. 134 and 135 not moved.]
Clause 82 agreed to.
Clause 83 agreed to.
Clause 84 [Revenue support grant]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 136:
Page 45, line 45, at end insert ("and
(cc) what amount of grant he proposes to pay to receiving authorities in reimbursement of the costs incurred by charging authorities in respect of the duties imposed by sections 21 and 23 (4) of this Act".).
The noble Lord said: With this amendment we move to Part VI of the Bill, which concerns grants. Reference has already been made to the grants position in debates earlier this afternoon. Indeed, I was gratified to find the Minister making favourable references to this amendment when he spoke on Amendment No. 119A earlier this afternoon. I believe that I am right in saying that he referred to the text of Amendment No. 136.
With this amendment we are not making dramatic changes to the grants system. However, before moving to Amendment No. 136—and I wish also to speak to Amendment No. 140—I ought to say something about our general attitude towards the grants system. In view of the huge uncertainty about
100
the level and product of the community charge, and indeed of the national business tax, it is clear that the grants system will be the only way in which the Government can reinstate any measure of sense into the system of local authority finance.
It is quite clear that we shall have to have some needs and resources calculation. What is regrettable, indeed indefensible, in the Government's proposals in Part VI of the Bill is that the Government are giving no indication whatsoever of the way in which the revenue support grants will be calculated, on what principle they will be calculated, or on how justice will be done between one individual authority and another or between one class of authority and another. In that sense the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham, used the word "skeletal" on a number of occasions about the Bill. This is a skeleton of a Bill. It has no flesh on its bones. It does not tell us anything other than the classic formulation which we have in Bills of this kind which provides that the Secretary of State shall do as he thinks fit and that we shall have to trust not only this Secretary of State but no doubt successor Secretaries of State if we doubt that there is going to be any justice in local authority financing. At the moment I am not inclined to trust any Secretary of State—present, past or future—to exercise such wide powers as are conferred upon him by this Bill, and in particular by this part.
In view of the moderation of my remarks I hope that the Government will feel that these amendments are capable of sympathetic treatment. The first aim is to provide that when the Secretary of State determines the amount of revenue support grant he must inform the local authorities and the public how much of the grant is being paid for the administration of the community charge and how much is being paid for the cost, in particular, of the registration of the community charge. At the moment there is no requirement of this kind. It is not clear, either to the public or to the local authorities, how much is being granted for expenditure—this is what the public, the electors, the community charge payers, believe that they are receiving for their money—and how much is being raised in order to pay for the administrative costs.
The noble Earl will agree that if we are to have accountability, and if the community charge payers are to know accurately how much goes towards paying for the services they are receiving from their local authorities, and from where it comes, they should know also how much is being paid by the Government towards those local authorities, not for specific services but for the administration of the community charge. In view of the admittedly high cost—I think we can all be at one on that—it is important to know how much the Secretary of State is allowing.
Amendment No. 140 is a similar amendment. There is the procedure in the Bill for a distribution report. The requirement under this amendment is to disclose in the distribution report how the grant to cover community charge administration and registration will be distributed between authorities. This is a by-product of the procedures to which the Committee has agreed as between different local authorities. It is clearly important to know how the

101
sums involved are being distributed between those authorities. However much the Government may feel strongly in favour of the principle of the grants section of the Bill, I hope that they will feel that these amendments are modest, not at all threatening, and deserve the support of the Committee. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: With the leave of the Committee I should like to spend a little time introducing Part VI, which is Clauses 82 to 94 inclusive, because it is essential that I set it out for the Committee. It is relevant to future amendments. It is also extremely relevant to what my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes said earlier this afternoon. It is extremely sad that she is not in her place to hear what I have to say because it would go a long way to soothing her fears about the grants system.
As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said, this Part of the Bill deals with the payment of revenue support grant to local authorities. As we turn to consider the amendments to this part we shall no doubt be discussing some of the details of the grant system, but before we do it might be helpful if I briefly sketch out how the revenue support grant system will operate.
In developing the new arrangements for grant support to local government we have aimed to produce a system which is more stable, more intelligible, more accountable and above all simpler than the present one. There will be a single revenue support grant which will compensate in full for variations between areas in the need to provide local services and will also provide additional support for services in proportion to each area's population.
Grant will be distributed so that if every authority spends at the level of its needs assessment all authorities will be able to set the same community charge. The needs assessment will be our assessment of what each authority needs to spend to provide a standard level of service efficiently. The money to pay for this spending will come, as now, from three separate sources: community charges, business rates and grant. Neither grant nor business rates will change according to what the authority actually spends. Authorities will, I hope, welcome this as a major simplification of the present arrangements with their constantly varying grant. That means that any changes in spending will fall on the community charge payer. The authority will therefore be totally accountable to the charge payer for its spending decisions.
Needs assessment will play a key role in the new system. As I have explained, it will be the basis for the distribution of grant. We believe that the needs assessment methodology can and should be much simpler than at present. The complexity of the assessments discredits the grant system by making it incomprehensible to local taxpayers and even to some local authorities. The new system will have fewer indicators of need, which will greatly simplify the system while continuing to reflect needs no less fairly than at present. Our key aim is to strike a balance between simplicity and fairness.
102
The needs assessment methodology will be set out in the distribution report, the first of which will be in place well in time for the first settlement under the new system. The distribution report can be amended from time to time if necessary, but the Bill does not require, and we do not envisage, an annual report. Each distribution report will apply until it is either amended or replaced by a new one. While we do not intend there to be a new basis of distribution every year— that would re-introduce a great deal of uncertainty—data from authorities will be updated each year. For instance, the number of school children may increase.
The distribution report will describe and define the indicators to be used in assessing need and contain some of the weightings to be given to certain indicator data. The actual needs assessments, and hence the grant entitlements for each authority, can be calculated from this, but only after the total revenue support grant for the year has been fixed.
The total of revenue support grant for a year will be set out in an annual revenue support grant report which will be laid before another place for consideration and approval. The report will determine the amount to be paid to certain specified bodies which provide services to local authorities and the total amount available for distribution to authorities. This amount of grant will be distributed on the basis of the methodology set out in the distribution report applying at the time. This will produce a separate figure for the needs assessment for every authority and a grant entitlement for each charging authority to be paid into its collection fund. There will be a separate and different distribution report and separate and different revenue support grant reports for Wales, where slightly different arrangements will apply.
Once the revenue support grant report for the year has been approved in another place, the Secretary of State will formally calculate the amount of grant to which each authority is entitled and will inform them of that amount. This amount is then fixed for the year. We envisage that, in fact, provisional grant figures will be provided when the report is debated, as is done now.
There will be one opportunity to make another grant calculation, perhaps to put right data errors or to update some information, but any change in grant as a consequence of this calculation will be made after the end of the financial year. Having grant certainty for the year will do away with one of the difficulties of the present system which makes sensible financial planning so hard for local authorities. At present there can be considerable variations in grant entitlements during or after the financial year. This has been due largely to variation in spending by individual authorities, but the new revenue support grant will be independent of expenditure and therefore there will he no change in grant in the year.
The Committee will see that the system is really very straightforward and simple. We set out in one report, the distribution report, how needs are to be assessed and grant distributed, and then in a further report each year we set out how much grant is to be paid. Grant entitlements will then be calculated and payment made accordingly.

103
Having set out in some detail how the grant system will work, I turn to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to set out what amount he would pay to receiving authorities in respect of the costs incurred by charging authorities in collecting charges and penalties and in providing a registration officer with staff, accommodation and other resources. These will, of course, be important functions of receiving authorities and we want them to take very seriously their responsibilities in this regard. But I do not think that this requires us to single out these functions for special treatment.
The need to provide for collecting, enforcing and administering the charge will be taken into account by the Secretary of State when he determines the overall level of revenue support grant and sets out the basis for distribution of grant. The needs assessment of charging authorities will take into account their need to spend on these as on other functions, and their grant entitlement will reflect this. This mirrors what happens under the present system. The GRE for rating authorities covers the cost of rate collection, so their grant entitlement supports those costs as it does any other.
The noble Lord may be concerned about whether there will be a separate indicator relating to community charge administration and collection. We have, of course, said that we want to reduce the number of indicators from its present level—there are more than 60, I believe—and there have been all sorts of rumours that there will be only six or fewer. No decisions have yet been taken. We are still looking at the options. But I think it is safe for me to say that there will be more than six indicators overall. The treatment of community charge costs has yet to be decided but we should bear in mind the overall aim of simplification. It may be, for example, that population would be the best basis for distribution, as the number of properties is now for rate collection costs. And there may be other services which could usefully be taken with this and distributed on the same basis. But whether it is dealt with separately or not, it will be fully taken into account.
The requirements introduced in Amendments Nos. 136 and 140 would mean making available a specific amount of revenue support grant for this service and describing how this amount is to be distributed. This would, of course, run directly counter to the unhypothecated, block grant nature of revenue support grant. Such an arrangement would move towards being, in effect, a specific grant. But the Government take the view that when the extent of central government support for local services has been decided, it is for local authorities to decide for themselves how best to supply them. A specific grant would be an inappropriate means of supporting a mainstream statutory function of all authorities.
Those are the general grounds on which I would argue against any separate treatment for a particular service. But there are other practical arguments against it, too. First, grants for specific functions are generally designed to influence local authorities to do something or more of something than they otherwise
104
would. But surely authorities' own best interests will ensure that they need little encouragement to administer their own finances efficiently? If they do not, they will be affecting their own coffers, and in due course the costs of any mismanagement would fall on their charge payers. I am sure they do not want any more of that than we do. So that argument fails as a reason for needing a separate grant element.
But, secondly, I have to tell the Committee that these amendments would not in any way oblige the Government to meet a greater share or a higher level of costs than they thought appropriate. Even with these amendments, we would first set the total of revenue support grant. Then the amount to be paid to specified bodies would be deducted. The amendment as drafted seems somewhat confused on this point, but I think the intention would be that the amount to be payable in respect of these costs would be identified and deducted, to he distributed on a separately specified basis. What remained would be the general block grant to be distributed on the basis set out in the distribution report. In other words, the more grant was set aside to support these costs, the less would be available for the main distribution. This arrangement would not affect the total amount of grant to be paid.
It could affect the overall distribution of grant, if the separate element were distributed on a basis very different from that used for the main distribution. But in any case grant distribution would be related to an assessment of need to spend. So having a separately identified element of grant would not mean that there would be any relationship with actual spending. Some overspending authorities would still doubtless overspend. They would get no more grant. High costs would still fall to be met by the charge payer, who would, on the other hand, benefit from low costs. So I can see no advantages from the arrangements set up by these amendments and, indeed, some disadvantage in giving the impression that we are treating these costs differently.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We must be grateful to the Minister for his clear exposition of the Government's thinking in this part of the Bill. It certainly is helpful to have it set out in this way, and it is a good deal clearer when he says it than when we try to read it in the notes on clauses. Certainly it is a good deal clearer than when we read it in the Bill. Nevertheless I still find myself in considerable difficulty about many of the points he is making.
The first claim he makes is that the new system will he "above all, simpler". I have to remind him that in a series of Acts relating to local government over the past nine years, in the lifetime of this Government, what we have had is not a simpler method of administering or financing local government, but increasing complexity on a grand scale. Every Bill that has been brought forward has increased the complexity of the system, and every administrative act by Ministers has increased the complexity of the calculations to which the legislation gives effect.
Indeed, it has got to the stage where, when the rate support grant is announced, it becomes virtually impossible for real consultation to take place with local authorities and it is, I think, notorious that the

105
effectiveness of the Central Consultative Committee, which used genuinely to discuss local authority expenditure and where the resources were going to come from, has declined dramatically under this Government. So, although I do not deny that the principle of the distribution report system and the grant based on the current distribution report is a better way of doing it than we have at the moment, I certainly deny that it is doing anything more than getting rid of some of the complexities introduced by the Government.
I also return to the charge which I made in introducing these amendments, which is that there is no indication whatsoever of the principles of which the Secretary of State will take account in calculating the grant, or of the way in which it will be allocated among different local authorities. It is all very well to say that the framework is the framework of a distribution report. That does not go anywhere to saying what the Secretary of State will put into the distribution report. In other words, we are still being required to sign a blank cheque. We are being asked to accept that the Secretary of State, having accepted the procedures so lucidly explained by the Minister, has a clear idea, about which we are unworthy to be told, of what will be in the grant calculations.
Turning to the specific amendment, I do not believe that the Minister can have understood the proposals fully. We are not saying that we are looking for a greater share or a higher level of grant for the purposes of explaining how much the administration costs will be. We are not looking for an increase in the total amount. In so far as the Minister's reply covered those points, it may be our fault in the drafting of the amendment. However, that was not what we intended.
In the amendments we are trying to ensure that the extent to which the government grant is being swallowed up in the extra administrative costs required by this Bill, these procedures, this way of financing local government—and only by this way of financing local government—should be made explicit to the community charge payers. I cannot imagine any more modest demand for accountability as between costs incurred by local authorities in providing services and costs incurred purely as a result of government action. I cannot imagine on what grounds the Government can, with a straight face, deny that the community charge payers have a right to know what money is going to the services and what money is going to the extra administration required by the complexities of the collection system.
Although we have grave reservations about many other aspects of the grant system, to that extent I am inclined to say that we shall either ask for the decision of the Committee now or that we shall come back with other amendments on the point at the Report stage. I do not know whether the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, wishes to add anything to that.
9 p.m.
Baroness Seear: I speak as an ignoramus on matters of local government finance but I do not suppose that I am alone in that. I wondered whether the Minister would answer one or two questions. It helps to have the statement that he made but it seems
106
to me that all the important decisions will be taken by the Secretary of State. They are important in terms of the amount of money local authorities will receive.
Can the Minister say how clear the way in which decisions are arrived at will be made? We are told that the Secretary of State will decide, but how transparent will the whole performance be and how much consultation will there be with individual local authorities as regards what the expenses will he? It sounded a highly centralised and somewhat dictatorial way of dealing with the provision for local finance. It is very important because, as the Minister said, any failure to meet the costs of running local government must fall directly on the community charge payers. Therefore they have a direct interest in wanting to know how the support grant has been calculated and whether it has been calculated correctly.
I should like to ask the Minister one further question. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has come into the Committee at this moment. During the debate on the Education Reform Bill the noble Lord told me that I would have my answer to this question when the local government Bill was before the Committee. It has now come before the Committee. Given that the redistribution carried out by ILEA is being moved with the abolition of that body, many Members are concerned about how the level of spending for schools in the poorer boroughs will be sustained. Unless the support grant is able to compensate for the loss of the elements which, through ILEA, redistributed amounts from the wealthier boroughs to the poorer boroughs, the schools in the poorer areas will quickly become sink schools. Can the Minister tell the Committee that that will not happen and that the support grant will be adequate to replace what would have been given through the redistribution carried out by ILEA?
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has asked the Minister two questions. I was interested to hear the Minister say that there would be fewer indicators of need. That phrase worried me more than any other. I followed what the Minister said but I had thought that the "need" element for local authorities meant just that; need for the needy authorities. I believe all Members will agree that some authorities have more severe problems than others. One does not wish to enumerate them because those Members present know the difficulties faced by some local authorities. Will the fewer indicators of need operate against those local authorities which need the money, particularly the inner city areas throughout the country?
The Earl of Caithness: I should first like to answer the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal. No, it will not affect those authorities which have special needs. The whole purpose of our system is to simplify it. We believe that some of the duplication can be removed. Other services can usefully be taken on a population basis and distributed on that basis. The core point of the concern expressed by the noble Baroness will continue to be met by the needs assessment.

107
Although we are reducing the number of items taken into account, we do not believe that the local authorities will suffer.
I am glad to say that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and the Government are at one in their reflections of the present system of grant calculations and distribution. As the noble Lord has said, it is incomprehensible. We believe that our proposed system will be much simpler because it will be assessed on a needs basis rather than on a spending basis. I believe that that will be much clearer to local authorities. It can be carried out in advance of the financial year rather than the authorities constantly having to return and rather than the grant being affected by the actual spending of the authority.
To answer the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, the distribution basis and the revenue support grant will have to be set out in reports which, as I said, will have to be clear in themselves. I reiterate that they have to be approved in another place; so the concern of the noble Baroness about how clear the process will be is to be debated in another place. Of course, I can reassure the noble Baroness that there will be consultation with the local authority associations about the amount of grant each year.
On the second point raised by the noble Baroness regarding ILEA, the needs assessment of all the inner London boroughs will take account of their new responsibilities for education and the grant collection will ensure that additional needs which cannot be met from local resources will be met from grant. At the moment I am unable to give further details, but I shall see whether I can ascertain more information for the noble Baroness.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I suppose we have made some small progress in that the Minister indicated that he will support my Amendment No. 144, which provides for the consultation with,
"such representatives of local government as appear to him to be appropriate".
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is exactly what the Minister said would happen. I cannot see any reason why he should not give effect to it in law if he is volunteering his agreement with our intention in that amendment. However, we are not debating that amendment now, and the Minister can find out ways in which to backtrack on the commitment he has just given.
The answers given are not satisfactory and these are not matters we can let go. It is not appropriate for me to seek the opinion of the Committee at this time of night but I give warning that, if we cannot even reach agreement on such a simple matter as setting out for the benefit of those paying the community charge how much is coming from grant for services and how much is going on the administration of the community charge, then we are making very little progress in the face of what must be deliberate lack of clarity on the Government's part in saying how these grants are to be calculated and how they can be
108
justified to the users of local authority services. In other words, we are a long way from accountability.
We have other amendments on the Marshalled List which attempt to deal with the matter in more detail but we are disappointed with the reception we have received so far. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 137:
Page 46, line 4, at end insert ("and
(c) shall take into account—

(i) the latest information available to him as to the aggregate of all authorities' expenditure.

(ii) any probable fluctuation in the demand for services giving rise to additional expenditure, so far as the fluctuation is attributable to circumstances which are not under the control of local authorities;

(iii) the need for developing those services and the extent to which, having regard to general economic conditions, it is reasonable to develop them; and

(iv) the current level of prices, costs and remuneration and any future variation in that level which in the opinion of the Secretary of State will result from decisions which appear to him to be final and which will have the effect of increasing or decreasing any particular prices, costs or remuneration.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment is the next stage of our attempt to introduce a little glasnost into the Government's procedures. Clearly, the Secretary of State will have before him, when preparing his reports and determining expenditure, information on local authorities' expenditure. No doubt he will have available to him information on fluctuations in demand for the services and in the charges to be made by local authorities for services so that the net cost can be calculated. I am sure that as a responsible Minister of the Crown he will be concerned with the need for developing the services and the extent to which it is reasonable to develop the services, or, indeed, to reduce them if that is the right thing to do. After all, the Secretary of State is taking a very close interest in local authority expenditure. He will not deny that. He must be properly informed about all these matters in order to reach a just decision.
The Secretary of State will have to be concerned with the level of prices, costs and remunerations which apply to local authorities. I do not want to repeat the argument that we had last week about the relevance of the retail prices index, but there was a great deal of recognition that there are considerations and other local authority costs which vary from the retail prices index. It is not possible to operate on too simple a formula.
I am not arguing for complexity for its own sake: I am saying that the Secretary of State, if he is behaving responsibly in preparing these calculations, will have to take matters of that sort into account. There is no obligation on him to do so in the Bill as drafted and it seems reasonable that he should be required to do so if we are to have any confidence that the decision he arrives at is justified.
It is not just a matter of the nature of the Secretary of State's considerations: it is a question of whether the judgment which another place takes when these orders are placed before it is based on information

109
which is reliable. Unless these calculations are made available to Members in another place they cannot make a sensible judgment whether the Secretary of State himself is sensibly determining the level of support grant or whether his distribution reports are realistic. In that sense, though it is not proposed that these regulations should come before this Committee, it is not inappropriate for us at this time to suggest the kind of background information and the basis of calculation which the Secretary of State will have to use and which he should be taking into account, and which, I suggest, he should be making available to another place in order that they may approve the order with the due concern and responsibility which they must have for these matters. On this basis I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: As we have heard, the purpose of Amendment No. 137 is to re-introduce into the Bill those factors which the Secretary of State is required to take into account before determining rate support grant in the present system under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. Therefore, it seeks to retain a link between the amount of grant and the level of expenditure. I say to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, therein lies my difficulty.
The new system that we are proposing is designed to encourage local accountability by establishing a clear link between the need of an authority to spend and its community charge. The revenue support grant system will continue to compensate local authorities for variations in their needs, but the grant of an authority will no longer be dependent upon its expenditure, only its need to spend. Our purpose is to break the present link between grant and local authority spending.
If a Secretary of State were required to take into account the actual spending of a local authority when he determined the amount of grant, this would run directly counter to our intention that the grant should he fixed in relation to the need to spend rather than on the level of expenditure which local authorities choose to incur. Under the new system, if a local authority chooses to spend above the level it needs to spend this will readily be apparent in the community charge and the community charge payer will doubtless take account of that at the next opportunity he has to cast a vote. On the new basis, it is not something that the Secretary of State should he required to take into account when determining the amount of grant.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I find that answer almost entirely misconceived. In these amendments it is not proposed that the Secretary of State should base the revenue support grant on the expenditure of local authorities, but merely that information on the expenditure of local authorities should and must be available to him in making his calculations.
I suggest that the whole distinction between having revenue support grants based upon needs and resources rather than expenditure is misconceived. It is not the case that revenue support grants are based on expenditure: they are based upon what are
110
supposed to be objective calculations of needs and resources. That is the basis upon which successive Secretaries of State have justified their rate support grant awards and their rate support grant figures over the years. It was Mr. Michael Heseltine, the Secretary of State, who added complexity to an already complex calculation by the introduction of multiple regression techniques into the calculations of the grant from the estimates of needs and resources. It was not at all on the basis of expenditure.
That is not to say that the Government do not concern themselves with the expenditure of local authorities now or in the future because both under existing legislation and under Part VIII of this Bill the Government are taking a keen interest in the expenditure of local authorities and propose to use it in order to limit the level of community charge which is raised. The idea that we are moving from an unjustifiable grants system based upon expenditure to an justifiable grants system based on needs and resources is almost entirely phoney. First, that was not the case before and, secondly, we are not moving away from it.
In both cases I reject the charges that the Government make and the analysis which the Government make about these amendments. To say that information on changes in demand, the need for service development, the need for information to be available on local authority expenditure as a whole and the need for information on costs, should be taken into account by the Secretary of State, is quite a different matter from saying, as the Minister appears to be saying, that what we are advocating is a change to a calculation of grant on the basis of expenditure.
I hope that I have not done any injustice to the Minister in what he said, but I hope that if I now withdraw the amendment, as I propose to do, he will look at the arguments that have been put forward this evening. I hope that he will recognise that his allegations about our amendment and the implications of it are almost entirely misconceived. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 138:
Page 46, line 7, at end insert—
("(6A) The report shall also include—

(a) details of the factors taken into account in the estimate of the distributable amount for the year referred to in paragraph 8 of Schedule 8;

(b) an estimate of the total amount for the year of community charges to be raised by charging authorities and a reconciliation of the factors taken into account in this estimate within the related factors in (a) above and elsewhere under this section.").

The noble Lord said: We try again, without much hope of success and without much hope of the arguments penetrating. With this amendment we ask that when the revenue support grant report is laid before another place, as it will be once a year, the Secretary of State should do the other place the courtesy of explaining what he estimates the income of authorities to be, and indeed each authority to be, from the national business tax, and give an estimate of the total amount of the community charges raised

111
by local authorities and how he has arrived at that estimate.
There will be disputes about these matters. There will be difficulties in arriving at the best estimates. The complexity of the system is such that it is not obvious what resources will be available to local authorities. On the other hand, it is essential that in reaching a decision the House of Commons should know not only what are the other resources against which the revenue support grant will be calculated but also how that estimate has been arrived at. There is nothing more frustrating than the position we had earlier when discussing the residual rate, when totally different sets of figures appeared to be circulating in different parts of the Committee on the effect of the residual rate on the individual community charge payer and ratepayer in certain inner London boroughs. That difference of evidence cannot be resolved on the floor of the Committee tonight, but when the House of Commons comes to consider a revenue support grant order it must have some confidence that it has the correct figures. In order to do so it must have the basis of calculation used by the Secretary of State in preparing the order.
I suggest that this is not a threatening amendment. It does not force the Secretary of State to make a judgment any different from that which he would otherwise make of the recommendations he will put to another place, but requires that he should do so with the utmost openness and make his calculations available so that they can he sensibly discussed there. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: There are some technical flaws in this amendment, the chief of which is that there is no "estimate" of the distributable amount, but rather a calculation, albeit one based on estimates of certain amounts, and for that reason the amendment as it stands does not achieve its purpose.
However, I would not of course argue against it on that ground, since there are more important reasons for disagreeing with the noble Lord. I imagine that the concern underlying it is that somehow in making his estimates and doing his calculation the Secretary of State will not act reasonably, and that authorities will not benefit as much as they could from the proceeds of business rates. I understand the concern authorities have that the changes we are making to the rating system should not inadvertently disadvantage local people. Indeed, we share that concern, but I believe, for good reason, that this will not, and cannot, happen.
First, the Secretary of State must, as always, in using his discretion to make the estimates which then form the basis of his calculation, act reasonably. An authority which believes he has not may he able to challenge his action. Furthermore, Members of another place will have the opportunity in the debate on the revenue support grant report to question the Secretary of State, and I have no doubt that they will represent the interests of their constituents most vigorously. But, secondly and more specifically, the non-domestic rating account for each year will show the amounts of business rates paid in by local
112
authorities and the amounts paid out to them. It will be quite apparent on the face of the account whether it is in balance, in surplus or in deficit. If it is in deficit, that will reduce the amount which can be distributed the following year. If it is in surplus, that will increase the amount which can be distributed the following year. What this means is that any money coming into the pool can only be used for redistribution and will be used for that purpose. It cannot be siphoned off for any other purpose. Conversely, only the sum coming into the pool can be paid out; there is no source of additional money.
The Secretary of State's calculation will be based on estimates which may prove not to be entirely accurate predictions of future trends. However, if this is so, and the distributable amount calculated turns out to be greater or smaller than the amount actually available, the necessary adjustments will be made the following year. In short, I believe that the non-domestic rating pool is being set up in such a way that authorities need have no fear that the proceeds of non-domestic rates will go astray.
I had thought that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, was on the point of giving up, but I am delighted that he moved the amendment. As he knows, the Government are always open to argument and I recognise the strength of his concern. I shall certainly undertake to consider whether we can amend the clause to provide that the estimates upon which the calculation is based should be set out in the report as well as the distributable amount itself. Indeed, perhaps the noble Lord and I might have a word about that between now and the next stage of the Bill's proceedings.
I now turn to the second item. The report is to include an estimate of the total amount for the year of community charges to be raised by charging authorities and a reconciliation of the factors taken into account in this estimate with the related factors in the calculation of the distributable amount and elsewhere. The first is clear and straightforward. However, I cannot accept it because it would prejudge local authorities' budgeting decisions.
The report will, on present plans, be made about the same time as the rate support grant is made, in November. It will set out the amount of revenue support grant to be paid to authorities. It will set out the distributable amount of non-domestic rates. We will provide figures showing individual authorities' needs assessments and the grant entitlement of each receiving authority. We will be able to say what the national norm is for the community charge for spending at need. However, since the actual community charges will depend on authorities' spending decisions, which will not yet have been taken, we will not be able to make an estimate of the amount to be raised by charging authorities.
Since the report will give the grant total and the NNDR, we will know the total of authorities' needs assessments. It is a simple matter of arithmetic to calculate the amount which will have to be raised from the community charge if authorities spend at need. By definition this will be consistent with the grant and NNDR totals, but is is unlikely to be the same as the actual amount raised, which will of course depend on local authorities.

113
For the same reasons there would be difficulties with the final part of the amendment, the reconciliation of the community charge total, RSG total and the NNDR distributable amount. As I have just explained, a reconciliation of these figures, on the assumption that all authorities spend at need, is simple arithmetic. However, a reconciliation taking into account actual spending and actual charges cannot be done in the revenue support grant report.
I am afraid that this has been a rather long and technical explanation of the problems arising from the amendment. I hope, however, that the Committee will accept that in certain respects it fails to achieve its objective and in others is based on ill-founded worries. Given this, and my undertaking to consider, whether we could include more information about the basis on which the distributable amount is calculated, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: As the Minister rightly says, the amendment is in two parts. The first refers to national business tax and the second refers to the receipts from community charges. I must say straight away that I am most grateful for the undertaking given by the Minister about the national business tax and I look forward to hearing his conclusions once he has taken it away and thought about it. Further, I shall certainly be pleased to talk to him about the matter at any time before the next stage of the Bill's proceedings.
114
As regards the second stage, it may well he that the Minister has a point. When drafting the amendment it was not our intention to prejudge the local authorities' community charge calculations. Further, if the timing of the report is such that it would have this effect, then clearly that situation would be undesirable.
I still believe that the purpose behind the amendment is sound. It is important that when the settlement is made the public should know what the Government think will be the result of the settlement in terms of the community charge, because after all that is what hits the headlines when the grant settlement is made. If well-informed calculations are not made of how much the community charge will cost the individual in each local authority, then ill-informed calculations will be made. We should prefer to see well-informed calculations rather than ill-informed calculations.
I hope that we shall he able to explore the possibility of our coming together on this matter and achieving our objective of knowing what the Government expect to come out of the grant settlement in terms of the community charge. without prejudging local authority decisions. Perhaps when we meet we can talk about that matter also. On this occasion, not giving up has perhaps yielded some minor movement. for which we must be grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 84, agreed to.
Clause 85 agreed to.
9.30 p.m.
Clause 86 [Distribution reports]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 139:
Page 46, line 32, leave out subsections (1) to (3) and insert—
("(1) The Secretary of State shall—

(a) determine in relation to each charging and precepting authority notional expenditure assessments having regard to their functions and needs in accordance with principles to be applied to all authorities, and

(b) make a report containing the basis on which he proposes to distribute among receiving authorities those amounts of revenue support grant which fall to be paid to such authorities under this Part, being a basis which has regard to the notional expenditure assessment determined under subsection (1) (a) above.

(2) Before determining the notional expenditure assessment or making the report under subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State shall consult such representatives of local government as appear to him to be appropriate.
(3) This report shall be laid before the House of Commons and shall specify the principles on which the notional expenditure assessments and basis of distribution are determined.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 139 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 141 and 144. I misjudged the Minister when he agreed to the principle behind Amendment No. 144, because I think that he was also agreeing to the principle behind No. 141. I take it that he will be able to accept those amendments and that I can concentrate upon Amendment No. 139. It is of more importance than may appear from the wording of the amendment. The point behind it, which must never be lost sight of, is what I think economists call the gearing.
If there is any error in the Government's assessments of the needs of a local authority and those needs have to be met by raising expenditure, the very fact that so much of local authority expenditure is financed from central sources—that is, the grants element and the national business tax element—the effect of any miscalculation of needs on the final community charge levied will be much greater than one for one. One cannot put a figure on it. But if, for example. there were a 10 per cent. error in the assessment of needs, or there were to be a 10 per cent. change in needs through no error on the Government's part—one of the points made in the earlier amendment we debated—the effect on the community charge, because of the gearing, could be 20 per cent., 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. That is the nature of the beast which has been recommended to the country by the Government. It is a dangerous and inflexible beast. The dragon flicks its tail and all sorts of unintended effects, about which the dragon with its small brain does not know, can result.
The Secretary of State must do everything he can to establish what the needs of local authorities are, in accordance with the acceptable, understood and agreed principles, and make that information available to the public. The object of the exercise—accountability—cannot be achieved unless the Secretary of State acts with the utmost openness and consistency in making his calculations and explaining how they are arrived at.
Those matters are too important to be raised and withdrawn in a few minutes after a bland government
116
reply. I hope that I can expect the kind of sympathetic treatment from the Minister that we had on the last amendment. I hope that he will confirm his commitment to consultation with local authorities which is being debated in this group of amendments also. I hope that I shall be able to withdraw these amendments or have them accepted with a light heart. But if that is not the case, if we are not making progress towards openness on the part of the Secretary of State in arriving at his grant settlement, then I am bound to say that we are moving even further from the principle of accountability which is the Government's main justification for all these amazing administrative procedures and the amazing social injustice which is involved with the community charge.
Unless we have an indication of understanding and assent from the Government, then this matter will have to be taken further, either now or at a later stage. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: The noble Lord has given us a full explanation of the purpose of these amendments. He sees Amendment No. 139 no doubt as a safeguard for local authorities, setting constraints on the Secretary of State's powers and ensuring that certain steps are taken. I understand his argument but I hope to show the Committee that the noble Lord's concerns are misplaced.
First. we have already produced—as long ago as last September—one of our series of yellow-covered booklets about the new grant system. It contains a lot of information about how we intend the new system to work. At this stage I am delighted to see my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes in her place. I hope that she will read Hansard and what I said when I spoke to Amendment No. 136, which was related to grant. Of course it is very relevant to what my noble friend said earlier, but doubtless she too has read the yellow-covered booklet and knows that in the booklet we proposed a system of "needs assessments"—that is, assessments of need to spend. These, it says,
"will continue to reflect the real disparities in the circumstances of different areas which affect authorities' need to spend in order to provide a standard level of service efficiently".
It goes on to say,
"There will be a separate assessment of needs made for each authority and it is likely that these will be built up from assessments for each of the major services, with a single assessment for all other services".
So we are going to produce a "notional expenditure assessment" for each authority; it will have regard to authorities' functions and it will measure their need to spend. The assessments will be based on principles applicable to all authorities, or all authorities in a class.
What more will the distribution report contain? It will describe how grant is to be distributed on the basis of these needs assessments. As the yellow booklet says, grant will compensate in full for differences in needs assessment. If Authority A has a needs assessment£5 million higher than Authority B, it will get £5 million more grant than Authority B.

117
There will also be an additional slice of grant distributed as an equal amount per adult and that will make up each authority's full grant entitlement. The effect of this is that, if every authority spends at the level of its needs assessments, all authorities will need to raise the same level of community charge.
The system is simple and it is not a secret. Local authorities need no safeguard against it. This brings us to the second reason why I do not think authorities need be concerned at the present form of Clause 86. It is not open ended and we do not make the mistake of thinking that it is. The Secretary of State must always exercise his discretion reasonably. He cannot settle on an arbitrary basis for the distribution of grant and it is difficult to see why he should want to. The expenditure of all local authorities is our concern and in considering what level of support to provide, again, we take account of the position of all authorities. We are only too well aware that if we were to act capriciously or unreasonably, some authority would no doubt seek judicial review of our action.
But there is a further safeguard, before things reach that stage. It is that each distribution report, the initial one, any replacement and any amendment report, will have to be approved in another place before it can have effect. I have to say that it is up to those in another place to determine how effective that scrutiny is. The Secretary of State can be held to account for anything in such reports if concerns about authorities are raised in another place.
In saying that our intentions are reasonable and do not need to be constrained, I am not of course implying that all authorities will agree with every aspect of what we propose. Indeed, as some of them hold diametrically opposed views this would be quite impossible. But this points up another flaw in the assumptions which appear to underlie this amendment. Procedural constraints, such as those this amendment would establish, act as legal hurdles but cannot bring about any particular outcome (in this case, any particular grant distribution) as they do not, and cannot, remove the Secretary of State's discretion. This is why I do not believe it would be an improvement to make this amendment to the Bill. It would add to its procedural complexity and to the possibility that we might make a technical slip—and I remind the Committee that it is authorities which suffer in the end if we cannot operate the system simply and flexibly—without materially affecting the system we propose to set up.
Turning now to Amendments Nos. 141 and 144, which introduce a formal consultation requirement in Clauses 88 and 90, which concern respectively distribution reports and the transitional safety net, the Committee will know that the present grant distribution arrangements, and in particular the GRE needs assessments, are extremely complicated. We intend that the future arrangements will be much simpler, and much more comprehensible. It is, however, inevitable that there will be a degree of complexity and a certain amount of mathematics involved if we are to achieve a fair reflection of local authorities' needs.
118
We shall certainly want to talk to local authority associations as we prepare each distribution report. But formal consultation would not be appropriate because that would impose a more formal straitjacket on the way in which the exercise is carried out. We have proposed instead that the Secretary of State should notify local government interests of what he has in mind. He will of course receive any representations they may make, and will consider them before final decisions are made. There is nothing new or unusual in this. We are constantly receiving suggestions and representations which are all taken into consideration.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, was also concerned that there was no consultation provision in the clause dealing with the transitional safety net, Clause 90. The report setting out the transitional arrangements will be a one-off report. Again, I do not think it is necessary for there to be formal consultation to ensure that the authorities' views are heard. I am sure that they will make them known and we shall listen.
I should say to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, that I am not backtracking on the commitment I made on Amendment No. 136. I told the Committee that there would be consultation with local government representatives about the amount of RSG each year. The Bill requires that in Clauses 84 and 85. But in view of the noble Lord's remarks, perhaps I should read what he said in the Official Report. I must admit that I did not take in all of the noble Lord's points fully. However, if I could read them between now and another stage of the Bill, I believe that would he beneficial.
Lord Bonham-Carter: Before the noble Earl sits down, may I ask him whether I am right in saying that I heard him say, as a categorical statement, that the Secretary of State will always act reasonably? Is that a law which the noble Earl proposes that the Chamber should accept as the truth?
The Earl of Caithness: I fear that the noble Lord may not have been in his usual place when I spoke about reasonableness earlier on. Of course the Secretary of State is duty bound to act reasonably, for if he does not he might be taken to a judicial review.
Baroness Seear: The noble Earl really must understand that there are a great many of us who find this an extremely unsatisfactory reply. There is plenty of evidence in this Bill, which presumably was drafted with the approval of the Secretary of State, that he does not always act reasonably. It is apparent on the written page. There is the fact, for example, that we were told that the Secretary of State was proposing to collect poll tax from old men in cardboard boxes under the arches. That is not much of a measure of the reasonableness of the author of this document.
Who makes the estimates of the needs? It is the civil servants, presumably, who advise the Minister. Having been involved in the past in some studies of this kind, I should like to know how they arrive at

119
their knowledge of what the needs are. It is an extremely intricate and difficult matter. What is the process by which needs are determined? The bland description given by the Minister of how it is to be done and his ultimate trust in reasonableness leave me totally unconvinced.
9.45 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: The experience gained by the department over many years of dealing with local authorities stands it in good stead in terms of knowing what local authorities need. Local authorities have never been slow in coming to the department with their concerns or to point out matters on which they believe that the department has not taken their representations on board. That knowledge, accumulated over many years, has enabled the present system—incomprehensible as it is!—to continue. The proposed system will be much simpler. As I have said on more than one occasion, we shall continue to be in touch and to consult with local authority associations over a number of issues in the Bill. I am sure that local authorities will not be slow in coming forward with their views if they have not been reflected in what the department has said.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: As evidenced by the Minister's reply, there are two basic misconceptions about the amendments. First, he stated that we are looking for safeguards for local authorities. We are looking for safeguards for voters and community charge payers. They are the ones who will ultimately suffer if there are errors or injustices in the way in which the revenue support grant is calculated and, a fortiori, because of the gearing to which I referred in moving the amendment, in the community charge that they have to pay. I reject the claim that the purpose of the amendments is to safeguard local authorities.
The second misconception is that the amendments are intended to affect the discretion exercised by the Secretary of State in any way. After all, this is a revising Chamber. We are not seeking to move controversial or wrecking amendments. This series of amendments concerns the information which the Secretary of State has in arriving at his decision and the way in which he communicates that information to the public at large and to the House of Commons when it is considering the order. There is nothing which in any way restricts the discretion of the Secretary of State. It contributes a procedure which is more realistic than the simple fall-hack position of saying that the Secretary of State must always act reasonably or that he is subject to judicial review.
If neither the House of Commons nor the public at large has the information on which to determine whether or not the Secretary of State is acting reasonably, the criterion of reasonableness cannot be said to be effective. That is a fundamental point. It should not be left to questioning. It should be a matter of established procedure that the Secretary of State is open in the way in which he arrives at his calculations, the explanation he gives of the calculations and the results of them.
120
The matter is one of great seriousness, not merely for local authorities but also for those who are using services and paying for them. If mistakes are made they will result either in a breakdown of services, an excessive community charge or a combination of the two. I cannot see why the Government find it necessary to go on stonewalling on important matters of public accountability. I find that to be in total contrast to the claims which were made by the Government at Second Reading and when we started our consideration of the Bill in Committee that the rest of the procedures are justified because of an increase in accountability. When we ask for more accountability and for accountability from the Secretary of State as well as from local authorities, we meet a blank wall of resistance.
When it comes to the matter of consultation, I am not convinced by the answer which the Minister gave. He said that the Secretary of State is obliged to notify local authorities of the contents of the distribution report. However, I remind him that he is only required to notify them of the general nature of the contents of the distribution report. That is even further away from proper consultation than the Minister claimed.
This is not a matter which has been adequately dealt with by the Government. We shall have to return to the subject at a later stage and we shall have to find some way of bringing to the Government some sense—which they appear not to have at the moment—of their responsibilities to the public and users of local authority services. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 140 not moved.]
Lord Carr of Hadley Lord Carr of Hadley moved Amendment No. 140A:
Page 46, line 35, at end insert—
("( ) In making a report under subsection (1) above the Secretary of State shall have regard to the extent to which each receiving authority gives financial support to bodies representative of the arts.").
The noble Lord said: I should like to say a word on behalf of my co-sponsors of this amendment, my noble friend Lady Young, the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. Unfortunately, all three find it impossible to be present tonight. When we were trying to plan ahead we all hoped—as perhaps the Government also hoped—that this amendment would have been taken at the end of last week rather than at the beginning of this. All three asked me to apologise to the Committee for their unavoidable absence and to stress their strong support for the amendment to which they have put their names.
The Government confirmed strongly in our first debate today—that on their Amendment No. 119A—that the rate support grant was the proper instrument for meeting the special needs of particular local authorities. I do not dissent from that view provided the Government will make absolutely clear both their ability and their determination to use the rate support grant fully and fairly for that purpose. As a number of noble Lords made clear in that earlier debate this afternoon, including particularly

121
Members on this side of the Chamber who are noted for their strong support for the Bill as a whole, it is necessary now for the Government to make clear their interest and intent in more definite and specific terms and less general terms than has been the case hitherto.
The amendment deals in specific terms with the special needs of local authorities which have important arts bodies in their areas and asks that they should be specifically taken into account by the Secretary of State. It has become an accepted and important part of our system of public support for the arts in this country that local authorities should give support to important arts organisations in their respective areas and that that responsibility should not be left solely to the Arts Council. I submit that it is of great importance that that practice should continue. It is therefore of great importance that the Government should recognise the strong fear that exists that the new system of local government finance which this Bill proposes to introduce may make the continuance of that established practice impossible or at the very least extremely difficult.
The Government may say that that fear is unfounded but I think that they must recognise that the fear exists very strongly. Nothing they have said so far has been sufficient to remove that fear. That is why we come back to the need which was mentioned earlier this afternoon for more specific and concrete assurances from the Government as to how they intend to use what they say is flexibility that they possess and to fulfil the responsibility which they say that they accept.
Hence, the amendment seeks from the Government an assurance that, in determining authorities' revenue support grant, the Secretary of State will have regard to the extent to which each receiving authority gives financial support to bodies representative of the arts in each of their areas. That principle is of general, nationwide application. I want, however, to argue the case above all in connection with one particular national arts organization—namely, English National Opera. It is not because this is the only case that matters. Far from it. It is because I believe that factual arguments about a specific case make clear the problems of the needs far better than do general arguments over a much wider field.
First I must declare my interest as one of the vice-chairman of' English National Opera, which ensures that I know what I am talking about when I go into a little detail. English National Opera currently derives its income from two main sources. The first source is public grants. To a major extent they come from the Arts Council and to a lesser but vital extent, they come from Westminster City Council. In round figures, in the current financial year£7 million is coming from the Arts Council and£1·25 million from Westminster City Council. This year the Arts Council grant is 5·2 per cent. greater than it was two years ago, which the Committee may note is an increase significantly below the rate of increase of inflation. This year the Westminster City Council grant is 11·2 per cent. greater than it was two years ago, which is a higher rate of increase than the rate of inflation.
122
Taken together the two public grants in total have increased by 6·1 per cent. over those two years.
The second source of ENO's income is that generated by the company itself. Self-generated income falls under three headings. First of all there is the box office, which this year is budgeted to produce £4·5 million. That is an increase of no less than 30·6 per cent. over what it was two years ago. Another source of self-generated income lies in retailing, catering and other trading activities. This year that source is budgeted to produce £1·6 million, which is an increase of no less than 23·5 per cent. compared with two years ago. The third source of self-generated income consists of private sponsorship and donations, and that is budgeted to produce this year a figure closely approaching £l million, which is an increase of no less than 29·4 per cent. compared with two years ago.
Taken together the total of privately generated income has increased over the past two years by 27·9 per cent. Thus, during the period when total public grants to ENO have been increasing by 6·1 per cent., the company's self-generated income has increased in total by 27·9 per cent. Putting those figures another way, as a percentage, the income from public grants is now 54 per cent. of the company's total income compared with 56 per cent. of the company's total income in 1986–87 and 65 per cent. in 1983–84.
I have gone into those figures in some detail in order to show to the Committee and to the Government in particular that English National Opera, far from begging indolently for public charity, has been vigorously and successfully pursuing a policy of decreasing its degree of dependence upon public grants. I assure the Committee that that policy will be continued with great intensity, and I believe that further progress will continue to be made in that direction. Yet while I am sure that it will succeed in making further progress, I think the Committee may accept it as reasonable that ENO cannot expect to maintain the quite exceptional annual percentage rate of increase that has been achieved over the past few years. The more one does in this field, the more difficult it becomes to take the next step forward. But we shall certainly pursue it most vigorously.
However, I hope that I have also shown how vital is the grant from the Westminster City Council as a component of our financial resources. This is even more true in view of the fact that as a deliberate act of policy Arts Council grants annually are being increased at significantly less than the annual rate of inflation. We therefore have to go on increasing our private sources of income as a percentage of the whole to make up for the less-than-inflation-rate increases of the Arts Council grant. If we were to lose the Westminster City grant as well the position would become impossible. I do not think that the board of directors could fulfil the responsibilities placed upon them. I must stress to the Committee, and to the Government—who presumably know it well—that our responsibilities were not of our own definition. They were placed upon the board of ENO when it was set up.
I have gone in some depth into the position of ENO because I know about this aspect. I believe that factual detail about a particular case can be more

123
illuminating, and. I hope convincing, than greater generalities over the whole field. What I have said about ENO I imagine could also be said if I knew as much about London Festival Ballet. I know the general principles are the same and I hope that other Members of the Committee will be able to go into that in more detail.
However, I must remind the Minister that the giving of these grants by Westminster City Council to both the English National Opera and the London Festival Ballet was the direct result of an arrangement made by the Government with Westminster City Council following the abolition of the Greater London Council which had previously been grant-aiding both these bodies. The present position of these grants is a direct result of that arrangement. I submit to the Government that they cannot simply walk away from that position which they created and arranged.
Perhaps I may end as I began by stressing that the amendment that I am moving is a general one and of nationwide application. Once again, I have been stressing what has happened to two particular bodies within the area of the Westminster City Council. However, in other cities throughout the country—Birmingham, Liverpool, Newcastle, Manchester and others one could mention—similar situations, although of a more limited scale, are occurring. I therefore wish to stress that it is not just special pleading on behalf of one or two particular companies in one particular local council area. It is pleading for the continuance of what has become—and with direct government encouragement—an essential and integral part of our method of public support for arts bodies throughout this country.
I beg the Government to take this matter extremely seriously, to see whether they cannot give assurances that we need within this Bill. If for any reason they cannot, they must find answers outside this Bill, as they did in the Education Reform Bill in relation to similar bodies such as the Horniman Museum. Where there is a will there is a way. The Government willed the present position of these grants and they must find the way for them to be continued. I beg to move.
Lord Bonham-Carter: I hesitate to intervene at this point, because I would not like to spoil the very strong case which the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, has made for the amendment he has moved; nor do I want to enter into a philosophical debate about the way in which we support the arts in this country. I would only say that what he said made it abundantly clear that sponsorship, which has a role to play, has only a marginal role—and I am glad that it is only a marginal role—in supporting the arts in this country, because sponsorship carries with it very grave policy implications for the administration of the arts, about which I have reservations which I have already expressed on another occasion.
The main point which I want to make is simply this. I cannot comprehend why the Government do not take more seriously the economic benefits which the arts bring to this country. The fact of the matter
124
is that London is the greatest tourist centre of any capital city in the world. One of the two reasons it is the greatest centre for tourism in the world is the English language. The other is the vitality of the theatre, the opera, the ballet and the musical world in general. That is why people find it agreeable and interesting to come to London, not merely on their way elsewhere but for conferences of all kinds.
I have urged the Arts Council—I must declare an interest here as I was on the board of the Royal Opera House for many years and am still connected with the Royal Ballet—to try to make an estimate of how much we earned in straight foreign currency through the existence of the incredibly vital theatre, musical and operatic and balletic world in this country. I cannot believe that if the Government, whom we now know always act reasonably, were to look at this they would not recognise that this is a huge economic asset which should be supported and which has transformed the role of London in the world of the arts.
Before the war people would not have dreamed of coming to London to listen to music. Today London is the capital city in the world in which more music of every kind is played than in any other capital city that there is. That is not merely important and agreeable for those of us who live in London. It is important and agreeable for all of those who come to London and it makes it an extremely attractive place to visit.
As the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, said, this has to be supported by other centres outside London to which, in one degree or another, the same applies. The Edinburgh Festival is a huge earner of foreign currency. The Edinburgh Festival reflects what is going on not merely in this country but throughout the rest of the world. It has made for itself a special position. This special position cannot possibly be financed without long-term assurances of government finance, public finance; and the same applies to Birmingham, to Manchester, to Liverpool, to Welsh opera and to Scottish opera. This is a public interest in which we have a public concern, and I very much hope that the noble Earl in dealing with this very important amendment will show sympathy and understanding for the public concerns which are expressed in it.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I wish to add only a word or two to the speeches which have already been made, and perhaps rather more specifically than the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, who has ventured into the whole realm of arts financing. Perhaps I may just remind him and the Committee of the substantial provision that was made by the Government at the time of the Local Government Act when the GLC and the six metropolitan county councils were abolished. There was a substantial increase in the Arts Council funding, in order to make sure that some of the arts ventures and companies that those councils were supporting would continue with public support.
The particular point that I should like to make is limited to the ENO and the London Festival Ballet. It is within my recollection, which is just as fallacious as anyone else's but I believe it is right, that, when we

125
asked Westminster City Council whether it would take over from the GLC the grant aiding from local government sources of those two companies, it was on terms that the rate equalisation arrangements that existed within London would be modified so as to reflect the burden which Westminster was taking on. I am glad to see that my noble friend on the Front Bench is nodding assent, so perhaps my recollection has not played me false on this occasion.
It follows from that—does it not?—that if the basis of funding Westminster City Council, which was established at that time on the footing that it took over these liabilities, is now to be changed—and the debate initiated earlier this evening by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes underlines that—it is incumbent upon the Government to make some alternative arrangement that does not leave the community charge payers of Westminster having to face the substantial burden as a part of their normal contribution or, as was feared by my noble friend Lord Carr, allow the grant to fall by the wayside. I suspect that either outcome would be unnacceptable to the Committee.
I believe that my noble friend Lord Carr was right when he ended his speech by saying that the Government—it was I who in 1985 made the decision in the name of the Government—having decided that this should be done for those two world-famous arts companies, it is now for them to follow on from that by making a provision which does not lead either to the ending of the grant or its substantial reduction, or to an unacceptable burden falling on the community charge payers of Westminster.
As regards the areas outside London, the only one with which I am the least familiar is Liverpool and the arrangements which were made there. The Merseyside Museums and Galleries Trust was established and Sir Lesley Young is now the distinguished chairman of that trust. I understand that the trust is faring well. I do not expect the arrangements in the Bill materially to affect what will happen to that trust. However, as regards the two companies in London a specific arrangement was made. The basis of that arrangement is now to be changed in the Bill. I believe that, within the Bill or outside it, there is an obligation on the Government to try to put matters right.
Lord Feversham: I do not wish to prolong the issue, but I must rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Carr. I do so if only as a voice from the Cross-Benches and to reinforce his distinguished supporters from other parts of the Committee. I believe that all Members wish to make sure that the Government understand that they are almost completely surrounded in respect of this issue.
Lord Howie of Troon: I should like to add briefly to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, from the Liberal Front Bench. He spoke reverently of the attraction of London as an international centre of culture and so forth. I should like to add one example to the generalised examples which he gave. This week at the Institute of Civil
126
Engineers just across Parliament Square a meeting of the World Federation of Engineering Organisations is taking place. Why is the federation meeting here in London? There are two reasons. First, London is a great centre of engineering. Secondly, London is a great cultural centre to which delegates from all over the world are attracted. It is a feature of that particular conference this week that delegates from no less than 50 countries throughout the entire world are here. The paramount reason is, of course, for engineering, but in addition it is because they can set up a conference devoted to engineering matters in a centre which gives a wide range of cultural activities which can be ancillary to the conference. The attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Carr, is right, as he so often is and has been in his long career in Parliament. I hope he is supported.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Although my noble friend says that this is a general amendment covering the whole of the country, it is tailor-made to affect that which Westminster council does for the English National Opera.
The amendment is not really the right way round for other local authorities—at least, for those with which I am familiar—in that, if specific additional support for local authorities is not to be based on their current spending but on needs, the Government should be looking at the arts enterprises within the local authority areas for which the authorities have responsibility but which they will not necessarily fund to the same extent year by year. For example, there are museums. The Edinburgh Festival is an ongoing event which Edinburgh District Council and Lothian Regional Council must support. They do not do so very strongly but they must and should support it, and it is always there.
Local authorities vary the support they give to the local museums, theatres and operas for which they have a responsibility to contribute. They are matters for annual consideration. It would be wrong to say that the Secretary of State should have regard to the extent to which each receiving authority gives financial support to bodies representing the arts. It should not be based on that but on the responsibility that they have and they should then decide how much to contribute.
At the same time, the London bodies need separate consideration. I am not sure why the community charge payers in Westminster should have this enormous responsibility for the English National Opera when community charge payers from all over the country enjoy it and many other parts of London receive the economic benefit from its existence. To confuse the two issues is a pity. The Government should be looking at how to ensure that the English National Opera and other similar national bodies are to be assured of support, with the change that is now taking place, and at how to ensure that across the country support for the arts is considered in terms of the arts enterprises which exist in the area and which the local authorities might fund rather than in terms of what authorities did in the previous year. That is more in tune with the theme of the Bill.
Lord Beloff: I believe that my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour made a very important point. I do not believe it removes the argument for this particular amendment to the limited extent to which it has been proposed in favour of two major national companies, for the very cogent reason advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, that this was an undertaking given. All that is being suggested is that it is carried into a new situation in regard to the way in which local finance is raised.
I believe there can be no argument, and I make no apology because everyone here is declaring an interest. I declare a much more humble interest than other Members of the Committee. I am not on the board of anything but I actually go to ENO, and I should worry a little at the thought of someone paying a community charge in Westminster and subsidising to some extent the tickets that I buy. This is a matter that should be taken into account.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said, there is a major case for the nation as a whole to regard the support of the arts among the major objectives of government. I am not sure that it is true of activities as regards local government which do not directly and to a major extent affect the lives of their own constituents. Therefore, while I hope very much that the Minister will be able to accept this amendment, I believe that this little debate—I am sorry it has been so late at night but, as in the case of other Gangs of Four, only one is left—is an important debate and I hope that at some future date we shall be able to return to this very important subject.
The Earl of Caithness: As we have heard, the purpose of Amendment No. 140A is to introduce a requirement for the Secretary of State to,
"have regard to the extent to which each receiving authority gives financial support to bodies representative of the arts"
when he makes the distribution report. As we have already discussed the distribution report will describe and define the indicators to be used in assessing need for each authority and will contain some of the weightings to be given to certain indicator data. Once the revenue support grant for the year has been fixed, the actual needs assessments, and hence the grant entitlements for each authority, can be calculated from the information in the distribution report.
The needs assessment will play a key role in the new system. It will be our assessment of what each authority needs to spend in order to provide a standard level of service efficiently. The needs assessment will be built up from a number of separate indicators of need to produce an objectively determined basis for the distribution of grant. In constructing needs assessments I confirm to the Committee that we shall take into account the general responsibilities of local authorities for funding arts as part of the services to local people just as we do at the moment. This will not change. I cannot go so far as to say that we shall take into account the actual contributions now made by authorities to arts bodies or, in particular, by Westminster City Council, on London's behalf, to the English National Opera and the London Festival
128
Ballet. In the first place one of the major changes we are making is to pay grant only in relation to need to spend, not in relation to actual spending. I can see no reason to make an exception for the arts, however much we as individual patrons of the arts might wish to ensure the future of particular bodies which have given us enjoyment.
I also say to the Committee that even if we were to take account of past spending on the arts in our grant distribution we could not ensure that any extra grant went to increased arts spending, nor could we direct spending to particular institutions or bodies. It is true that any arts support by an authority in excess of its needs assessment, like any other spending above its needs assessment, which will already have taken account of arts funding, falls wholly on the community charge payer.
The Committee will recall that this lies at the heart of our policies for local accountability. If an authority wishes to provide additional services the charge payers in that area must be willing to pay for them. If there is as much support outside this Committee for bodies such as ENO and LFB—and I very much hope there is—then there should be continued support for subsidy to them from charge payers through local authorities.
As regards the support of Westminster to the English National Opera and the London Festival Ballet, we need to remember that although Westminster make the payments, the cost is not borne by their ratepayers alone. It is not solely a Westminster problem. It is in fact shared by all London boroughs, because Westminster pay less into the London rate equalisation scheme for distribution to other boroughs than they otherwise would. Therefore, all London ratepayers contribute to the support of the ENO and LFB. Of course, like so many other matters, this is concealed from the ratepayer under the present system. It follows therefore that it is for the London boroughs as a whole to consider whether they want to continue the present level of support under the new system. Again, if the feelings of the Committee reflect the feelings of those outside, there will be considerable support for such funding and there are methods by which local authorities can continue their support.
I must emphasise that one of the main purposes of these reforms is to give back to the charge payer the right and the power to decide how his or her money should be spent. It must be for them and not for the Government to decide at the end of the day what priority they wish to give to arts funding. That said, perhaps I may make this point clear to my noble friend. The Government recognise the standing of bodies such as those currently supported by the London boroughs through Westminster and we shall he keeping an eye on them. We shall be prepared to consider whether there is some help or encouragement we can give to secure their future which does not conflict with the essential principles of our new local government finance regime.
The amendment proposed here would give rise to such a conflict and that is why I cannot support it, albeit that the Committee, like the Government, wish to see these bodies continue to flourish. However, I

129
take note of the strength of the Committee's feeling on the matter. I can confirm to my noble friend that I shall be discussing this debate with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Lord Carr of Hadley: I draw some encouragement from my noble friend's last remarks and I shall certainly do all I can to co-operate with him, as I am sure will others, in the future consideration of this matter. Frankly, following on from what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said, I am not so much concerned about from where the help comes but that it should come from somewhere and that the Government should not run away from the responsibility which they undertook in the setting up of the present grant system. I indicated to my noble friend ahead of this amendment that it was at this stage a probing one.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, that I accept any criticism of lack of perfection and of multi-directionism in the drafting of the amendment. Its purpose was to air the problem and to seek the Government's reactions. I shall not go back on my undertaking to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. However, I must say to my noble friend that, with respect, the answer he gave in the first part of his remarks does not begin to address the problem. The English National Opera was not set up by the government of the day to serve the local needs of citizens even of the whole of London. They are of course included, but it is the English National Opera Company. Its main role—accomplished, I believe it is agreed, with considerable excellence and distinction—is to serve the needs of all the people of this country and the many visitors from home and overseas who come to London.
Surely the Government—whatever government it may be—cannot expect the ratepayers or the community charge payers of the City of Westminster to bear a substantial part of that burden on their shoulders. It does not add up. If the Minister is saying that this is beyond the scope of local government finance as it is now to be organised and that it will be organised in some other way, that is all well and good. With that assurance, and with the hope that we may have the opportunity to discuss this again in private at least prior to the next stage of the Bill, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 141 not moved.]
Clause 86 agreed to.
Clause 87 agreed to.
10.30 p.m.
Clause 88 [Calculation of sums payable]:
[Amendment No. 142 not moved.]
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 142A:
Page 48, line 5, leave out ("(i)") and insert ("(h)").
The noble Earl said: This is a minor technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 143 not moved.]
Clause 88, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 89 agreed to.
Clause 90 [Special provision for transitional years]:
[Amendment No. 144 not moved.]
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 144A:
Page 49, line 18, leave out ("financial matters") and insert ("matters (financial or otherwise)").
The noble Earl said: This is also a technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 90, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 91 to 94 agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 144B:
After Clause 94, insert the following new clause:
("Transitional grants.
.—(1) The Secretary of State may, if the Treasury consents, pay a grant in respect of a transitional year to an English charging authority to which Part IV applies.
(2) The amount of the grant shall he such as the Secretary of State determines with the Treasury's approval.
(3) In deciding whether to pay a grant to an authority in respect of a year and in determining the amount of any such grant, the Secretary of State shall have regard to his estimate of the expenditure the authority might reasonably he expected to incur in the year in carrying out its functions under Part IV.
(4) A grant under this section shall he paid at such time, or in instalments of such amounts and at such times, as the Secretary of State determines with the Treasury's consent; and any such time may fall within or after the financial year concerned.").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment when I moved Amendment No. 123G. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 95 [Collection funds]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 144C:
Page 51, line 33, leave out ("before") and insert ("on").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 144C, and with the leave of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 164A, 164B, 164C, 164D, 164E, 164F, 164G, 164H and 164J.
District councils and London boroughs are currently required to keep a general rate fund. All the receipts of these councils are carried to this fund and all their liabilities are discharged from it. It is intended that this arrangement would be replicated under the new local government finance system, but modified to reflect that in addition to the keeping of the general fund there would also be a free-standing collection fund. My noble friend Lord Glenarthur outlined the principles of the collection fund when we debated the amendments on Part 11 and today we have considered at some length the arrangements for operating collection funds in England and Wales. We

131
also intend, through the provisions of Clause 98, to set up a similar arrangement for the City. However, while in the case of other charging authorities their general fund will be used to cover receipts and expenditure relating to all their functions, the City fund will only be used to cover those matters which currently fall within the ambit of the City's general rate, poor rate and St. Botolph tithe rate.
Within the general rate fund there can be a number of funds, such as the authority's loans fund which it uses to manage its borrowings for capital purposes, or special funds which are in effect its financial reserves. The funds are not free-standing but are merely sub-divisions of the general rate fund. We wish to continue those arrangements so that on 1st April 1990 the funds will become sub-divisions of the charging authority's general fund or, in the case of the City of London, its city fund. The powers we are seeking will enable my right honourable friend to make regulations which will secure this.
In short, the amendments will enable us to maintain the existing arrangements for an authority to manage its moneys. but in a form consistent with the new financial system. I therefore commend them to the Committee and beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 144D:
Page 51, line 42, leave out from ("held") to end of line 43 and insert (", invested or otherwise used in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 144D and at the same time to speak to Amendment No. 164L. These amendments will ensure that the traditional and effective cash management practices of local authorities continue. I can commend them to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I welcome the amendment. The London Borough of Redbridge had expressed some dismay that on the drafting of the Bill it was apparent that its investment powers were to be much more heavily circumscribed. It is now clear that that is not to be so. In the past it had been in the habit of lending to bodies such as water authorities and it could not understand why it should not be free to continue to lend the balances standing to the credit of the collection fund in the same direction, so I welcome the amendment and thank the Government for having moved it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 95, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 96 [Payments to and from collection funds]:
[Amendment No. 145 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 145A and 146 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 147 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Stedman Baroness Stedman moved Amendment No. 148:
Page 52, line 12, leave out paragraph (f).
The noble Baroness said: I understand that it will be for the convenience of the Committee if we talk also to Amendments Nos. 153, 154 and 156 in this group of amendments. I should like to speak specifically to Amendment No. 148, which is in my name.
If the paragraph were removed it would give to district councils the benefit of the interest on the money collected. Surely it is better to allow the collecting authorities to retain all the interest in the collection funds. It is the charge payers in a charging area who will receive the benefit if they pay early. I believe that if within a county area payers from one district pay promptly, they, as distinct from the other payers in the other areas of the county, should be the chief beneficiaries of their prompt returns and payments. There are sticks for local authorities in the Bill. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment as a possible carrot for a rather better than average performance.
The collection fund is defined in Clause 88. The items to be charged to the fund are listed there. They are borne by the authorities precepting on the fund so the cost is spread over the whole county area. The items not charged to the fund are borne by the community charge payers in each district separately.
The districts will bear all the costs of collection—the billing, the reminders, the cash collection and the recovery. The districts will not be able to keep all the benefit of interest receipts from a favourable cash flow due to an efficient method of collection. Districts now keep 100 per cent. of the interest generated by the cash flow from the rate collection. That is a real incentive to operate fast and efficiently in issuing demand notes, collecting cash and tracing defaulters. The proposed community charge will be much more difficult to collect than the rates, which is another reason why the interest should he retained by the collecting authority. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Baroness in moving Amendment No. 148 referred also to Amendments Nos. 153, 154 and 156, all of which are in my name and are on a closely related point. I am fairly open minded about the best way to achieve the purpose. Certainly the amendment of the noble Baroness has the advantage of simplicity. The point, as she has so clearly said, is that the cost of interest payments should be charged to the collection fund. At the moment, the charging authority has to pay interest to a precepting authority if the charging authority fails to pay the precept in accordance with the prearranged timetable. This could happen if there were considerable difficulty in charge payers withholding or being slow in making payments.
We have not yet considered whether we are going to adopt in England the proposal which will be debated tomorrow for Scotland, of having a lottery to reward people for paying early. I do not know whether the lottery will achieve the consent of the Committee. I can imagine that there could be different views about that. But it is certainly right, as the noble Baroness. Lady Stedman, said, that there

133
should be rewards for efficient collection of the community charge. That is the intention of Amendment No. 153.
I do not think I need weary the Committee with the detail of Amendment No. 156, which makes a similar point in relation to the costs of collecting the community charge and the national business tax. The costs of collection and the interest receipts are treated together because otherwise charging authorities will have little incentive to speed the flow of payment from the charge payers into the collection fund if it will cost them any money to do so. In that way, the benefits of the additional interest receipts are shared among all the authorities precepting on the fund and the additional costs would fall upon the charging authority alone.
Also together the costs of collection and any losses on collection are aggregated. If there are difficulties—and there are bound to be difficulties in collecting the community charge—there will be a shortfall fund. The authority which takes extra effort to collect the charge will have to bear the costs of that extra effort. Instead, the costs of collection, according to this amendment, would be set against the income collected, because the costs as well as the income would be set against the collection fund.
I think these are realistic amendments which make a very similar point to that made by the noble Baroness. I hope that they will receive the sympathetic consideration of the Government and the Committee.
The Earl of Caithness: I have listened carefully to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. To decide what is the appropriate treatment of interest earned by the temporary investment cash surpluses in the collection fund, and of the costs of administering the fund it is necessary to look at the nature of the collection fund.
The Bill provides that interest on the temporary investment of sums in a collection fund is credited to the fund. As my honourable friend explained in another place, this is consistent with the philosophy of the collection fund, which regards money in the fund as being held temporarily by the charging authority on behalf of its charge payers. Such money is not the charging authority's "own" money, and hence interest earned on it should go to the fund and should not be for the authority's own direct use. Furthermore, the amounts passing through the collection fund can be very significant in relation to the charging authority's own expenditure, especially in shire areas. Thus, interest on these sums, if credited to the charging authority itself, would significantly distort the charging authority's own demand for revenues on the collection fund and hence weaken accountablility. Such an approach of crediting the charging authority with interest could also be a disincentive to charging authorities to pass more money quickly through the collection fund.
There is however the important issue of giving charging authorities an appropriate level of incentives to collect charges promptly, and my
134
honourable friend, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State gave an assurance in another place that we were aware of the need for incentives and would try to keep them as they operate now, and that we would be talking to the local authority associations about this. We are doing just that. We have proposed to the associations that the arrangements we shall be setting up for distributing money in the collection fund will mean that any interest received by a fund will benefit solely the charge payers in the fund's areas. Thus, for example, in a shire county, if one district is particularly efficient in collecting charges, the interest it earns for its collection fund will benefit only its charge payers—by way of lower community charges—rather than being shared between all charge payers across the whole county.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord will be pleased that we have now also decided that it would be right for the efficient district council itself to enjoy some benefit from the fruits of its efficiency. Accordingly, we intend to make directions under Clause 102(3) which will have the effect that each charging authority will receive an allowance from its collection fund which represents the interest earned on the temporary investment of community charge moneys in the fund. We believe that this arrangement would provide incentives for efficiency while remaining consistent with the principles of the collection fund.
The amendments run counter to the principles underlying the collection fund. Interest on collection fund moneys belongs to the fund, as I have explained. On the other hand, costs of administering the fund, together with other costs of collecting the community charges, are simply costs of one of the charging authority's functions, and along with the costs of all its other functions are properly part of its expenditure to be met from its general fund. I would add that costs of administering the fund will not include any interest payable by the authority, as the arrangements we intend to set up—by regulation under Clause 103—for distributing money from the fund will ensure a collection fund is never overdrawn.
The Government accept that charging authorities need an appropriate level of incentives, and I believe the arrangements we are now proposing will achieve this. I hope the Committee can agree them.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Stedman: I am grateful to the noble Earl. It is rather late at night to take in all that complicated reply. I have a feeling I am supposed to be saying "Thank you" because the noble Earl has gone some way towards meeting us, as promised by his colleague in another place. I should like to read the reply again, and I shall convey my thanks personally, if I have the right idea. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 149 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 150 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 150A and 151 not moved.]
Baroness Stedman Baroness Stedman moved Amendment No. 152:
Page 52, line 19, after ("precept") insert ("other than that part of a precept in respect of which subsections (6), (7) and (8) below apply").
The noble Baroness said: I seem to remember way back in 1981, when we were discussing the Local Government and Planning (Amendment) Act, being in the Royal Gallery at about this time of night and trying to fight the corner for parish councils. It looks as if we have gone right round the course and I am back again trying to fight for parish councils. The attempt here is to deal with both the English parishes in Amendments Nos. 152 and 163 and the Welsh parishes in Amendments Nos. 162 and 164, so that in future the non-domestic rating position which the parishes currently enjoy in relation to guaranteed access to part of the money that is raised from the rates levied on non-domestic property, continues. The changes proposed to the position which could result from the Bill, will not affect the amount of rates paid by occupiers of non-domestic property anywhere in the country, nor will there be any increase in the grants paid by government to assist local councils. None is paid now nor will be paid to the parish councils.
The purpose and effect of the amendments is to ensure that the expenditure of parish and town councils will be met in the future, as at present, in part by rates levied on non-domestic property, and in part by payments from the personal finances of individuals—currently by the domestic rates and in future by the community charge. There will be quite serious dislocation of the finances of many parish and town councils, especially those with an above average amount of non-domestic property in their parish, if their finances have to depend wholly upon the community charges paid by the inhabitants; and we try to prevent the financial pressures on the most local and most economic level of provision in the areas and transfer the responsibilities to the more distant and, because of their need to maintain administration, perhaps the less economical district councils. We want to protect the councils who have undertaken borrowing commitments on the basis of a low level of rate income and who will have to continue repayments when a third, a half or more of the rate income base ceases to be available.
The mechanism for the amendment is that the district council, which is the charging, collecting and paying authority, will be required to calculate the expenditure of the district council, that part of the expenditure of the county council to he met by precept on the district council and the expenditure of all the parish councils of the same proportion of the non-domestic rate proceeds held by the district council in its collection fund. The district council will then distribute that amount to the parish councils in proportion to their expenditures and meet the balance of their requirements from the collection fund which is made up for this purpose of the community charges paid by the parish inhabitants.
The parishes still need money with which to carry out their duties. They need to be assured that that money will come to them. We hope that the amendments meet the case in respect both of English
136
parishes and of Welsh community councils. I beg to move.
Lord Feversham: Perhaps I may put in a brief word of support for the amendments, which are concerned specifically with the loss of business rate or non-domestic rate to parish councils under the proposals in the Bill. I believe that the noble Baroness has dealt sufficiently with the technicalities. I shall not reiterate them or detain the Committee. However, I should like to add some general observations in support of the amendments and with regard to local councils.
I have the honour to serve as president of the National Association of Local Councils as well as being a local councillor myself. Therefore, I have a particular interest in their problems. I believe that the local or parish council tier of government is of immense value to our national life, operating, as it does, close to the ground in the community and enabling local people to make decisions for themselves on largely non-political lines and without the need for bureaucratic complexity.
It ought to be the aim of all central governments to work to maximise the advantages of this kind of local government. Unfortunately, large-scale legislation designed to alter radically the way in which local authorities operate—we seem to be getting a lot of that sort of legislation at the moment—tends to erode bit by bit the position of parish councils. This Bill is no exception. It is the loss of a specific share of the non-domestic rate to the parish council which presents the greatest threat of erosion in the Bill.
The purpose of the amendment is to attempt to find a way in which the difficulty can be solved to the advantage of the parishes without seeking to undermine what the Government are seeking to achieve over a wider field.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I rise to support the amendments, although my name is not on them. I do so as a former chairman of the Association for Neighbourhood Councils and as the present joint president of that association, which has always been very closely associated with the National Association of Local Councils and has always been concerned to extend the principle of parish councils into the urban areas of England which are at present denied the right to have them. That does not mean that we are not also concerned with Wales and with the suburban and rural areas of England, which are able to have parish councils.
We have talked of the gearing on some of the charges in which a very small difference in needs assessment or in the money available from the national non-domestic rate makes a huge difference to the community charge paid. If there were any meaning in the previous discussion about gearings, then the argument for the case of parish councils is very much stronger.
At the moment the principle of the national non-domestic rate must be that it should subsidise the charge payers rather than the councils. That clearly is the right principle and one that I know the Government adopt in dealing with these matters. The problem is that as the Bill is drafted at the moment

137
the subsidy goes only to the district councils and not at all to the parish councils. I do not think I can put it more simply than that. That means that parish councils' expenditure appears to be entirely without any subsidy from the national non-domestic rate or from the grant system. Therefore, any increased expenditure by parish councils is very heavily geared and makes a huge change to the parish council rate. It is not that they are deprived of the ability to raise money, but they do not have any of the support they have had in the past from other sources of local government finance. I cannot believe that that was the Government's original intention because I know that the Government have always given a degree of support to local councils and would not wish voluntarily to see them suffer from changes in legislation.
It could well be that the drafting of these amendments leaves something to be desired and that they could be improved. I am not qualified to judge them. Clearly, putting in whole new subsections of this kind is a complicated and highly skilled matter. However, I hope that at the very least the Government will recognise the need for parish councils to be treated on an equal footing with district councils as far as concerns grant and subsidy. I hope also that they will be able to give an indication either that the amendments are acceptable or that something comparable can be put into the Bill.
Lord Tordoff: I should like to offer support in principle from these Benches for the amendments. There is no more democratic form of local government than parish councils, in our view. Therefore, the question of accountability is peripheral to the argument. Both the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, and the noble Lord, Lord Feversham, have made the point very cogently. However, looking at the Official Report for another place I understand that Mr. Michael Howard complained that it was unsatisfactory that parish councils should be able to offload their spending to businesses which happened to be in their parish area. That approach, he said, does not contribute to accountability. In my view that is a fairly monstrous statement.
As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has said, there is a problem of gearing. To take that finance away from parish councils which have been used to being able to call upon business rates is monstrous. There is no question that if the rate is being transferred to the national level there should be some proportional distribution of that rate between the district and the parish council. It is in that spirit that the amendments are moved. They have our full support.
11 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: These amendments seek to change the arrangements for handling the contributions received from the national non-domestic rates pool. As I understand them they are designed to give parish and community councils direct access to a share—in proportion to their precepts—of the national non-domestic rate, now
138
commonly abbreviated to "NNDR". I have listened carefully to the points made by those who have spoken on this matter and I understand the concerns raised, but these amendments do not remove a disadvantage which the NNDR arrangements impose on the parish charge payer but rather seek through the NNDR to give such charge payers an advantage.
It may be argued that such an advantage is needed to compensate charge payers for the higher charges that they may face if they are in a parished area, but I do not believe that this is the right use of NNDR, which is to provide a flat rate support to charge payers, and in any event parish charge payers need not necessarily face higher standards.
It is of course open to a district council in either England or Wales to reduce its own charges in those areas where a parish or community council provides services which elsewhere the district itself provides. Thus, if both the parish and the district provide the service in question to the same level and with equal efficiency and the district makes a reduction, the charge payer in the parish and the charge payers in the other parts of the district's area would have the same charge. However, I accept the argument of the noble Baroness that should a district decide not to reduce its charges in this way, then those in parished areas may pay higher charges than those in non-parished areas. Thus, in order to protect those in parished areas from being unfairly treated I can inform the Committee that the Government are taking this matter up with the Association of District Councils with a view to seeking to agree with the association guidelines for councils to give some specific recognition to parish services when setting the community charges.
Returning to these amendments, I believe that they manipulate the NNDR in a way that would run counter to the underlying principles of the new financial system, but in view of the Government's acknowledgment of the difficulties that may be faced by parish councils and the action that we are taking to counteract them I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Tordoff: Before the noble Baroness speaks, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether, in the negotiations which take place, consideration of the existence of large businesses in a parish area—large factories, for instance—will be one of the things that will be taken into account. We must recognise that some of the costs that will be borne by the parish may be directly attributable to the presence of industries within their areas, and therefore the situation cannot be the same in each area. There may be certain pollution costs, for instance, that ought to be taken into account.
The Earl of Caithness: Indeed there are a number of things that of course are being taken into account. One has to take into account the fact that some district councils do not have parishes at all. As the noble Lord will be aware, there is nothing that the parish council is doing at the moment that the district could not be doing. However, I can assure him that full consultations are taking place.
Baroness Stedman: It seems to be my night for saying "Thank you" to the Minister. I have done it twice in succession on amendments. I am delighted that he is taking the amendment back and having discussions. I hope that they are successful and look forward to hearing from him in the future about the kind of arrangements that he has made and how the parishes will benefit from them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment no. 152A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 152B:
Page 52, line 24, leave out ("(7)") and insert ("(5)").
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 152B I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 152C and 152D. These are technical and drafting amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 152C and 152D:
Page 52, line 28, after ("repaying") insert (", under regulations under this Act,").
Page 52, line 29, leave out ("under this Act").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 153 to 157 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 158 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 158A not moved.]
[Amendment No. 159 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 159A not moved.]
[Amendment No. 160 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 160A not moved.]
[Amendment No. 161 had been withdralt7zfrom the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 161A to I62ZA not moved.]
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 162A:
Page 53, line 4, leave out from ("this") to end of line 5 and insert ("section—

(a) includes power to revoke or amend a specification made under the power;

(b) may be exercised differently in relation to different authorities.").

The noble Earl said: Clause 96 would provide for my right honourable friend to specify what payments can be made from and what sums can be paid into English and Welsh charging authorities' collection funds. This is a minor technical amendment to enable different specifications to be made for different groups of charging authority. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 163 and 164 not moved.]
Clause 96, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 97 [General funds]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 164A to 164D:
Page 53, line 13, leave out ("before") and insert ("on").
Page 53, line 22, leave out from ("assets") to end of line 23 and insert ("held in the general rate fund of such an authority").
Page 53, line 24, after ("1990") insert ("(other than assets forming part of a trust fund)").
Page 53, line 25, at end insert—
("(7) After 31 March 1990 the Council of the Isles of Scilly shall not be required to keep any fund known as its general fund and required (apart from this subsection) to be kept under any order made under section 265 of the Local Government Act 1972; and the assets held in that fund immediately before 1 April 1990 (other than assets forming part of a trust fund) shall be transferred on that date to the Council's general fund established under this section.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 97, as amended, agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 164E:
After Clause 97 insert the following new clause:
("General funds: supplementary.
.—(1) In this section "relevant authority" has the same meaning as in section 97 above.
(2) The Secretary of State may make regulations—

(a) about the relationship of a relevant authority's general fund to its other funds;

(b) providing for assets falling within a relevant authority's general fund to be held in separate funds within the general fund").

(3) The regulations may provide that any fund established by a relevant authority on or after I April 1990, other than its collection fund or a trust fund, is to be maintained as a separate fund falling within its general fund".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 98 [The City fund]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 164F to 164H:
Page 53, line 28, leave out ("before") and insert ("on").
Page 53, line 42, at end insert—
("(4A) No sum shall be paid into, and no payment shall be met from, the City fund except in accordance with subsections (3) and (4) above.").
Page 53, line 43, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
("(5) The assets of the Common Council subsisting immediately before I April 1990 shall be transferred to the City fund on that date if they are assets—

(a ) subsisting in respect of the general rate, the poor rate or the St. Botolph tithe rate, or

(b) representing sums credited in aid of any of those rates.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 98, as amended, agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No.164J:
After Clause 98, insert the following new clause:
("The City: further provisions.
—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations—

(a) about the relationship of the City fund to other funds of the Common Council;

(b) providing for assets falling within the City fund to be held in separate funds within the City fund;

(c) prohibiting the Common Council from establishing funds.

(2) The regulations may provide that any fund established by the Common Council on or after 1 April 1990, and falling within a

141
prescribed description, is to be maintained as a separate fund falling within the City fund.
(3) The regulations may provide that such assets as are transferred to the City fund under section 98(5) above and fall within a prescribed description shall he held in separate funds falling within the City fund; and the number and composition of the separate funds shall be such as are prescribed.
(4) The regulations may provide that the Common Council shall not establish or maintain on or after I April 1990 a fund into which both the following must or may be paid—

(a) sums which must be paid into the City fund under section 98(3) above, and

(b) other sums.

(5) The regulations may provide that the Common Council shall not establish or maintain on or after 1 April 1990 a fund from which both the following must or may be met—

(a) payments which must be met from the City fund under section 98(4) above, and

(b) other payments.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 99 [Calculations to be made by authorities]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 164K:
Page 54, line 27, leave out from ("above") to ("shall") in line 28 and insert ("the authority").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 133A. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 99, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 100 and 101 agreed to.
Clause 102 [Other transfers between funds]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No.164L:
Page 55, line 14, at end insert—
("(2A) Regulations under section 95(5) above may include provision that—

(a) any sum to which they relate shall be transferred from an authority's collection fund to its general fund or to the City fund (as the case may be);

(b) the sum so transferred shall be held, invested or otherwise used in such manner as may be prescribed;

(c) a sum equal to the sum transferred shall be transferred to the authority's collection fund from its general fund or from the City fund (as the case may be);

(d) together with the sum so transferred an additional sum representing interest and calculated in a prescribed manner shall be transferred.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No.164M:
Page 55, line 19, at end insert—
("(3A) If the Secretary of State directs it to do so, a charging authority shall transfer to its collection fund from its general fund
142
or from the City fund (as the case may be) such an amount as is specified in, or calculated in a manner specified in, the direction; and the transfer shall be made at such time as is specified in the direction.").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 164M and to speak to Amendment No. 164N at the same time. These amendments will enable my right honourable friends to make directions requiring English and Welsh charging authorities to transfer the sums specified in the directions from their general fund to their collection fund. This power which we are seeking is the converse of the power in Clause 102(3), which enables my right honourable friends to direct the transfer of funds from the collection fund to the general fund. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No.164N:
Page 55, line 21, leave out ("or (3)") and insert (", (3) or (3A)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 102, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 103 agreed to.
Lord Hesketh: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes past eleven o'clock.

  GIBRALTAR SHOOTINGS: CORONER'S INQUEST
  GIBRALTAR SHOOTINGS: CORONER'S INQUEST