Sitting of 14 February 1989

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  EMPLOYMENT

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Alton: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many men and women living on Merseyside have been unemployed for longer than five years.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Lee): In October 1988, the latest available date, there were 15,626 men and 2,433 women in Merseyside who had been unemployed for more than five years.
    Mr. Alton: In the light of those damning figures and the 98,419 people on Merseyside who are currently out of work, will the Minister promise that even if tomorrow's figures show some overall reduction in unemployment, there will be no question of complacency in areas such as Liverpool, where the Allerton road jobcentre in my constituency is advertising just 92 jobs in a city where about 24 people are chasing every vacancy? Does the Minister agree that it is vital to remove every possible barrier which might prevent people from seeking skills and training? Does he further agree that we should abolish the national insurance surcharge, which is too often a tax on jobs in areas of high unemployment? Does he also agree that it is quite wrong—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has already asked three questions.
    Mr. Lee: I will attempt to answer two of them. Of course the Government are not complacent about unemployment on Merseyside. Indeed, substantial amounts of Government money have been poured into Merseyside through a whole range of Government programmes. The hon. Gentleman should acknowledge that there has been a significant reduction in unemployment in his constituency, which has fallen by just over 21 per cent. in the past two years, and that unemployment is falling steadily in the Merseyside area. The hon. Gentleman may also recall that Liverpool city council's original attitude in not exactly welcoming employment training has not helped.
    Mr. Wareing: Is that not a ridiculous end to the Minister's answer, when he knows full well that his right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of the Environment have cut Liverpool's rate support grant so
    132
    often in the past? Instead of coming up with Mickey Mouse employment training schemes which do not even cover all the young people unemployed in my constituency, he should talk to people who really know the area and then get together with his right hon. and hon. Friends to do something about the infrastructure, such as the road and rail network. Is it not time that the Government paid as much attention to the social and economic infrastructure of Merseyside as they do to the Channel tunnel?
    Mr. Lee: The hon. Gentleman is being extremely churlish. The Government have pumped hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money into Merseyside, and in the past two years unemployment in the hon. Gentleman's constituency has fallen by 24·78 per cent.

    Youth Training Scheme
    Ms. Armstrong: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to increase the safety of YTS trainees; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): I repeat what I told the hon. Lady in the reply that I gave on 6 December, which is recorded in the Official Report at column 143— namely, that health and safety remains of paramount importance in YTS.
    New developments currently in hand include the issue of a new health and safety training package aimed specifically at young persons and new advice for managing agents who monitor health and safety at work placements.
    Ms. Armstrong: Is the Minister not horrified at the rise in accidents involving YTS trainees? Can he tell the House how enabling young YTS trainees to work longer hours—to do night and shift work and to work for up to 53 hours per week—will improve health and safety for our young people?
    Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Lady seems to be working on the assumption that the YTS accident rate has increased dramatically. She should know that that is not the position. The rate of accidents and fatalities involving YTS trainees is the same as that for young people working outside the scheme.
    If the hon. Lady believes that she has conclusive evidence that altering and rationalising hours of work must inevitably lead to further accidents, it would be interesting to see that evidence. I must tell the hon. Lady that there is no indication from anywhere else that such evidence exists.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: While safety measures must be enforced for YTS trainees from that for everyone else, does my hon. Friend agree that there is a great deal of nitpicking by Labour Members who are jealous because YTS is working so well?
    Mr. Nicholls: Nits will pick.
    Mr. Fatchett: Is the Minister aware that his answer sounds both smug and complacent? As the Government have presided over an increase of more than 100 per cent. in YTS accidents between 1984–88, is it not time that we had some real constructive action from the Minister—or is

    133
    he so insensitive to youngsters and to those on YTS courses that he is quite happy to see such carnage among young people?
    Mr. Nicholls: In using words such as "smug" and "complacent", the hon. Gentleman merely illustrates that it is unwise to write one's supplementary question before hearing the answer to the main question. If the hon. Gentleman is trying to suggest that there has been a major increase in YTS accidents he and his hon. Friends should know that the bases on which accidents are recorded were changed in 1986. If one takes that into account— [interruption.] The hon. Gentleman should know about that by now—he has been told often enough. If one takes that change into account, the figures are remarkably stable. The hon. Gentleman should realise that fatalities are recorded on a different basis for YTS trainees as for employees. On that basis, the figures are stable. It is not complacent or smug to try to do away with some of the scare stories that Opposition Members are constantly putting around to terrify people off YTS.
    Mr. Bellingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that the key to the safety of YTS trainees is proper training? My hon. Friend will be aware of the excellent work done by the construction industry training board in that respect. Does he agree that it is crucial that that board should remain in its present form with a statutory levy?
    Mr. Nicholls: That does not arise from this question, but I agree with my hon. Friend thus far—training is obviously vital and any YTS provider must have approved training organisation status. One of the key ingredients of that status is that such providers have proper safety and training arrangements for the young people in their charge.

    Job Creation
    Mr. Boateng: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many full-time and part-time jobs were created in the 12 months to September 1988 in the greater London region.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Fowler): In the year to September 1988 the work force in employment increased by 25,000 in greater London. The only available information about full and part-time employment in greater London is for women employees. Those figures are provisional and show an increase of 15,000 in women full-time employees and a decrease of 1,000 in women part-time employees.
    Mr. Boateng: In the same period, some 65,000 disappeared off the unemployment benefit register. What has happened to the 40,000 or so people who can no longer be found? Have they disappeared into some kind of twilight zone of fake statistics? Will the Minister give resources to organisations such as Brent Asian Professionals Association, Operation Fullemploy and others trying to provide real training for real jobs? What does he intend to do to encourage employers to provide workplace experience for young people who are currently deprived of it?
    Mr. Fowler: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also continue to support, as I take his remarks to do, the employment training programme. The figures for
    134
    unemployment and employment are done on different bases. The labour force survey will show a more accurate picture of the growth in employment. That will be available in about a month. The hon. Gentleman should wait for that survey because he will find that some of his questions will be answered.
    I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that unemployment in London has gone down so sharply. I am also sure that he will welcome and recognise the current estimate that there are about 150,000 vacancies in London and about 250,000 unemployed people. In other words, there are opportunities for people to take on work in London.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the problem in north-west London is not unemployment, but that there are not enough people to fill the vacancies? The Government have done a great deal already. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that they will continue to do as much as possible to find people to fill those vacancies and to train them?
    Mr. Fowler: The figures that I gave show that there are about 150,000 vacancies in London. We estimate that 50,000—one third—of those vacancies do not require any previous training. The other vacancies require such training and it is for that reason that the employment training programme has been introduced. I am glad to tell the House that there are about 140,000 people on the employment training programme. That demonstrates its success and the big start that it has had despite opposition from Labour Members.
    Mr. Leighton: Will the Secretary of State clear up a mystery? He keeps referring to 150,000 vacancies, but when the long-term unemployed go for their restart interviews fewer than 1 per cent. of them get a job. How does the Secretary of State explain that? Is he aware that the 150,000 vacancies to which he referred when he answered questions a month ago no longer exist? They generally last only a couple of weeks and go primarily to people already in employment and switching jobs, or to those who have recently become unemployed. The people still unemployed since that answer a month ago are the long-term unemployed, largely because of employer prejudice against them. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to deal with that problem?
    Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on several points. First, the London labour survey that we have published shows conclusively that there are many unfilled job vacancies in London. There is no doubt about that. No one in the employment sphere doubts that. Many of the people who are unemployed require training. That is what employment training is about. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would have some influence on his Front Bench colleagues and get them to support that programme.
    With regard to restart programme outcomes, the hon. Gentleman will understand that after their restart interviews many people go into employment training or to job clubs, which is one of the surest ways of finding employment.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: Does my hon. Friend agree with the assessment that in 1991 the London Docklands will have created 80,000 new jobs as a result of £4 billion in private investment? Can he tell the House how far that process has gone?
    Mr. Fowler: Ther is no question at all that the development of the London Docklands will bring, and is already bringing, new jobs to London. It is a great commentary in defence of our policy there that an area that was previously very much running down has been revivified by private investment for the benefit of people in London and for jobs.
    Mr. Strang: How is it that in the greater London region—the centre of the so-called jobs boom—in May 1979 when the Government took office unemployment was 110,000 but now, on the basis of the Government's new method of calculation, it is 250,000 and if we used the method of calculation suggested when Labour was in power it would be 340,000, which is an increase of 200 per cent? Is it not time for a little less euphoria from Ministers and a little more action to tackle unemployment, not least in areas such as Hackney and Peckham where it is more than 20 per cent.?
    Mr. Fowler: There is neither euphoria nor complacency. Unemployment has fallen dramatically in this country in the past 18 months. The most distressing aspect is the Labour party's refusal to welcome the good news that many more people are in jobs. It is about time that the Labour party came up to date and started backing a programme for training long-term unemployed people or they will have no credibility whatever.

    Loan Guarantee Scheme
    Mr. Carrington: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of the loan guarantee scheme.
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. John Cope): The loan guarantee scheme will continue in operation and the maximum loan under it will increase from £75,000 to £100,000. Nearly 21,000 guarantees have been issued for a total of £680 million of loans since the LGS started.
    Mr. Carrington: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. He will know how welcome is the great success of this scheme, especially the increase to 85 per cent. in the loan guarantee scheme for the inner city task force areas. Is my right hon. Friend also prepared to give an estimate of how much each job created under the scheme has cost since the start of the scheme?
    Mr. Cope: We estimate that the net cost per person is about £450 per job, which compares extremely favourably with the other schemes that the Department operates.
    Mr. Rowe: Does my right hon. Friend accept that that remarkable achievement is welcome to us all? Will he confirm that a substantial number of now large employers started under the loan guarantee scheme and that a great many of the firms that started under that scheme are still in business after three years?
    Mr. Cope: Yes, the majority of firms which started under the loan guarantee scheme continue and are successful, although obviously not all of them. They include some of the great high street firms such as Sock Shop and Waterstone's the bookshop, which are constantly mentioned.

    YTS
    Mr. Battle: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to increase the non-work content in YTS; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Cope: We have no plans to increase the non-work content in YTS. The emphasis is increasingly moving towards achieving approved vocational qualifications by the most appropriate route rather than specifying particular routes.
    Mr. Battle: Is not the reality that the non-work content is being decreased and the Government are watering down the original YTS requirements as set out in the new training initiative in 1981 by reneging on the 20-week on-the-job off-the-job training promise? Are not the Government using the scheme not for real and useful long-term training, as the Minister suggested earlier. but as a means of making out to us that the unemployment figures are falling?
    Mr. Cope: On the contrary, we are introducing increased flexibility into the youth training scheme in cases where it can lead to approved national vocational qualifications. We have introduced the changes to increase the number of people who achieve qualifications on the scheme. That is why we are varying the mix.
    Mr. Paice: Does my right hon. Friend agree that increasing the role of vocational qualifications in the youth training scheme is warmly welcomed by employers and would-be employers who recognise qualifications as an important achievement? Does he also recognise that the training standards advisory service within the Training Agency ensures that all managing agents are constantly improving the quality of their training, which matters more than simple duration?
    Mr. Cope: Yes, we have for some time been emphasising the importance of the quality of training, through the work done by the training standards advisory service, among others, but quality and qualifications are also important to the young people.
    Mr. Nellist: Would not a guarantee of stability, or better still an increase in the proportion of non-work training, for people on the youth training scheme also serve to reduce accidents which have grown from 69 fatal or major accidents per 100,000 trainees in 1984 to 143 in March 1988? Should not parents who send their sons and daughters on a youth training scheme in the morning be able to have confidence that they will return home at night with the same number of limbs as they had when they left?
    Mr. Cope: The hon. Gentleman should not try to frighten people in that way. In the first place, he is two questions late. Secondly, he will have heard my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), say that the reporting of accidents changed in 1986, as the hon. Gentleman should well know.

    Strikes (Lost Working Days)
    Mr. Wood: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many working days were lost through strikes in (a) January 1979 and (b) January 1989; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Fowler: Nearly 3 million working days were lost through strikes in January 1979. The latest figure available for November 1988 shows that 175,000 working days were lost. Those figures show the very substantial improvement that has taken place in this country's industrial relations record in past 10 years.
    Mr. Wood: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the present position is an astonishing contrast with that of the 1970s and owes a great deal to the Government's step-by-step employment policies during that period? Can my right hon. Friend give further details about the average number of strikes in the 1970s compared with the figure for 1988?
    Mr. Fowler: There is no question but that industrial relations in Britain have improved substantially. The Labour Government achieved in one month the number of days lost through strikes that now take a year to come by. That gives some idea of the vast improvement that has taken place. I am sure that my hon. Friend is right to say that one reason for that is the reform of industrial relations law in Britain.
    Mr. Cryer: Is the Minister aware that he talks a lot of claptrap about this? Can he give us for each year the figures for days lost through strikes compared with the number lost through industrial injury and unemployment? Is it not a fact that, year by year, the number of days lost through industrial injury and unemployment far exceeds the number lost through strike action, which leads one to question the Government's position when they produce venomous and vicious legislation against the trade unions but do nothing about industrial injury and very little about unemployment?
    Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman has just established beyond any doubt that he is the world expert in claptrap. In the year to November 1988 there were 746 stoppages. That compares with an average in the 1970s of 2,631. As for working days lost, in the 1970s the average was almost 13 million; today it is just under 4 million. The hon. Gentleman cannot seriously argue that that is not a very substantial improvement.
    Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Government's record on improved industrial relations is most commendable, but that two further measures could be taken? First, he could pursue with renewed vigour the arrangement to set up more no-strike agreements, beginning with our prisons. Secondly, he could abolish the closed shop.
    Mr. Fowler: I entirely accept what my hon. Friend says. The step-by-step process of reform of industrial relations is not complete and the job has not yet been finished. It is still the case that in some industries no one can get a job unless he has a trade union card. That represents a barrier to employment and, as my hon. Friend will know, it is something that we are reviewing urgently and on which I shall wish to make a statement in due course.

    Demolition Sites (Fatalities)
    Mr. Rooker: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many employees have been killed on demolition sites in the past five years.
    Mr. Nicholls: Between 1 January 1983 and 31 March 1987 the number of deaths associated with demolition activities of employees reported to the factory and agricultural inspectorate division of the Health and Safety Executive totalled 53. The provisional figure for deaths in the period 1 April 1987 to 31 March 1988, the latest date for which information is available, is 13.
    Mr. Rooker: I thank the Minister for that answer. Does he accept that there can be a problem about employees and that in addition to the figures that he has given at least another 12 people per year are killed on demolition sites? One such is the case of Seamus Cleary, who was working on the demolition of the Ansell's brewery site in Birmingham for the notorious contractors, Doyle's. At the inquest the man's family and friends told the coroner that he was an employee, but Doyle's insisted that he was not. This is a serious issue to which I have drawn the Department's attention in the past. People on demolition sites ought to be clearly identified so that someone is accountable and responsible for their health and safety. Companies such as Doyle's should not be able to employ lump labour and then not take responsibility when tragedies of this kind occur.
    Mr. Nicholls: I am not in a position to comment now on the specific case that the hon. Gentleman raises. If he wishes to raise it with me in correspondence I will of course, look at it. Perhaps I could clear up one misconception under which the hon. Gentleman seems to be labouring. With regard to fatal accidents in construction, those who are non-employed but within the ambit of a construction site are also covered. The figures do not apply simply to those working on the site.
    Mr. Soames: Does my hon. Friend nevertheless agree that these are very serious figures? Is he sure that every step has been taken by the Government to ensure that safety rules are observed on demolition sites in accordance with the strict letter of the law?
    Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend is entirely right to express concern. The point that has to be made clear time and again is that neither the Government nor the HSE can act as the industry's safety officer. The prime responsibility in preventing accidents and fatalities must rest with the work force and the employers. The black spot construction report showed that 90 per cent. of deaths between 1981 and 1985 were preventable, 70 per cent. being preventable by positive management action. I am satisfied that the HSE and the Government are doing all that they can, but so long as even one death is occurring that effort must continue.

    Job Creation
    Dr. Moonie: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the fall in unemployment, and the number of jobs created in the United Kingdom, in the 12 months to September 1988.
    Mr. Fowler: In the United Kingdom in the 12 months to September 1988, the level of unemployment fell by 526,400. Since then, there has been a further fall of 152,600. Provisional estimates of the work force in employment show that there has been a net increase of

    139
    402,000 in the 12 months to September 1988. But that last figure is subject to revision when the labour force survey is published.
    Dr. Moonie: Will the Secretary of State tell the House how many of the jobs gained have been full-time jobs, and how many part-time?
    Mr. Fowler: Yes, Sir. Over the past 12 months about 55 per cent. of the jobs obtained have been full-time and about 45 per cent. part-time.
    Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: If my right hon. Friend compares the people in the various age groups that have found employment, will it be found that those who are aged over 50 or disabled receive a proportionate number of jobs, or do they need special assistance?
    Mr. Fowler: Both groups require special help, and in terms of the employment training programme, we are trying to provide it both for the over-50s and, particularly, for the disabled. That is a continuing element in our policy, and it will continue to be a priority.
    Mr. Wallace: Of the 152,600 people who have come off the unemployment register since September 1988, how many are aged between 16 and 18 who have been unable to find a YTS place, and who are no longer entitled to receive income support? Does the growing number of young people so affected give the Secretary of State cause for concern? It appears that there is a gap in the training provision, which does not cater for people unable to find a YTS place.
    Mr. Fowler: I am always prepared to consider individual cases of people who have been unable to find a YTS place. At present, there are 120,000 vacancies on the YTS programme in all the regions of the country. Our information is that all who have applied for a YTS place have been able to obtain one. If the hon. Gentleman gives me an example of where that has not occurred, I am prepared to investigate it.
    Mr. Favell: A man of 50 obtaining a job can often give 15 years' service to his new-found employer. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there should be advertisements stating, "No one aged under 50 need apply"?
    Mr. Fowler: I wish to ensure that employment opportunities exist for people of all ages. Many people aged over 50 have the experience that enables them to take up new jobs, at a time when many more vacancies are occurring. I feel sure that employers will increasingly want to appoint older workers; that trend is already visible.
    Mr. Ashley: Will the Secretary of State make a special effort to provide jobs for the disabled? The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys reveals that only 31 per cent. of disabled people of working age have jobs.
    Mr. Fowler: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The employment training programme already makes special provision for disabled people, and I am glad to tell the right hon. Gentleman that take-up of those places is very high.
    Mr. Knapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that employment is at a record level, that output is at a record level, and that the Maclnnes report is pseudo-academic bunkum?
    Mr. Fowler: The report is certainly discredited as a statistical exercise. Unemployment is falling fast, and is now below that not only of the European Community average but of a host of European countries. That is a very welcome trend.
    Mr. Meacher: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the British Government are the only Government in Europe to use the benefit claimant count as a measure of unemployment, and that ours is the only country to knock people off their entitlement to unemployment benefit and then parade that as a cut in unemployment?
    Will the Minister confirm also that the Government's labour force survey, which uses the same international measure of unemployment as all other countries but which, significantly, the Government have not published for the last two years, reveals that unemployment today in Britain is still over 2·6 million and that the Government's claim on Thursday that unemployment has now fallen below 2 million will be completely and utterly bogus?
    Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman is running a bit scared—[Interruption.] He is absolutely terrified that the figures next Thursday will go below 2 million, and that shows the hon. Gentleman at his contemptible worst. The comparison that I gave, which shows that the rate of unemployment in this country is below the European Community average, is on a standardised basis. There is no question about that. What the hon. Gentleman said about the labour force survey was wrong in practically every detail. I hope that by Thursday he will have done his homework.

    Tourism
    Mr. Key: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on his assessment of the contribution of tourism to local economies in respect of English cathedrals and cathedral cities.
    Mr. Lee: Precise figures are not available. However, English cathedrals and churches are estimated to be attracting a total of 30 million visitors a year, with consequent benefits to local shops, hotels, restaurants and other businesses.
    Mr. Key: My hon. Friend will join me in congratulating Lichfield on receiving £1 million of taxpayers' money from the European Community for employment creation in connection with the cathedral because it happens to be in a development area. Is he aware that that puts a number of other cathedrals, including Salisbury, at a double disadvantage, first because they cannot get European Community money and, secondly, because of the Minister's decision to suspend section 4 grant as priming for tourism? Will he look at both those points?
    Mr. Lee: English Heritage is theoretically able to support cathedrals, but it tends to concentrate its resources on parish churches, for which it is more difficult to obtain outside funding. I suspected that the question of section 4 would be raised at Question Time today. Section 4 has undoubtedly helped the tourist industry to develop. But we must now look at it in terms of the present amount of construction work that is under way right across the country. We calculate that there is about £2·5 billion worth of new construction work under way throughout the country in respect of tourism and hospitality. Section 4

    141
    amounted to only about £13 million, and until the moratorium was announced by the Secretary of State, tourism was the only industry that had access to grant.
    Mrs. Fyfe: Is the Minister aware that a dozen questions about tourism have been tabled today by Conservative Members? Could it be that some of them want to waste time—when we are supposed to be discussing employment matters—by going on about tourism?
    Mr. Lee: Tourism is a vital industry to this country. It sustains 1·5 million jobs and is growing at the rate of nearly 1,000 net new jobs a week. It is a subject of considerable interest to my hon. Friends. When, in June of last year, we last debated tourism, only two Members of the official Opposition participated.

    Tourism
    Mr. Adley: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment in what form he proposes to announce his conclusions following his review of tourism
    Mr. Lee: The tourism review report is still under consideration and no decision has yet been taken on how the conclusions will be announced.
    Mr. Adley: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, and I declare my interest in the industry. Will the Minister use the period of suspension of section 4, which is causing some concern, to consult his colleagues in the Welsh and Scottish Offices to see the great success that they have made of the utilisation of grant? Does he agree that there are regions of England where investment is still needed, and might he consider concentrating section 4 on those areas which still need investment?
    Mr. Lee: Section 4 has been a great success in England, and, as I have said, a huge amount of construction work is under way. The outlook for our home tourism industry in 1989 is now excellent, with overseas package tours under considerable pressure.
    Ms. Short: Does the Minister's review of tourism take into account that that highly profitable industry is notorious for low pay, and that prosperity is not brought to a country if those who work in an industry do so for very low remuneration? Will the Minister consider that, and has he any proposals to improve employment conditions?
    Mr. Lee: The tourism review does not specifically examine pay. The hon. Lady does no service to herself or to her constituents by harping continually on low pay in the industry, as by and large the overall remuneration package is improving considerably.
    Mr. Bevan: Will the review consider value for money in relation to the non-statutory regional tourist boards? Will my hon. Friend also consider the provision of alternative finance—perhaps through the private sector—as a replacement for section 4 grants when encouraging those who wish to enter the industry or to develop within it?
    Mr. Lee: I know of my hon. Friend's deep commitment to the tourism industry. We are examining the question of the regional tourist boards. Let me say again, however, that a huge amount of private sector investment is under way.
    Mr. John Evans: Will the Minister reconsider his decision to cut off section 4 arbitrarily? I am particularly concerned about the north-west. Haydock park, in my constituency, was holding discussions with his Department, in the middle of which he cut off the grant. Is that not unfair?
    Mr. Lee: Considerable new invesment and development work has been under way at Haydock park. As for the north-west overall, it has done extremely well in terms of new capital investment in tourism, and the tourism industry there has received substantial section 4 grants. The Granada studios tour development in Manchester, for instance, received some £750,000.

    Self-employment
    Mr. Oppenheim: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are currently self-employed; and how many people became self-employed during the latest year for which figures are available.
    Mr. Cope: In September 1988, the latest date for which estimates are available, there were 2,956,000 self-employed people in Great Britain, a net increase of 124,000 since September 1987.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Does my right hon. Friend agree that self-employment jobs are real jobs and make a good contribution to the economy? Will he confirm that those moving into self-employment will be able to find training opportunities on the education training scheme?
    Mr. Cope: I agree with both parts of what my hon. Friend has said. Business skills training is certainly an important part of the employment training scheme.
    Mr. Meacher: Is the Minister aware that no less than 41 per cent. of the Government's claimed increase in jobs in the past two years allegedly comes from self-employment? Is he aware that those Government figures are simply invented—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—that the latest known figures date from 1981 and that in any event the lifetime of self-employed small businesses is now the shortest ever, with bankruptcies at a record high?
    Mr. Cope: The hon. Gentleman tries hard, because he cannot accept that the present work force is at its highest ever.
    Mr. David Shaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware that self-employment provides real jobs which are not invented? Many people in my constituency and in constituencies all over the country are grateful to the Government for opportunities in self-employment, which enables some to obtain jobs for the first time.
    Mr. Cope: I absolutely agree. They are real jobs, and not inventions as the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) suggested. Of course the figures are estimates, but they are accurate estimates and show that jobs that people want are being provided.

    Job Creation
    Mr. Frank Cook: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many full-time and part-time jobs were created in the 12 months to September 1988 in the northern region.
    Mr. Nicholls: In the year to September 1988 the civilian work force in employment increased by 31,000 in the northern region. The only available information about full-time and part-time employment in the regions is for female employees. This shows increases of 7,000 in female full-time employees and 8,000 in female part-time employees.
    Mr. Cook: Did not the Secretary of State let the cat out of the bag in an earlier answer, when he admitted—confessed, indeed—that 45 per cent. of the new jobs were casual and part-time? Does the Minister accept that in the final quarter of last year 23,000 jobs were created in the northern region, as against the stated reduction of 33,000 in the unemployment figures? Will the Minister admit that the 10,000 difference between the two figures has simply disappeared into the Government's big bass fiddle?
    Mr. Nicholls: No. The only cat to be let out of the bag today is the fact that the Opposition have a vested interest in bad news. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman, in reciting his mish-mash of figures overlooked the position in his own constituency. I know that he will wish the House to know about it so I shall remind him of the figures. Unemployment in Stockton, North fell by 20 per cent. in the past year so the hon. Gentleman would have done better to have confined his remarks to saying thank you.
    Mr. Janman: Is my hon. Friend aware that unemployment in my constituency has fallen by more than 50 per cent. in the past three years, a fact that has been acknowledged and welcomed by the local Labour council? Does he agree that the MacInnes report tells us nothing about employment trends, but tells us only that Glasgow university is wasting taxpayers' money by employing charlatans to produce shoddy and intellectually bankrupt work?
    Mr. Nicholls: I could not begin to cap the way in which my hon. Friend expresses his views about the quality of that report. It simply makes the point, as always, that unemployment is coming down dramatically, and Labour Members absolutely loathe that.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. Mr. Morgan: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 February.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.
    Mr. Morgan: Did the Chancellor of the Exchequer have the January inflation figure when he leaked the 7 per cent. plus inflation figure when he spoke to his local Conservative association at Hinckley on Saturday night? Is not that an example of governmental insider trading? Did the Prime Minister sanction that leak, or will she order an inquiry into it?
    The Prime Minister: No. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has given forecasts before. On this occasion he
    144
    was perfectly candid. Of course he is well aware, as I am, that our record on reducing inflation greatly excels that of the previous Government.

    Middle East
    Mr. Latham: To ask the Prime Minister what meetings she expects to have with senior representatives of middle eastern countries during the month of February regarding the peace process in the middle east.
    The Prime Minister: I look forward to meeting the Israeli Foreign Minister tomorrow.
    Mr. Latham: When my right hon. Friend meets Mr. Arens tomorrow, will she remind him of the wise words of Abba Eban and Ezer Weizman, supported by 54 per cent. of the Israeli voters, that it is now time to take constructive advantage of the major step forward made by Mr. Arafat in recognising Israel through United Nations resolutions Nos. 242 and 338 and to make progress from that position?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that perhaps the most encouraging aspect of the present position is that everyone realises that the status quo cannot last and that there must be negotiations. I believe that those negotiations must be well prepared and I shall urge Mr. Arens to take advantage of the new opportunities that have been opened up. I also hope to be able to discuss those vitally important matters with Mr. Shamir in due course.
    Mr. Bell: Will the Prime Minister convey to the Israeli Foreign Secretary that in the House the strongest supporters of the state of Israel are gravely disquieted by events in the Gaza strip and the West Bank? Will she convey to him that those supporters say that the sooner a dialogue is opened on the future of those territories the safer and more secure will be the state of Israel?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. As I said, it is most encouraging that both sides now accept that the status quo cannot continue and that there is an urgent need for negotiations. The hon. Gentleman will agree that it is important that the negotiations are well prepared so that they have a chance of fulfilling the hopes of all of us for a comprehensive settlement based on United Nations resolution No. 242.
    Mr. Robert Hicks: Does my right hon. Friend also agree that the response of the new American Administration is crucial to any long-term settlement in the middle east, and particularly to persuading the Israeli Government to come to the negotiating table? What action are we taking, either alone or through the European Community, to bring that about?
    The Prime Minister: I agree that the response of the United States' new Adminstration is absolutely crucial, particularly in helping to bring Israel to the negotiating table. I have already had discussions about this matter, first with President Bush when he was President-elect and with the American Secretary of State, Mr. Jim Baker, over the weekend. Both countries share the view that it is important that the middle east should have near top priority in foreign matters—after that given to East-West relations—but that we should not rush to the negotiating table until full and proper preparations have been made.
    Ms. Short: Does the Prime Minister agree that it is not enough merely to call on the Israelis to negotiate, when there is no sign that they will do so? Will she consider taking action to force Israel at least to abide by the Geneva convention on the treatment of people in occupied territories and to stop the annexation of land, the deportation of people, illegal detention without trial and the demolition of houses? Britain should put pressure on Israel to improve conditions in the occupied territories and to bring it to the negotiating table.
    The Prime Minister: Over the years, many people have told Israel about those actions which are unacceptable. It is important, now that there is a feeling that it is time for negotiations, that we concentrate on starting them while there is the best possible chance of success. I believe that that chance is higher now than it has been for many a long year.
    Mr. Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Israelis are hearing the voices of the true friends of Israel throughout the world who feel that talks are long overdue? Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham), is she confident that the United States will not only continue the Tunis talks with the PLO but will upgrade them? Will she also consider upgrading our level of talks with PLO representatives in the future?
    The Prime Minister: I see no reason to go any further immediately than we have already gone with the PLO. As my hon. Friend knows, we do not necessarily accept the PLO as the sole representative of the Palestinian people. There are other people who could well represent them. That factor—precisely who shall negotiate—needs to be addressed when preparing for the negotiations. Another fact that must be addressed is whether the negotiations will take place in the framework of the five permanent members of the Security Council, as I believe most parties would wish.
    Mr. McFall: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. McFall: Is the Prime Minister aware that thousands of young people have vanished from the registers of state agencies as a result of losing their automatic entitlement to social security benefit? Is she further aware of the comments of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Association of Directors of Social Services, which say that this underclass of 16 to 17-year-olds are drifting into crime, homelessness and, in some cases, even prostitution?
    Will the Government give a commitment that the Social Security Bill before the House will contain some concession to eliminate this scandal? If not, will the Prime Minister agree that the policies that she has pursued over the last decade are the antithesis of the sentiments she preached on the doorstep of No. 10 in May 1979, when she had the gall to quote that great prayer of St. Francis of Assisi? [Interruption.]
    The Prime Minister: No. Social security has been withdrawn from the 16 and 17-year-olds—with the exception of those who are disabled or in very keen need—because they can stay at school, take training or take a
    146
    YTS job. The number of YTS jobs available exceeds the numbers applying for them. Conservative Members think that it is far better for young people to be trained than to choose to be idle.
    Sir Hugh Rossi: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Motability on the initiative that it showed in launching yesterday a campaign, with all-party support, for the promotion of unleaded petrol—not only for the disabled but for all car owners—which will benefit the nation's health and the environment?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it was an excellent initiative and it will be received very well, I believe, throughout Britain, where more and more people are conscious of the need to convert their cars to unleaded petrol and more and more oil companies are conscious of the need to provide that petrol on the forecourts of garages. It is important to the health of children. Government cars are being gradually converted. Not all of them can be converted immediately; some of us have to wait for new cars. However, this was a splended initiative, which augurs well for the future, and I congratulate all those involved in it.
    Mr. Kinnock: Bearing in mind the Prime Minister's previous answers to questions, can she tell us what she had for lunch today: was it eggs, cheese, or the Minister of Agriculture?
    The Prime Minister: Cheshire cheese, and very good it was.
    Mr. Kinnock: Perhaps the Prime Minister can help us further. A Cabinet Minister yesterday said, "What John has said is that he is thinking about banning cheese." John said, "There is no question of banning cheese." What does Margaret say?
    The Prime Minister: I really had expected better of the right hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order, order. This takes up a lot of time.
    The Prime Minister: It seems to me schoolboy stuff. May I take advantage of the question that the right hon. Gentleman has asked, as there appears to be some confusion?—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order, order. This takes up a lot of time.
    The Prime Minister: There is a different position in Scotland from that in England and Wales, and the chief medical officer has given very, very clear and explicit advice. The position in Scotland is that there is already a ban on sales of unpasteurised liquid milk and cream to the general public. Unpasteurised milk may still be used for cheese-making, though there is a code of practice on good hygiene procedure.
    In England and Wales the Ministry of Agriculture is considering whether unpasteurised liquid milk and cream for sale to the general public should also be banned, and a consultation document will be issued shortly. A code of practice for major manufacturers of soft cheeses has already been issued, and one for smaller cheese-making businesses is in draft.
    On listeriosis, the chief medical officer—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order, order. The Prime Minister has been asked a question and she is answering it.
    The Prime Minister: It is a comprehensive answer. On listeriosis, the chief medical officer's advice is that pregnant women and certain other categories of people should not eat certain types of soft cheeses. That advice applies irrespective of the type of milk from which they are made. The chief medical officer also gave advice that these people should fully reheat cook-chill meals and ready-to-eat poultry until they are piping hot. Those are the facts and the advice.—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Interruptions take up a lot of time.
    Mr. Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, you criticise our Back Benchers for wasting time; what about the right hon. Lady?—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order, order.—[Interruption.]
    Sir Antony Buck: Will my right hon. Friend now turn to international matters of real significance? Will my right hon. Friend utilise the hot line between her and the White House to talk to the President about matters of international significance, and also pay tribute to the outgoing American ambassador, who has contributed so much to the special relationship which exists between our two countries?
    The Prime Minister: I gladly respond to my hon. and learned Friend's advice. Yes, we still confer closely with the President of the United States and I gladly pay tribute to the services in this country of the retiring American ambassador, which have been quite outstanding and
    148
    which have contributed greatly to the special relationship that we have with the United States. I pay tribute also to Mrs. Price, who has been absolutely marvellous as well.
    Mr. Ashdown: Does the—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister not find it somewhat odd to be lecturing other Europeans on the safety of their cheese while at the same time refusing to accept European standards for the higher safety and quality of our water?
    The Prime Minister: We are accepting European standards for the higher safety and quality of our water. I hope that some other European countries are doing as well as we are. The right hon. Gentleman will perhaps not recall that for the last four years we have deliberately increased capital expenditure on water, so all of a sudden the Opposition are complaining about the necessary increase in prices and the necessary capital expenditure. Capital expenditure on water will continue to rise both this year and next. It will go up to something like £1·4 billion to improve some of the capital equipment. We are doing it as quickly as possible. With regard to cheese and other food, the right hon. Gentleman ought to look at the World Health Organisations's working party report of last February. Other European countries have taken action on cheese, including Switzerland.
    Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is still Question Time.

Storm Damage (Scotland)
3.31 pm
Mr. Brian Wilson(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the extent of storm damage in Scotland and what steps the Government propose to take to alleviate any damage caused.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The effect of the storms in Scotland in the course of 13 February has been very widespread. Damage has been sustained by a wide range of services and facilities, including piers, airports, roads, railways, housing, schools, hospitals, telephone links and power lines. In particular, a high proportion of consumers in the north of Scotland lost power as a result of the storms.
At dawn today, a total of some 56,000 people were without an electricity supply—39,000 in the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board's area and 17,000 in the area of the South of Scotland electricity board. I am glad to say that the SSEB has already reconnected about half of those affected and hopes to be able to reconnect virtually all of the remainder today. There will, however, probably still be a significant number of customers in the north of Scotland without supply tonight. The north board's transmission repair teams are fully deployed and helicopters are being used to locate faults. The SSEB hopes to be able to make available some of its engineers to help the north board tomorrow. On behalf of both boards I would like to thank the Electricity Council and the area boards in England for the offers of help which they have given.
I have received a number of reports of damage to schools and to hospitals throughout the country. For the most part, the damage is to roofing and windows and is relatively minor, although there are some reports of more serious roof damage. A number of schools have been closed because of power failures. As far as transport is concerned, a number of roads were blocked by trees, and rail services were also affected. Most of the affected roads and railway lines will be cleared in the course of today.
I would like to pay tribute to the local authorities, the electricity boards, the emergency services and the community generally for their splendid efforts both to make facilities available for those who have had to leave their homes as a result of the storms and to repair the damage.
It is of course too soon to say what is the full extent of the storm damage, and I am asking for reports from the local authorities and other public bodies involved. We stand ready to play our full part in working with those affected to repair the damage caused by last night's storms.
Mr. Wilson: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that reply. Is he aware that, when storms of comparable ferocity hit the south-east of England in 1987, the Government very quickly announced the allocation of £22·6 million in compensation to local authorities, with additional sums from the Ministry of Agriculture and the Countryside Commission? Does he accept that, once the assessment has been made, the response in Scotland must be no less prompt or adequate? Is he aware that the coastguard stations around the Scottish coast described last night as one of their busiest on record? We pay tribute
150
to the efforts of the coastguard service, and advise the colleagues of the Secretary of State to abandon the idiotic idea of closing coastguard stations.
Is the Secretary of State aware that housing authorities throughout Scotland will face devastating repair bills as a result of last night's storm and those that we are told may be still to come? Will he ensure that special allocations are made to these hard-pressed authorities to help them to meet this act of God? Will he urgently reassess non-housing revenue account allocations to district and island councils to take account of the extensive damage that must have been done to private property already in dire need of repairs.
Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the storm damage in the Highlands comes on top of a period of severe flooding? Is he yet in a position to announce the Government's response on that front? In particular, will he assure the House today that there will be no question of railway services north and west of Inverness being lost as a result of the Ness bridge collapse? Will he recognise the particular devastation caused to the fish farming industry, and will he assure us that the non-culpable fish farmers will be compensated with at least the same generosity as the egg producers?
Will the Secretary of State enter immediately into sympathetic discussions with local authorities and health boards to identify the scale of the financial burden that these storms have visited upon them, and will he assure the House today that the Government will be just and generous in their response?
Finally, will the Secretary of State refer to the Official Report of 4 April 1968, where he will find that at that time the total number of unemployed slaters and felters available in Scotland to meet the housing emergency following the last great Scottish storm was 33? Will he recognise that there are an awful lot more than 33 slaters and felters available in Scotland today, and will he ensure that the local authorities have the human resources to meet this crisis?
Mr. Rifkind: First of all, obviously the response of Her Majesty's Government will be in accordance with the needs that are disclosed following these events. Well understood principles apply when there is either storm damage or other civil emergency of this kind, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government's response will be fully appropriate to the occasion.
I agree with the hon. Member in the tribute he paid to the work of the coastguards. They do indeed have a difficult task, and they have responded magnificently over the last 24 hours.
Naturally, we wait to hear from the housing authorities, and, for that matter, from the health boards and other public bodies, about the extent of the damage caused. Once we have had an opportunity to consider the reports we receive from those bodies, we will be in a position to judge what needs to be done by them, by us, or by both.
With regard to the floods in the Highlands last week, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that on Friday I communicated with the convenor of Highland region and of Inverness district council and invited them, and, indeed, any others involved, to let us have the full details of the damage done by last week's flooding. British Rail, of course, has already announced its intention to rebuild the

151
railway bridge at Inverness as soon as that is physically possible, and I am delighted that it was able to give such a speedy and comprehensive response.
With the health boards too, as with the local authorities, we await the details of the damage done. Apparently it is mainly the roofing of various buildings that is affected, although, of course, other damage may become apparent.
The hon. Gentleman asked also about fish farmers. I think that most fish farmers will have been insured to deal with any damage that may have been caused to their farms, as will others in that capacity, but we await further information on that.
Sir Hector Monro: In commiserating with all those who have borne the brunt of the very rough weather of the last couple of weeks, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to look sympathetically at the level of grants that are available for repairs to flood banks, fencing and farm buildings that may have been seriously affected? It is very important, in the long term, that they should be repaired or replaced as soon as possible.
Mr. Rifkind: I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks. There are forms of assistance available to help those with particular problems. The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in Scotland is currently evaluating the damage that was done. I will take into account my hon. Friend's remarks in due course.
Mr. Norman Hogg: Recognising the importance of the electricity supply industry to communities in the north of Scotland, may I ask the Secretary of State whether he agrees that the work done by the teams restoring electricity power is extremely important? Will he guarantee that these teams will continue to exist when the service motive is replaced by the profit motive, which will result from privatisation?
Mr. Rifkind: There is no question of those facilities not continuing. The regulatory nature and the provisions of the privatisation proposals will ensure that exactly the same service will continue to be available in circumstances such as we have had in the last 24 hours.
Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: From this side of the House, may I join in the tribute to all those in the public services—particularly the linesmen of the electricity boards—and to private individuals as well who worked so hard yesterday and during the night to restore essential services? May I say also that on this side of the House we have confidence in my right hon. and learned Friend that, where help, financial or otherwise, needs to be given, it will be given, but that it is only sensible that the whole extent and the amount involved are properly and thoroughly assessed first?
Mr. Rifkind: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He is correct in saying that one has to get an assessment of the damage caused and the work that needs to be done to repair that damage before one can reach detailed conclusions. That is what we are doing at present.
Mrs. Ray Michie: I should like to associate myself with the tributes paid to the emergency services, which worked so hard throughout the west and north of Scotland last night. Can the Secretary of State give any idea of when he will know the overall cost in global terms of the damage done? It must amount to
152
millions of pounds. I am sure the Secretary of State is aware of the damage that has been done in my constituency of Argyll and Bute. He will know that Inverness is reeling for a second time from the effects of the storms, with 15 roofs blown off houses last night and extensive damage done to roads. How will people on low income and on income support find assistance to repair their houses? Will he give assistance to the relevant bodies to replant many of the mature and beautiful trees that were blown down during the storm?
Mr. Rifkind: Obviously, in the first instance, local authorities will be responsible for the repair of any damaged local authority housing. Most owner-occupiers will have insurance to cover damage caused to their housing. That ought to meet that aspect. The Government have various schemes to encourage planting to replace trees damaged as a result of storms. They may be appropriate in the circumstances referred to by the hon. Lady.
As to the time scale involved, we can get information from the health boards and from other Government bodies quickly. I hope that we will also receive information from the relevant local authorities, but that is a matter for them. I agree with the hon. Lady that there has been particular damage in parts of her constituency. I understand, for example, that there was considerable damage to one block at Oban high school. I think the same has been found in other areas.
Mr. Cranley Onslow: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that anyone in the south of England who experienced the damage 18 months ago will not begrudge any necessary help being given to our friends in Scotland on this occasion?
Mr. Rifkind: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his expression of support at this time.
Dr. John Reid: I am sure that hon. Members on this side will wish to be identified and associated with the tributes that have already been paid, not only to the emergency services for the way they responded, but also to members and staff of local authorities who have been working in some cases throughout the night.
Will the Secretary of State accept that there is a sense in which words are cheap? Will he be prepared to guarantee that his money, or rather our money, will be put where his mouth is by assuring us that financial assistance will be not only "as appropriate", in his words, but commensurate with the financial assistance given after the storms which hit the south-east on 31 October 1987?
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that this is more essential than ever for local authorities in Scotland, because their housing budgets are already sorely pressed and in many cases housing conditions are far below par? Will he accept that in my constituency, Motherwell district council had already had, as of 2 o'clock today, 1,200 emergency telephone calls, and that is an initial estimate of the cost if meeting those claims well in excess of £150,000? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman therefore—as the Secretary of State for the Environment did in 1987—give us a guarantee that full financial assistance will be forthcoming?
Mr. Rifkind: I obviously await information from the hon. Gentleman's local authority on the circumstances in

153
his constituency. On the general principle, I believe that I can do no better than quote the words of the late Willie Ross, who, when Secretary of State in 1968—after severe storm damage—said:
"As to the assessment of the cost of the damage done and questions of how this burden should fall, I think that we must wait until we get a proper assessment of the damage."—[Official Report, 16 January 1968; Vol. 756, c. 1629.]
Mr. Allan Stewart: My right hon. and learned Friend is of course entirely correct in referring to the 1968 precedent and how possible compensation was handled last time. Will he undertake as far as is reasonable to follow that precedent? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that he should take expert advice on the damage in the north of Scotland? Is he aware that Sir Albert McQuarrie has considerable experience and expertise in this area? Will he consult Sir Albert on the best methods to deal with the problem?
Mr. Rifkind: I thank my hon. Friend. I believe that it is possible that, if I do not consult Sir Albert, he will consult me.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I offer my tributes to the emergency services and, in doing so, I should like to pay tribute to the work force of the Inverclyde district council, whose members responded so magificently last night. Communities in Iverclyde have suffered widespread damage because of this gale. More than 1,000 houses in the public and private sectors have suffered damage to a greater or lesser extent. In Belville street, Greenock, three rooftops of tower blocks of flats were ripped off. Will the Secretary of State assure us—based on the experience in the aftermath of recent tragedies and accidents—that financial assistance will be given quickly and generously to Inverclyde district council and others, including individuals on the lower Clyde who have suffered so grievously because of this storm?
Mr. Rifkind: I can confirm that there has indeed been some serious damage to certain houses in the Inverclyde area. I naturally hope that the Inverclyde district council will let us have as soon as it is physically able the details of the damage and the extent to which it requires help towards rectifying that damage.
Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that one of the properties currently without electricity is my own home? In addition, also like some of my constituents, I have trees down in my garden. Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that my constituency has suffered badly from floods and that, in addition, the skiing season has been almost non-existent? The problems created by the winds last night have produced the kind of economic havoc that, if it had happened in other parts of the country, would certainly have caused the newscasters last night to give it broad coverage. It was the absence of coverage last night which may have led people to think that the situation is not as serious as it is. It is very serious and requires immediate action. We are grateful to those in the emergency services, who have worked throughout the night.
Mr. Rifkind: I agree that the scale of the damage appears to have been very widespread. Fortunately, at the moment there does not appear to have been loss of life as
154
a direct consequence, but, undoubtedly, a large number of buildings appear to have suffered some damage, especially to their roofs. The other main area of damage appears to have been cuts in electricity supplies. As I have said, the South of Scotland electricity board expects to have all the electricity lines reconnected today. The Hydro Board may take a little longer, but it is getting maximum help not only from the South of Scotland electricity board, but from the English area boards and the Electricity Council.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: May I also express my gratitude to the rescue services for their tremendous work to bring relief from the hardship caused by the storm? It is now up to the Secretary of State to play his part. Will he personally visit the areas affected? When a similar storm occurred in England, a ministerial statement was instantly available, whereas for Scotland information has had to be dragged out by a private notice question. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman guarantee that new money will be placed on the table to help local authorities and other organisations on a similar basis to that in England, and preferably a better one?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman does himself a disservice. We were intending to make a statement today, but when the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) put down his private notice question, it was obviously appropriate to answer in this way. We will respond in a fair, adequate and comprehensive way, given the nature of the problem. Sadly, this is not the first time that such events have occurred in various parts of the United Kingdom. The Government will respond, as previous Governments have done, to ensure that this matter is dealt with sensitively and properly.
Mr. Robert Adley: Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind the incongruity of the fact that the Scottish taxpayers and ratepayers will properly repair the damage to the roads, but that British Rail will have to cope with the damage to the railway, in addition to the disastrous bridge loss that was suffered in Inverness last week? On that basis, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that ScotRail should certainly qualify for exactly the same level of assistance as all other public utilities in Scotland?
Mr. Rifkind: I pay tribute to ScotRail for the way in which it responded in the immediate aftermath of the collapse of the rail bridge at Inverness, to make it clear that it attached considerable importance to the rail connection to the north of Scotland being re-established as quickly as possible. It has said that the bridge will be reconstructed as quickly as physically possible.
In addition, I am naturally anxious that, during the period that must elapse before the bridge is reconstructed, we examine the particular requirements of those who use the railway services as passengers and for the purposes of freight, to ensure that no economic damage is done to the north of Scotland by the lact of availability of those rail services in the immediate future. Obviously, facilities have been made available to enable people to go from the south side of the River Ness to the north side to continue their railway journeys. The freight problem, however, may be more difficult to resolve.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. As one whose own constituency suffered in the storm of 1987, I appreciate the importance of the statement. I shall call those hon. Members who have been rising, but I ask them to be brief, as we have important business to follow.
Mr. Michael J. Martin: As one who had personal experience of the 1968 storm, may I say that the Secretary of State should be aware that many of the families who have been left without a roof at the moment will suffer from the rain and that their homes could be easily flooded, as mine was in 1968. Could the emergency services try to do something to ensure that at least tarpaulins are used to make the houses wind and watertight in this deplorable weather?
I mean no disrespect to a former Member of this House, but it was the proud boast of Albert McQuarrie that he made his first million in the 1968 storm. I know for a fact that a great deal of the money that was handed over to the city of Glasgow by the Government went to the insurance companies, because they claimed that they were replacing new for old. Surely the Secretary of State should have discussions with the insurance companies to ensure that they do not make a fortune out of yet another storm.
Mr. Rifkind: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. On the earlier part of his question, I agree that it will be necessary either to ensure that housing is wind and watertight or, if that is not possible in the immediate future, that emergency accommodation is available to those who are unable to live in their own homes.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: While we appreciate that it is too early to estimate the total damage to local authority housing, will the Secretary of State at least undertake that paying for this damage will not result in poll tax increases for the already suffering poll tax payers? Will he also guarantee that local authorities will not suffer clawback for spending the necessary money to carry out repairs?
Mr. Rifkind: I can assure the hon. Lady that we would consider very sympathetically any suggestion by local authorities that they might suffer penalties as a consequence of expenditure incurred in this way. The hon. Lady knows that the penalty system is very soon to disappear. I certainly hope to be able to respond to that matter in a sympathetic way.
Mr. Dick Douglas (Dunfirmline): Will the Secretary of State give us some additional information about what happened to the Mylesmark hospital in Dunfermline, and could he tell us the position with regard to reimbursement of the Fife health board? Because of the age of that hospital, what surveys will be undertaken? Not only is the hospital old, but the patients tend to be senior citizens. Therefore, as well as thanking the hospital board, we have to thank the Fife fire brigade and others who assisted in this very difficult task. Fortunately, I understand that there were no severe injuries.
Mr. Rifkind: I understand that that is correct, and I echo the hon. Gentleman's tribute to the Health Service which was dealing with the problem. I understand that approximately 20 patients have been moved from the hospital. We shall discuss with the health board any repairs that are required to make the hospital fully available for its proper purpose.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Will the Secretary of State make financial help available to those home owners in Scotland whose houses have suffered damage but who may not be insured? Will he also consult the National Trust for Scotland to obtain an assessment of damage to its properties?
Mr. Rifkind: Obviously, one will be interested in hearing from the National Trust for Scotland about the consequences for its properties. With regard to home owners, the hon. Gentleman must appreciate that the whole purpose of insurance is to anticipate these problems. Few people would be inclined to take out insurance if they knew that the taxpayer would pay for any damage when they had failed to ensure their property.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: But bearing in mind the fact that some insurance policies still classify storm damage as an act of God, will the Secretary of State assure us that he will not simply sit back and wait on divine intervention to repair the damage, but use his ministerial powers of intervention, in the same spirit of generosity as the good Lord Willie Ross did back in 1968; as the Secretary of State's own ministerial colleague the Secretary of State for the Environment did when he handed out £22·6 million to people in the south east because of their storm damage in October 1987; and as the Minister of Agriculture did when back in November 1985 he handed out £17 million to the farmers in compensation for bad weather?
Mr. Rifkind: I am sure that precedents are always of interest on these occasions. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we intend to apply the same principles as have been applied in the past to judging the contribution that should be made from the various public bodies concerned to help those affected by these events.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: Is the Secretary of State aware that, during the weather of the past 24 to 48 hours, in the Conon valley it has been reported by local people that the River Conon was within just a few inches of bursting its banks again and causing further severe flooding of the type that occurred last week, and that the village of Fort Augustus was also put on a flood alert? Do these events not emphasise the need for reparation of the type that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has suggested for the Highland region and Inverness district, and should there not be a full flood prevention scheme involving restoration of banks, which have given way in that valley and caused havoc no less than three times over the past 25 years?
Mr. Rifkind: Naturally, these are matters that we wish to investigate as a result of the events of last week. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has asked, for example, for a report from the Hydro Board about its facilities in the Conon area.
Mr. Norman Buchan: I suppose it is appropriate that I should speak near the end of this questioning, as I was one of the Ministers involved in the 1968 clear-up and expenditure. There seem to have been two heroes then, one of whom was Albert McQuarrie and the other Willie Ross. Will the Secretary of State keep in mind Willie Ross's classic answer when he was pestered by the Opposition at that time to send Ministers up to take

157
charge: "It's no' Ministers we need in Glasgow; it's slaters." I remind the Secretary of State that that is exactly what we want now.
The other commitment that the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave was that we would be paying for it. We undertook almost all the finance to repair the damage; we were soaked for it by certain people, but it was necessary to do that.
Secondly, could the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept again from the Labour Benches and pass on, through the Scottish Office, all our thanks to the various bodies that have been involved over the past 24 hours in dealing with this emergency?
Mr. Rifkind: Yes, I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says. We shall no doubt be receiving the reports that we require from the local authorities which will enable us, in discussion with local authorities and other public bodies, to decide how the damage can most quickly be rectified so that people may return to their homes and the various schools and hospitals carry out their necessary work without the consequences of the storms.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Will full use be made of the Bellwin scheme in order to assist local authorities as occurred after the gale damage in the south of England? There are some worrying precedents, since the Bellwin scheme was not used after the flood damage in Strabane. It clearly should be used in this case, where the damage is comparable to that experienced in the south of England.
Mr. Rifkind: Yes, the hon. Gentleman is right to refer to what is often described as the Bellwin scheme. We shall certainly have regard to the general principles of that scheme in determining our approach to these matters.
Mr. Alex Salmond: The coastguard union officials currently campaigning in the Committee Room upstairs will be pleased to hear the Secretary of State describe the work of their colleagues last night as magnificent, but will he accept that they would be even more pleased if he would intervene to stop the rationalisation of that public service which is presently being carried out?
Mr. Rifkind: This is not the occasion to discuss the proposal to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I shall ensure that his remarks are drawn to the attention of the appropriate quarter.
Mr. Calum Macdonald: May I too add my tribute to the local authority employees and the emergency services who did such a terrific job during the storm? Granted that the Secretary of State cannot give a precise assessment of the cost of the damage, will he give a commitment that that cost will not fall upon the local authorities and end up being put on to the poll tax, which is already hitting the people in the north of Scotland? Will he also take into account the fact that there is moratorium in my constituency on improvement grants for people who wish to repair private housing? Will he look into that and perhaps provide some extra money to help people repair the damage that the storm caused to their private houses?
Mr. Rifkind: As the hon. Gentleman will have heard from my answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), certain principles are applied to such civil emergencies throughout the United Kingdom. We shall expect to apply the same general approach as has been applied on previous occasions. I am conscious of the fact that, quite apart from the housing damage, there has been damage to many educational buildings. For example, the Liniclate secondary school in Benbecula in the hon. Gentleman's constituency has been seriously damaged. Naturally, that is also a matter that we shall wish to discuss with the Islands council to discover the extent of the damage and what will be required to return the school to its proper use as quickly as possible.
Mr. Thomas McAvoy: I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware of the widespread damage in my constituency. I appreciate his concern and I welcome his commitment to consider financial support for all those who have experienced loss. Is he aware that, at the height of the storm yesterday afternoon, falling masonry from Rutherglen town hall narrowly avoided killing people on the main street? When he comes to reviewing the financial arrangements, will he specifically consider the needs of Rutherglen town hall?
Mr. Rifkind: Naturally, we shall take into account any representations that we receive from the hon. Gentleman's local authority because, clearly, the town hall is among the buildings that have been damaged by the storm.
Mr. John McAllion: The Minister said earlier that local authorities would be expected to take responsibility for repairing council housing, but would not that be an unfair way of dealing with a natural disaster? Surely it is unfair that local authorities should be expected to raise the money to meet such costs, when the only means that the Government have left them is to push up rents, and rents should not go up as a result of a national disaster.
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman may have read more into my remarks than I intended. It must, in the first instance, be for the local authorities to take responsibility for repairing damage done to the houses that they own. Whether that should have consequences for their capital allocations, either on the housing revenue account or otherwise, is another matter on which we shall wish to hear local authorities' views on the extent of the problems that they face.
Mr. John Home Robertson: Will the Secretary of State comment on the contrast between the rather grudging statement made by the Minister of State, the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, when he visited the Highlands last week, and the conduct of a procession of Ministers who fell over themselves to hand out £23 million to people in the south of England following the storm in October 1987? If this is a united kindom, will equivalent compensation be paid to both countries?
Mr. Rifkind: I assure the hon. Gentleman that exactly the same criteria apply to an emergency in Scotland as applied to an emergency in the south of England. The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that this is a united kingdom and there is no basis on which different criteria should be

159
applied if people lose their lives, homes or properties in various parts of the kingdom. If that is of concern to the hon. Gentleman, I am happy to reassure him.

Points of Order
4.5 pm
Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will like this, because, as usual, it is very helpful. Let me take you back to Prime Minister's Question Time, the confusion that reigned in the House and the difficulty in which the Chair was placed as a result of the Prime Minister's extremely long answer, which some of us would describe unkindly as time wasting. I know that you are a great football fan and last Wednesday the referee in Scotland-Cyprus game added on six minutes to compensate for time wasted. Would not that be a good principle for the occupant of the Chair?
Mr. Speaker: I am often tempted, but that way we would not get much business done.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the Leader of the Opposition chooses to ask a planted question, should not the Opposition listen to the answer?
Mr. Speaker: We should all listen to the answer, which today was one that the House was waiting to hear.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) did not tell you that the referee was knocked out after the game.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As this is probably the first time that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's answer has been longer than that of the Leader of the Opposition's question, perhaps in future you could subtract time from Question Time if the Leader of the Opposition goes on at his usual length.
Mr. Speaker: I know that there was some difficulty during Employment questions today. Long supplementary questions lead to long answers and we do not get through many questions. I am in favour of calling as many Back Benchers as possible.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: If there had been an extra six minutes, as Scotland had in that match when rt scored the vital goal—[Interruption.] Scotland will probably qualify and England might not. If we had those six minutes today, an hon. Member might have asked about the way in which the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer was treated at the royal mint in Wales this morning during the by—election campaign.
Mr. Speaker rose—
Mr. Skinner: This is a matter for you, Mr. Speaker, so listen carefully. He was ordered by the Treasury that he must not step into—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for me. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was mentioning the royal mint in connection with a function here today. I know nothing about the other matter.
Mr. Skinner: No, well, I was coming on to that. I was going on to say that if we had had those extra six minutes we could have raised this important new development in Government authoritarianism, in which the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer is refused admission to the

161
royal mint which was sent to Wales by a Labour Government after the Conservative party had refused to let it go—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but I must use my authority on this matter. I know nothing about that. If the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer is in London, he is welcome to come to the party that I shall be giving tonight for the royal mint.
Mr. Alan Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We accept entirely the fact that this is not a matter for you, because we realise that you are in the middle of the situation. But, since the Leader of the House and the Government Chief Whip are present, let me say that it is extraordinary for one of the most senior Members of the Opposition Front Bench to be denied entrance to a public establishment such as the mint. May I ask, through you, Mr. Speaker, for the Leader of the House to consult the Chancellor—we understand that the local mint officials had to refer the issue to the Treasury and, therefore, the Chancellor's office—and for the Chancellor to come to the House and explain why that peculiar exclusion order was enforced?
Several Hon. Members: Further to that point of order—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not further to the point of order. I will hear one more, but it is nothing to do with me. I do not know anything at all about this.
Mr. David Shaw: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. On this occasion I have some sympathy with hon. Gentlemen. I feel that in the circumstances, in which the Labour party is in severe difficulties in the Pontypridd by-election and is desperate—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for me. [Interruption.] I will be calling the hon. Gentleman in the debate very soon, so I think that we ought to get on.
Mr. Skinner: On a point of order—
Mr. Speaker: No, I am not having any more on that.
Mr. Skinner: On a point of order—
Mr. Speaker: No point of order arises.
Mr. Skinner: You issued the electoral writ—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Harry Cohen.

Poll Tax (Restoration of Individual Privacy)
4.11 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen: I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 and the Local Government Finance Act 1988 in order to protect an individual's privacy.
The poll tax is the pinnacle of perniciousness under this Tory regime. Some families in my constituency in Leyton will have to pay £1,000 or more a year, and they will go bankrupt. It is, however, the abuse of privacy that I am concerned with today. The title of the Bill speaks for itself. By the time the poll tax is finally introduced, more than £100 million will have been spent to keep tabs on all adults over the age of 18—money which could be much better spent on providing badly needed public services. Instead, millions will be spent on computers and bureaucrats so that local authority officials can invade people's privacy to collect the poll tax.
Valentine's day is a poignant day on which to introduce this Bill. It is a day for lovers. Yet in future, poll tax officers will be entitled to know who lives and sleeps with whom so that they can collect the tax. The implementation of the social security cohabitation rule, under which DHSS officials spy on women claimants' sex lives, will seem but a small fondle compared with the collection methods for the poll tax, which will be an orgasm of privacy abuse. Today is also the day of the Valentine's day massacre, but on this occasion it is our privacy rights that are being massacred by the poll tax.
The Guardian of 4 October last year had the following to say:
"Couples face policing by poll tax rules. Local council finance officers"—
that is, poll tax officers—
"will be expected to play policeman to force deserted spouses to pay their errant partner's poll tax, according to draft Environment Department guidelines. They will also have to decide whether people sharing a house are living as man and wife and are therefore liable for each others tax and whether couples have separated. … Joint and several liability for poll tax applies not only to married couples but also to couples living together as man and wife … In general … where a husband leaves the matrimonial home without paying his poll tax, officials should resist the 'administratively more straightforward' course of forcing the deserted wife to pay. They should try to trace the husband. However if they fail—and the Environment Department thinks that will not happen often"—
who are they kidding?—
"then the officers may force the wife to pay, perhaps by seizing the video or deducting the debt from her earnings."
The authorities are to hound and punish women on their own in their own homes for the faults of their partners. Under the Government's poll tax proposals, everyone is to be tagged, tabulated and taxed. Individual privacy has been cast aside as of no value and its loss—in addition to the poll tax itself—is a price that everybody will have to pay. The Government are not too bothered because privacy, like the quality of life, is not easily measured in pounds sterling. The poll tax will be a snooper's charter. Many private bailiff companies are already eager to act as bounty hunters, and councils such as big-pay-off Westminster prepared to hire them.
The purpose of my Bill is to highlight the ways in which privacy is eroded by the poll tax. It also attempts to protect

163
poll tax data in law at least to the same extent as the census. Each clause restricts the invasion of privacy that will occur with the poll tax. The detailed provisions are as follows.
Clause 1 ensures that personal data can be used or collected only if it is fully in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1984. The exceptions to that Act granted to poll tax officers are removed. Under my Bill, personal data must be obtained fairly and lawfully and poll tax officers must not mislead people as to why the information is required. Disclosure from the poll tax registeres will be subject to the control exercised by the data protection registrar. Then, at least, he will be able to take up complaints from the public about the misuse of information originally obtained for poll tax purposes.
Clause 2, for Scotland, and clause 3, for England and Wales, provide that public inspection of the extract of the register must be for a purpose associated with the poll tax and not for any other purpose such as debt collecting, direct mailing—that is, junk mail—policing and purposes of that kind. In Scotland, anybody can inspect the register or an extract from the register for any purpose. Such unfettered access is an abuse of individual rights, making individuals subject in future to commercial and authoritarian exploitation.
Clause 4 states that information about an individual held for poll tax purposes can he disclosed by a poll tax officer only for a purpose associated with the poll tax and with the consent of the individual. It prevents poll tax registers from being a source of information for other organisations which should have no right to that information on individuals.
Clauses 5 and 6 go together. Clause 5 makes it an offence for any person or organisation to hold or process personal data from more than one poll tax register unless the individual concerned has consented. This stops registers being merged or combined and thus prevents their being used to keep track of the movements of individuals or being used in a wider population database.
Clause 6 also places a restriction on collection of the date of birth, so that it is legitimately obtained only where two or more people with the same name live at the same address. That is important because, when people are vetted, their date of birth is required. Without the date of birth, the register is unattractive as a starting point for black lists, credit references and general vetting registers, for which it otherwise would be used. In Scotland it is already possible to combine poll tax registers and, through the use of the date of birth, develop unique personal identifiers in a database that would include the whole adult population of Scotland. That is an intolerable situation, but it is quite legal under the current poll tax law.
Clause 7 removes the Secretary of State's power to breach a duty of confidentiality and disclose any
164
information for poll tax purposes. Any disclosure by him would then be subject to the Data Protection Act, as it should be. At the moment, social services Ministers have the power to blurt out almost anything they like if it help in the collection of the poll tax. No at-risk person will be safe from a Minister more interested in collecting the poll tax than in protecting a social services case.
Also in relation to the social services connection, clause 8 allows any local authority to refuse to provide information to the poll tax officer if that authority is satisfied that the disclosure would seriously undermine the services that it provides to an individual. That is not the case with regard to the poll tax at present.
Under clause 9, the electoral registrar can use the poll tax register to encourage people to vote. However, if the electoral registrar uses the poll tax register, the right to sell the electoral register ceases under my Bill, and the electoral register can be inspected only for electoral purposes. Although the Government have stopped the sale of the poll tax register, the current law allows the poll tax register to be copied by the electoral registrar and the information placed on the electoral register and then sold to all the marketeers, vetters and black-listers who want it. That is a ludicrous situation.
Finally, clause 10 gets the name right, so that it is the more common usage "poll tax" rather than the ridiculously misleading misnomer "community charge". Ministers answering parliamentary questions are currently saying that they are not introducing a poll tax. That is ridiculous. Of course they are doing so—and they will riot fool the public by denying that they are and using another name.
The poll tax has both commercial and police state potential, and under the present Government privacy comes a poor third to both. Abuses will certainly occur. In the final analysis, if individual privacy rights are to be properly maintained, the poll tax must be abolished. 1 hope to support a Labour Government that will do just that.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. George J. Buckley, Mr. Bob Clay, Mr. Frank Cook, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie, Mr. John Hughes, Mr. Jeff Rooker, Mr. John McAllion, Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Martin Redmond.

Poll Tax (Restoration of Individual Privacy)
  POLL TAX (RESTORATION OF INDIVIDUAL PRIVACY)
  Mr. Harry Cohen accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 and the Local Government Finance Act 1988 in order to protect an individual's privacy: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 3 March and to be printed. [Bill 75]
Orders of the Day

  Local Government and Housing Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Speaker: Before I call on the Secretary of State for the Environment, I may tell the House that a number of right hon. and hon. Members have written asking to take part in the debate, and others may wish to do so. I do not propose to impose a 10-minute limit on speeches today, but I ask right hon. and hon. Members to make brief contributions, so that all those who wish to participate in the debate may do so.
  4.21 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill contains a series of reforms, and I will discuss each in the order in which they appear in the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) will probably perform his usual trick and say that this is the 50th local government Bill since 1979. That is a good round number on which to complete the process of local government reform. The Bill completes the new regime for local authorities that we promised at the last general election, and I hope that we can leave it to work for many years—nay, decades—to come.
  The first part of the Bill enacts the remaining recommendations of the Widdicombe committee that we have accepted. We have no written constitution. Instead, in central Government, we abide by certain conventions that the Opposition, quite rightly, make sure we observe. Civil servants do not take part in political activity. We have accounting officers who make sure that Ministers keep within financial rules, and the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office make sure that we do not engage in wrong financial practice.
  You, Mr. Speaker, ensure that we safeguard the rights of minorities in the House, to be heard and to be represented on Committees. You also make sure that only those entitled to vote in this House do so. For decades, local authorities followed the same principles voluntarily. I very much regret that over the last 10 years, a minority of local authorities—most of them Labour-controlled, but not entirely—have flouted those same conventions, and that it is now necessary to legislate. But it is. We must ensure the same integrity in local government affairs that we ourselves practise, centrally and in this House.
  First, we will establish a post of monitoring officer, whom all councils will be required to designate—not unlike the accounting officers in Government Departments. That person will have a duty to report to the council on any proposal or decision that may be illegal, in breach of a code of practice, or likely to result in maladministration or injustice. We gave a similar role to the finance officer in respect of council expenditure under the Local Government Finance Act 1988.
  Secondly, we intend clarifying the roles of elected members and officers. There was a time—not that long ago—when no self-respecting senior council officer would dream of taking part in any public political activity. His or her job was as a neutral professional adviser to the council, and that is where their loyalty lay—not to the majority
  166
  party of the day. No senior civil servant is allowed to take part in public political activities, and no civil servant can be a Member of this House.
  Most local authority officers still hold to that principle. However, it is a sad fact that some of them have sunk to providing advice as a senior officer in one authority, while expounding their political views in the council chamber of another authority. To put it the other way around, is it right that politicians should, at the same time, take a job in another council as a subsidy for their political activities? How can a member of the public rely on that officer's impartial advice?
  The Bill ends twin tracking in three bands of restricted posts—first, chief officers and their deputies; secondly, other sensitive posts identified by each council on the basis of statutory criteria; thirdly, other staff earning £13,500 per annum or more, who—if they are not in sensitive posts—will be able to apply to an independent national adjudicator for exemption.
  Mr. Eric S. Heller: Is not the right hon. Gentleman being absolutely hypocritical? Over the years, many chief officers have been ardent supporters of the Conservative party—as have some senior civil servants. The Government take the view that to be a Conservative supporter is non-political. Others take the view that if one is political, one stands by one's own party. When I became chairman of a Liverpool city council committee, I was told by the chief officer that I could not do this, this and this. I asked him whether it would be against the law, and was told no. Therefore, I told that chief officer, "We will do this, this and this—and I shall take the consequences." We often get advice from chief officers that is pure Toryism—nothing else.
  Mr. Ridley: When I first became a Minister, I was told that I could not do this, this and this—and I have always abided by those conventions. Fond though I am of the hon. Gentleman, and much though I admire him, I am extremely glad that he is not a civil servant in my Department, advising me at the same time as he is performing his parliamentary duties.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Recently, the chief officer of Westminster city council told that council and its Tory group, "You should not do this, this, and this." He advised them that it would not be wise to sell off the council's cemeteries for 5p a piece, and suggested that to do so might be asset stripping. Despite that advice from Mr. Brooke, the chief officer of Westminster city council, the Tories went ahead and sold off the council's cemeteries for 15p. The people who bought that land resold it for £1·2 million.
  In other words, the chief officer was correct to give the advice that he did. It is now suggested that that land could be sold for £5 million. If Westminster city council wants it back, it will cost its ratepayers a great deal of money. Why does the Secretary of State concentrate on attacking Labour councils, and introducing measures in the Bill for that purpose, instead of getting stuck in to Tory Westminster city council and dealing with its activities?
  Mr. Ridley: I am not responsible for the activities of any particular council. If a chief officer wishes to advise his council on what is right and proper and what is not, the Bill facilitates the process that the hon. Gentleman seeks. I cannot think what more he could want.

  167
  The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) in a newspaper article, called the Bill an
  "unacceptable attack on human rights".
  What nonsense. Does the hon. Gentleman think that it is an attack on human rights that civil servants cannot stand for parliamentary election? How would the Opposition like it if a deputy secretary in my Department were also a Conservative Member of this House? That is an intolerable thought. So we are mirroring, as far as possible, the very rules that apply for the Civil Service.
  Mr. Terry Fields: As part of this attack on democracy and the disfranchisement of 70,000 people working in the Civil Service, the right hon. Gentleman has set an arbitrary figure of £13,500 a year as the salary of those who will be disfranchised. How does he reconcile that with the fact that the majority of Conservatives in this place receive more by way of handouts, dividends and so on than by way of their salaries?
  Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman does not understand the meaning of words. "Disfranchisement" means that one cannot vote. All civil servants and all council employees can vote. The Civil Service is divided into three categories—those who cannot take part in public political activities, those who can stand for council elections and those who are totally free. We are suggesting the same treatment for employees of councils, allowing the maximum number of them—not a total prohibition—who are not in politically sensitive posts to continue political activities.
  We are treating council employees better than civil servants in this respect, so the hon. Gentleman's argument is groundless. If Opposition Members press their opposition to these clauses, I do not think they will find it goes down well with their constituents. The people who are most shocked by twin tracking are those who have to pay the bills to meet the salaries of those who do it.
  The Bill also provides for a maximum of three staff to be attached to political groups on the council. We are now persuaded that it can be helpful—and indeed desirable—for councillors to have access to a research assistant, as is commonplace in Governments of both parties, who is able to get information, liaise with officers, obtain papers and so on. We shall be placing stringent safeguards on their use to make sure that no conflict occurs.
  As I said, this House insists on the essential principle of free and fair political debate. Opposition Members have the right to put their points of view on the Floor of the House and in Committee. There is no such right for minority groups on local authority committees. In some cases, the majority party has taken too much discretion over the appointment and membership of committees. Some have excluded opposition parties altogether from key decision-taking committees. Decisions have been forced through with no public debate.
  The Bill will require appointments to committees to be made pro rata to the balance of political parties on the council. It also provides that only elected members, as opposed to co-optees, will be able to vote on executive committees, the single exception being Church or other representatives where they make a major contribution to education. I am sure that the Opposition will agree that we should not be able to co-opt voting members on to our Standing Committees in this House, and the same goes for elected councillors.
  Dr. John Cunningham: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why it is acceptable—indeed, legally required in some aspects of local government—to have statutory co-optees who can play a prominent role, but he is taking an entirely different view to other local government activities? Why is an exception being made of magistrates, who will retain their ability to attend, and vote on the decisions and activities of, police committees?
  Mr. Ridley: If we trace the history of education back through the 1944 Act, we find that it was provided largely by the Church, and many of the assets involved are Church assets. The history of this matter, which can be explored at great length in Committee, leads one to the belief that it is right that those whose assets and help is much involved in public education should be allowed still to play a part in the decision-taking process.
  Dr. Cunningham: The right hon. Gentleman is not explaining the point. If it does not cause problems in education or in respect of police committees, what is the justification for taking an entirely different view in other areas, where external and co-opted expertise can make a valuable contribution to the decisions of local government committees?
  Mr. Ridley: Nobody is complaining about expertise. That is certainly available. This is about people voting in committees when they have not been elected. The logic of the hon. Gentleman's question suggests that he will be moving amendments to exclude Church representatives and magistrates from voting on council committees. If he seeks to do that, he must argue his case and see how it stands up.
  Part II of the Bill strengthens the hand of the Commissioner for Local Administration—the local government ombudsman—by setting specific statutory deadlines by which local authorities must respond to reports and by requiring that any decision not to comply with a local ombudsman's recommendation can be taken only by the full council.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 431 which appears on the Notice Paper today concerning the Quin family, constituents of mine who have been swindled out of £17,000 by Coventry city council, which forced them to sell the lease of their property back to the council and promptly sold it to another company for a profit of over £30,000? Will he include in the Bill powers for local authorities to be forced to take notice of the findings of maladministration by the ombudsman against them?
  Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend has every right to seek publicity for any case where he believes injustice has taken place, but I think that he would hesitate with me to make it possible for the reports of an ombudsman, whether local or national, to be, as it were, imposed on the authority. The authority—whether the Government or a council—is politically responsible, and it must take the responsibility and make its decisions. Publicity is the weapon of the local ombudsman, and we shall make sure that he has access to publicity in his findings.
  Part III of the Bill gives local authorities a specific economic development power, which they have long sought and have not had before. Local authorities' efforts to boost the economic regeneration of their area are made under a confused ragbag of powers. The new power will

  169
  give these powers a simpler statutory footing and will oblige authorities to draw up an annual programme of activity in consultation with the local business community.
  Part III also clarifies the scope of the discretionary spending power contained in the old section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972. In future, spending under section 137 can take place only if the benefits accrue directly to the area or its inhabitants, and that benefit must be commensurate with the level of expenditure. We will also clarify the rules on where section 137 cannot be used because authorities have other powers. We will therefore change the "free twopenny rate" limit in section 137 moneys to a per capita limit in accordance with the unlamented demise of the domestic rating system.
  Part IV of the Bill establishes the promised new framework of control over local authorities' borrowing and capital finance. The present capital control system has few friends. It has not delivered the Government's spending plans and it has led to the wrong distribution of spending between authorities. The new system changes the system from control of capital expenditure to control of the sources of finance. Local government has preferred the control of credit for a long time. That is what we are offering.
  Under clauses 44 and 45, we will issue credit approvals to control the amount of credit that an authority can borrow. We shall be setting provisional limits three years ahead. It is right for the Government to control that as part of their management of the national economy, as I think the Opposition acknowledge.
  Mr. John Redmond: I am interested to learn that the Government want to control local authorities. Does the Secretary of State agree that the House ought to be in a position to control the Executive? If so, will he seek to remove much of the regulation, and the powers that such regulation will give him, from the Bill?
  Mr. Ridley: I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's support, as I believe I have the Opposition's support, for the control of local authority borrowing—or capital—but I do not follow the second part of his question. I always thought that the House had the powers to control the spending of the Executive. The present difficulty is that the House seems to want the Executive to spend more rather than less.
  Local authorities will be free to decide to supplement their capital spending by spending from usable capital receipts and also revenue from the community charge. Clause 39 defines credit arrangements to include devices by which local authorities have obtained benefits in advance of paying for them—the so-called creative accounting devices.
  Local authorities are now generating capital receipts at a rate of £4 billion a year. Receipts from the right to buy are involuntary, but I am glad that authorities have also come to realise the benefit of divesting themselves of surplus non—housing assets. They have more than trebled, from £350 million to £1,100 million, in the space of five years.
  Receipts do not necessarily fall where the need to spend is greatest. The more that authorities spend them, the less there is available for needy councils to borrow, because it
  170
  is the total spend that is currently controlled. Our solution is simple. Clause 49 provides that part of capital receipts should be set aside to reduce authorities' indebtedness. Most local authority assets are financed by borrowing, and that borrowing stands at £45 billion. It is only right that, when the assets are sold, some of the proceeds should go to reduce the borrowing. We are not taking local authorities' receipts; we are simply saying that some of their receipts should be used to repay their debt.
  I am aware that not all local authorities have welcomed the provisions for debt redemption. Whether their community charge payers will be of the same view is quite another matter. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I have therefore decided to take action now to deal with two potential abuses, to ensure that nothing untoward happens to the accumulated receipts of local authorities in the period before the discipline and financial accountability of the community charge take effect.
  First, we are taking administrative action to secure that capital receipts cannot be used before the start of the new system to pre-fund acquisitions or works which will take place after the end of the next financial year. This is achieved by revisions to the block borrowing approval and the general consent to the use of capital money. Secondly, we propose that the debt redemption rate applicable in the new system to disposals of stocks and shares and similar investments should be at the higher rate which we propose for capital receipts from sales of council housing. That will remove any temptation for housing receipts to be converted into non-housing receipts by being applied to the purchase of equities.
  These measures will take immediate effect. To have consulted in advance would have precipitated a flood of money into prefunding arrangements, as happened in 1985 when we announced changes in the prescribed proportions. Details are being sent today to all authorities, and copies have been placed in the Library of the House. I do not believe that either measure will have any adverse effects on the legitimate capital programmes of local authorities, but the block borrowing approval and the general consent will apply only for the remainder of this financial year and my right hon. Friend and I will be consulting on what should replace them. During the consultation period, as at any other time, local authorities will be able to apply for specific approvals or consents if any unintended consequences of the measures do arise.
  Mr. Ron Leighton: The Secretary of State has been very generous in giving way, which is appreciated.
  Why should not these matters be left to be decided locally? If the Secretary of State insists that local authorities pay off debt, they will save some interest. It is more than possible, however, that investing money from the sale of council houses would earn them more in profit than the interest that they would have saved by redeeming debt. For example, they could put the money into building new housing to save bed-and-breakfast costs, which would represent a better business deal.
  Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that Governments, inluding the Government of which he was a member, have always considered it necessary to control local authorities' total capital spending. He may argue that we have controlled it too tightly, but I could argue that in

  171
  the 1970s the Labour Government controlled it a good deal more tightly. That is not to say, however, that the mechanisms of control should not be provided, and that is what the Bill does.
  Mr. Clive Soley: Has the Secretary of State forgotten that in 1980 the same Tory party that now governs the country told local authorities that they would be able to spend their capital receipts on housing? Has he also forgotten that the London Boroughs Association and the Association of District Councils—both Conservative-controlled—are opposed to his proposals?
  Will the right hon. Gentleman also tell us whether money will be taken from a house subject to a compulsory purchase order and put into debt repayment?
  Mr. Ridley: In 1980, the hon. Gentleman and I probably under-estimated the enormous success of the right to buy, and did not anticipate that local authorities would now be receiving about £4 billion a year in capital. His party's Government could not turn a blind eye to the economic effects of sums of that size, any more than this Government can.
  Mr. Robert B. Jones: My right hon. Friend said earlier that he wished to encourage local authorities to repay their debt, and I certainly support that. But will he clarify the position of local authorities that use their capital receipts to finance internal lending, and therefore to avoid additional debt? Will they be able to continue doing that?
  Mr. Ridley: They can do as they will. If they avoid internal lending, it is, in many respects, equivalent to repaying debt. What we will control is the amount of new borrowing. Authorities with high receipts and high spending power from those receipts will clearly be less in need of new borrowing than others.
  My officials will continue to monitor local authority expenditure carefully during the months ahead, and I shall not hesitate to take further action if necessary.
  Dr. Cunningham: May I ask a question relating to the reply that the Secretary of State gave the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones)? Is he saying that, in the event of internal transfer of the use of capital receipts by local authorities, such a transaction will be excluded from the Bill?
  Mr. Ridley: If a local authority sells an asset, it will have to use the prescribed proportion to repay the debt—either 50 per cent. or 75 per cent. It will be able to use the balance to invest in spheres other than that from which it came. There is no control over the vires.
  Part V of the Bill introduces a statutory framework for local authority-controlled or influenced companies. The Widdicombe committee recommended that local authority companies should be set up only where there was specific enabling legislation, but we do not wish to do anything to prevent beneficial local authority involvement in companies.
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: Will my right hon. Friend put a proper Conservative stamp on this part of the Bill by ensuring that, when local authorities compulsorily purchase a property. they pay the full market value? Perhaps he will bear in mind the firm promise given to the Bolton, Bury and district landlords association that
  172
  the present injustice in the legislation would be put right in the Bill, so that landlords would be given every incentive to provide homes for rent?
  Mr. Ridley: An amendment will be moved in Committee to deal with those points. I am sorry that the provision is not already in the Bill: it simply was not drafted in time.
  Part VI provides for the reform of local authority housing finance. We have three objectives: to improve the financial discipline of councils and their accountability to their tenants, to ensure that the money provided by the national taxpayer goes where it is really needed and to encourage council rents, over time, to come to bear more resemblance to the real world. Councils will not, with some exceptions, be able to transfer money between the housing revenue account and the rest of their funds, and vice versa. This is called ring fencing.
  Broadly speaking, only landlord expenditure will be charged to the housing revenue account. Expenditure on facilities shared with the wider community, or on such social services as wardens for sheltered housing, will either be outside the ring fence or receive a contribution across it. As a result, both tenants and charge payers will get a clear picture of the services they receive and the charges they pay for them.
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Ridley: I have given way to every hon. Gentleman who sought to intervene. However, if I continue to do so, I shall speak rather longer that I had intended.
  Mr. Rooker: The Secretary of State's generosity is extremely helpful to hon. Members on both sides of the House. He mentioned ring fencing. Who will bear the cost of maintaining housing waiting lists which are not solely for the purpose of the tenants but involve the wider community, such as owner-occupiers who may find themselves homeless? It would be unfair if the cost of maintaining the housing waiting list were taken solely from the housing revenue account.
  Mr. Ridley: A number of costs—and that may well be one of them—should be outside the ring fence and borne by the wider community, particularly when they have a wider social implication beyond the management of the housing stock. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the precise dividing line should be the subject of consultation and discussion in Committee so that we fix it in the right place.
  Mr. Gerry Steinberg: I do not often intervene in the speeches of the Secretary of State, but my understanding of the ring fence is that the housing revenue account would not be able to subsidise the general rate fund account and the general rate fund account would not be able to subsidise the housing revenue account. However, if the housing revenue account is in surplus, will that surplus be allowed to be added to the general rate fund?
  Mr. Ridley: I am coming to that. If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall explain it precisely.
  Clause 68 provides for the new housing revenue account subsidy which replaces three subsidies: the present housing subsidy, the subsidy paid by the Department of Social Security towards rent rebates and the support given

  173
  towards housing expenditure through the rate support grant. We will be consulting the local authority associations, but the main elements of the new system will be an assessment of what each authority needs to spend on management, repairs and debt service; and an assumption, as at present, about the amount of each authority's rent income.
  The subsidy, from the taxpayers, will be paid to meet the difference between the assessed need to spend and the notional rental income. Efficient authorities will be able to balance the ring-fenced account and provide a good standard of service at a reasonable rent. But inefficiency, rent arrears and waste will not be subsidised by the national taxpayer or the community charge payer. In answer to the hon. Member for the City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), where the rent income exceeds the costs, the subsidy will be reduced by a corresponding amount. Therefore, there will be no gainers and no losers. Where there is a loss on the housing revenue account, the taxpayers will make up the difference; where there is a surplus, the taxpayers will take the credit. It is perfectly fair and balanced.
  Like its predecessors, the new subsidy must contain a mechanism for affecting rents. Therefore, I propose to say a few words about rents, if only to stop the Opposition claiming that we are about to double or treble council house rents. If people believed that, the result would be a doubling or trebling of right-to-buy sales. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would want to avoid anything as democratic as that. However, it is not true.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: My right hon. Friend is well aware of the fact that some councils have a very bad reputation for collecting rents. If they do not collect those rents, they have to get the money from somewhere. My right hon. Friend says that it will not come from the general taxpayer. I presume that it will not come from the general community charge payer, so is it going to come from the other rent payers within that local authority area?
  Mr. Ridley: Yes.
  Mr. John Fraser: People complain that some local authorities have very large rent arrears. Does the Secretary of State appreciate that some local authorities have huge rent arrears which are probably irrecoverable? One of the difficulties of rate capping and penalties is that, if local authorities write off irrecoverable rent arrears, as any commercial business would do, that counts as expenditure. If the Secretary of State presses ahead with his reforms, would it not be right to have an amnesty for irrecoverable rent arrears and to start with a clean slate?
  Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman's point hardly arises from the Bill, but some Labour authorities in very difficult parts of London have remarkably good records in avoiding rent arrears, while others have equally bad records. It is a question of management and councils could make great improvements up to the level of the best. The way in which the power in the Bill is designed gives them an incentive to do so. As for the allowances made for
  174
  irretrievable rent arrears in the process of rate limitation, the hon. Gentleman should await the final details of our decision on that.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the councillors' code of conduct should include recommendations about councillors who owe very large sums in rent and rates arrears? The vice-chairman of the Lambeth borough housing committee—the hon. Member for Norwood's own borough—owes more than £2,000 in rent and rate arrears, having collected £28,000 in council allowance.
  Mr. Ridley: Such things are most regrettable, but I have to remind my hon. Friend that hon. Members have owed similar amounts of money to the Refreshment Department.
  The present pattern of council house rents has no logical justification. In the first place, much council stock was built many years ago, when costs were low. Under present practice, councils carry their properties on their books only at the cost of servicing their historic debts. Those whose rents cover only historic debt charges plus maintenance are keeping rents unrealistically low. Rents also differ between councils according to their political prejudices, with differing subsidies paid from the rates. Rents ought to have some regard to the size and quality of a house or flat, to the local environment and so on. Some authorities already allow for that in setting rents between dwellings, but others pay far too little attention to it.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Ridley: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman when I have finished this point.
  The results of those muddled arrangements are no longer acceptable. People cannot make sensible judgments about where to live, or in what tenure sector. Where the resultant rents are low, they have been yielding insufficient resources to provide for repairs, replacement and improvement.
  The Bill will take the anomalies out of the present arrangements. For example, since we published our proposals last summer, we have consistently said that in setting council rents more account should be taken of what a property is worth.
  Mr. Banks rose—
  Mr. Ridley: We are not talking about sudden massive rent increases; we are talking about rents which progressively reflect more closely the relative worth of different council houses, without hidden subsidies from the rates or from a system of accounting which bears no relationship to the real world. My proposals would mean that, over time, there would be a gradual elimination of the wide variation in rents between neighbouring authorities, which has more to do with history or political opportunism than with the efficient provision of a housing service. Rents will begin to move towards a reflection of the varying costs of housing—in terms of size and quality, and of amenity.
  Those authorities which have already followed sensible rent policies will not be greatly affected by these arrangements. The result will be wider choice, fairer competition and a better, more accountable service to council tenants.
  Mr. Tony Banks rose—
  Mr. Ridley: I said that I would give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Banks: I thought that the Secretary of State was going to plunge on to the end of his speech. May I bring him back to the point that people have lived on certain estates for so many years that they have covered the historic costs of those estates? Will they now be able to live there free, since they have already paid for the places in which they live? The Secretary of State said that there will be a move to market rents over a period of time. What period of time is he talking about?
  Mr. Ridley: First, I hope that the hon. Gentleman has advised such people that they should have exercised the right to buy and that they can still do so, thereby avoiding the trap of paying rent for a lifetime and ending up owning nothing.
  Secondly—what was the hon. Gentleman's second point?
  Mr. Banks: How long does the Secretary of State envisage it will be before we move towards market rents?
  Mr. Ridley: I never said that we were moving towards market rents. I said that we were moving towards a closer relationship with a property's value. That is a very different matter, as I made quite clear. If the hon. Gentleman had listened instead of jumping up and down, he would have heard that I carefully avoided any reference to market rents.
  The last major reform in the Bill is the reform of the system of help that is provided for private owners and tenants in poor-condition property. This occurs in parts VII and VIII, together with the clauses in part IX and schedule 8.
  I am delighted that we have increased home ownership to more than two thirds of all households. We now need to concentrate our efforts and the sizeable sums involved on owners who cannot afford to put their properties right. It is a bad use of scarce resources to assist people who can improve their houses without assistance. Resources should be targeted on the properties that are unfit and on the people who cannot afford the cost of essential work.
  The Bill provides for a new basic standard of fitness. If a property falls below that standard on any single item, it will be considered unfit and a local authority have have a duty to act on it either by renovation or clearance. We intend to amend the Bill so that, where clearance is the reasonable course, market value compensation will be available to those displaced. Where renovation is preferred, local authorities will be required to see that the property is brought up to standard, often with grant aid but sometimes without it, if the owner or tenant can afford to do so.
  The Bill provides for help with a range of other types of work designed to prevent a slide into serious disrepair or to make conditions more comfortable for the occupant. That help will be discretionary, and grant will again be subject to a test of the owner's resources.
  This will enable us to give more generous help to those least able to afford the costs of necessary work—not just people on income support or housing benefit, but those on higher incomes too. Local authorities will also be empowered to provide and subsidise agency services that assist elderly and lower income households.
  Mr. John Hannam: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he has reversed the proposition in the 1987 consultation document, which was that owners of properties being adapted for disabled people should not be subject to a resource test? He now proposes that they should. Will he reconsider the matter? I hope that he will accept that adapting houses for disabled people does not necessarily increase their value, as ordinary adaptations might. If the owners of such properties were subjected to a means test, that would ran counter to the general care-in-the-community and independent living proposals and adversely affect disabled people.
  Mr. Ridley: I should not like to misinform my hon. Friend, and I would prefer to ask my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government to answer that point properly in his wind-up speech. I should hate to give the wrong answer.
  We intend to introduce amendments at an early stage to enable authorities to provide three other important variants on the renovation grants provided in part VIII. They will provide for mandatory and discretionary grants to assist people who are disabled with adaptations to their homes; an entirely new minor works grant that will enable local authorities to fund insulation work and other minor works of repair and improvement that might enable an elderly person to remain in his or her home; and support for owners of houses in multiple occupation and the common parts of mansion blocks.
  A more concerted effort is needed to improve housing where whole areas are run down. Part VII of the Bill rationalises the existing machinery for promoting area improvements. We shall introduce, again on amendment, measures to enable authorities to repair and improve whole groups or terraces of houses, based on the enveloping and block repair schemes that have had such a beneficial effect in many areas.
  The rest of the Bill contains miscellaneous provisions—none of great significance. That also goes for clause 124, which is the enabling power for my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts to authorise library authorities to charge for certain facilities, while protecting the free lending of books. We do not intend to let local authorities extend the use of charges to other than a few minor services, so Opposition Members can relax.
  Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Ridley: For the last time.
  Mr. Marlow: My right hon. Friend is aware of a significant problem in local government. He also said that this was the last Bill that he would bring forward. He will be aware that the RSPCA has highlighted the problem of stray dogs and the increasing problems of filth and disease that they cause in our environment. Will my right hon. Friend give the House an undertaking that he will bring forward measures—if not in the Bill, by another means—to enable local authorities to tackle this seething pestilence now affecting our urban areas in particular?
  Mr. Ridley: I did not say that this was the last Bill ever. I said that it completes the reforms that we set out at the beginning of this Parliament. I note what my hon. Friend says about the menace of stray and dirty dogs and I share his extreme concern. However, I do not think that the matter can be included in the Bill, nor am I clear what

  177
  legislative measure is required. The question is what to do about the menace—there is no difference between us as to its existence.
  Mr. Fraser rose—
  Mr. Ridley: I said that I had given way for the last time. I must continue.
  The Bill completes the framework for local government into the 1990s and beyond. Accountability will be enhanced, efficiency improved and the available public sector resources targeted where they can be of greatest benefit. Already, there are encouraging signs that local authorities are responding to the new competitive era, tackling restrictive practices and bringing their services into line with what their customers and electors want. The Bill will give further encouragement to the progressive elements in local government that are reforming and regenerating it from within. I commend it to the House.
  5.7 pm
  Dr. John Cunningham: At least I can begin by agreeing with the Secretary of State on one point—that this is the 50th local government Bill in a decade of Conservative Government. That in itself is an admission of the Government's failure to get their local government policies right. Presumably, the Bill comes to the House on the principle, "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again."
  In presenting those 50 Bills, Conservative Secretaries of State have presented at least 50 different views—not only to Parliament but to the people of this country—on how to tackle some of the most deep-seated problems in our urban communities and rural areas. The fact that, after a decade of Conservative Government, we still have those problems shows the slow learning abilities of successive Conservative Ministers. The Bill has all the hallmarks of its successors, or rather predecessors—[Interruption.]—and its successors too, no doubt. It contains the flawed, partial and dogmatic judgments of the Secretary of State. The Government have reached their half century of local government Bills without any sense of celebration in local government—in fact, quite the reverse. These measures are the latest in a major series of attacks on the freedom, the flexibility and the democratic accountability of local government.
  The Bill is a ragbag of bureaucratic, nitpicking, central controls, the principle theme of which is, yet again, to give the Secretary of State further powers to impose his flawed judgments on local communities and their elected councils. The Bill incorporates a series of disgraceful attacks on specific groups in the community—on council tenants, whom it proposes to tax, on first-time home buyers and on users of community services. The proposals are intended to force up rents and end schemes for assistance to first-time home buyers at a time when they are at their most vulnerable. The Bill gives the Secretary of State wide-ranging powers, despite what he has said today, to impose charges for local authority services. It even contains an attack on the democratic rights of thousands of local government staff. Council house tenants will be forced to subsidise the poll tax and housing benefit. That is the implication of the ring-fencing of housing revenue
  178
  accounts. The Government intend to force the less well-off in society to subsidise the least well-off, and to subsidise the very well-off, too.
  The height of a housing and homelessness crisis is not the time to announce restrictions on the availability of home improvement grants. Many families hoping or planning to modernise and improve their homes will have their hopes crushed by these proposals. The promises and assurances of four successive Secretaries of State about the freedom of councils to use capital receipts from the sales of their own assets are reneged on by these proposals. The enforced repayment of councils' borrowing will mean a major loss of capital investment opportunities to provide housing, economic development, and recreational and leisure facilities.
  There are further proposals to restrict the freedom of councils to promote local investment and economic development. The skills and ingenuity of the City of London are to be denied to local government, although they are freely used for the rationalisation of industry and commerce with consequent job losses. They are allowed in that application but not to help local authorities to be more effective in tackling local problems.
  There is even a proposal in this legislation to allow the Secretary of State to create a political vetting office in Whitehall in respect of the activities of local government officers. The message to local electors in county council elections is: "Don't vote for a Conservative party intent on undermining and destroying local democracy and creating further financial burdens for those people who can least afford them."
  Mr. David Nicholson: Would the hon. Gentleman describe the Widdicombe report, which the Bill principally implements, as undermining local democracy?
  Dr. Cunningham: I am coming to that very point, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will listen carefully.
  The Secretary of State began by trying to sell the Bill as a solution to, and indeed an attack on, so-called twin-tracking and other alleged abuses at town halls, and as an effort to make local government more accountable to local people, but in most of its provisions the Bill does exactly the opposite. It increases Government control and gives the Secretary of State wide powers to use regulations not in the Bill, rather than primary legislation, to make local government toe central Government lines regardless of local people's preferences. Those are the principles running through the Bill.
  The Secretary of State says that the legislation will stop what he and others have described as "jobs for the boys". Let us examine what the Widdicombe inquiry, which the Opposition welcomed when it was established, actually had to say about these matters. That is the only hard evidence on which to base any conclusion. The Widdicombe committee said:
  "Local authority employees therefore are not significantly over-represented among councillors."
  In fact, it is an attack on the civil liberties of thousands of council employees to support the proposals in this Bill. Not only will they be banned from serving as councillors on any local authority, but they will be banned from involvement in a range of political activities to be decided by the Secretary of State by regulation.
  It is not just a matter of saying that people cannot stand for office. They may also be prevented from holding office in political parties, commenting publicly on matters of

  179
  party political controversy, canvassing in local elections, and other activities. Moreover. the politically restricted posts will not stop at chief executives, chief officers and their deputies, for which there is a case—anyone earning £13,500 or more per year will be caught by the proposals.
  Mr. Skinner: Does my hon. Friend agree that double standards are being operated by the Tory Government and their supporters, who will undoubtedly file into the Lobby tonight to support this Bill although more than 150 Tory Back Benchers have moonlighting jobs as well as being Members of Parliament earning £24,000 per year? The right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), with four extra jobs, comes readily to mind.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Though not regularly to the House.
  Mr. Skinner: It is a scandal that people who are making money on the side are telling those in local government that they cannot democratically serve the electors in their area because they have a job with another local authority? If the Government want that to apply to people in local government, why do they not apply it to their own Back Benchers?
  Dr. Cunningham: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is right. The Bill is replete with proposals which show the two-faced nature of the Government in these matters. The Government will say that people can apply to be exempted from these restrictions and the Bill says that the Secretary of State may appoint a person to consider such applications and appeals, but it is not mandatory for him to do so. As drafted, the Bill will give one person—the Secretary of State—power to remove the civil liberties and democratic rights of a wide range of local government workers. It diminishes rather than enhances local democracy.
  Mr. John Maples: The hon. Member is being somewhat disingenuous. What happens is not that someone who is a local government officer decides to get elected to a council somewhere else and the Bill stops him—what happens is that people are elected to one council and then given jobs by another council to enable them to conduct their politics for free.
  Dr. Cunningham: That is not what the evidence in the Widdicombe report showed. It is obvious, I hope, that people employed in local government will bring their experience to bear on matters of local government policy in their work as councillors, but that is equally true for other people who are allowed to be councillors. Farmers bring their experience and interests to bear, as do builders, industrialists, architects, lawyers and estate agents, to name just some of the people with working backgrounds which might be thought, like local government itself, to raise conflicts of interest.
  In the Labour party's evidence to Widdicombe, we recognised that there was a level at which inescapable conflicts would arise. We accepted that that was so, and we said that we thought it inadvisable for people at the level of chief officer and above to be councillors in neighbouring authorities. The proposals in the Bill go way beyond that and way beyond the conclusions that Widdicombe reached.
  The Minister for Local Government (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): I will put a very simple case. If the hon. Gentleman, like me, had children at school in the state
  180
  sector and wanted to ask advice from a local government officer about the education of his children, would he be entirely happy if that local government officer was a well-known, Right-wing, Conservative member of another local council whose views on education were deeply offensive to the hon. Gentleman? Surely any ratepayer has the right to believe that when he consults a local government officer he consults an independent person arid not somebody actively involved in politics.
  Dr. Cunningham: I have had the experience that the Minister described, but it was on the other side of the political spectrum. I did not object to the fact that I was advised about education by someone who was a prominent member of another political party. Why should I? We are supposed to be living in a. plural, democratic society.
  The Widdicombe report was published in June 1986.
  Paragraph 6.29 on page 1 1 1 says:
  "Local authority employees therefore are not significantly over-represented among councillors."
  Paragraph 6.33 says:
  "We believe that senior officers should not be politically active, and as a consequence should not be councillors. Accordingly we shall be recommending that senior officers should be statutorily disqualified from being councillors".
  The proposals, however, do not apply to senior officers. A local government employee who is earning as little as 13,500 cannot be described these days as a senior officer. The proposals apply to the middle and junior ranks of local government administration. Ministers know that very well indeed.
  Mr. Tony Banks: As my hon. Friend was asked for an example by the Minister, I will remind him of one not a million miles from the House. When the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) was a senior officer of the Greater London council, he was also the chair of a committee of his own council. He was also a Member of Parliament for a time as well as a senior officer of the Greater London council. The Labour party did not make a fuss about that and the Labour Government certainly did not consider introducing legislation to prevent it.
  Dr. Cunningham: My hon. Friend is right.
  The Government's response, to the Widdicombe report
  was published in July 1988. In paragraph 5.20 of their response the Government said:
  "The Government share, however, the almost universal doubts expressed about the Committee's proposal that the relevant group should be defined as 'Principal Officer' and above. This level is generally criticised as being too low for a blanket ban on political activity. It would affect some 70,000 staff many of whom, especially those in technical posts, may have little or no contact with members."
  That was the Government's response to the Widdicombe report less than a year ago. They said that such a blanket ban was unacceptable, yet they have written exactly that ban into the Bill. What has changed since the Widdicombe committee investigated these matters and reported? In line with that, there were many more critical comments in the Government's response to the Widdicombe report.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Cunningham: No, not for the moment.
  I will give a practical example to illustrate what will happen to people. Councillor Simon Oelman is a 28-year-old councillor in Greenwich. He has been a councillor for about three years and he is the

  181
  vice-chairman of the health and environmental services committee. He is an estates officer with Southwark borough council and earns just over £12,000 a year. He is in the £12,000 to £14,000 per year group. His pay rises by approximately four annual increments, so he is not yet paid more than the lower limit in the Bill—but in a couple of years he will be. If he were doing the same job outside London, his pay would come nowhere near that ceiling. That is also nonsense. The Bill will apply differently to officers doing the same work in different authorities, depending on location.
  Councillor Oelman is allowed by Southwark 12 days' paid leave per year for council duties. Nine months ago he was a Civil Service executive officer in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food where he was allowed 18 days paid leave and 18 days unpaid leave for his council duties, so he was given better treatment as a Government employee than as a local government employee.
  Mr Nicholas Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Cunningham: No, not at the moment.
  What kind of justice is that? What kind of rationale can possibly explain that kind of nonsense? The Secretary of State says that the Bill is necessary. If it is necessary for councillors and local government officials, why was it not necessary when Councillor Oelman worked in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food?
  Mr. Richard Holt: I take the hon. Gentleman's argument. Does he therefore disagree with Middlesbrough borough council, whose personnel officer was elected a county councillor and immediately given complete sabbatical leave indefinitely?
  Dr. Cunningham: On balance, on most occasions I would far sooner agree with the Labour-controlled Middlesbrough council than with the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett rose—
  Dr. Cunningham: The Secretary of State's proposals are nonsensical, discriminatory and perverse in their application. The Government are aiming at the wrong target. They should be introducing legislation to encourage more people to offer themselves as candidates for local government service. They should not be discouraging them, as these proposals do.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Cunningham: No.
  Hon. Members: Give way.
  Dr. Cunningham: No.
  Part III deals with economic development. The Bill introduces a specific power to prevent local government from becoming involved in some of the economic development work that it now does in a bid to boost jobs locally, especially in the inner cites and urban areas. The powers outlined in clause 25 seem reasonable at first sight, but again the detail will be left to regulations imposed by the Secretary of State so Parliament will have little, if any, proper time in which to debate and scrutinise the proposals. The Bill treats economic development and local
  182
  authority companies as totally separate issues, despite the efforts of local authority associations of all political convictions to convince the Government otherwise. Desperately needed local jobs often depend on both, and a serious of unanswered questions remain about those aspects of the Bill—as they do about the Secretary of State's proposals regarding capital receipts.
  Local authorities are likely to have less than six months to plan for the radical new system to control their capital finance that part IV of the Bill foreshadows. Under the current control system, local authorities are free to spend all their capital receipts, over time, to finance capital expenditure on new building repairs. The only restriction is on the pace at which their capital receipts are spent. Under the new system, however, councils will be forced to use their capital receipts—75 per cent. of housing capital receipts and 50 per cent. of other receipts—to repay loans.
  That means that the Government have reneged on the promise given by a previous Secretary of State, that receipts would be available in full, over time, to finance additional capital expenditure. He said:
  "The receipts are and will remain the property of local authorities. They can spend them in future years"— [Official Report, 19 December 1984; Vol. 70, c. 308.]
  That is what Lord Patrick Jenkin said in December 1984 to the House. That was the commitment that he gave and the promise that he made to local authorities when the controls were introduced. That promise about accumulated receipts was recognised in the Government's 1986 Green Paper "Paying for Local Government". Paragraph 6.40 says:
  "Local authorities have been given the assurance that this amount will be available in full over time to justify additional capital expenditure."
  That is the kind of promise and commitment that has been given to this House and then ratted on time and again by Conservative Secretaries of State for the Environment.
  We even have the bizarre proposal in clause 5 requiring local authorities to appoint a "monitoring officer"-what the Secretary of State, in his press release, called a whistleblower. The press release said:
  "The Bill will stop councils appointing political henchmen to key officer posts, whose independence is vital. It also enables Chief Executives to blow the whistle on suspect decisions."
  So there is to be a kind of statutory sneak—no doubt a hangover from the Secretary of State's experiences as a fag at Eton.
  Mr. Ridley: The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was my fag at Eton.
  Dr. Cunningham: It is interesting to contemplate the business before the House this week and the direction in which the Secretary of State and his right hon. Friends are facing: they are facing in all directions at once. In the Official Secrets Bill it is made abundantly clear that there is no public interest duty—none at all—and no room for any whistleblowers in the Civil Service. The Government do not feel the need even to let people deploy, as a defence, the fact that they believe that something criminal or against the national interest was happening. In the case of the Official Secrets Bill, that is ruled out as a defence for civil servants. Yet in local government, where committees meet in public, where the membership of committees is published, where the press are admitted, and where there is already far more openness, it is felt necessary to appoint someone with a statutory duty to blow the whistle.

  183
  In the very same week in which all this is going on, the chief executive of Westminster city council has just been paid £1 million for not blowing the whistle. How does the Secretary of State explain all this? How can he explain to his hon. Friends, whom he will invite to go through the Lobby with him tonight, that there should be a statutorily appointed person to blow the whistle when he is taking no action on the Westminster city council debacle? Clearly, the Secretary of State is facing every way at once. It is a classic example of the Government's naked hypocrisy that in the very week in which they are legislating these proposals for local government officers they are taking an entirely different view in respect of their own people, civil servants and Tory councillors in Westminster.
  Mr. Robert Adley: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for not being here at the beginning of his speech. I was on a Select Committee.
  As a Westminster ratepayer, I rather share his view about the recent activities there. I hope that he can find it in his heart to agree with me that one good thing about the Bill is that it should enable us, for the first time, to set up a register of councillors' interests. There is a great deal of concern about planning activities and, in particular, about the interests of councillors either as consultants or as professional advisers to planners. Does the hon. Gentleman share with me the hope that through this legislation we can beef up the existing safeguards?
  Dr. Cunningham: I certainly share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the goings-on in the neighbourhood of his constituency in Dorset—if those are the events to which he is referring—among developers, planners and Conservative councillors. But they already have a duty under the law to register their interests. In any case, it is only proper that they should register any interest as well as declaring it when involved in any decision.
  As the Secretary of State is so concerned about the public interest in this matter, may I ask him whose interests are being served by the Conservative Lady Porter, the leader of Westminster city council, paying El million to keep the departing chief executive quiet? Whose interests are being served in that case? I put it to the Secretary of State that the interests of the Tory party are being served at the expense of the ratepayer.
  Mr. Ridley: When Mr. Reg Race parted company with Derbyshire county council, no doubt he received his compensation entitlement under the Superannuation Act 1972. I understand that that is all that has been offered by Westminster city council. The only difference is that Derbyshire county council will not tell us how much it paid, whereas Westminster will.
  Dr. Cunningham: I almost regret to say that I do not think there is any chance that Reg Race will keep quiet about what went on in Derbyshire, but I can tell the right hon. Gentleman, since I have here a copy of the contract that has been drawn up between Lady Porter and Mr. Rodney Brooke, that Mr. Race did not sign any contracts like this. He did not make any commitments like this commitment not to say anything about what has been going on in Westminster city council all this time.
  The Secretary of State has always been all too eager to criticise, abuse and insult local councillors, particularly those on Labour authorities, but in the case of the Tory Westminster city council he is paralysed into inactivity and
  184
  silence. He averts his gaze, although if he looks out of his window in Marsham street he can see Westminster city hall in Victoria street. Perhaps he dare not even open the windows in case the stench gets into his office.
  Mr. Frank Dobson: He has a lifelong duty of silence.
  Dr. Cunningham: Yes.
  These matters are treated with great levity when the Tory party is involved, but the Tories take a very different view of much more minor activities in many of the Labour London boroughs. At a dinner recently a civil servant was asked, "Do civil servants ever really tell jokes?" He replied, po-faced, "No, it is too risky, and it is not necessary—we simply observe Ministers and report the facts."
  Mr. David Winnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if any Labour-controlled local authority were being run in the corrupt way in which Westminster city council is being run, virtually every Tory Member of Parliament would be calling on the Government to ensure that the administration of the area was placed in the hands of someone from the central authority? Does he agree that, even apart from the cemeteries and the hush-money contracts to which he alluded, Lady Porter has shown herself to be totally disqualified not just to be the leader of a local authority but even to be a member?
  Dr. Cunningham: I agree with my hon. Friend. I repeat that the Secretary of State has duties and responsibilities to the ratepayers of Westminster. He should either act to set up an extraordinary audit or institute a public inquiry into what has been going on there.
  He rushes to judgment elsewhere, but if even one of his rich and influential Tory friends seems threatened the Tory establishment closes ranks with a louder clang than the slamming of the gates of hell. That is what has happened in the case of Westminster city council. It is a scandal, and the Secretary of State should act to put an end to it.
  As for the housing aspects of the Bill, the Government's policy and the attitude of the Secretary of State are a national disgrace. The right hon. Gentleman may remember saying to the House:
  "Everyone should be able to afford a home, and we will continue to ensure that no one need be homeless because he cannot afford a home. There are problems, but they are not the result of a lack of resources or an overall shortage of housing."—[Official Report. 10 February 1987; Vol. 110, c. 183]?
  That was two years ago. Since then, the housing situation has continued to deteriorate for millions of our fellow citizens.
  There is a stark contrast between the Government's aims and objectives and proposals in the Bill. Policy, generally, is intended to end the role of local government in housing. The reality of housing misery for millions of families and the disgraceful inefficiency with which the Government spend taxpayers' money on housing, as set out in the recent Audit Commission report, ought to shame the Secretary of State, as should the complete omission from the Government's expenditure plans, published in January, of any reference to homelessness or waiting lists. Those words do not appear anywhere in the blue book, Cm. 609, because the Government want to pretend that the problems do not exist.
  The Government maintain that pretence at a time when there are 10 times as many people homeless as there were

  185
  when "Cathy Comes Home" troubled the nation's conscience two decades ago. At the latest count, some 116,000 families are homeless. Meanwhile, the number of available lettings continues to decline and the number of new council homes has dropped by four fifths, while the use of temporary accommodation has jumped by six times in six years. Homelessness has been increasing over a long time, across all types of authority, in different regions, under all types of political control and with widely varying housing policies. The Government's responsibilities are the root cause of all that.
  Let us consider what has happened to mortgage payers. Last year, the average advance in Great Britain was £36,164. In January 1988, the average net monthly payment was £290.76. It had increased by £81.29 by January of this year. People looking for a home to rent or to buy are crushed between the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who says that he has no sympathy, and the Secretary of State , who says that he has no intention of allowing local authorities to build more houses to meet those needs and problems.
  I will give the Secretary of State an example from my constituency surgery a few days ago. A married couple and their child came to see me. They had bought their council house six year ago but had finally had to give it up. They simply could not afford the mortgage repayments any longer. When the Secretary of State came to Copeland borough in my constituency he made it clear that Copeland did not need to build any more council houses. Where does that leave that family? Where can they go? To whom can they turn for help? That is a dramatic example of the human misery resulting from the Government's housing policies.
  The Audit Commission report, which was most timely, included a graph illustrating the rise in homelessness under the Government's policies. The Audit Commission said that the cost implications of the escalating use of bed and breakfast are serious. The true gross cost, including authorities which do not complete statistical returns, may well be in excess of £90 million for 1986–87, and in 1987–88 the true cost in London alone was £125 million.
  Mr. Irvine Patnick: The hon. Gentleman did not tell us that the Audit Commission report also said that if some authorities, mainly Labour, got their houses back into circulation more quickly, by cutting the repair time to two and a half weeks, there would be 20,000 houses available for rent. The hon. Gentleman referred to a selected point; he should give us the rest.
  Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman will not be disappointed, because I am coming to exactly that point in a moment.
  At the end of September last year, more than 11,000 homeless households had been placed in bed-andbreakfast hotels by local authorities. In some authorities, families face the prospect of months, or even years, living in hotel rooms. It is now widely accepted that bed-and-breakfast hotels provide generally the worst standard of accommodation at the highest cost, and that conditions in these establishments are totally unsuitable for family life.
  A family has to live in one room without chairs or tables for meals, sharing bathrooms and toilets, often on
  186
  different floors, used by many families at the same time. Parents have no privacy. Children have nowhere to play or to do their homework. Families' health, particularly that of children and pregnant women, clearly suffers. These problems are compounded if families are placed in a hotel away from their home area since access to schools, social services and medical care is disrupted.
  The problem of large numbers of families placed outside their home areas is concentrated in London, where around 70 per cent. of households—more than 5,000 families—in bed-and-breakfast are placed outside their own borough. The financial costs of keeping homeless people in bed-and-breakfast hotels are very high. The estimated annual cost of keeping a family in bed and breakfast accommodation in 1986–87 ranged from just over £5,000 in non-metropolitan districts to £11,000 in London. The precise costs vary. We must compare that with the average cost to a local authority of building a new home at about £7,500 per annum, a far more cost-effective, efficient and better solution for everyone and a far more caring approach for any Government to want to take—that is, any Government but the present one, with the present Secretary of State.
  The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) referred to vacant properties. It is a recurring myth for Conservative Members to lay the blame for these problems at the door of local government. As the Audit Commission points out, the highest vacancy rate of any tenure group in England, at 6 per cent., was a Government Department, not a local authority. The Audit Commission made the point that the Government, if they really cared about these matters, would literally—to use an apt phrase—get their own houses in order instead of wasting the taxpayers' and ratepayers' money. It is true that 2·5 per cent. of local authority dwellings remain unoccupied, but we should compare that with 2·7 per cent. of housing association dwellings and 4·1 per cent. of private sector dwellings. Local government has the best record. I agree that it is not necessarily an acceptable record, but it is a better record than that of Government Departments or housing associations.
  Again, the Audit Commission says that the Department of Environment should take the initiative in seeking means to ensure that where such properties are vacant, and not for sale, they are made available for leasing to local authorities and housing associations. One way of encouraging better use would be for the accounting systems of all public sector landlords to show clearly the costs of maintaining void properties. Here we have an indication of the double standards of Government; at present the Ministry of Defence and the Metropolitan police systems of finance do not show the cost to the ratepayer and the taxpayer of keeping houses empty. In addition, public bodies should bear the true cost of leaving properties vacant and should repay the financial benefits of bringing them into use.
  There is much more to talk about in the Bill and there is much more of it that we oppose. I have made the point once, but I make it again, that we fundamentally oppose the new housing finance proposals which will require council house tenants effectively to pay an additional tax to subsidise the poll tax and housing benefit. That is a major departure from the policy followed by all previous Governments. [Interruption.] The Minister of State says that he does not understand that. I should like to think that I have got it wrong, but I assure him that I have not

  187
  because that is the view of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and of all the local authority associations, and it is a direct consequence of the proposals in the Bill.
  Against that background, it is a disgrace that the White Paper should show that gross capital expenditure on housing is set to fall. In 1988–89 there will be a fall of 19 per cent—almost one fifth-compared with the financial year 1987–88. In 1989–90 and 1990–91 there will be further falls, and it is projected that by 1991–92 the existing total gross capital expenditure on housing will have been reduced by 27 per cent. How can the Government justify that manic obsession with reducing public investment in housing at a time when so many families desperately need help?
  Even the voluntary organisations feel threatened by the proposals in the Bill, and the changes in the law which will threaten their funding. The Secretary of State is well-known as being an admirer of the American system of local government. He should look at what the Sunday newspapers were saying last weekend about the depths of decline in social policy in the city of New York. If the right hon. Gentleman so admires the American approach to local services, he should learn from what is happening to people in the inner cities and urban areas of too many towns and cities in America.
  After 10 years of continuous office and an uninterrupted barrage of legislation on local community affairs, the Secretary of State can have no excuses. I regret to say that there is no evidence that he and his ministerial colleagues have learnt any lessons at all. We have no confidence in the Secretary of State wanting to understand the real circumstances faced by millions of his fellow citizens. His attitudes are as ugly as his proposals—neither are acceptable in a fair and civilised society.
  5.51 pm
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) referred to the situation in America. It is significant that he picked on New York, which has been a problem city for decades. I noted that he made no reference to the successful redevelopments in the inner-city part of Boston, which would be a credit to any local authority. In the same way that the hon. Gentleman was somewhat selective over his quotations from the Audit Commission, so he was in his comparisons of New York and of American local government in general.
  The Bill falls into two parts—housing and local government. I hope that the Bill will bring to an end the injustice, which has been growing more noticeable in the past 20 years, in the balance between the ratepayer and the council house tenant. The ratepayer has been asked to pay a larger and larger proportion of the cost of local authority housing, while far too many local authorities have taken no notice of the advice from the district auditor and have set their rent levels well below any sensible figure. What is proposed will in the long run prove to be much fairer and much more acceptable to council tenants.
  If rents go up, I believe that the council tenants have every right to demand that the maintenance of their properties is improved. In my constituency, the London borough of Camden is a byword for incompetence and the neglect of tenants. That local authority's main excuse is that it has no money to do the work. It overlooks the fact
  188
  that it has £14 million of rent arrears, that it paid more than £1 million for bed-and-breakfast accommodation that was never occupied, and, as a direct result of a failure to set the rate just over two years ago, it lost £2 million. The district auditor criticised it strongly, but did not have the courage to act. There was £17 million that could have been used to repair council properties.
  The tenants who contact me are desperately angry at the conditions under which they must live. My advice to them is that they would certainly be better off buying their accommodation under the right to buy if it were not for the fact that 2,000 cases in Camden are beyond the statutory period and that valuations are deliberately inflated. When, on my advice, those tenants go for redetermination of those values, reductions of more than 10 per cent. are almost always achieved. They would be better off, too, under my right hon. Friend's proposals on co-operatives or in being managed by a private landlord or by a housing association. The last choice of any sensible tenant would be to be managed by a local authority such as that in the London borough of Camden.
  I believe that my right hon. Friend is right in what he is proposing. I was certainly glad that he killed the canards that have been passed around by the Opposition that council rents will quintuple, or will rise by any other multiplier. Certainly, my right hon. Friend did not use the words "market forces" or "market rents", although the hon. Member for Copeland implied that he did.
  I want to say to the hon. Member for Copeland that I agree that this is the 50th local government Bill. When local government was in its prime and was being run by men like Hayward, Griffin, Cunningham and Norman Pritchard, the legislation that we have had to introduce would never have been needed. All those were honourable men who put the interests of their constituents ahead of party political dogma. The tragedy is that such men no longer exist. My right hon. Friend and his predecessor have, therefore, had to introduce over and over again fresh legislation to fill—
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Why did the Government abolish the GLC?
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: It was abolished because it had become one of the most corrupt local authorities in this, country. As I have said on more than one occasion, if anyone like Ike Hayward had still been around, the last leaders of the GLC would never have been allowed even through the back door.
  My right hon. Friend and his predecessor have been forced over and over again to bring in legislation to block loopholes that they thought no decent person interested in local government would have attempted to use. I also do not regard some of the tricks proposed by the City as having been in the interests of the ratepayer or of the taxpayer. I have always believed that it is right to do what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is doing, which is, when possible, to repay the national debt, and, as my right hon. Friend is suggesting, to repay some local authority debts out of capital receipts. There is nothing wrong with that; indeed, the very reverse is true. I welcome the forward thinking that my right hon. Friend has introduced into this legislation.
  On the question of twin tracking, there are so many examples of Labour council advertisements for senior officer posts indicating that they are expecting the

  189
  applicants to be sympathetic to the political aims of the local authority. We have just got rid—if that is the right word—of a director of social services in the London borough of Camden, a Mr. Kodikara. He was a most incompetent chairman of the social services committee of the London borough of Hackney. He remained a Hackney councillor. He has now gone with a golden handshake, some furniture and, more importantly, a contract for unspecified work at an unspecified price, and nobody can discover why that happened or what the figures are.
  I do not accept what the hon. Member for Copeland said. The mere fact that somebody is an officer, well below principal rank, does not mean that he will not tender advice or take decisions on matters where he allows his political judgment to run ahead of his professional judgment. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend has had second thoughts about what the Widdicombe Committee said and about the first reactions to that report. I believe that the original response to Widdicombe was not in accord with the evidence from around the country. My right hon. Friend has shown how flexible he is and how he listens to facts when they are given to him.
  Staff, whether in local government or in the Civil Service, should be appointed on merit and not because their face fits or their political views fit. If the Bill goes any way towards restoring that once firm principle I shall be delighted.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that those strictures should apply to Government appointments on quangos or within the Civil Service? Does the hon. Gentleman believe that Lord Chalfont and Lord Rees-Mogg have been appointed on their ability or because their faces fit and they subscribe to the Tory party cause?
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Alas, the hon. Gentleman confuses the Civil Service and public bodies. They are totally different and therefore what he says is irrelevant. I would not want any civil servant to display political views or to hold any office. If such people wish to be politicians, in common with the hon. Gentleman and me, it is their choice, but they should cease to profess their independence, stand for election and take their chance.
  The Bill also talks of achieving political balance on committees and the like, which will prevent advice being given to one party only. That practice operated in Camden where the Labour party created a leader's co-ordinating committee. Officers gave advice to that committee, but no member of the opposition was entitled to be present. That is the wrong way in which to proceed.
  It appears that the policy of the Labour party in local government has been to get rid of opposition members on boards of school governors—I am reminded of my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt)—and the like. For that reason the proposals that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health has introduced to get rid of local authority representation on district health authorities are absolutely right. Camden, for example, has refused over and over again to share representation on the local health authority. If that council wants a one-party system, frankly, there should be a no-party system. In the past I have made it clear to friends on Conservative-controlled councils that proportional
  190
  representation on DHAs and the like should be available to the opposition parties. I am glad that the Bill will ensure that that correct policy is followed.
  Mr. Cryer: If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about advice being shared among political parties, does he agree that the many advisers employed by the Government, including, for example, Mr. Peter Luff—he is paid £24,000 a year indirectly by his employer and the company is being investigated by that employer, the Department of Trade and Industry—and the information provided by those advisers, paid for by the taxpayer, should be shared among the opposition as well?
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: It is easy for the hon. Gentleman to smear individuals. I would rather have advice from Mr. Peter Luff than from the hon. Gentleman.
  I welcome clause 124 which makes clear exactly what can be charged for in libraries. As my right hon. Friend has said, there never was any intention of charging for the basic core services. I also welcome clause 134 which winds up the Town Development Act 1952. When I was a Minister at the Department of the Environment I decided that that Act had served its purpose and had no real value any more—little was done under that Act from 1980 onwards. At the time it did a good job, but it is right that it should be wound up as it has no further function.
  I appreciate that the principle of the Bill will be unacceptable to Opposition Members. I would not expect anything else, as it is their job to say that it is unacceptable even if, in their hearts, they know that there is a lot of merit in it. The Bill will be welcome, however, to people outside who are sick and tired of the perversion of local government. They have witnessed the Labour party's destruction of all that was decent and honourable in local government.
  It is almost 40 years since I first entered local government by defeating the late Lord Greenwood. In those days local government was honourable on both sides, but today I fear that it has been put into disrepute by the activities of far too many people whom I do not believe the hon. Member for Copeland likes to acknowledge as members of his party. The Bill will do something to get rid of that element and I welcome it.
  6.5 pm
  Mr. George Howarth: I shall confine my remarks primarily to housing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has covered our concerns about other parts of the Bill.
  A great deal needs to be done about housing, and it has not been addressed in the Bill or by previous legislation. It has been said that we have reached a half century of local government measures, but since the Government have been in power only five pieces of legislation have specifically dealt with housing. Despite that legislation we have not made any progress. The major problems of housing have not been addressed by the Bill, and they were not addressed by the Local Government Act 1988. The Government have refused to engage in any dialogue about those problems and have refused to recognise them.
  Given that the Government have been in office for 10 years, it is interesting to note what the people given responsibility for housing in the Department of the Environment have done during that time. It is 28 months since I was elected to the House and it is remarkable that

  191
  there have been three different Ministers of State and goodness knows how many Under-Secretaries of State since then. I have studied recent publications by the housing press and have noticed the considerable amount of space that has been devoted to pictures of Lord Caithness—he is the Minister of State in the other place. He always appears in various housing journals with a trowel in his hand, laying bricks. The hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier) makes a weekly appearance in some magazine or other wielding a spade and cutting the first sod. He was kind enough to do so on a development in my constituency the other week.
  I have devoted some time to considering what various people have done in their various posts during the past 10 years and I believe that I have tumbled on the answer. I believe that the various housing posts within the Department of the Environment represent an employment training scheme for members of the aristocracy. They join the Department to do some work on housing, although they never achieve anything and then go on to do other things.
  It is worth considering what has happened to some people who were at the Department of the Environment. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) was Minister of State, Department of. the Environment when I was first elected, but after his training programme in that Department he was dispatched to another Department to resolve the problems of homelessness. He did not. of course, build any more houses as he was sent to that Department to build more prisons. The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) was an Under-Secretary at the Department of the Environment when the 1988 Act went through the House. She did not complete her course of training and became the first victim of the landlord-tenant regulations set out in that Act when she was evicted from the Government; and so it goes on.
  The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) served some time within that Department and had direct responsibilities for housing. Perhaps as a foretaste of the Bill, he left that Department of his own accord, presumably prior to his training being completed, to build a ring fence around the Six Counties of Northern Ireland. I could go on.
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: What about Patrick Jenkin?
  Mr. Howarth: I was not going on to deal with Patrick Jenkin. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) will mention him when he winds up for the Opposition.
  Perhaps we could consider the fate of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He was responsible for the Housing Act 1988 when it was in Committee. He has been sent off to rule the world. I understand that he has been advising Secretary-General Gorbachev about the advantages of a secure tenancy over an assured tenancy, although I do not know how that applies to Mr. Gorbachev.
  There has been a considerable throughput of Ministers but no action. None of the major problems that they inherited because of an aging housing stock has been addressed. The dilemmas and problems have grown worse without any realistic action being taken.
  192
  I should like to examine the opportunities that have not been addressed by the Bill, suggest some ideas that the Government might like to consider as the Bill goes through Committee, on the basis that we need to do something about some of housing's major problems.
  How can we look at housing finance, which the Bill does in a very partial way, without considering the problems created by having a dual-track system—there seems to be a lot of reference to that—within the subsidy arrangements for housing? We have mortgage interest tax relief that can technically be unlimited. The only limit is on how many people fall into the qualification provisions. That ceiling can go up and up and has indeed been steadily raised because of the number of people who are coming into owner-occupation and taking out mortgages.
  Yet at this time last year we witnessed a sharp reduction in housing benefits, which has certainly been felt in my constituency and elsewhere. The subsidy system needs to be sorted out because clearly there is no targeting of mortgage tax relief on one side, where people qualify for it by simply having a mortgage; yet on the other side targeting has lopped off hundreds of thousands and possibly millions of those eligible to claim housing benefit. The Government might have considered introducing a single housing benefit related to people's needs for housing and their means. That will really help those in housing need, who may be on a low income or dependent on state benefits, to acquire housing suitable to their needs. But no, the Government have not looked at that at all.
  We hear a lot of talk about rents being allowed to find the market level. We heard that about the Housing Act, and in the Secretary of State's speech today. But what is a market rent? How does one determine a market rent, in an area such as Merseyside, where property values are falling in some parts? With what does one compare it? How does one determine a market rent in an area like mine, where rents are already very high? Indeed, the previous Minister of State, who is now a Minister of State at the Foreign Office, conceded in a meeting with councillors in my constituency that rents were already relatively high. Yet they must increase even more as a result of the Bill.
  I do not quite know how the Government will sort out all these things. If they are serious about doing something for the homeless, why do they not consider some of the possibilities in the short-life movement? What we really need, of course, is a long-term solution to homelessness, but the crisis is on us now. In London and other cities there is a large short-life, community-based housing association movement. If the Government want to do something about homelessness, they could go to these community-based associations and say, "We will give you mini-housing association grant money." Even in central London it usually costs about £20,000 to £25,000 to bring a new unit of accommodation into use for the homeless. Why not let associations get on with mini-HAG schemes and bring some of the property that is awaiting repair on stream, and thus do something about the problem?
  An incidental by-product of that is the reduced cost of these schemes. Whereas it costs about £15,000 a year to keep a homeless family in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, less than £1,000 a year in subsidies will keep a homeless family in short-life accommodation. That eminently sensible suggestion is worth looking at, but there is nothing in the Bill to suggest a solution to the problems of the homeless. It is another missed opportunity.

  193
  Why does the Bill not address the problem of disrepair and the extent to which much new build in the private and, to some extent, in the public sector, adds to it? Why do the Government not look now, for example, at the space standards that are being built to now? Why do they not look at the standards of materials used in the public sector and by housing associations, and certainly in the private sector, as a result of the new financing regime? Why do they not look at standards of materials and construction techniques, with an emphasis on setting reasonable standards?
  We already know about the sorry saga of disrepair, with £20 billion a year being needed, but not spent, to bring the stock up to scratch. It is probably a much higher figure now. Why do not the Government look for ways to stop making that problem worse? I know well that much of the housing being built—the Minister will have to concede this if he looks at it carefully—will be a major problem in 20 years' time. It is shoddily built.
  Mr. Patnick: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that one of the curses of local government today is that high-rise, mass-density developments that were built in the early 1970s are causing much of the need for refurbishment? The local authorities are throwing money at them as if that is a solution. Demolition is the only way forward. These are big housing blocks, and there is a multiplicity of them.
  Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman mentions the problems of high-rise flats. I recognise that demolition is the problem. A 21-storey block of flats called Stourbridge villas, where I have lived, is being demolished in my constituency. But that is not always the answer. If some high-rise blocks were refurbished they would provide satisfactory accommodation for certain people. It is not correct to say that all those blocks should be pulled down, because we shall not be able to replace those units fast enough. Local authorities should be given resources, where appropriate, to improve properties, to repair lifts and stop damp penetration.
  The major point is that, unless the Government do something about standards in the construction industry, what is being built at the moment will cause major problems of disrepair in 20 to 30 years' time. The Government of that day, of whatever colour, will have to provide billions of pounds to put the problems right, in both the private and public sectors.
  Instead of attacking local government, which is the main thrust of the Bill, why do the Government not look at the possibility of building up partnership arrangements? They already have schemes such as Estate Action, where the Government are tentatively dipping their toes into the water. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment visited the Tower hill part of my constituency, and I give him credit.
  In Tower hill, the local residents, the local authority and the Government, in the form of the Estate Action programme, have together carried out major improvements to the estate, and its layout and general environment. But why do the Government not take that idea further and say, "Okay, it is a good idea to involve the community in this type of urban renewal, but we shall also provide the capital"? Instead of money being provided to improve the periphery of estates, improvements could be
  194
  made to the inside of properties, many of which are riddled with damp and have other problems, too. That would be a major step, but it has received no consideration.
  Successive Ministers have failed to address Britain's housing problems. They have been hidebound by dogma that is neither relevant nor appropriate to the problems that we face. Unless the Government are prepared to listen to sensible suggestions about how to solve the real problems, their legislation will fail to make any contribution to housing and will probably end up making matters worse.
  6.20 pm
  Mr. Irvine Patnick: It is hard to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) who seems to have been in local government even longer than I have, which is for the majority of my life. The rot started—the two factors have nothing in common—when I joined local government in 1967.
  I wanted local government's role to be clearly defined in the Bill. Twenty years ago, at the beginning of my service in local government, local government throughout Britain was run on sensible and efficient lines, whether the councils were controlled by Labour or any other party. Between 1970 and 1980 I regret that there was increasing abuse of local government procedures, privileges and finances, which, in the main, have occurred in Labour-controlled councils.
  The Bill's objective is to return local government to the practices once prevalent everywhere, based on service to the local community rather than for personal political gain. As the Minister said, we are trying to give local government back to local government.
  I can remember the time when a local council's chief officer was not only respected but someone about whose political affiliation no one had a clue. I doubt whether he even voted. Those days have long since gone. Yet the Opposition are constantly looking for hidden agendas. They cannot look at a Bill without seeing conspiracy behind it.
  Mr. Winnick: Since the hon. Gentleman is criticising local authorities and has mentioned chief executives, will he take this opportunity to condemn Westminster city council which, under the leadership of Lady Porter, has been run in a disgraceful and corrupt way and has been involved in a hush-money contract?
  Mr. Gummer rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) must have an opportunity to respond.
  Mr. Patnick: The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) sounds like a continuous tape, going on and on. The words are the same, only the player is different. I give way to my right hon. Friend the Minister.
  Mr. Gummer: In answering the point made by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), will my hon. Friend ask whether Opposition Members wish to deny the chief executive money that he has paid, legally and properly, into a superannuation fund, and whether they would care to cast their minds over the fact that the only

  195
  case about which they ever talk is the one that has just been mentioned, whereas my hon. Friend could no doubt keep the House here all evening with cases of proven misuse?
  Mr. Patnick: I thank my right hon. Friend for those words of guidance. Before I became a Member of the House, a chief executive of a former metropolitan county had a similar experience and, like the chief executive of Westminster council, he took the money to which he was entitled. It is the system that is wrong. I shall refer later to an hon. Member who was in local government.
  There is nothing hidden or conspiratorial about the Government's intentions in the Bill. The Government have forced local government to he efficient and responsible. If the Labour party want a form of twin tracking, let it be the twin tracks of efficiency and responsibility. The Bill is a response to proven abuses and needs and it helps to put above board the activities of those centrally involved in local government. The Opposition's stance makes it clear that such a Bill would never see the light of day under a Labour Government. The Bill is overdue and abundantly necessary and deserves the whole-hearted support of the House.
  The Government have already implemented some of the Widdicombe report's recommendations on political propaganda on the rates. That matter came before the House in June 1988 and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the Member for Southampton. Itchen—no "h" dropped—(Mr. Chope) explained to me that I was wrong to ask how councils such as those in Sheffield and Derbyshire could issue newspapers which to me were propaganda on the rates.
  How can Derbyshire county council which says that it stands by its services go on to say that county councillors have pledged that cuts in services and jobs will not be adopted by the county council
  "at any time in the foreseeable future and at least until 1993"
  according to the council's leader? How can that be the right way to run a council? How can that be permitted under legislation? The Government have been soft on such propaganda on the rates, and there is more.
  Mr. Redmond: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Patnick: I am not the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend, but I shall willingly give way.
  Mr. Redmond: The hon. Gentleman talks about councils spending money on propaganda, but they have a right to inform the people whom they represent. Will he say something about the millions of pounds that the Government spend on propaganda advancing their case instead of putting the facts to the people?
  Mr. Patnick: The hon. Gentleman, who travels on the train with me, will be able to make his own point in his own way in his own time.
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that strict rules apply to Ministers and their Departments. In the four years that I was a Minister I spent most of my time being utterly frustrated as a result of being unable to issue facts to counter some of the fiction coming from the Opposition.
  Mr. Patnick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his assistance.
  196
  Sheffield city council put out a leaflet entitled "The Community Charge"—the one and only time that it called it that. It usually refers to it as we all know, as the poll tax. In the well-known Sheffield News, which is nothing short of a propaganda sheet paid for by the city's rate-payers for the benefit of Sheffield's Labour party—
  Mr. David Clelland: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is this relevant to the Bill that we are discussing? Propaganda on the rates was dealt with under previous legislation.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: A Second Reading debate is wide, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) will, with all his local government experience, be able to return to the Bill.
  Mr. Patnick: I am obliged to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your guidance. We are discussing implementing the second part of the Widdicombe report, which also dealt with propaganda on the rates. If Opposition Members catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure that they will be able to make their speeches without my assistance.
  The wonderful Sheffield News says:
  "'Poll Tax is the sort of tax which gives taxes a bad name'. But councils will be legally obliged to collect it."
  The Redcliffe-Maud report entitled "Conduct in Local Government", Cmnd. 5636 published in 1974, opposed any relaxation of existing rules and considered extending to employees of any authority the disqualification from membership of an authority anybody who holds office in, or in the gift of, that authority. It did not make any such recommendation, but it made the following comment, which is worth listening to, because the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond), the former leader of Doncaster council, is present and he was around at the time of Redcliff-Maud:
  "Any officer, whether senior or junior, whose work is in any way connected with the decision-making process of his authority and who contemplates seeking election to membership of the authority of the other tier should consider very carefully whether such membership would prejudice his ability to serve, and be recognised as serving, his own authority loyally and impartially as an employee."
  Sadly, the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) is not here so I understand that it is bad form to speak about him, but 1 suppose that worse things have been said about him. He referred to the question how many councillors were twin tracking, and he quoted from Widdicombe. Widdicombe said that, according to its research, about 16 per cent. of councillors in employment and 10 per cent. of all councillors were employees of other authorities. It went on to say that there were many authorities where significantly more than 10 per cent. of councillors were twin trackers and others where significantly fewer were. It also said that there was a more common phenomenon with 13 per cent. of all councillors being councillors of two or more authorities.
  I put two hands up. I was a member of South Yorkshire county council and Sheffield city council at one and the same time. I found no conflict at all. I was in opposition on both councils. My head was repeatedly kicked in, night and day. Many is the time that I have sent letters to Her Majesty's Government saying that there is something wrong with local government and it should go back to where it was when I first joined it.
  The Widdicombe report is the report of the committee of inquiry into the conduct of local authority business. I

  197
  really was a poacher there because I gave evidence to it as leader of the opposition on South Yorkshire county council. We were short-changed by the controlling group of that now defunct authority. There was no way that we had an opportunity to sit pro rata in the membership of committees. There was no way at all that we could operate within the standing orders of the council, because, if we found a way of getting round the standing orders, the standing orders were changed. It was easy: if the rules do not fit, change the rules.
  This happened in Sheffield city council. [Interruption.] Well, I came into the House with the rules that were already there. The one thing that I have learnt from hon. Gentlemen is that the House operates with rules, and they try to break them at every opportunity.
  Mr. Robert B. Jones: Does my hon. Friend remember Councillor George Senior of Sheffield saying, "We mean to obstruct the law in every way; that is what we are about"? He said that about the direct Labour opposition to parts of the Local Government Act 1974 at the time, but is that not also true of their attitude to everything else?
  Mr. Patnick: I thank my hon. Friend for that guidance. I have listened to that from hon. Gentlemen. They say that they take no notice of the law that we make, to paraphrase.
  The Widdicombe report was published in June 1986 and it provides a comprehensive analysis of the way in which local authorities are operating at present. The report made a large number of recommendations designed to strengthen democratic procedures within which local government operates. The Government's response, as the hon. Member for Copeland noted, was published in a White Paper in July 1988, and the Government have already acted on some of the recommendations.
  I am aware that other hon. Members wish to speak in this debate, so I shall confine my speech in the main to the Widdicombe part of the Bill.
  Section 2 of the 1986 Act prohibits local authorities from publishing or assisting others to publish material. I have given an example of this. I listened to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), so no doubt his friend Councillor Jones will now have more information on which to work.
  It is a fact that this cross-pollination, twin tracking—whatever it is called—is rife here, but it is also rife in places such as Sheffield. It was rife when South Yorkshire county council existed. The leader of Sheffield council swapped places with the leader of Barnsley council. The two of them worked with the two authorities. The former chairman of housing on Sheffield city council was employed by South Yorkshire county council. I was deputy chairman of the residuary body that closed it down, and I wanted to see where Councillor X sat. They said that they had closed his office because he was never there. It was a joke, a farce; and by way of compensation they gave the deputy leader of South Yorkshire county council a full-time job as deputy leader of the council; he was a teacher and he went as a full-time member of the county council, on a full salary, but with no timetable.
  That is what went on in local government. Surely it cannot be right that a highly paid officer in a council should have someone else doing his work.
  Mr. Redmond: Councillor Lunn, to whom the hon. Gentleman referred as leader of Barnsley, did a damn good job for the people of Barnsley. If the hon. Gentleman is seeking to condemn twin tracking, will he also condemn those hon. Members who have good salaries for the consultancies and directorships they have secured?
  Mr. Patnick: I am rather disturbed that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned the name of the person concerned. I have not used the name of any councillor in this place. The man died some while ago, and it besmirches his memory for an hon. Gentleman to bring up his name. I have not mentioned any names. If the cap fits, let the hon. Gentleman wear it. [Interruption.] I am not struggling at all.
  A former right hon. Member of the House, Albert Booth, when he was defeated in the election, arrived at South Yorkshire county council as an official. He was one of the technical directors of the South Yorkshire passenger transport executive. We all know that there are good salaries here and compensation for loss of office. I think that there is also a pension, if my memory serves me correctly. He came to be interviewed for a position and one of the first things I asked him was whether, if a vacancy occurred anywhere in a safe Labour seat, he would take it. He said that he would not. He left for the 1987 election. He took early retirement, and he finished up with two pensions. That is all right, is it not? That is legitimate, because he came from the Labour side.
  Let me carry on with some of the rocky horror stories. The leader of Bradford city council was employed as an anti-privatisation adviser to Wakefield city council. A quarter of Glasgow's city councillors were employed by their own regional council. In Camden, at one time, 48 per cent. of the Labour councillors were dependent, directly or indirectly, on councils in their area.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, who has very wide experience in local government in Sheffield and on South Yorkshire county council. Would he like to comment on the fact that this is still going on; that, in spite of the fact that this Bill has been published and twin tracking is to be outlawed, only last week the London borough of Hackney shortlisted for its deputy chief executive post Councillor Linda Bellos and Councillor Fred Taggert, both Left-wing Labour members of Lambeth borough council, and appointed Councillor Fred Taggert to that post? What confidence can Conservative and Liberal members of that council have that that individual, as an independent deputy chief executive, will give them unbiased advice?
  Mr. Patnick: I thank my hon. Friend for drawing that matter to my attention.
  When I was leader of the opposition on South Yorkshire county council, one of my most difficult jobs was obtaining impartial advice from chief officers. It is extremely difficult when one knows that, sometimes, whatever one says goes through a direct pipeline to the ear of the leader of the council. No confidence can exist in that situation. It is most upsetting, but it was even more upsetting to find that, during a by-election for the council, one of its chief officers was delivering Labour party leaflets in the ward concerned. That is scandalous and totally wrong. Whatever may be one's political affiliations, they remain private when one marks a ballot paper or even works behind closed doors, when there is no way that

  199
  anyone else can snoop. But it is a different matter for a chief officer to be seen on the streets of Sheffield during a by-election, delivering Labour party leaflets. That must be stopped somehow. There must be a cut-off point.
  It would be wrong of me to say that I do not know of a Tory who holds high office in a council. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Don Valley laughs.
  Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am genuinely sorry to interrupt the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick), but your immediate predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and even Mr. Speaker himself, made the point that, although there is no time limit on speeches, right hon. and hon. Members should remember that there are many who wish to speak in the debate. The hon. Member for Hallam has already spoken for 21 minutes. I do not believe that he is bringing his remarks to a close—he has no need, as there is no time limit. I remind you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that only two Back Benchers have so far spoken—and my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) kept his contribution very tightly within 10 or 15 minutes.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who I know hopes to catch my eye, gives me the opportunity to say that many right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House wish to speak in the debate.
  Mr. Patnick: If anyone in this place blows a lot of wind, the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) is the leading culprit.
  The Local Government Act 1988 acted on Widdicombe's recommendations. It allows local ombudsmen to consider complaints from the public, and gives powers to the district auditor to stop potentially unlawful expenditure. However, it does not allow the district auditor to tell a council if he considers that such expenditure is wrong. Where such expenditure is a matter of political judgment, the district auditor will say, "I do not wish to know." In the miners' strike, funding was provided by a council to the miners. When I complained about that practice, I was told that it was a political decision and that the district auditor could not enter into that political arena.
  The South Yorkshire county council's fares policy sucked money out of local authorities, and the only thing left to show for that is a memory of cheap fares. There are no improved roads or a police station. When I told the district auditor that it was wrong, he replied, "You can take it to court and fund that action, and we shall see what is the outcome. I have neither the time, the inclination, nor the funds to take legal action against an authority—when all it needs to do is increase its rates."
  I close on a most interesting point.
  Mr. Winnick: We wondered when you would reach it.
  Mr. Patnick: The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity later to criticise my speech. Opposition Members have that privilege and treat in store—but I could almost recite the Opposition's speeches. The Opposition will say that nothing should be altered because everything is all right as it is—everything is wonderful and marvellous. The hon. Gentleman who makes all the noise will say that the Government have got it wrong—but I have never heard him say that anyone has it right.
  Mr. Winnock: To whom was he paying that tribute?
  Mr. Patnick: Sadly, I cannot recollect the name of the hon. Gentleman's constituency. When I do, the hon. Gentleman will get the full width of my tongue.
  The Bill will restore to local government some of the benefits that others have taken away. Twin tracking, the appointment of political officers, the appointment of political devotees, and the funding of various organisations from the petty cash of local government and their financing by ratepayers' money, will all cease.
  Some of the organisations that have made representations on the Bill see in it certain imperfections. I am convinced by the words of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, that amendments, alterations and improvements will be made. The Bill will put local government back where it belongs, and will allow it to be run by people whose only role will be to give genuinely impartial advice and guidance. They will not be on the payroll of another organisation or council whose intention is to stop elected representatives doing what they want. Impartial advice is needed in local government, and that is something that we shall ensure is available when we return proper powers to local government.
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Secretary of State used measured terms to describe the Bill—which he tried to suggest was non-controversial. However, the Bill commands precious little support among those in local authorities who are in the best position to understand its impact. In particular, it commands precious little support among Conservative councillors and those among them who have commented on it.
  The chairman of the housing and works committee of the London Boroughs Association asks for a year to get over the last Bill that the Secretary of State introduced. The Association of County Councils, in the reasonable expectation that examination of the Bill will be guillotined—for we may have a shopping list, but we shall not be able to examine closely the prices and the quality of the goods—comments:
  "It is to be regretted that they"—
  that is, the Government's proposals
  "will not receive the parliamentary scrutiny that they deserve.
  The Bill contains many provisions that should have been dealt with separately and at length, and in greater detail than we shall have an opportunity to do.
  The attack on local government in recent years, and the continual movement of power to the centre, worries many people of all political persuasions. Among them are people who, in the past, have not taken a great interest in politics. They may discuss politics and vote, but they have not actively campaigned on the streets. Those people are now genuinely concerned about the drift of power to central Government, that is once again, being written into legislation. The Conservative-controlled Association of District Councils—hardly a hotbed of Trotskyist interest—comments:
  "It is difficult to tell what precisely is envisaged, but the net effect would appear to be more power to the Secretary of State, and even less freedom for local authorities."
  That is contrary to the comments of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick).
  The Association of County Councils comments:

  201
  "The Association is concerned that so many important aspects of the Bill's provisions are left to be dealt with by secondary legislation and that there is to be such an increase in the powers of the Secretary of State."
  The first to feel the brunt of the Bill's attack on local authorities will not be councillors but their employees, as they find their freedom to participate in the political party or body of their choice abolished. In a democracy, and for all the soft words of the Secretary of State, the decision to deprive people of their right to campaign, and to take part in the political process, is of critical importance. No one should be denied that right without the matter being given deep thought, and without deep regret being felt—because that right is the basis of the society that all right hon. and hon. Members are here to defend.
  The Bill will bring about 70,000 or, if one believes the ACC, 90,000 or more, local government officers under the wing of Ministers and their representatives and deny those officers the basic right of political activity. Although in some cases they will have the right to apply to get those liberties back, it is wrong that we should force 70,000, 90,000 or even 10,000 people to have to beg for their rights under that sort of system.
  The Secretary of State has constantly pushed for leaner, more professional councils. But among those whom we shall be taking out of any involvement in politics and council work will be many who are experienced and best able to take part in activities that would benefit local authorities and council groups.
  Mr. Gummer: If one of the supporters of the hon. Gentleman's party wanted advice from the local social services department in, say, the London borough of Brent, does the hon. Gentleman think that that supporter would be entirely comfortable with the fact that the assistant director there was the controversial chairman of the planning committee in Ealing? What if one of his party's supporters wishing to obtain some advice went to the equal opportunities adviser in the London borough of Hackney, only to find that she was the former controversial leader of the Labour party in the London borough of Lambeth? Would it not be more suitable if those places were filled with people who were independent and were not part of the party political machine? Electors would feel more comfortable in asking for their advice, would they not?
  Mr. Taylor: The proposals in the Bill go far beyond tackling a few examples such as those. If more limited changes were proposed—for example, if the proposals affected only chief officers and their deputies—we would support them. The Bill goes far beyond the action that we feel needs to be taken. There may be occasions when councillors from one party must consult people whom they believe to have strong political persuasions of another sort. In most cases the advice being sought would not involve politics, and where it did, there would not be many cases where the person seeking advice could not also turn to others, perhaps to more senior officers, for further advice.
  The Minister has set the arbitrary salary level of £13,500. That, coupled with the broad brief to bring in anyone else as the Minister thinks appropriate, goes way beyond what is acceptable in a democratic country in
  202
  which every individual should have the right to take part, and be heard, in the democratic system. That is at the very basis of the political system that we are here to defend.
  Mr. Gummer: It is not an arbitrary figure. The sum of £13,500 was recommended by the Widdicombe committee, which said that there should be an absolute ban on all political activities and that there should be no right of appeal. The Government have introduced a right of appeal over and above that independent Widdicombe recommendation.
  Mr. Taylor: Time is short. I hope that we shall have time to go into that and other matters in Committee. It is clear that there is not enough time to deal with the many issues raised by the Bill.
  The Government are encouraging local authorities to make greater use of the private sector. Many PR companies advise local authorities and the public on new legislation. The Government are not acting against them in the way that they are acting against council employees, yet those PR companies can employ councillors and even have Members of Parliament as their directors. No restriction is being placed on them. Is that not as good an example of twin tracking as the Minister gave?
  Would the Minister even attempt to deny that councillors are able to work for private companies and gain financially from information acquired during the execution of activities in their publicly elected posts? He cannot deny it, yet he will not act on that form of abuse.
  It is unsatisfactory that there is no definition of "political activity" in the Bill. It is left to the Secretary of State to define. What is a controversial speech? The Conservative research department brief on the measure refers to
  "speaking or writing publicly on matters of party political controversy."
  Would an employee who was also a school governor not be able to speak publicly on opting out but only on school meals? Would such a person not be able to speak about race relations but only on the colour that the school corridors should be painted? Or do the Government believe that they should not be school governors at all because holding such a post brings one into the sphere of political controversy?
  On 2 February Parliament and the press examined the Official Secrets Bill restriction on civil servants and the refusal of the Government to introduce the "whistle-blowers" for whom their Back Benchers had called. On the same day, the Secretary of State for the Environment published a measure giving councils the duty to appoint a monitoring officer to report to councils any contravention of the law by the council or its employees.
  Criticism of much of that came from Conservative Members. For example, the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), when referring to the measure before the House today, said when we were debating the Official Secrets Bill:
  "I read in The Daily Telegraph of last Monday Whistleblower law to break Left's grip'.
  It seems that the Government, through their new Local Government and Housing Bill—I have no doubt that if I or The Daily Telegraph have got it wrong we will be corrected—will seek to appoint what The Daily Telegraph, I am sure, wrongly characterises as whistleblowers
  'empowered to speak out against illegal or unfair actions as part of a campaign to raise standards of local government'. What they think is sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander".—[Official Report, 2 February 1989; Vol. 146, c. 477.]

  203
  It is not necessary to elaborate on that telling point made by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills. While the Government are prepared to keep the public informed in the arena of councils, where they are not in political control, in Whitehall, where they are in political control, public servants are to be restricted from revealing information in the public interest. The hypocrisy of that is clear.
  I do not oppose everything in the Bill. Indeed, it is so wide-ranging and it contains such a shopping list of items that it would be impossible to disagree with it all. I welcome the proposals on proportionality. My party is at the forefront of fair methods of representation, so it would be strange if I did not support that aspect.
  There are peculiarities in what is proposed. Does the Bill completely rule out councils devolving planning decisions to a more local level, or, as Tower Hamlets has done, conducting experiments with community councils? Would it not be more appropriate still if elections gave proportional representation to people's views, instead of the Government trying to fiddle after Rome has burned, as the Minister seems to be doing?
  My party supports the ban on voting by non-elected members, but the Secretary of State must explain more clearly why that should not apply beyond the areas the Government seem to have in mind. For example, why should it not apply in schools or to magistrates?
  There are various items with which we might agree, but the bulk of the Bill remains an attack on councils and council tenants. The introduction of ring fencing is one of the most insidious moves yet made by the Government against councils. It is an attack on council tenants going beyond anything the Government have achieved so far.
  The Guardian, which admittedly, is not always on the side of the Government, wrote in an editorial on 3 February:
  "Two out of three of the 4·3 million council tenants in the country are so poor that, despite seven separate cuts in benefits in the last eight years, they remain eligible. That leaves the other one-third, many of whom are earning only just above the poverty line, under the threat of paying higher rents to subsidise the unemployed, disabled people and the elderly."
  Homelessness is on the increase, yet the last people these measures will assist are the homeless and the poor.
  Let me turn back to the words of Conservative members of the London Boroughs Association:
  "The proposals relating to rent rebate subsidy are also of major concern to our members. Housing benefit is intended to relieve poverty and is thus rightly part of the national social security system. We therefore feel that it would be inequitable for the responsibility for financing housing benefit payable to council tenants to be transferred to local government…this change could prejudice and would certainly complicate any future attempts to reform the system for relieving poverty"—
  [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The "Hear hears" to those views from a Conservative-controlled association are all from the Opposition side of the House; Conservative Members remain silent.
  The phrase "The poor subsidising the very poor" is one that we have heard again and again and will continue to hear throughout the passage of the Bill, but the Government do not wish to listen. The Institute of Housing says:
  "it is morally wrong that better off council tenants should be paying through their rents, for the welfare benefits given to other tenants. Private and Housing Association tenants are not being placed in this position."
  204
  The Bill will place tenants renting from a local authority in the difficult position of having to pay for a hidden extra, and will remove money that could be used for repairs.
  On the shopping list is a radical alteration in the welfare system, which warrants a debate and a Bill of its own and should not be part of a more general Bill on local government reform.
  The Audit Commission has said:
  "merging rent rebates in the housing subsidy will serve to obscure both the cost of housing benefits and the true profitability of public housing. The proposals would also, in the Commission's view, be a source of continued friction with local government and unrebated tenants. It would be preferable to maintain rent rebate subsidy as a separate element, calculated on rebates granted. If Government considers that with such an approach it is unacceptable that the whole of the HRA surpluses should be retained locally then the problem should be separately addressed."
  Quite so.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) argued for fair rents during the Committee stage of the Housing Bill 1988, and I intend to do the same. Rents should be affordable. The Government say that they agree with that, but they have not revealed how they intend to achieve it. There must be a mechanism to ensure that rents are affordable for council tenants who do not receive rent rebate.
  How does the Secretary of State respond to the criticisms of the Association of District Councils that no figures have been produced to show how the new system will work, or what its national or local effects will be? The Minister cannot be telling us that no such figures have been drawn up. Surely he would not introduce a change of such significance without at least having a look at the likely effect on councils—or is it that he dare not tell the Conservative-controlled ADC what will happen to all too many of his Conservative councillor colleagues, and explain to them how they will explain it to the electorate as the costs of the change begin to come in?
  Where are the estimates and projections to prove conclusively that the system will work? I hope that the Minister will come forward now, before the Bill goes into Committee—but I suspect that he will not do so even then. The figures will emerge in dribs and drabs when the Bill has gone through, and no doubt the Minister will come up with some excuses.
  We can, however, discover a little of what is happening from the Conservative research department brief that I mentioned earlier headed:
  "The Local Government and Housing Bill…Prepared for: Second Reading debate in the House of Commons."
  It is also headed "Confidential". On page 15, it asks:
  "What is the Government's policy on council rents?"
  Shortly after that, we see the nub of the answer:
  "The Government wil be making a more detailed statement on council rents in the near future."
  In other words, they ain't going to tell us just yet.
  Perhaps there is a clue in question 3:
  "How will the new system affect council rents in the short term?"
  The answer is:
  "In the first year the level of exchequer subsidy will reflect the amount paid under the old system the previous year. Any increases in rents will therefore be gradual."
  There is the answer. There will be increases, but they may be gradual. They will be like a Chinese torture, and hurt people slowly rather than all at once.
  Mr. John Battle: Two years ago, the Secretary of State went on record as saying that he thought that a fair market rent for council tenants was at least £35 a week.
  Mr. Taylor: Conservative Members will be interested to know that. No doubt they will put it in their local literature come election time.
  My comments have not by any means covered all the Bill's provisions; there has not been time, because it is a hotch-potch Bill that should not be before the House. But my warnings will echo around council chambers, whether Conservative-controlled, Labour-controlled, Democrat-controlled or balanced. Councillors and local authority employees of all parties share my fears.
  7.4 pm
  Sir George Young: The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) has relied extensively on briefings supplied by the Conservative research department for his inspiration—no doubt because the Liberals were unable to provide any of their own. He and the hon. Members for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) and for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) have all described the Bill as yet another sandbag with which to clobber local government. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) developed that theme in his article in The Sunday Times two days ago, and in the publication "Governing London" the leader of the Association of London Authorities describes the Bill as
  "yet another wave of vitriolic anti-democratic legislation."
  The Association of Metropolitan Authorities says that it is
  "an affront to civil liberties."
  As one who has served on and strongly believes in local government, I wholly disagree. I regard the Bill, on the contrary, as a necessary if painful step down the road of restoring the integrity of local government, curbing the abuses that have brought it into disrepute and thereby helping it to become once again a thriving, relevant democratic institution in which people are proud to serve.
  I see a parallel between this legislation—and that on local government which preceded it—and our legislation on trade unions. Both have addressed institutions born in the late 19th century to combat the weaknesses of a system dependent on unbridled market forces, and to improve the living standards of the less well off. Both have honourable traditions and achievements, now taken for granted, but in the 1970s both began to lose their way. On the one hand, they started to lose touch with those whom they represented; on the other, they began to stray into areas where they had no business to be and, indeed, to challenge the mandate of national Governments.
  That, in turn, precipitated legislative reform from a Conservative Government—reform recognised to be necessary by many Opposition Members. We recognised the need to reform the trade unions before the need to reform local government, because many of the abuses within local government manifested themselves only in our first and second terms of office. The trade union legislation, further down the track, has not, as our opponents said that it would, destroyed the movement, but has made it more accountable. It has stopped most of the indefensible practices and has created—if I may use the jargon—a new mood of realism, and a new breed of leader who accepts that the world has changed and that different attitudes are now required. I believe that that is in the long-term interests of the movement.
  206
  The same applies to local government. Again, a new mood of realism is beginning to break out, and a new type of leader—particularly of Labour authorities—is now emerging. The new leaders accept that the world has changed: they are pragmatic rather than dogmatic. Ted Knight and Derek Hatton have been disqualified, the former leader of the GLC is now the restrained hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), and Margaret Hodge of Islington is going straight.
  Those changes were not volunteered by the parties concerned. Indeed, the most bitter battles that the House has seen in the past 10 years have been on the field of local government. Those changes and improvements have been secured by legislation—legislation of which this Bill is an important part. But we are not quite there yet. The Bill contains many missing pieces of the jigsaw.
  First, there are the proposals for capital receipts. I was astonished to see, in the briefing made available by the LBA, the statement:
  "Capital receipts should be made available to the generating authority"
  this is not a briefing on the Electricity Bill—
  "without a reduction in its basic credit approval."
  That would be wholly inequitable and, incidentally, to the disadvantage of many London boroughs.
  The London Boroughs Association wants the Secretary of State to ignore the fact that some boroughs generate substantial sums in capital receipts while others do not. The former are clearly able to discharge their obligations without having to borrow more easily than the latter. To give credit approval without taking account of the resources available to local authorities, far from being a matter of "simple justice", as is claimed in the briefing, would make existing inequities permanent. I hope that we shall hear no more of that argument, which would make the problems facing the homeless in London far worse. It is clear from the briefing that the Association of District Councils does not take exception to that provision.
  The most controversial proposals in the Bill relate to the housing revenue account and were touched on by the hon. Member for Truro. There has been a great deal of muddled thinking about the proposals to use surpluses on the housing revenue account to help pay for housing benefit. One school of thought, represented in the briefing from the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, was against any surpluses from the housing revenue account. It states:
  "The AMA is opposed to ring fencing—believing local authorities should be free to exercise their own discretion. But it is also opposed to profits being made on HRAs."
  My right hon. Friend will have the figures, but I suspect that a good many Labour-controlled authorities will have a surplus on the H RA and use it to keep down the rates. I see nothing wrong with having a surplus on the housing revenue account. If the housing stock was built some time ago and is in good condition and the debt has been paid off, it would be absurd to charge £10 per week for a four-bedroomed house in Windsor occupied by someone earning a good salary at Heathrow airport. Such a rent would contrast very oddly with rents on nearby properties built more recently, which would be three or four times that level perhaps for something much worse. We should start by asking what is a reasonable rent and if the totality of those rents less the financing and management costs generates a surplus, let us debate what should be done with the surplus.
  At the moment that surplus can be used to keep down the rates. That seems far less defensible than using it to pay housing benefit. Opposition Members make the criticism

  207
  that the proposed regime will result in the poor subsidising the poorest. They gloss over the fact that many council tenants are not poor. Under the present regime that Opposition Members seek to defend, the so-called poor are subsidising those who are not poor—the ratepayers.
  Given that surpluses are legitimate, I see no reason why they should not go towards the cost of housing benefit locally. To say that the cost of meeting poverty is the responsibility of central Government and not local government is to play with words. Central Government could easily introduce negative grant-related expenditure for housing and remove from local government the surpluses on the HRAs. They could then transfer it to the Department of Social Security which would apply it to housing benefit. In that way central Government would relieve poverty.
  The proposals in the Bill short-circuit that cumbersome manoeuvre and transfer the surplus directly into the local HRA. The briefing from the Institute of Housing, which dislikes the proposals in the Bill, suggests an alternative procedure which has exactly the same effect. One has to look rather carefully behind the rhetoric about the poor subsidising the poorest. The proposals are then perfectly defensible.
  Mr. Tony Banks: If the housing revenue account has never been used sensibly, it is because central Government have always interfered in it. The hon. Gentleman mentioned people living in properties for which the historic costs have already been covered. If one were putting together a sensible project, those people should benefit from that through reduced rents, but they are forced to pay higher rents because central Government insist on that. If local authorities try to get round that they lose grant. Where is the fairness in that?
  Sir George Young: I see no justice in charging cost rents for properties on which the debt has been paid. In many cases the cost rent would be £10 or £15 per week, when such a property could produce a rent based on replacement costs or on rents in comparable areas. Such rents would generate a surplus which could be ploughed back into housing. Cost rents are a totally indefensible subsidy to the people who happen to be living in such houses. They produce an indefensible disparity between properties built in the 1920s and those built in the 1980s. A property built in the 1980s may be less desirable than the one built in the 1920s, but under the system that the hon. Gentleman seeks to defend the rent for the newer property would be six or seven times higher. One could not begin to defend such a system to the person living in the more recently built property.
  At some point, responsibility for housing benefit should be removed from the DSS and transferred back to the DOE. The interaction between the new capital regime and housing benefit is crucial. If housing associations and the private sector are to seize the opportunities available to them, a generous housing benefit regime will have to underpin the rents that emerge. If responsibility for housing benefit rests with the DSS, why should it do battle with the Treasury to get higher housing benefit when it is responsible for pensions, the disabled and so on? An integrated approach would require housing benefit to be transferred back to the DOE where it rested about seven years ago.
  208
  I turn briefly to parts VII and VIII on improvement grants. The previous regime was difficult to defend, when well-off people who did not need the money received improvement grants, and when there was some evidence that the availability of grants simply fed through into house prices. Those days are no more. In practice, improvement grants in many areas are, in effect, means tested, so I am not too upset about recognising that in statute. It will be easier for the Department to argue for more resources for improvement grants when the new targeted regime is in force, but there is more to renovating the stock then simply making grants available. A necessary partner is the availability of professional, impartial advice, particularly for the elderly owner-occupier. I hope that there will be many more schemes such as those pioneered by the National Home Improvement Council where public money joins private money to make a demonstrable impact on an entire area.
  I hope that we shall also remove a particular abuse possible within the existing regime. Someone who is eligible for a grant can get a quotation from a reputable builder and submit it to the local authority with his grant application. The local authority will base the grant on the quotation, so long as it considers it reasonable. The applicant can then get his brother-in-law to do the job more cheaply, and although the applicant has then spent less than the quote he is still entitled to the original grant. At the moment it is quite possible to get the work done and make a profit. I hope that that will be stopped and that there will be some incentive to ensure that publicly funded improvement work is carried out by reputable firms. I have looked briefly at clause 112 and I am not convinced that it goes quite far enough. It may need to be explored further in Committee.
  With regard to clauses 25 to 29, I was pleased to see that the National Council for Voluntary Organisations welcomes much in the Bill—the retention and clarification of section 137, the provision that voluntary organisations should provide written statements of their use of local authority money and the specific powers in clauses 25 to 27 to fund economic development activity. Again, some points of concern should be dealt with in Committee. The clauses to which I have referred do not explicitly cover voluntary agencies engaged in economic development. 'The drafting refers to public undertakings, and it is not clear that the Bill covers voluntary organisations.
  There is also some concern in London at the proposal to change section 48 of the Local Government Act 1985. I shall not explain the problems in detail, but, in a nutshell, difficulties will be caused to the London borough grant scheme if projects funded under section 48 have to be funded by section 137 which is often heavily oversubscribed. I have a particular interest in that as I gave generous undertakings on behalf of the Government about section 48 when the Greater London Council was being abolished and obviously do not wish to be a party to breaking them now.
  Finally, I welcome the provisions to ensure neutrality in senior appointments. In Ealing, when the Labour party took control in 1986, the chief executive was, in effect, dismissed the following week. Two other directors left after about a year because of political interference. Now none of the original chief officers remains, although one has retired. At least one of their replacements would find it very difficult to work under an administration of a different complexion because of his political views.
  I am a strong believer in the principle of a professional, impartial team of local government officials because it

  209
  provides continuity and enhances public confidence in local services. The ban on political activity will enhance that objective. Fourteen of Ealing's Labour councillors are employed by neighbouring boroughs and six employees of the borough are councillors on other Labour councils. The Bill will clarify the distinction between elected politicians and non-elected officials. It will strengthen the independence of officers and ensure that members have sound professional and impartial advice. Incidentally, I note that this part of the Bill has been welcomed by the mangerial trade union, FUMPO—I do not know what that stands for.
  In conclusion, I do not see the Bill as Opposition Members describe it, as a further step in the marginalisation of local government or as a step towards centralisation. I see it as a necessary prelude to the restoration of public confidence in local government. In that spirit, I commend it to the House.
  7.20 pm
  Mr. Tom Pendry: May I say at the outset that I do not intend to give way because I wish to make progress by completing my speech as quickly as possible so that other hon. Members can participate in the debate. The Front Bench spokesmen have not set a good example—we heard 45 minutes from the Secretary of State and then 45 minutes from my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), so we have already had a 90-minute match. I must say, the second half was much better than the first.
  I wish to confine my remarks in the main to parts I and II of this monstrous Bill, which directly attacks democracy by limiting the number of people who are permitted to play their rightful part in running local communities. First, I must declare an interest—I am a member of the National Union of Public Employees, which has about 400,000 members in local government, many of whom will be affected by the legislation.
  First, however, I wish to express some of the fears of officers and councillors of my local council, Tameside borough, about part V of the Bill. It is good to see the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier) here, because he knows precisely the kind of council that I am talking about. I hope that when he winds up the debate he will refer to some of the points that I shall make.
  Tameside borough council took the advice of the Prime Minister when, in March of last year, in her glossy "Action for Cities" document she urged local authorities to set up a partnership with industry and to generate and help to create a new lively environment in which to live, work and prosper. Tameside council set up a partnership with local industry and began operating joint ventures with the private sector designed to promote investment and economic activity in the borough.
  The council had in mind particularly establishing a joint venture company, with the council having a minority interest, to undertake a rolling programme of land development, house building, training and other initiatives. The concept of such a programme is that a percentage of profits made from profitable land development can be
  210
  ploughed back into developing land that may not provide the normal market return, building low-cost housing and funding training and other initiatives.
  Under the proposals, it appears that local authorities will be prevented from taking minority interests in companies unless they fall within a specified category. Although it is proposed to permit an authority to take a minority interest in a joint venture land development company, it can retain that interest only so long as the company retains an interest in the land. For obvious reasons, such a proposal could inhibit the use of a joint venture company for the sort of rolling programme that I have outlined. Tameside council feels that that is a real obstacle to the sort of initiatives that it and other councils wish to take.
  Generally, the proposals will further restrict a council's ability to act commercially in partnership with the private sector in economic development. I hope that the Minister will consider more carefully the implications of part V of the Bill before rushing ahead with it in its present form. The Government seem to say that they do not want to inhibit such joint ventures, but if the regulations are introduced in line with the proposals, they will make partnerships much more difficult to construct. I am sure that many local authorities will be discouraged from participating.
  Other parts of the Bill are equally badly drafted and need revision. Some have already been spelt out by my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland and other hon. Members. I am particularly concerned about many of the proposals that will give more power to the Secretary of State through regulation, and less to the House of Commons.
  This is merely the last in a long line of Bills—there have been 50 since 1979—increasing the power of the centre. I disagree with the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young): not only does the Bill lessen the powers of elected parliamentary representatives—even worse, it rides roughshod over local authority members and further restricts the number of citizens who can play a role in running and shaping the local communities in which they live.
  Bearing in mind the constraints on my time, I shall deal in the rest of my speech with the implications for local democracy of parts I and II of the Bill. The provisions show, more clearly than ever, how the Government differ from their predecessors. I well remember when, in March 1973, I introduced a motion in the House aimed at allowing the election of most public servants to the office of councillor, thus allowing the community to benefit from their sense of public service, knowledge and practical experience. Clearly, the purpose of the motion was to seek a change in the qualification laws which then debarred an estimated 2·5 million to 3 million local government workers from standing for their local authorities—about 11·8 per cent. of all employees in England and Wales at the time.
  During the passage of the 1972 Local Government Bill, the then Minister, the late Graham Page, made some commitments. He said:
  "I do not believe that, at a certain level of employment or in a certain area of employment by local authority, if an employee stands as a member, there is any serious chance of failure of integrity or lack of probity. As has been pointed out, there are many occasions where a person employed in private undertakings becomes a member and he may be just as suspect. There is a wide area where the employee of the local

  211
  authority cannot possibly be said to he suspect if he becomes a member."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 10 February 1972, c. 1492.]
  On Report, he went on to say:
  "My own feeling about it is that we are being extremely hypocritical if we exclude all employees of the local authority and do not exclude others who have, perhaps, a greater interest in the affairs of the council".—[Official Report, 17 July 1972; Vol. 841, c. 213.]
  I am sure that we can all hazard a guess at the people to whom he was referring.
  In the 1973 debate in this Chamber, which I initiated, the then Minister gave a major commitment on the Floor of the House. He promised an all-party study to look into matters relating to membership of local authorities, with discussions including local authority associations, staff organisations and other interested groups. What became of that promise?
  Even the Redcliff-Maud report of 1974 stated bluntly that the key proposal before us today was wrong. The report's conclusion was that the concept of a dividing line for the selective removal of disqualification of employees was an illusion. I feel that it is not so much illusory as ludicrous. The Government are not only at odds with the 1970–74 regime, but with in-depth studies carried out since. At the same time, they have ensured that about 70,000 local government employees will be added to the list of those ineligible to stand for local government.
  How can it be right, for example, for a refuse lorry driver in Wandsworth, working for a private company called Team Waste, to be allowed to stand for the council, be elected and influence decisions, while his counterpart in Lambeth cannot?
  Let us suppose that a local government blue collar worker, such as a school caretaker in a large community school, earned £13,000 in 1989 and was elected to his council. The following year, due to the increased community use of his school, he earned £13,600. Would he have to come off the council? He certainly would not be allowed to stand for re-election, even though he might be a very effective councillor by then. Another example is the county roadworks foreman working for his local authority who, because of adverse weather conditions, works all the hours possible and takes his earnings over the £13,500 level. Would he, too, have to resign? Could he stand again in 1991 if his earnings dropped below the magical figure due to a mild winter?
  The snooper whom the Secretary of State appoints to oversee this ludicrous situation will certainly have to be an unscrupulous autocrat. Will council employees have to present their wage slips to this particular commissar before they can stand for their local authority or before they are allowed to go on the streets to canvass in a local election? This legislation is another example of how the Centre for Policy Studies has got the Government's legislation all wrong.
  With this Bill, the Government have launched into the next stage of an ideological crusade against local authorities and those who work for them. If only half the energy that they expend on controlling the activities of democratically elected councils were spent aiding efficient and responsible authorities such as my own by giving them partnership or programme area status, they could help authorities to tackle the many and varied problems in my part of the world instead of hampering them still further by this kind of punitive legislation.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Robert B. Jones: I want to begin by following on a point. made by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor), who unfortunately is not with us. He quoted from the Association of District Councils' brief and called it in aid of his contention that the Bill was about centralised control. The sentence he quoted was:
  "the net effect would appear to be more power to the Secretary of State and even less freedom for local authorities."
  That quote in fact came from a section referring only to part IX of the Bill. The remaining parts of the Bill scent to be broadly welcomed by the Association of District Councils, and I think it only fair, as vice-president of the Association of District Councils, that I should take this opportunity to quote the whole of that sentence. It begins:
  "It is difficult to tell precisely what is envisaged but".
  That, of course, is the difficulty, because one can well understand why local authorities want at this stage each and every detail of how the legislation will work to he made available to them but, of course, the House must be free, through its Standing Committee system, to review the legislation and to debate precisely these points so that the legislation comes back to the House as a whole and so that it can be properly implemented in law. I do not believe that the main bulk of the legislation in the Bill itself should have all that detail. It would be quite wrong; it would be inflexible and very difficult to alter in the future.
  The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) began by referring to the 50 Bills that have been considered during the lifetime of this Conservative Government. He fell short of describing it as "the golden age of local government", but of course, that is exactly what we are seeking to achieve. That golden age of local government, a second golden age, can be achieved only if we have local government of integrity and efficiency, and this legislation, like so many other pieces of legislation, has been designed with that in mind.
  I have served on the Standing Committees on the vast majority of local government Bills since I entered the House in 1983, and I suppose that it is a sign of the times that I now find my self reviewing legislation that I voted for in the first place. There is nothing wrong with that, because it means that one learns from experience and makes sure that anomalies which turn up from legislation, or things that councillors—particularly Labour councillors—get up to in some of the London boroughs in particular, can be dealt with as and when they arise. As I said in an intervention earlier, there are Labour councillors who are out to get through every loophole in the law, and these things will of course have to be reviewed from time to time.
  Mr. Paul Boateng: Does the hon. Member view with equanimity the activities of the Conservative-controlled Westminster city council? Is he happy with the situation in which Lady Porter is able to give a massive payoff to her ex-chief executive in order to keep his mouth shut? Is that a matter in which the Secretary of State ought perhaps to intervene as soon as possible in order to defend the interests of the hard-pressed ratepayers of Westminster?
  Mr. Jones: If the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) had been here for the last three hours, like myself and my hon. Friends, instead of drifting in for five minutes, he would be aware of the fact that that subject has

  213
  been raised before, and he would also be aware that what he and his hon. Friends are suggesting is that the chief executive of Westminster city council should be deprived of what he has paid for in his contributions to his pension fund. I think that would be wholly wrong, but it would be typical of the Labour party's attitude to individual rights.
  Mr. Boateng: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Jones: I will not give way again to the hon. Gentleman. I have just dealt with his point.
  Local government is far too important to simply drift along. It employs 3 million people and is responsible for one quarter of all public spending. That means that it has to be efficient and has to be demonstrated as being accountable. That is why I and my hon. Friends supported the community charge and the rate-capping legislation. We are one-nation Conservatives, who do not believe in throwing the ratepayers of Socialist boroughs to the wolves who are so uninterested in value for money.
  Many points in the Bill have been considered in detail in the speeches of my hon. Friends, but there are some which have not been covered, and I should particularly like to refer to those. First, there is reference in the Bill, and rightly so, to controls over arm's-length and semi-arm's-length companies operated by local authorities, but there is no mention whatever of what I view as one of the biggest scandals of all—the Municipal and Mutual Assurance Company. Any of my hon. Friends, and, I dare say, Opposition Members who have taken up constituents' cases with that company, will have found that it does not pay out even when there is every justification. Of course, there is no reason why it should, because it is mutual, it has a captive market and it has money coming automatically from the local authorities. It has absolutely no reason to be interested in the public perception of it, and that is why it treats constituents of mine and of other Members like dirt. That needs to be dealt with.
  I should also like to make one small reference to the doctrine of proportionality that has now come into the Bill. I think, broadly speaking, that it is right and proper, but I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to bear in mind the consequences of this action in places such as Hertfordshire, where the Labour-controlled county council has said that it wishes to eliminate all school governors who are not members of the Conservative, Labour or Alliance parties. I think that would be a great pity, because there must be a role on outside bodies, particularly school governing bodies, for people with no political affiliation or people whose political affiliation is not known or has been prevented from being disclosed. That is a Committee point which I think my right hon. and hon. Friends should consider.
  Another point I feel strongly about, although it is a very minor issue, is the reference to the Welsh titles of districts. Of course, overwhelmingly English-speaking districts in Wales have to have their titles in both English and Welsh, education has to be conducted in English and Welsh, and many of their officers have to be fluent in both. If that is the case in overwhelmingly English-speaking districts, why in overwhelmingly Welsh-speaking districts should they not have to abide by bilingualism as well? That seems to me to be perfectly fair.
  214
  I also support the one reference in the Bill which is not really about the Department of the Environment or local government at all. It is the one giving powers to the Audit Commission to look at the Health Service. I said in an Adjournment debate almost a year ago, talking about value for money:
  "One reason for health authorities not grasping these opportunities, except sporadically or under direction from central Government, is the absence of a parallel system to that of the Audit Commission. I believe that investment in a series of best practice units enabled to look at each health authority and make recommendations for action would repay itself many times over."—[Official Report, 28 January 1988; Vol. 126, c. 602.]
  The then Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) kindly said that she would look at that point, and I must take this opportunity of welcoming what the Government have announced in their White Paper and for which we shall be legislating in the Bill. The principle of Audit Commission work will be extended into the Health Service. I am sure that it will be very useful indeed.
  The Bill has so many parts in it that it is almost impossible to deal with it in a Second Reading speech without going on ad nauseum, but I should like to say that I have served 11 years in local government; I have served on Conservative-controlled authorities, Labour-controlled and independent-controlled authority. All the councillors in those authorities were respected, irrespective of their party, for their integrity and commitment to the community. Sadly, that has been swept away in some local authorities, particularly in London. For that reason, and many others, I commend the Bill to the House.
  7.39 pm
  Mr. Gerry Steinberg: Whenever we see the latest Bill with "Local Government" on the cover, we know that it will be a thoroughly malicious and pretty distasteful measure that will deprive local people of a few more of their rights to run their own affairs. We also know that we can expect that any new housing Bill will embody the same depressing philosophy, with some variation of the theme of destroying the power of local councils to provide good, cheap housing for those who require and want it.
  Will the Minister confirm or deny when he winds up the debate whether, where no housing subsidy is payable to a local authority and the housing revenue account has a credit balance, that balance can be transferred to the rate fund? If that is so, it will mean that the ring-fencing proposals in the Bill will be one-way ring fencing.
  Even social security has not been quite so heavily legislated against as local government and housing. In every year since 1983, there have been local government Bills and housing Bills as the Conservative party has thought of progressively worse things to do to local government and housing. There have been 15 bad Bills in only five years, but this year there is something new: the Local Government and Housing Bill—two evils rolled into one, or vindictiveness squared. I am sorry to have to say that the Bill lives up to that potential.
  This two-subject Bill is a product of the Government's desire to cut down on meaningful discussion. No doubt their thinking went something like this: "Why have two Bills? Why have two Second Readings? Why have two Standing Committees? We can push it quickly through Parliament with only one of each." The fact that the

  215
  Government have created a 144-clause, 11-schedule, 187-page monster in the process is probably all the better. In that way, there is always the possibility that the public might miss something.
  What nobody can miss about this Bill, however, is that the desire for minimum debate has provided us with a real junk yard of a measure. The average junk yard is usually stacked full of assorted bits of debris bearing absolutely no relation to each other. The only reason that they are together is because of the whim of the owner of the junk yard. The Local Government and Housing Bill is no different, except that in place of the broken fridges and old bath tubs there are restictions on co-opting on to committees and the cuts in improvement grants. All this unrelated ideological debris from the Secretary of State for the Environment has something else in common with the junk yard. It, too, is mostly old, tatty and useless.
  The Bill is dangerous in many ways. That much we have grown to expect, although not to accept, from the Conservative party. Like some of its predecessor local government Bills, however, this one goes further than that. It seems to be a growing trend— a test of political virility, almost—for each new local government Bill to carry something that is sinister along with much that is just dangerous, as though that were not bad enough on its own.
  Last year, for example, there was the nasty clause 29. That was bad enough, but it was only one clause and it was almost so stupid as to be unenforceable. However, the 1989 sinister quotient has gone up to a whole part—one fifth of the entire Bill. Part I has serious implications for the civil liberties of thousands of people. Because of the shortness of my allotted time—[Interruption.] I am told by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) a maximum of 10 minutes—it is mostly on that part that I wish to concentrate.
  Part I mounts a sweeping two-pronged attack on the rights of councils and their employees. The second prong of the attack is the denial to councillors of adequate facilities to govern. I shall turn to that point in a moment. The first prong of the attack is even worse. Anyone who works for any council on a salary of £13,500 or more will be breaking the law if he or she indulges in political activity of any kind. The Secretary of State was kind enough to explain to the press why he thought he needed such a colossus of a restriction. It would, he said, stop councils appointing political henchmen to key officer posts, but the absurdly low starting point takes in far more people than that.
  The average wage for a secretary in London, for example, is not much less than £13,500 a year. Does a 22-year-old draughtsman on £14,000 a year in the engineers department of a local council count as a key officer post? Will he have to let an exemption officer, whom the Secretary of State may appoint, decide whether he can join Friends of the Earth, for example? I suppose that we ought to be grateful that people working in education, at least, are to be exempted automatically from the ban, but I have to tell the Secretary of State that his enormously magnanimous gesture might not mean much. Thanks to the policies of his colleague at the Department of Education and Science, I have yet to meet a schoolteacher who earns more than £13,500 a year.
  As if ashamed of even this little concession, the Bill quickly throws another outrageous clause at us. Clause 2(3) provides that one does not even have to earn £13,500
  216
  a year to be politically victimised if one is involved with the media, or if the public might reasonably infer that one is in a position to influence things—even if one is not actually in such a position.
  All that shows the appallingly wide extent of the Secretary of State's reforms, an extent that seems to be wildly out of proportion when compared with the problems—if any problems exist at all. The proposed restrictions will cover 70,000 people who are working in local government, the immense majority of whom are in posts of no sensitivity whatsoever. Their politics, if they have any, have never given any ratepayer a moment's concern. Their democratic freedoms should not be restricted so needlessly. Seventy thousand people is over 15 per cent. of all local authority, non-education salaried staff. If that number of people were all raving revolutionaries, the country would have been in chaos a long time ago.
  There is another dimension to the arbitrary and sweeping nature of the proposals. I have already talked about numbers and salaries. There is no doubt that the Bill goes much too wide in that direction, but what about the political dimension? What will the Bill actually ban the 70,000 employees from doing? The simple answer is that we do not know; we have not been told. At least on the numerical side, the Bill lays out exactly how sweepingly awful it will be—it says clearly who will be affected—but politically, the only thing that restricted persons are explicitly forbidden to do is become a councillor or a Member of Parliament. The rest come under the catch-all subsection (5) of clause 1, which says that each affected person will have to obey such requirements
  "as may be prescribed…by the Secretary of State.'
  No hint is given of what the requirements might include. I consider that to be an outrage to the authority of this House. When such an important human freedom as the right to participate fully in democracy is being discussed, we should know exactly what we are voting on. We must know just how far the Government propose to curtail freedom. I call on the Government to declare just what they propose to do with the powers that they are asking for this evening. Meanwhile, in the absence of any such guidance, I shall assume that they intend to adopt the proposals that were published last summer in their response to the Widdicombe report.
  That may be too narrow an assumption. The number of politically restricted people in the Bill goes far beyond the original proposals. Perhaps the nature of the Government's restrictions will also go far beyond the original proposals. Even the original proposals were bad enough. Nobody in the restricted group would be able to hold office in any political party, speak or write publicly on matters of controversy, or even canvass in local elections. The last of those restrictions is particularly ludicrous. Somehow, I cannot see British local government being brought to its knees by a 22-year-old trainee draughtsman handing out leaflets in the high street. But the draughtsman might well be brought to his knees by the knowledge that he was less of a citizen than his exact counterpart who happened to work for ICI.
  Anybody wishing to stand for a council or for Parliament would have to leave his job. This might have prevented the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) from ever reaching a selection committee, let alone the Government Front Bench. In her previous incarnation she was a social worker—a job she held right

  217
  up to the election—and, given her undoubted talents, she would almost certainly be earning more than £13,500 a year by now. Whether the hon. Lady worked for a local authority or for a health authority, the point is that at least eight of her colleagues on the Benches opposite and many Members on this side came here by a path that will now be closed under this Bill.
  The Local Government and Housing Bill shows us once again how badly the Government suffer from the sledge-hammer-and-nut syndrome. This one is not quite in the league of the abolition of an entire tier of government just to get rid of Mr. Livingstone—now my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East—but it does its best. Seventy thousand people are to be neutered to deal with the impartiality requirement in respect of, at most, 10,000 senior officers, most of whom are far too professional to be political anyway. What is worse, 70,000 people are to be prevented from being councillors in order to deal with, at most, 1,000 twin trackers, as they are called—and that is throughout the whole country.
  It is hard to escape the conclusion that an element of malice is involved in this legislation. Nobody is claiming that local government is perfect. Indeed, in scope, one or two of its more serious misjudgments even begin to rival those of central Government. The trouble with this Bill is that it does not deal with those. Would it have stopped Westminster city council selling its cemeteries and its housing stock to developers?
  The other trouble with this Bill is its double standards. For example, if Brent borough council were to engage a secret police force, keep closed files on all its ratepayers and refuse to release key committee minutes, or if Lambeth borough council's leader were to surround himself, at public expense, with a kitchen cabinet of flunkies and were to employ news manipulators on the Bernard Ingham model, and if all this came out, there would certainly be a case for legislation. But Brent and Lambeth are not responsible for those blows against democracy; somebody else is, and what an irony it is when one considers that the person who is responsible is also the person who sees fit to preach from on high about what local councils may and may not do.
  7.54 pm
  Mr. David Nicholson: I shall not follow the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) in his rather lurid attacks on the first part of the Bill, although I shall say something about that in a moment.
  In this huge and complex Bill there is much to welcome, but I want later to reflect the concern of my own Conservative-controlled local authority in Taunton Deane and, no doubt, of the local authorities of a number of my hon. Friends, regarding aspects of the housing parts of this Bill. Going by comment outside, those parts are seen to have limited sex appeal but are extremely important for the future of our society. I will not go so far as to describe them as a curate's egg—first, because we have heard rather too much about eggs recently, and, secondly, because my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, who will reply to this debate, is a far greater expert on ecclesiastical matters than I am.
  I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on his blitzkrieg in Somerset last week. I
  218
  understand that his thoughtful response made an excellent impression on Taunton's councillors, who raised with him the concerns to which I shall refer later. He also, rightly, chided the overspending Somerset county council for its missed opportunities and for the burdens it has imposed on business and domestic ratepayers.
  The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who led for the Opposition, indulged in a variety of selective statistics, selective anecdotes and scare stories. I think that my hon. Friends the Members for Hampstead and Highgate, (Sir G. Finsberg) and for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) and, indeed, the Minister of State in interventions, largely answered the rather exaggerated points made by the hon. Member.
  I come now to the Widdicombe clauses of this Bill. I welcome the implementation of so much that was in the Widdicombe report. The hon. Member for City of Durham denied that there were large numbers of revolutionaries in local government, but he completely missed the point. The purpose of the measure that he is so angry about is to eliminate from political activity council officials who are in positions of some responsibility to the public. This would not need to apply to a private sector organisation, but it does apply to the public service. Twenty years ago, I myself was a civil servant for a short time. I certainly had to subscribe to those principles and I believe that they are right.
  We can argue in Committee where precisely the line should be drawn. There may be some points to be debated, but in principle the Government are right, and the fact that these measures from the Widdicombe report are included in the Bill shows that this Government are committed to protecting and promoting decent, fair and democratic local government—and that too is being denied at times by the Opposition. I believe that most local authorities—my own, certainly—will welcome those passages of the Bill. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) in his place because, in an article at the weekend, to which the Secretary of State referred, he acknowledged that there have been "instances arousing public disquiet", with which this legislation is designed to deal. We are grateful for that.
  The decline in the standards prevailing in local government since the late 1960s has a close influence on the decline of the major party opposite, the Labour party in that period and the parroting of Labour party criticism of this Bill by the SLD spokesmen simply shows how far the Liberal party has shifted to the Left. I hope that this will be noted by the electors of Richmond and by the people voting in the county council elections this spring.
  Mr. Soley: They will vote Labour.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Why should voters in any county council elections vote Labour or Liberal when those parties have just agreed a pact?
  Mr. Nicholson: We shall see. The Labour and Liberal parties have been exchanging voters for the last 10 years.
  I turn now to housing, which, in fact, was the subject of my maiden speech, 18 months ago, on the Second Reading of last year's Housing Bill. Again, there is much to welcome in the Bill and in recent relevant announcements. I have in mind the statement last week by the Minister of Housing, the noble Lord, Lord Caithness, on low-cost rural housing, for which I have been pressing for some time, and which is of considerable significance to parts of

  219
  my constituency. It is again an indication of a responsive Government that they are stepping up measures to provide low-cost housing, where it is needed, in sparsely populated rural areas. That is very welcome.
  I welcome also the improvement grant provisions in the Bill. It is encouraging and important that the improvement grant system should be revised and restructured. The English house condition survey of 1986 provided evidence of the need to target help in this respect. In England alone, half of all households lacking basic amenities, one third of those in unfit properties. and over one quarter in properties in disrepair, had annual net incomes below £3,000 in 1986. That shows just how much of a link there is between low income and poor housing. Therefore, the Government are right to proceed down the route of means-testing.
  I have two questions for the Minister on this. Does he envisage that local authorities, such as the two in my constituency, which cannot at the moment provide discretionary improvement grants, will be enabled to do so by the provisions of the Bill for the categories of householders who need help? Secondly, can the Minister say where the line will be drawn regarding low income? There are plenty of people on low incomes who do not qualify for income support but who should qualify for these grants.
  My local authority and my Conservative councillors in Taunton are very much concerned about the capital provisions in the Bill. I repeat what I have said before: what is sauce for the inner-city goose is not necessarily sauce for the shire-county gander. These concerns are shared by other efficient and socially concerned district councils, usually Conservative-controlled. They are worried about their ability, after 1990, to fulfil their statutory housing duties.
  I wish to quote from a resolution by Taunton council last autumn. It was proposed by the leader of the council, Mr. Meikle, and seconded by the chairman of the housing committee, both of them highly respected local government members. They are concerned at the implications which will arise after April 1990,
  "on the supposition that the tenants of a local authority have opted to remain with their local council as their landlord, it cannot be good government…not to be able to spend proper sums on the repair and renewal and improvement of the housing stock…This must imply a need for capital injection over the future years. The consultation paper…makes it impossible for many authorities to achieve this objective. As a local authority which from before 1979 has promoted the national legislation in housing, notably the sale of council houses, …we now see as almost a certainty that councils like ourselves, who have built up large capital receipts, will have our 'permissions to borrow' cut back".
  [Interruption.] This is not all joy for the Labour party. The council's concern is made sharper by the contrast with Labour councils.
  My council says:
  "these same areas mainly Labour Party dominated have done everything in their power for nine years to slow down the sale of council houses, thus purposefully preventing themselves from building up capital receipts from which they could have now benefited. It would appear yet again that district councils may lose resources because of a small minority of left-wing councils nationwide."
  With regard to the contrast between reasonably efficient district councils and some of the inner-city Labour-dominated councils, I am happy that the Government have not gone as far as some of my hon.
  220
  Friends feared they might last autumn and shifted capital resources from rural or semi-rural district authorities to the inner cities. We are grateful for that.
  The right-to-buy figures give a telling contrast. About a month ago, I asked my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State what proportion of council housing stock, as at 1 January 1980, had been sold under the right to buy legislation in various authorities. In Somerset, the proportion ranges from 18·7 per cent. to 26·5 per cent.; in Devon from 20·6 per cent. to 25·5 per cent.; in Dorset from 17·9 per cent. to 30·5 per cent.; and in Wiltshire from 17 per cent. to 24·2 per cent. I contrast those with the figures for certain London boroughs. In the London borough of Camden it was 2·6 per cent.; in Islington 3·4 per cent.: in Lambeth 1·5 per cent.; and in Southwark 3·5 per cent.
  There is an extraordinary contrast. It militates against the Labour party, but it also shows the difficulty for certain Conservative authorities, which have implemented the right to buy, in meeting needs from the waiting list.
  Mr. Tony Banks rose—
  Mr. Nicholson: I am anxious to finish so that l may accommodate the hon. Gentleman.
  My local authority has disposed of its land so it cannot carry out new build or offer land to housing associations for building. The number of council properties in its ownership fell from 8,504 in April 1987 to 8,243 in April 1988. The number is expected to fall by 400 or 500 each year for the next two or three years while the number on the waiting list, which is realistically composed, has risen steadily. Last Saturday, half my surgery cases had come to me because of housing problems. That was the highest proportion I had encountered in my 18 months as a Member of Parliament. I am finding that it is increasingly difficult to accommodate the housing needs of my constituents—for example, young people, perhaps with a baby, who are living with their parents.
  I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about housing problems in my constituency, which I think are paralleled by the problems in the constituencies of many of my hon. Friends. We are talking about a totally different administrative activity or political motivation than exists in many Labour-dominated conurbations. I welcome much of the Bill. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is to follow me but, in view of the time restriction which he has imposed on his hon. Friends, I shall not keep him any longer from his speech or his dinner.
  8.7 pm
  Mr. Tony Banks: It takes a little manipulation, certainly on this side, for everyone to get in, but I am glad to have been able to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I intend to make sure that the next Conservative Member does not have to suffer me for very long.
  I find it strange that the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) should say that the Labour party and the Liberal party have changed and that that is why local government has changed. He does not recognise for a moment that there has been any change in the political complexion of the Conservative party. There has not been such an authoritarian, Right-wing Conservative Government since the war, so it is not surprising that there has been a marked change in the attitude of people

  221
  involved in local government. They have been forced on to the defensive to try to defend jobs and services against the most appalling attacks made upon them personally as councillors and collectively as councils. The hon. Member could do his case more justice if he recognised that there have been major changes on his side which have created all the problems in local government today.
  I dream of the constituency problems of the hon. Gentleman. It would be wonderful for me to have the problems that he has in Taunton. If he thinks that a few housing problems are beginning to creep into his constituency, he should come to Newham, where 80 per cent. of my constituency cases relate to housing. The local authority that I represent in Newham has seen its bed-and-breakfast payments go up from £52,000 in 1983 to about £5·5 million today. We cannot solve our housing problems in Newham without massive central Government support, but we do not receive that support. All that we get is abuse and attack from central Government. The hon. Gentleman will not know the way of the world unless he comes to the inner cities of London, Leeds and Manchester.
  Mr. David Nicholson: One point that I did not mention but which was extremely relevant is this. I do not know the figures for Newham, but in many of the Labour-controlled boroughs in inner London and elsewhere there are large numbers of council properties that are vacant for long periods or are not effectively used, and large numbers of vacant privately owned properties. We hope that the private rent legislation will revive such properties. That is why there is a problem in the hon. Gentleman's area and elsewhere in London.
  Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman knows that the largest number of vacant properties in London is in the private sector, and they are mostly houses waiting to be sold. With property prices as high as they are in London, there is no way that anyone will rent out those properties—because the sort of people who could pay the rents could afford to pay the mortgages. In those circumstances, the idea that people will come off the housing waiting list and move into those private properties is palpable nonsense even for the hon. Member for Taunton.
  The hon. Member for Taunton mentioned the proportions of housing stock sold by local authorities and quoted a number of very low percentages in London boroughs. The hon. Gentleman should know the state of some of the stock in those boroughs. Newham has 110 tower blocks, and there is no great rush of people waiting to buy a flat 20 storeys up in a tower block in Newham. That is another reason for the proportion sold being low. Those blocks were built in the 1960s and 1970s by the private sector and some of the building standards were appalling. The builders included Taylor Woodrow—and also Anglian which has now gone bankrupt. Taylor Woodrow is a well-known supporter of the Conservative party and inflicted jerry building on the London borough of Newham.
  There are words that one is simply not allowed to use in this House: "lying", "cheating" and "hypocritical". Those are words that one could not apply to hon. Members without being disciplined. However, I would say that those words are most appropriate in respect of the
  222
  Government's policies towards local government. It is lying, cheating and hypocritical for the Government to say that the Bill is all about improving local government and restoring the standards of local government. This Government have done more than any other to destroy the standards of public service, both at a national and at a local level. The Bill is but the latest line in the voluminous epitaph currently being written on the tombstone of local democracy.
  The Government's clinical dismembering of local democracy has proceeded through a number of stages. It has proceeded through propaganda and abuse, which is echoed through the gutter press. It has proceeded through financial assault upon local authorities' affairs, forcing local authorities anxious to defend jobs and services into high rate levels. They can then be attacked by central Government as being profligate and spending too much money. Those authorities can then be financially penalised through rate capping and other financial devices. Another alleged way of improving local government is to abolish it. That seems to be the Government's attitude. We have now reached the point where the civil rights of councillors and officers are to be seriously curtailed.
  The assault on local government by the present Government has been unmatched in the past 100 years. I believe that the motivation is simple. It stems from a malignant intolerance of opposition, which actually starts at No. 10 Downing street and works its way through. The Prime Minister believes that she cannot be wrong. Because she believes that, anybody who opposes her—whether from the Opposition or one of her right hon. or hon. Friends—must by definition be wrong. The Prime Minister is a natural autocrat and surrounded, of course, by a bunch of sycophants, many of whom have betrayed everything in which they once claimed to believe.
  Ms. Diane Abbott: The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) is one.
  Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman has not actually practised sycophancy, he is a natural sycophant. I am not, therefore, pointing the finger specifically at him. It is the Government Front Bench that I am thinking about now.
  I have read the comments of the Secretary of State for Education and Science. I believe that he is one of the most arrogant men in this House. The Secretary of State for Education and Science is one of the few people I know who can actually strut sitting down. He attends the Young Conservatives conference—the Tory party equivalent of the Hitler youth—and talks about the bully boys in local government who he claims are somehow thwarting the Government's ambitions to get schools to opt out of local education authority control. That level of hypocrisy is breathtaking, and it comes from a Government who harass, threaten, intimidate and insult elected councillors. Having sat through virtually every local government Bill and order since 1983, and many of the Committees—I hope that if the Committee of Selection draws my name out tomorrow I shall be a member of the Committee on this Bill—and having watched the Government and Conservative Members, it appears that they will change every rule and plumb every depth to achieve their political objectives.
  I remember the Prime Minister in 1979—she had not actually reached her St. Francis of Assisi stage then—

  223
  saying that the next Conservative Government would take Whitehall off the back of town halls. Fifty local government Bills later, can any Conservative Member say that that has been the direction of Conservative party policy since 1979? Can any Conservative Member honestly say that what we have seen since 1979 has been Whitehall being taken off the backs of the town halls?
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: The hon. Gentleman may recall that the Department of the Environment in 1979 to 1981, with my noble Friend Lord Bellwin, removed about 90 restrictions from local government. It was because local authorities such as the GLC ratted on their obligations that further legislation became necessary. They brought it upon themselves.
  Mr. Banks: I gave way to the hon. Gentleman because he gave way to me. I wish that he had been here at the beginning because he would surely recognise that this Conservative Government are further to the Right than any since the war. They are an authoritarian, centralising Government who believe that the Prime Minister cannot be wrong. If the Prime Minister says that it must be done, Conservative Members will do it. If the Prime Minister wanted to add an eighth day to the week, she would get a majority in the Division Lobby. Conservative Members are not independent accountable Members of Parliament—they are just a bunch of followers, time-servers and sycophants who will give the Prime Minister anything she wants, including the destruction of local democracy that we have seen since 1979. All the problems of local government stem from the policies of central Government. The Bill is yet one further attempt to dismantle local democracy and accountability. I look forward to being on the Committee to argue the case in more detail than I have today.
  8.18 pm
  Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: It is almost three years since I took the Widdicombe report on holiday. It is not a light read, either in fact or in content, but I welcome the Government's courage in bringing forward the vast bulk of its proposals.
  The House now has the opportunity to set a new pattern for the conduct of local authority business into the future. I do, however, have a more personal interest in seeing this most important matter coming before the House. In 1984 I set up a working party to examine apparent abuses in local government. The result was the publication of "The New Corruption", which the Secretary of State for the Environment of the time, now Lord Jenkin of Roding, acknowledged both in this House and on public platforms as a major factor in the setting-up of the Widdicombe committee. In addition to the pamphlet, a portfolio of evidence was submitted to the Secretary of State for consideration.
  I should like to record the particular interest of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), who made a typically worthy contribution to the debate earlier. He was then the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment. He endorsed the project and monitored its progress and his well-known fair-mindedness was a constant encouragement at a time when local government was not considered a politically exciting issue. At that time
  224
  those living in the shires or the leafy suburbs did not have a clue what we were talking about. I fear that that is still true.
  The background to this debate is well known. The election of the Tory Government in 1979 precipitated the predictable clash with the trade union movement, and, less predictably, confrontation with forces in local government, which were increasingly hostile to the philosophy of the incoming Government. I can say for the benefit of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) that the role of local government was described in a "London Labour Briefing" of February 1982 as
  "a weapon in the class struggle'.
  It was also described in a Greater London council publication of April 1984 as
  "an efficient means of redistributing resources".
  That role was under threat, and as the emotional level rose, so did the stakes. The Government questioned the propriety of the actions and the funding of council campaigns, and the councils hit back. By the time of the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties, no less than £15 million of ratepayers' money had been swallowed up by the campaigns to prevent the demise of the mega-councils. That represents more than the total amount spent by all the political parties in the 1983 general election campaign. To some extent Patrick Jenkin became a victim of the system he attacked.
  I have no wish to revive the old party political hobby horses about the questionable causes to which ratepayers' funds were committed. We could all trot out familiar phrases, but the "propaganda on the rates" issue was largely tackled by the Local Government Act 1986 following Widdicombe's interim report. I welcome the fact that the thrust of that report has been continued in part III of the Bill.
  We should not forget that for many hitherto politically unaware people it seemed that an almost alien creed had been superimposed on the traditional structure of local government, whether run by traditional Labour or Tory councils. To have a red flag flying over the town hall in Islington a few hundred yards from my house was a cultural and a political shock. It educated me and many of my colleagues who sharpened their political teeth in Islington.
  "The New Corruption", so named to draw a distinction between that and the old-style personal financial corruption, was written from a particular political viewpoint. Many of the malpractices identified, however, could have been perpetrated in the future by parties diametrically opposed to those around in the 1980s which were able to set in place an apparatus, fully funded by the ratepayer, to challenge central Government. The long-established convention of properly run local government, serving a particular community, was under threat. I hear some mutterings from the Opposition Benches and lest anyone should doubt the force of my argument I refer to the Fabian Society tract "Managing Local Socialism", which was published in 1986 and which quoted my work with approval.
  Legislation—necessary only because of the misconduct of various councils—must be put in place to restore a proper framework. As the cry, "Yes, Minister" has become a catchphrase, now is the time to say "No, councillor". I congratulate the Secretary of State on producing the Bill hard on the heels of so many other radical changes in the structure and funding of local

  225
  government. It is recognition of the fact that the operation of the new system will be prejudiced in the absence of a proper ethical grounding.
  I shall confine my remarks to the first three parts of the Bill in so far as they derive from the Widdicombe report. Perhaps the most important part of the Bill is the recognition given to the status of the chief executive, described somewhat coyly in the Bill as the:
  "head of the authority's paid service".
  He may also be designated as the monitoring officer. Amidst all this jargon is the core of the thinking behind the Bill—the necessity for someone in an authority to be able to blow the whistle if prima facie malpractices are identified, without risking the sack.
  The chief executive needs and deserves the protection of the Bill and from this rightly privileged position much else flows. The traditional political neutrality of him and his colleagues is established by their appointment on merit alone. Furthermore, their designation as holding "politically restricted posts" will disqualify them from seeking elected office. After all, no reasonable observer would think it right for senior local government officers to be politically active elsewhere. The ludicrous practice of what I described as "cross-employment"—that description has now been overtaken by two less elegant ones, "dual tracking" or "twin tracking", which have a transatlantic ring about them—will be brought to an end. No longer will an officer in one council be able to sit as a councillor on a neighbouring council with the inevitable conflict of interests that have been pointed out by many of my hon. Friends. If a politically sensitive appointment is judged appropriate and is made on merit, everyone knows about it and it is all in the open.
  Many other measures are long overdue. Why should co-opted members on committees have the right to vote? Why should the political balance on councils not be reflected in the make-up of committees? Of course party caucuses can have deliberate meetings, but why on earth should decisions ever be made in camera? All those issues, which would seem ordinary common sense and fair play to the man in the street, are now addressed in the Bill.
  Ms. Abbott: It will not do to criticise, by implication, Labour councils without thinking carefully of the practices of some Conservative councils. I served for four years on Westminster city council which was in the habit of taking crucial decisions in camera—it still does. What is more, whatever the alleged iniquities of Labour authorities, now and in the past, we have never stooped to peddling cemeteries at 15p apiece.
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes: I can give joy to the hon. Lady, because all my remarks apply equally to all councils whatever their political persuasion and equally to any alleged cases of malpractice by Tory or Labour-controlled councils.
  To put the mind of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West at rest, and so that I do not appear sycophantic, there are two areas in which I believe the Government are being unusually timid—one does not usually apply that adjective to this Administration. First, I refer to the updating of the national code of local government conduct, which is covered in clause 23. If the purpose of the code is to encourage councillors to avoid
  226
  conflict of interests, I am at a loss to understand why it should not incorporate a compulsory register of non-pecuniary as well as pecuniary interests. That would stamp out many abuses whereby funds have been voted to particular organisations in which councillors have an interest, perhaps as paid workers. In the past complex networks had been built up amounting almost to a sub-culture rather than genuine voluntary service.
  Mr. Bernie Grant: Give an example.
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes: I anticipated the hon. Gentleman because I shall call in aid the evidence given to the Royal Commission on the standards of conduct in public life by the Society of Labour Lawyers, no less.
  The second area in which the Government appear to have been timid relates to standing orders. Given the widespread and well-documented manipulation of standing orders in various councils, I am somewhat dismayed that according to clause 16 the Secretary of State "may" require authorities to adopt certain procedures.
  Why not have a compulsory element to protect the interests which after all are there to protect minority parties? Copies of my booklet will be available—
  Hon. Members: Oh!
  Mr. Tony Banks: In the Vote Office?
  Mr. Goodson-Wickes: Perhaps not in the Vote Office; but they will be available from me, if the hon. Gentleman cares to cross my path. I shall even peg it at a level of £2·25. In these days of low inflation, I shall gladly peg the price and hon. Members can line up for it.
  With those reservations, on which I shall value the comments of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I applaud his further move towards better financial and political accountability in local government. As the community charge is a major step towards that end, so these measures will largely confine abuses to local government history, along with the embattled ratepayer who has financed them. I am confident that the previous experience of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government in Smith square, Church house and Brussels will allow him to fight successfully his latest battle to strengthen the democratic process.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. David Winnick: The restriction on many local government employees standing for election to serve on another authority is yet another and major undermining of basic civil liberties by the Tory Government. Just over five years ago, there was the Government ban on union membership at GCHQ. Today, the Government propose to take away the ability of many people serving in local government to exercise their right to stand for election to a local authority or, indeed, to the House.
  I understand that, although the Bill does not cover teachers—I hope that the Minister will refer to this when winding up—it is reported in at least one newspaper today that some Conservative Members believe that teachers should be included. I also understand that the Government are considering some sort of compromise in Committee, whereby head teachers would be caught by such a ban.
  It is certainly not for this Government, of all Governments, to talk about jobs for the boys. The

  227
  Government have filled every conceivable type of public appointment with their supporters and sympathisers. Without exception, all the quangos, for instance, have been packed with those who have close connections with the Tory party. When it comes to appointments to these and other bodies, the basic criterion is clear. The words of the Prime Minister are well known: "Is he or she one of us?" That is the only criterion that counts. The use of prime ministerial and ministerial patronage has been as extensive and corrupting under this administration as the sale of honours by Lloyd-George.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Can he tell us what was the criterion used by the Labour Government when they appointed Lord Wigg to be chairman of the Horserace Betting Levy Board, or Lord Thomson of Monifieth to be chairman of the IBA, or Lord Aylestone to be chairman of the IBA before him? Numerous other Labour Members were created peers and made chairmen of quangos. What was the criterion used there?
  Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman, if he wishes, can go into the Library and look up all the appointments that were made by the previous Labour Government and those made by this Government. He will find that certain appointments were indeed made by the Labour Government of Labour supporters and former Ministers. That has never been unknown in previous Administrations. I am not denying that it happened under Labour. Clearly it did so. But it has gone much, much further under this Government. That is the very point.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett rose—
  Mr. Winnick: I shall not give way again.
  The very point that I am trying to make is not that political appointments by a Government were unknown, but that under this Government they have become so extensive and corrupting. It is interesting to note that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), the former Conservative Leader and Prime Minister, said very recently in a debate on the Official Secrets Bill that the press office at 10 Downing street is being run in a corrupt way. We all know that the influence of Mr. Bernard Ingham is far greater on the Prime Minister than that of any member of the Cabinet.
  The parts of the Bill that deal with housing finance are no less offensive than the matters that I have just raised. The clauses are meant to discourage many council housing tenants from staying with a local authority, because of the much higher rents that will undoubtedly be charged.
  We rightly accuse the Government, although they deny it, of being in the business of doing away with the National Health Service or bringing about the position where only the poorest and most chronically sick are likely to use the service. But what cannot be brought about outright in the NHS, for purely political reasons, of course, will be achieved far more quickly with the public rented sector. The Government have made it perfectly clear in the White Paper and the consultative document that they do not believe that local authorities should be in the business of council house building. That is the big divide between the two sides of the House.
  The Government also strongly believe that the number of rented dwellings in the public sector should be substantially reduced. It is hoped that in due course, with
  228
  the regular and substantial rent increases that will undoubtedly occur if the Bill becomes law, only the poorest in the community are likely to remain as council tenants. Those people are not likely to be taken in as tenants by private landlords or even by housing associations. That is the role of the local housing authorities, as the Government see it. It is quite different from what has been established over many years.
  To a large extent, what I have just said is borne out by the consultative paper "New Financial Regime for Local Authority Housing in England and Wales". Paragraph 14 of the paper brings to the attention of tenants their right to exercise an option to buy a property, or what is described as a "tenants' choice". It is saying, in effect, that the Government want to see this brought about. In plain English the message could not be plainer. The Secretary of State did not deny, although he accused us of some exaggeration, that the sort of rent levels that he would like to see are those described in the White Paper and the consultative document. Therefore the message is, "If you do not like what is happening, agree to buy or vote yes to a private landlord taking over your property."
  That is much like the blackmail used over housing action trusts. Council tenants have now been allowed to exercise a vote, against the Government's original wishes, as a result of the Government accepting the Lords amendment, but the blackmail used by the Secretary of State is, "Well, if you do not agree to going into a housing action trust, it is quite likely the funds will not be available from Government for your property to be brought up to modern standards." That is blackmail. We are concerned not just about the abuse of patronage but about the use of blackmail and other such tactics, which Ministers use when they are anxious to get their way.
  I served on a local authority before originally becoming a Member of the House, and I know that those who serve on local authorities do so because they have a feeling of duty and responsibility, although of course there are some exceptions. In my view, that rule certainly does not apply to Lady Porter and the manner in which Westminster city council is being run in such a corrupt way.
  The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) asked what was wrong with the contract of the chief executive who is retiring from Westminster city council. What is so offensive about it is clear. As my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said, there is a clause saying, in effect, that the chief executive has a duty not to reveal anything of what has taken place. Clearly if he does so, the contract will be broken in the eyes of the leadership of Westminster city council who drew up the contract. That is what we find so offensive.
  Mr. Bernie Grant: Disgraceful.
  Mr. Winnick: As my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) says, that is what we think is so disgraceful.
  I do not happen to believe that there is anything wrong in the way in which local authorities have used the existing discretionary powers for contributions to be made for council housing, especially because of the substantial reduction in subsidies for local authority housing since this Government have been in office. To ring fence the housing revenue accounts of authorities in the way set out in the Bill must cause large rent increases. That of course is the major purpose of the exercise.

  229
  The change in the funding of rent rebates is equally offensive. Although the Secretary of State tried to deny it, it means in effect that the housing benefit for the poorest council tenants will be paid for by other council tenants through much higher rents. In other words, the relatively poor will subsidise the poorest in the community. It has always been accepted—by Tory Administrations as well—that assistance for the relief of poverty should come from national sources, but under the Bill it will come from council tenants who are not in receipt of benefit. That is certainly wrong. It will undoubtedly cause much hardship to those who have to bear the burden.
  There are many other matters in the Bill which cannot be dealt with in a 10 or 12-minute speech on Second Reading. For example, capital receipts will be used for loan purposes, and not, as promised by a previous Secretary of State, for housing.
  I cannot deal with all the issues because many other hon. Members still wish to speak, but let me say finally that Britain faces an acute housing crisis. Hundreds of thousands of people are desperate for accommodation. I make no apology for repeating this: just a short distance down the road, five or seven minutes walk away at most, tonight as on previous nights, no matter how cold it is, people are sleeping in cardboard boxes. They are by no means all tramps. Many have come to London to find work. In some cases, although not all, they have found a job but simply cannot find any accommodation, and there is nothing in the Bill that will allow them to do so.
  There are many other people, as we know, living with their young children in bed-and-breakfast or hostel accommodation in the most squalid conditions in which no one in a country such as ours should be allowed to live in the 1980s. There are many others, including some of my own constituents, not living in such bad conditions, but living with their parents or in-laws in overcrowded accommodation.
  The reason is understandable. We all know it. The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) said that most people who come to his constituency surgeries have housing problems, and the same applies to me and my hon. Friends. Those constituents cannot afford a mortgage, even when the mortgage interest rate is not so high. They cannot afford the privately rented sector. They cannot pay market rents. If they could afford them, they would almost certainly be owner-occupiers. Therefore, they are faced with that dilemma of finding adequate accommodation at a rent they can afford.
  Earlier, a Conservative Member spoke with pride about the number of council dwellings that have been sold. What about the number of council dwellings that have not been built? This year it is likely that the number of council dwellings completed in England and Wales will be no more than about 12,000. That means tremendous hardship and misery. That is why the Bill has no relevance to Britain's housing crisis; why the Bill is so offensive in all its clauses; why the Bill will bring no relief to the people to whom I have been referring; and why the Opposition have every justification for voting against it.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I understand that the Front-Bench spokesmen will seek to
  230
  catch my eye at about 10 minutes past 9, so 28 minutes of debating time remains for Back Benchers. I hope that we shall have brief speeches.
  8.42 pm
  Mr. Richard Holt: It is interesting that I should be selected by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to speak after the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). He and I served on the London borough of Brent council from its inception in 1963–64. I have to go back to those days to find the start of the decline in the relationship between central and local government.
  I am pleased to see that proportional committees will be established by the Bill. I am particularly in favour of that because, after the London borough of Brent elections in 1963, 31 Labour councillors and 29 Conservative councillors were elected. At the first inaugural meeting of the council, the hon. Member for Walsall, North was one of those who fervently supported the fact that all 10 aldermanic benches went to the Labour party, thus distorting the electorate's wish by packing the committees. It has taken the Government 25 years to catch on to that and to introduce legislation to ensure proportional representation on the committees.
  That was the beginning of the slide into argument between central and local government. The political editor of the Local Government Chronicle recently said in an article about me that I had the widest, longest and broadest experience in local government of any hon. Member. As I have worked my way through different authorities I have seen the changes that have taken place. Over the past 25 years, Labour-controlled local authorities have sought to confront the Government and so the situation in which we now find ourselves has been inevitable.
  I have criticised the Government because they are still tinkering with the problems. We are told that this will be the 50th Act of its kind. Until somebody recognises that the real problem is that Britain has too much local government, we shall always have debates and legislation that does no more than tinker with the problem.
  Why is it necessary for an electorate to have a town council, a district or borough council and a county council which can all levy a rate? On top of that, there are the Government and the European Assembly. There are far too many tiers of local government. However, that does not apply throughout the country, because outer London boroughs do not have an upper tier or even a lower tier. For all its faults—this may be a political argument—Brent, one of the outer London boroughs, was at least a homogeneous unit without the conflicts that we now have as a result of so many local authorities.
  The people of Skelton in my constituency are up in arms because the town council has increased the rate this year to 2p. That is a massive increase by any normal standards, but perfectly allowable under the Bill. The Government have failed to accept my advice on this and on previous occasions that there should be a limitation on the amount of money that town councils can raise through their precepts. The Government have done nothing. Just four years ago a Conservative Government abolished the limitation on the amount of money that parish and town councils can take.
  That increase is on top of a projected rate of 299p in the pound for my constituents in Cleveland next year. It is said

  231
  that that is only a 6 per cent. increase, but it is 6 per cent. on a high base. It is 299p for the county and we have yet to hear what the district rate will be. Already we know one of the towns is charging 2p.
  People talk about unemployment problems and the generation of employment in the north-east, but is it any wonder when the entrepreneurs and business men from Japan and elsewhere come to Britain and, before they manufacture a thing, they see the dead weight of the rate burden from three tiers of local authorities which they will have to bear? It is far too much.
  What is all the money being spent on in Cleveland? That is a good question, because many people cannot find out. But they may be able to find out how much it cost to employ Vincent Hanna and his circus for a few lousy months last year while he was trying to put a gloss on the activities of the people involved in the Cleveland sex abuse case. What a shambles that was. There were two doctors, one out of his or her mind and the other nearly so, bringing havoc to the people of Cleveland, and the local authority trying to cover that up left, right and centre by spending money which we have not had the opportunity to debate in the House despite my requests on no fewer than 12 occasions. At the same time, Cleveland county council put up the rates for all those who live there.
  I urge the Government to look again at the construction of local government.
  After all, we now have the urban development corporations—creatures of this Government brought in because of the stagnation and waste of time of local authorities, which have failed miserably in the north-east of England to rise to the challenge of their responsibilities. Only now are we beginning to get some regeneration on Teesside. The last bulletin of the Teesside chamber of commerce talked of the boom times now ahead as a result of the Teesside development corporation, not as a result of the dead hand of the local authorities. So why do we need so many tiers of local government? Perhaps it is in order to find jobs for some of the Labour councillors and county councillors.
  Let us look at the twinning there is in the Cleveland area. How can we justify a personnel officer on full pay employed by Middlesbrough council being seconded completely and fully, without any duties and responsibilities left, to work as a full-time county councillor for the Cleveland county council? To add salt to the wound, it has been necessary to recruit a replacement because of the work not being done by the full-time councillor as a consequence of that decision.
  We have too many layers of local authority. We have leisure and social services being looked after by everybody. And what calibre of people are we bringing into local government as a consequence of all this? Perhaps my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has not read the Middlesbrough Evening Gazette of about two weeks ago, which reported that two county councillors had to be separated because they were physically fighting in the library of the town hall, and the police had to be brought in. I hesitate to use the word gentleman. One of those males was a member of the police committee and the other was a justice of the peace. How can we expect our young people to be given guidance and leadership by Cleveland county council when people of that sort are councillors? I look forward to the day when there may be some strictures by the central Government regarding whom we can and cannot have in local government representing the people.
  232
  We have someone on Cleveland county council who was elected to represent the town of Lofthouse in my constituency. He was the local vicar, and he scarpered; we are not quite sure with which lady. Consequently, the people of Lofthouse have been virtually without a county councillor for the past two years. I believe that he puts in a token attendance at county hall in order not to be disqualified under the current legislation. The Labour party would be terrified of having a by-election in that town because the Conservative party, which now controls the town council, would undoubtedly win the seat. Why is there not some legislation to ensure that those elected as councillors and county councillors do the job properly and are not employed elsewhere?
  I am surprised and sorry that we do not have any limitations on the financial earnings of councillors and county councillors. Perhaps by doing away with twin tracking we shall do away with the concept of being an officer of more than one authority, but we shall not have done away with the duplication of people who are both councillors and county councillors, and in some cases town councillors.
  Then there is the way in which allowances can be boosted. In Middlesbrough one does not have to be on a committee to obtain the allowance for any night. A councillor can go along to the committee room and if any councillor on his side is missing he can substitute for him and draw the allowance. He is there for two or three minutes and then he leaves. That is all that is necessary.
  I drew to the attention of the House some three or four years ago the situation in Middlesbrough under the standing orders of the council, which enable any councillor to hold a ward surgery in his own home. It does not matter if nobody turns up; he can still claim the full allowance. He can sit at home with his slippers on, watching television, and claim the full allowance. That is the sort of abuse to which the Government have yet to address themselves. So I hope that this is not the last of the Bills that the Government will be bringing forward but is merely a step further along the road.
  Mr. Bernie Grant: Fiction.
  Mr. Holt: I will willingly give way if the hon. Gentleman wants to come in. Does he want to come in or not?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. l am here to deal with that.
  Mr. Holt: I appreciate that you are there, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to interrupt I will willingly give way. If he does not, will he shut up?
  Mr. Bernie Grant: Will the hon. Gentleman, instead of giving us a fictitious situation, give us a concrete example of a case in which abuse has occurred in Cleveland county council or any of the other councils that he has named? Let him name names.
  Mr. Holt: I have already told the House that two county councillors were fighting. It is a matter of record. I have said that under standing orders one can claim for a surgery carried out in one's own home. That, too, is a matter of record. So I do not have to name names.
  The politicisation of county councils occurred almost immediately after the war. Prior to 1950 almost every councillor in the country was an independent. After 1950 the Labour party started to fight as a party, and later on

  233
  the Conservatives caught up and commenced to do the same. The Labour party has sought whenever possible to get round the legislation of the day and to circumvent the activities of central Government. It is regrettable that local government is not what it was and that the people who are going into local government are not what they were. Certainly, that is true in many instances of the officers who serve in local government today. We shall not be able to turn the clock back. How can we when the Derbyshire county council appoints a man such as Race, who has no experience or knowledge whatsoever, as its chief officer? That is what we are up against.
  There are innumerable instances of abuses by local government, particularly Cleveland county council, which is without a doubt among the most profligate in the country. Regrettably, I do not have time to go into details of all of them tonight, but there is one thing I would like to draw to the attention of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, because I believe that she may have the ear of another hon. Member.
  Cleveland county council is for ever screaming and moaning that it has not enough money to mend the roads, the potholes and the pavements. Yet, according to this year's report of the council, it has underspent its allocation by a quarter of a million pounds. If it had any organisation whatsoever, if it was in any way capable, I should not have my constituents complaining to me about the roads, while the funds generously given by central Government are lying wasted and unspent. I would not mind if it were the first year, but I believe that it is the second or perhaps the third year running that the same situation has prevailed. So there is much that can still be done to make local government more efficient. Another example is the advertisement for a chief cleansing engineer placed by Cleveland county council in the most recent issue of the Sunday Times. That quarter-page advertisement must have cost 25 to 30 per cent. of the engineer's annual salary.
  Local authorities under Labour control, and serving areas represented by Labour Members of Parliament, moan and groan about the Bill. I am moaning and groaning because it does not go far enough. It is time to review local government's duties, responsibilities and financing.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I very much regret that my plea for very brief speeches has fallen on deaf ears.
  8.58 pm
  Mr. John Battle: In the time available to me, I shall point, as other right hon. and hon. Members have done, to those parts of the Bill dealing with housing. When debating the Housing Act 1988, we warned that that landlords' charter would lead to market rents—meaning high rents. Even the Government's consultants are warning local authorities to be wary of the large-scale transfer of council estates
  "because tenants do not perceive it as an improving step."
  The Government now have a big problem. The shift to private-sector landlords will not happen, unless this Bill results in pricing people out of council housing and into purchasing their own council property—with the benefit of a subsidy, which will be cheaper than paying rent—or into insecure private rented accommodation.
  234
  The Bill's effects on housing finance will mean higher rents. I invite the Minister to spell out the Government's figures of the rents that people will have to pay as a result of the changes that the Bill makes. Will he confirm or deny the claim made by the Secretary of State for the Environment two years ago, that market rents for council housing ought to be at least £35 per week? If so, many council tenants will be interested to know that. The ring-fencing proposals could lead to rent rises of about 20 per cent.
  The public expenditure White Paper that the House debated last week showed that the number of houses built by local authorities will drop from 15,000 this financial year to 6,000 by 1991–92. The Economist commented on the White Paper:
  "Social housing will be hard to find and far more costly to rent. That is the message from the new statistics in the white paper's chapters devoted to the environment department."

  I do not have time to go into as much detail as have other right hon. and hon. Members, but the proposals affecting housing benefit will mean that some tenants will, through their rents, be paying the housing benefit of other council tenants. Conservative Members suggest that there is nothing wrong with that arrangement, but why is it that only those receiving housing benefit are being denied a share of the national cake? Why are the Government not reconsidering the housing assistance that is given in the form of mortgage tax relief? It seems that tax reductions and relief are given only to the better off in our society, and that it will be the poor who are forced to rely on the local state—back to the traditions of parish relief. How will the people face up to the level of poll tax that their local authority will have to impose on them also, in order to assist the poor in their area?
  I can, surprisingly, welcome one provision in the Bill, and about which I ask the Minister for more detail. I refer to clause 130 and to schedule 8(3), which contain a hint that powers to check up on houses in multiple occupancy will be included. It appears that local authority powers in respect of houses in multiple occupancy will be amended. The schedule's contents are minimal, but could provide an appropriate peg. I shall be interested to know whether the Government have any intention of writing into the Bill realistic and practical proposals for dealing with multiple occupancy housing. Six out of 10 of an estimated 334,000 houses in multiple occupancy are in a serious state of disrepair, and four out of five lack a satisfactory means of escape from fire. I invite the Government to expand further on their intentions in that regard.
  The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) openly states his belief that, despite there being 50 local government Bills since 1979, there is still too much local government. I wonder how much he speaks for his right hon. and hon. Friends. I believe that the Bill's intention is to put the final cap on local government.
  In an interview in Today published on 25 February 1988, the Prime Minister presented her vision of Britain in the year 2000. She envisaged that it will herald a golden age for Britain, and a new Elizabethan age of enterprise and advance. She refers with admiration to the great days when wealthy merchants built libraries, art galleries, schools and civic buildings, and to the burghers who built and ran the large cities of Britain. Perhaps she sees the re-emergence of the business man or financier, who may chair the local health authority and the city's urban development

  235
  corporation, and serve as president of the chamber of commerce, as well as being a leading Tory in the community.
  That person will hold the power that is currently held by local government. I imagine that in the year 2000 that person will arrange a dinner to which will be invited other business personalities, and on that occasion the tenders which will provide for what remains of the basic city services will be opened and divided up. That will happen once a year, and it will be the end of the road for local government.
  Is that the reduction in the activities of local government that the Government want to achieve? We are bound to ask that question in view of some of the comments of Conservative Back Benchers. However benevolent those merchants and business men may be, they will be unelected and unaccountable locally.
  I remind the House of what the Widdicombe committee said in chapter 3 of its report, entitled
  "The role and purpose of local government."
  Widdicombe suggested that the threefold purpose was pluralism, participation and the need for a responsive local government. The report said:
  "The case for pluralism was again influential in the 19th century when modern local government and the popular franchise were introduced. For Lord Salisbury, whose 1886–92 administration created county councils…these two phenomena were of linked significance. Salisbury proposals for local government were based on a fear not of centralising monarchs but of the centralising tendencies of a popular franchise. In his view, the enfranchisement of the working class would make welfare politics the central electoral issue, and lead inexorably to the rise of a powerful administrative state. This could be avoided only by the creation of new local authorities whose value as counterweights would be realised `by diminishing the excessive and exaggerated powers' of central government."
  Do the Government still agree with that basic principle of local government as set out by Lord Salisbury?
  Widdicombe continued:
  "More recently precisely the same arguments, if less politically stated, are to he found in the Reports of Redcliffe-Maud. Wheatley and Layfield … eg … 'By providing a large number of points where decisions are taken by people of different political persuasion' … it acts as counterweight to the uniformity inherent in government decisions. It spreads political power."
  Will the Minister explain how the Bill spreads political power? It centralises political power by diminishing, if not eliminating, political opposition. That is built into the measure. Are the Government taking seriously those remarks of Widdicombe in introducing the Bill? We need to be convinced that the Government are not going in the opposite direction. If we cannot be convinced on that score, then it seems that this, the 50th Bill on local government since 1979, will be read in the future as an epitaph for local government.
  9.7 pm
  Mr. Clive Soley: This is a centralising Bill which undermines and demoralises local government. It is yet another step by the Government in destroying local democracy as we have known it in this country for so many years. The Government do not trust local electorates and, for that reason, they seek to emasculate local authority democracy. Councillors, both Tory and Labour, will resent the broad thrust of the Bill. The Government intend to restrict the right of officers to speak or write publicly on controversial issues, to canvass or to hold
  236
  office in a political party. The Home Secretary and the Prime Minister tell us that we should think in terms of active citizenship, but the Bill means that we cannot he active citizens in the way that they want us to be.
  One of the most telling interventions by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) was to the effect that many hon. Members, including one on the Government Front Bench—I can think of two—would not have found their way into this House in the way that they did if the Bill had been law. Nor would those two Ministers have been able to become councillors and do their job in local authorities elsewhere.
  In an intervention the Minister said that the only objections that the Opposition could dig up about Tory councils related to Westminster, but he was fundamentally wrong in more than one respect. Our objections are based not merely on the amount paid to Mr. Brooke of Westminster council, but on the fact that he has been given a contract that binds him to silence—he has been bought with £1 million. The Minister knows that the document involved exists because my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has brought it to the attention of the House and of the public.
  The Conservative party cannot lecture anyone on the behaviour of councillors, and the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) of all people has no right to do so. He could start lecturing Members of Parliament about some of the activities that he described, but if we start to do that, do we not also undermine this place? Suppose that we accuse Members of Parliament of not coming here, of not doing their job, of losing their tempers from time to time—of fighting and waving the Mace above their heads, indeed, for is that not a right? Are we to follow that up by saying that Members of Parliament must not be allowed to serve in this place?
  Mr. Holt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Soley: Perhaps I may take the argument a little further before the hon. Gentleman is so unwise as to intervene.
  We are not talking only about Westminster council. Horsham council has the audacity to use an empty council house as property and office for the local Conservative party. Portsmouth councillors are stripped of their authority because they acted as estate agents dealing with planning and housing matters without the right to do so, and indeed gave preferential advantages to people which led to their being disciplined. Nottinghamshire county council is also Tory-controlled, as is Harrow council. A Harrow Member was worried about what was happening in his neighbouring authority, where a Conservative councillor accepts that he was paid a quarter of a million pounds for assisting a planning application by Sainsbury's—which was successful.
  It does not stop there; it extends as far as Bradford, and beyond into central Government. Who would think that Bernard Ingham is not paid by the taxpayer, and is used in an entirely inappropriate manner? Who has ever believed that health authorities are not stacked by the Prime Minister with her supporters? Who believes that the Ministry of Defence does not have Conservative supporters put in place at public expense? Has anyone seen the new National Health Service video, paid for by the taxpayer? The video is supposed to be shown to staff in all the hospitals—at considerable public expense—and who is

  237
  the star of stage and screen who opens it? It is none other than the Prime Minister. That is the way in which the Government use taxpayers' money, yet some Conservative Members say that councils should not behave in a similar way.
  What happened on the Housing Bill? Particularly nasty information has been put out by the Government and by Conservative councils, paid for by the taxpayer, which is known to be misleading and false and which has caused acute anxiety and distress to elderly people who do not want their homes to be transferred over their heads through a rigged voting system. This is the Government who try to tell people that councils are behaving badly, but if they are indeed behaving badly perhaps they are just following the Government's lead.
  Mr. Holt rose—
  Mr. Soley: I do not want to give way to the hon. Gentleman, because by making a very long speech he managed to prevent hon. Members on both sides of the House who wanted to speak from doing so.
  The difference between us and the Tory party is not that we think it a good idea to swap stories about one local authority versus another, good or bad, but that we believe in leaving it to the judgment of the electorate. Let the ballot box decide at local government elections. Let the people decide. The Government do not believe that. They believe that local people are not to be trusted to exercise their judgment and vote out councillors who behave badly, whether for fighting, financial mismanagement or whatever. The Government believe that that can be achieved through centralised control. That is the difference between our approach and that of the Government.
  When we are asked to restrict councillors and officers, why not restrict them from participating in the private sector? Given that there will be more privatisation why do we not take a tougher line on local government officers who serve on, take over or set up private companies? What about dual interests there? In Rochester upon Medway, where there is a Conservative council, the entire housing staff are doing a management buy-out of all council housing in the area. Who is issuing the advice leaflets? It is the housing staff who are advising people about the circumstances of the deal and how it is to their advantage to accept it. Never mind whether the deal is to their advantage—the leaflet is not neutral but a clear attempt to influence their decision and it ought not to be allowed.
  Dame Peggy Fenner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Soley: I will give way to the hon. Lady in a moment.
  I challenge the Minister to say categorically that no local authority disposing of its property should have the officers who are taking over the property advising people about the advantages of the transfer. That should be done by independent bodies.
  Dame Peggy Fenner: The hon. Gentleman recently paid a visit to my constituency. I can tell him that the tenants in my constituency will have a ballot on the proposal. I can also tell him that since the management takeover of the local bus company there has been one complaint in two years, which is far less than when the service was run by the
  238
  National Bus Company. It is not for the hon. Gentleman to tell my constituents what to vote for. They have voted four times for a Conservative local authority and three times for a Conservative national Government.
  Mr. Soley: I can tell the hon. Lady that I shall probably return to her constituency. I can also tell her that the tenants will vote against the proposal as 300 of them turned up at the meeting at which I spoke. They object to the way in which the council is ramming it down their throats with a blatantly misleading leaflet which refers to a contract that does not exist. There is no contract. The leaflet says that the contract will give tenants the same security that they had before, but there is no such contract anywhere. If the hon. Lady went to a solicitor and said, "I have been advised to sign this and to vote for it, but I have been told that the contract does not yet exist," would the solicitor advise her to sign? Of course not, but that is what the hon. Lady is advising her constituents to do. If they are so unwise as to vote for a Conservative council again—I suspect that they will not be tempted to do so next time—they will pay a high price in areas where the people have been cornered in the way that her council is trying to corner its tenants. I want a guarantee from the Minister that where council officers are involved in such deals the advice that is distributed is independent.
  We do not have to turn to the Labour party's views on these issues. The last time that I used the Association of District Councils as an example, I got it into trouble with the Prime Minister's office. Officials were ringing up and saying, "Don't give all that stuff to the Labour party as they keep using it against us." To the credit of the Association of District Councils, it was more interested in local government than in the Tory party, although it is controlled by the Tory party.
  My next quote comes not from the ADC but from another Conservative-controlled organisation, the London Boroughs Association. The word that crops up over and over again in the LBA's briefing document about the Bill is "restrictive". It continually refers to the restrictive implications of the Bill. Talking about the balance on committees, the association says that it is
  "concerned that as presently drafted independent members may not attend any meetings except full Council meetings."
  It does not think that the matter is properly dealt with in the Bill.
  On economic development, the document continues:
  "The Association is anxious that no undue restriction should be placed upon local authorities' new powers to participate in economic development and will be represented on a working party which is being set up by the Government to explore these issues."

  On discretionary spending, the association says-this is a powerful little quote:
  "Moreover, the offset of money given to voluntary bodies will severely limit the ability of local authorities to support voluntary groups serving the needs of the local community".
  So much for the Government's concern for the local sector.
  The association says of credit approvals:
  "It is a matter of simple justice that an authority which generates capital receipts should have the use of them without incurring compensating reductions in its borrowing powers and this is vital to maintain the incentive for authorities to promote the Right to Buy and other disposals of stock."

  On Clauses 56 to 62, the association says about companies in which local authorities have interests:
  "The Association is very concerned that, as drafted, the provisions will inhibit the ability of local authorities to

  239
  become involved in local initiatives and will restrict such companies by imposing inappropriate local authority financial procedures."

  The way in which the Bill deals with housing issues—to which a number of hon. Members have referred—is catastrophic. The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) was whining away about his constituency's growing housing problem. I have been saying for some time that the rural housing problem is becoming like that of the inner cities. Local people have not been able to buy or rent and are being driven out. In areas such as Taunton local people—sons and daughters who are in the economic work force—are having to take holidays lets in winter and then be made homeless in the summer because their homes are needed for holiday homes. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is happening in Taunton and in a whole swathe of places across southern Britain, yet he goes on backing the Government, blind to the fact that almost everything that they have done has made matters worse.
  What have the Government done recently? The Minister has issued a couple of leaflets from the Department of the Environment saying that he will help rural housing associations. The Government talked initially of the housing associations having 600 new homes or flats throughout England, but housing associations hardly exist in some areas of rural England. Another Minister became worried—one could see the panic setting in—and put out a leaflet saying that house building had taken off better than ever, but did not mention the slump of the 1908s or the fact that next year is projected to be disastrous. Everyone knows why that is so—it is because of interest rate increases this year and last.
  Private sector housing will not be able to make up the gaps in the public sector. If public sector housing is cut from 70,000 units in 1979 to about 15,000 next year, the private sector will be unable to make up the difference, especially if interest rates are then banged up as well. Of course, housing will get into trouble. It is a case of too little, too late. Let the London Boroughs Association say it again, because it says it so well. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is Tory."] It is a Tory authority, and I am sure that Conservative Members would agree with it if they could.
  The LBA document says:
  "Clause 49 stipulates that a proportion of the local authority's capital receipts must be set aside for the redemption of debt"—
  even if the authority is not in debt, apparently. A private company operating like that would go bankrupt after a few years because it could not invest. The Government would not impose that on a private company, but the Secretary of State is quite prepared to impose it on local authorities.
  A good Conservative organisation, the London Boroughs Association—it, too, provides an abundance of good quotes—says of capital receipts:
  "In particular it is likely to curtail local authorities' capitalised repairs programmes and make it harder for them to bring empty sub-standard dwellings back into letting."
  The Conservative party keeps going on about empty council houses, but the Audit Commission report says that the Government are culpable because they do not give local authorities enough money to deal with the problem. And the Conservative London Boroughs Association says precisely what I have just said—that it will not be able to bring back empty, sub-standard housing into use.
  The association does not leave the matter there. It continues—this was the subject of my intervention in the
  240
  Secretary of State's opening speech—by saying that local authorities have amassed an estimated £8 billion in unspent receipts. When the right to buy was introduced in 1980, councils were assured by the Tory Government that they would be able to keep the receipts which accrued from sales, but a year later the promise was broken. The spending of receipts was restricted to 50 per cent., and the controls have become progressively tighter so that now only 20 per cent. can be used. 'The Government propose to increase it to 25 per cent., but that is not as generous as it may seem, because it is limited to a declining amount. However, we shall return to that in Committee.
  The key quote here is the following:
  "The increased central direction of local authority spending is to be deplored. Local authorities should be permitted the freedom to decide their spending priorities and to use their own capital receipts for reinvestment in their stock."

  I happen to disagree with the way in which most of the local councils represented in that document are running their affairs, particularly their lack of interest in housing as a whole, but we on this side defend their right to be local councillors, to stand in elections, to put their case and to win or lose. It is the Conservative party which does not believe that. That is the crucial point that many people in all political parties who seek to serve the community will remember.
  Ring fencing will be disastrous for rents, and the Government persistently refuse to say what a fair rent is. Here we have perhaps the most interesting aspect of today's debate—the other shift of policy by the Secretary of State. There were shifts of policy in the news releases put out by the Department of the Environment on house building and rural housing, but the most significant shift came when the Secretary of State actually said for the first time that he did not think market rents were appropriate for councils.
  Mr. Ridley indicated dissent.
  Mr. Soley: If the Secretary of State is saying that he is still going for market rents and that all councils are to pay market rents, he is saying that rents will go up exactly as my right hon. and hon. Friend have said.
  Mr. Ridley: I have never said that council rents should go to market rent levels and have not said that today. The hon. Gentleman is quite right—I made it quite clear that they were not going to market rents.
  Mr. Soley: The Secretary of State has made it very clear that in his view there must be market rents. If he wants to look at what he said, he should look at the White Paper of November 1987, which says that subsidising council tenants will push them into the dependency culture—and if he will not subsidise them, who will pay the rent? Why did he also put in the Bill that the rent assessment committee must take into account a market rent before setting a rent for the new assured tenancies? The Government have fallen into the trap of recognising—as, to be fair, the last Housing Minister, the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) recognised—that their housing policy was on course for disaster because they could not tackle the difficult problem of housing finance, and they keep ducking it.
  What happened? Let us talk about that. The Government have actually said that rents have been set too low. They picked out the GLC and said that. I had a

  241
  couple at a press conference in this House only a week ago—Mr. and Mrs. Green of Folkestone—who are now paying a rent of £52 per week out of joint pensions of £130 per week. Let hon. Members think about that—40 per cent. of one's net income going in rent. Forty per cent. of anyone's net income going in housing costs, whether for rent or sale, has to be a disaster. That is why in that case the wife said, "I feel like walking into the sea," and her husband said, "I suppose we shall end up in bed and breakfast." That is what I mean when I say that the Government are causing distress and anxiety to all the people. Yet the Government said that rents were too low.
  The Government say that they intend to help people by means of housing benefit. I agree with the London Boroughs Association, which says:
  "If council rents are required to rise to market levels,"—
  that shows that the Conservative party recognised that the Secretary of State wanted market levels—
  "it is essential that the Department of Social Security permits housing benefit to be paid at this level and makes available the necessary public expenditure to cover the cost."
  Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman is wilfully fantasising. Housing benefit covers the rent, whatever it is, provided that the person qualifies by virtue of his income. We are not moving to housing market rents and we have no intention of doing that, so the hon. Gentleman can stop saying it.
  Mr. Soley: The right hon. Gentleman ought to have a few words with Conservative party members. He should say that to the London Boroughs Association, which says that council rents are required to rise to market levels. He should also change all the instructions that he has given and answer the following question. How does he intend to revive the private rented sector if he does not allow it to charge market rents? That has always been his central argument. He has always said that the private sector must be allowed to charge market rents.
  The Government say that they must abolish the Rent Acts, that it will be easier to evict tenants and that landlords will obtain a greater turnover. If councils or housing associations charge significantly lower rents, an enormous number of people in the private sector will try to get into the public sector, but they will find that the public sector has been cut. There will then be ghettos. That is why the Secretary of State and his hon. Friend the Member for Taunton are in trouble. The problems of the city areas will apply in rural areas as well.
  Mr. David Nicholson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Soley: No, I am afraid that I cannot give way. Time alone prevents me.
  I am sure that the Government will want to deal with the problem and I must leave it to them. Unless the Government face up to the problem, they will be unable to solve it. The Secretary of State's muddle about whether he is in favour of market rents or whether he is against them will not and cannot be solved until he deals with the subject of housing finance.
  The other problem that the Government have created is the one that they have visited on housing associations. In their panic to do something about the lack of supply of good, low-cost housing for rent or sale, they have decided
  242
  to expand the housing associations. They spent the first half of the 1980s clobbering them, but now they want to help them. The Government have told housing associations to take over council properties and to build more properties. The housing associations are now running into management problems which they did not face initially when they were local and small. The Government are now urging them to become large and national, which means that they are further away from the people whom they represent.
  To whom will the hon. Member for Taunton and other Back Benchers go when they find that they cannot go to their local councillors and instead have to go to the headquarters of a housing association in the north of England because the housing association in their area has been taken over? Who will hon. Members write to then? At the moment they can write to their councillors and the tenants can kick out the councillors if they do not like the job that they are doing, but they will be unable to kick out a housing association with headquarters further afield. I have a great deal of time for housing associations, but the Government have undermined some of the basic assumptions on which the success of the housing association movement was built—not least, management and rents.
  The iniquitous proposal that local tenants should subsidise other local tenants through housing benefit is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland said earlier, wicked. Let us consider what would happen if the same were done with mortgages. What would happen if it were said that people in one area should subsidise the mortgages of other people in that area, instead of it being done on a national basis? Hon. Members can imagine the outcry. They are prepared to do that not with housing associations or with the private sector, but only with the council sector.
  What will happen to the homeless? Under clause 128 councils are not required to keep a housing stock. I presume that they will all be able to do as Horsham does—pass all empty council houses over to the Conservative party for use as offices. Perhaps that is the aim. There is no real action here. We shall want to look at this aspect more closely in Committee. I hope that there will be some movement on it from the Minister because it was a report of his own Department on houses in multiple occupation which showed the seriousness of the problem in the private sector. There is no real movement there, and we need a lot more movement before anybody outside will believe that the Government are serious about their efforts in that respect.
  What does Clause 132 do? Amazingly, it actually winds up the home purchase assistance scheme for the first-time buyers. The Conservative party wants to take help away from first-time buyers. If the Government are having so much trouble helping first-time buyers, why do they want to wind the scheme up now? Why do they not expand it and help those first-time buyers instead of clobbering them? There is no reason or justification for what they are doing.
  The charges for local authority services are an indication of everything that is wrong with the Government's thinking. They do not believe in community. People will have to pay a charge to have their dustbins emptied, they will have to pay for their leisure and recreation, and they will have to pay for library services. They will have to pay for everything. If we go down that road, we go down the road that leads to real public squalor

  243
  and private affluence—the road that leads to ghettos. In undermining local democracy, the Government are creating a crisis in rural and urban areas of this country—a crisis that, sooner or later, people will feel so dramatically that they will hate the Government for the legislation being brought forward today.
  9.37 pm
  The Minister for Local Government (Mr. John Gummer): I thought that the reason for our having spent so much of this debate discussing the Widdicombe clauses was that the Labour party saw those as the most important clauses in the Bill, but I discovered during the speech of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) that the reason was that, when hon. Members opposite started to discuss the rest of the Bill, they could proceed only by fabrication and by misleading the House.The hon. Gentleman still failed to accept what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had said about market rents. He failed to understand that there is a distinction between a subsidised rent, where people are helped to meet the cost, and a market rent, which is considerably higher than that. He felt that we were taking away democracy when, in fact, what we are doing in this Bill, as part of our local government programme, is giving democracy back to local authorities—primarily, of course, through the community charge, which will provide accountability where accountability has not existed before.
  But perhaps the saddest aspect of this debate is that we have failed to hear from the Opposition why they think it proper that people whose job in life is to give advice—independent advice—should also be able to play a party political role in some other council. For the world outside, the argument is obvious. I have never heard anyone suggest that it is not reasonable to make this distinction. Indeed, the Labour party is happy to have the distinction when it relates to civil servants. There has been no proposition that civil servants should be able to represent a constituency in Parliament and at the same time advise Ministers in a Department. Why not? It is for two good reasons. The first is that it is impossible for people to be independent on the one hand and party political on the other. The second is that it is unacceptable both to the people they advise and, indeed, to the people they represent.
  Dr. Cunningham rose—
  Mr. Gummer: I am not going to give way.
  Dr. Cunningham rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. One at a time, please. The Minister is not giving way.
  Dr. Cunningham rose—
  Mr. Gummer: I will be happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman when I get to the point—
  Dr. Cunningham rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that if the Minister does not give way, he must not persist.
  Mr. Gummer: The hon. Member for Hammersmith has already taken my time after promising not to—
  Dr. Cunningham rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman well knows the rules. The Minister said that he would give way later, and no doubt he will.
  Dr. Cunningham rose—
  Mr. Gummer: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, and he knows that—
  Dr. Cunningham rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows better than that.
  Dr. Cunningham: No, I do not. On a point of order, M r. Speaker. I gave way seven or eight times during my speech, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) gave way. Why should the Minister get away with these allegations and not give way?
  Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. It is up to the Minister concerned and up to any other hon. Member whether or not he gives way.
  Mr. Gummer: I shall be happy to give way—
  Dr. Cunningham rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not persist. The Minister has said that he will give way, and no doubt he will.
  Mr. Cryer: He has no Christian humility.
  Dr. Cunningham rose—
  Mr. Gummer: I shall give way in my time, and not when the hon. Gentleman seeks it. The reason is that the hon. Gentleman's colleague went over his time and did not give a fair share to this side of the House. That is why I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Dr. Cunningham rose—
  Mr. Gummer: No, I am not giving way.
  The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) said in an article in The Sunday Times—
  Dr. Cunningham rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I am well aware that this is a controversial Bill, but we have proceeded in good order so far. We must continue in that way.
  Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the time when your deputies were in the Chair, they will know that hon. Members on both sides gave way to interventions. The Secretary of State gave way, as did my hon. Friends. Why is it that only the junior Minister will not give way?
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that I have no authority to cause a Minister to give way. It is up lo him.
  Dr. Cunningham rose—
  Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman asked me to wait when I asked him to give way. I am asking the same courtesy of him.
  The hon. Member for Brightside said in an article in The Sunday Times that there is a clear distinction between those in a job for many years playing an active part in

  245
  politics and a situation where a post is clearly created for an individual to help him or her pursue political activity. I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. David Blunkett rose—
  Mr. Gummer: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) when I come to him, and then I shall be happy to give way to the hon. Member for Brightside.
  I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Brightside. I should like the hon. Gentleman to do me the courtesy of answering the point. There is a clear distinction between these things, but that does not mean that both of them are not wrong. It seems to me that it is wrong to have a job in local government, which is created as a sinecure, in order to do a job as a council leader elsewhere, and that it is also wrong to have party political affiliations of a public kind which make it impossible to carry on one's job as—
  Dr. Cunningham rose—
  Mr. Gummer: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish a sentence, I will give way, but when I finish the sentence. Although I said that I was asked by the hon. Gentleman to wait before he gave way to me, he has not given the same courtesy to me. The fact that the hon. Gentleman's speech was such a shambles is obviously the reason why he wishes to intervene.
  The fact of the matter is—
  Dr. Cunningham rose—
  Mr. Gummer: I shall finish my sentence.
  The fact of the matter is that it is not acceptable that a Socialist or Liberal ratepayer should have to go to an officer who is a known, public, elected Tory Member of the next-door council. I do not believe that that is acceptable for Tories, and it is similarly unacceptable for Socialists.
  Dr. Cunningham: The hypocrisy of the Minister knows no bounds. The hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley)—who is now a Minister in the Department of the Environment—as a Conservative Member of Parliament was appointed a member of the Medical Research Council. The hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan)—who is now the Minister for Sport—as a Tory Member of Parliament was appointed a member of the Sports Council. What is the Minister really saying? Does he not accept that that is twin tracking in the public sector?
  Mr. Gummer: All I am asking the hon. Gentleman to accept is a rather lighter regime on local government officers than there is on civil servants. The fact that he will not accept that lowers him in the House's sight and in the sight of ordinary and decent people. The truth is that we thought that these provisions would be attacked by hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields). We knew that he would attack them, because he is the unacceptable face of the Socialist party. We did not expect hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Copeland to back this sort of job for the boys. We believed that there was still some honour left in the Labour party, but we have seen tonight that there is none. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Terry Fields: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Is it in order for the pipsqueak on the Government Front Bench to impugn my political credentials, which have nothing to do with this debate or this House, except when they concern my commitment to my constituents? The right hon. Gentleman is out of order.
  Mr. Speaker: What the Minister said was not out of order. It was perfectly parliamentary.
  Mr. Gummer: We had an interjection from the hon. Member for Broadgreen, when he told the House whatever he was mandated by his local Labour management committee to say. He suggested that it was all right that Mr. Hatton was paid by the neighbouring council of Knowsley. That was the burden of his remark. Evidently, it is all right that the London borough of Hackney—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Fields: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In defence of Back Benchers, you are always fair and just. In this particular instance, I would ask you to look at Hansard tomorrow to see what I actually said. I never mentioned Derek Hatton or Knowsley council. I talked about the Arthur Daleys among Conservative Members.
  Mr. Speaker: Provided what is said in this Chamber is in order, I cannot intervene. The hon. Gentleman will have a chance later on to put his point of view.
  Mr. Gummer: I would imagine that the hon. Member for Broadgreen would want me to refer to that, because otherwise what he said was partial and one-sided. He referred to one side of the argument without mentioning the fact that what he was proposing was, in fact, the justification of Mr. Hatton, both in his capacity as the leader of the Liverpoool city council and as someone paid by the neighbouring Knowsley council. That is what the hon. Gentleman put forward—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Blunkett: Derek Hatton was never the leader of the Liverpool city council—in my view, thank goodness. As the right hon. Gentleman has suggested, it would be unthinkable for people to go to a Conservative councillor who served as a senior official in a council—like the assistant director of the housing department in Sheffield who serves as a Conservative councillor in north-west Derbyshire. Does the right hon. Gentleman feel, however, that it was inappropriate for people to go to him as a Minister when he served as chairman of the Conservative party?
  Mr. Gummer: I do not think that there has ever been any doubt that I am a Conservative, either when I was chairman of the Conservative party or now as a Minister. I believe that it is just as inappropriate for a Conservative councillor to serve as a paid administrator in a neighbouring council as it is for a Socialist. I make no distinction between the two.
  Mr. George Howarth rose—
  Mr. Gummer: No, I shall not give way.
  Dr. Cunningham rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have three hon. Members on their feet at the same time.
  Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young)—
  Mr. George Howarth rose—
  Mr. Gummer: No, I shall not give way.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Acton outlined clearly the problems that arise in a borough when there is a change of party and, as a result, a large number of experienced and good officers feel that they have to leave. This is a serious matter and it is one that those of us who live in the London borough of Ealing take seriously.
  Mr. Soley: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Gummer: No, I shall not.
  My hon. Friend expressed concern about home improvement grants being paid at a level based on the original estimate, and not on the actual cost of work.
  Mr. George Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to attack my borough council of Knowsley and then not to give way—[Interruption.]—to the Member representing that council?
  Mr. Speaker: It is in order.
  Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend the Member for Acton asked a specific question and I shall give a specific answer—
  Mr. Soley rose—
  Mr. Gummer: No, I shall not give way.
  Mr. George Howarth rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's frustration, but if the Minister does not give way, he must resume his seat.
  Mr. Gummer: An authority will be able to redetermine the amount of grant if the actual cost is lower than the estimated expense.
  Mr. Soley rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to settle down now. This debate has been conducted in good order and that must continue for the next few minutes.
  Mr. Gummer: The grant will be payable only on the furnishing of an acceptable receipt—
  Mr. Soley rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Front. Bench spokesmen must give a lead.
  Mr. Gummer: Grant will be payable only on the furnishment of an acceptable receipt conditional upon the work being completed to the satisfaction of the authority.
  Mr. Soley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but the House always finds it extremely difficult when a junior Minister refuses to give way having made allegations about other hon. Members of the House. It is one thing for a Back-Bencher to get into difficulties with a Front-Bench spokesman, but another for
  248
  a Minister to make allegations and then not give way. If he gives way, the House will make progress. Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Gummer: Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: The House knows that the Chair has no authority to require a Minister, or a Back-Bencher for that matter, to give way. If the Minister is not prepared—
  Mr. Soley rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet. If the Minister does not give way, there is nothing that the Chair can do about it.
  Mr. Soley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. One of the things that we have noticed in the House, particularly of Ministers from the Department of the Environment, is that it is usually a sign of incompetence when Ministers do not give way.
  Mr. Gummer: I would have given way, Mr. Speaker, had the hon. Member for Hammersmith not used up a good deal of my time. Because of that, I have been unable to make my speech. He made a number of serious allegations about my right hon. Friend, and he has not given me a chance to answer those allegations, but I intend to do so. The hon. Gentleman has only himself to blame for having given a shocking speech to the House and for not giving me enough time to reply.
  Mr. George Howarth rose—
  Mr. Gummer: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in one moment.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Acton asked about section 48 of the Local Government Act 1985 and I shall be meeting members of the London Grants Committee to see whether we can do something about that.
  The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) asked about teachers. There is nothing in the Bill to cover teachers, and the White Paper made it clear that the Government's proposals, as carried in the Bill, do not cover teachers and lecturers. No doubt the Committee will discuss this matter, but—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] It is no good saying, "Ah." It is impossible to have the Committee without discussing that matter. Therefore, all I am saying is that it is not in the Bill. The Government do not have any intention of putting it into the Bill, but no doubt it will be discussed in Committee.
  I want to return to the remarks of the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg). He said the Bill was dangerous and that there was a strong attack on Widdicombe.
  Mr. George Howarth rose—
  Mr. Gummer: I shall deal later with what the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) said.
  The hon. Member for City of Durham denied what the independent Widdicombe committee had suggested—that all local government officers who earned more than £13,500 a year ought to be excluded from political activities. The Government have not gone as far as that, but have said that they could be so excluded but ought to have a right of appeal. That is perfectly reasonable. It would be much happier for the hon. Member for Knowsley, North if on the occasion when the deputy leader of Liverpool city council was employed by

  249
  Knowsley he felt that he could have gone to an independent body to see whether that was reasonable. I give way to the hon. Member for Knowsley, North, to see whether he agrees with that.
  Mr. Howarth: 1 am grateful to the Minister for eventually giving way. Does he accept that the fact that Mr. Hatton's employment was eventually terminated by the borough of Knowsley rather militates against the provisions of the Bill?
  Mr. Gummer: I am sure that it was up to the borough of Knowsley to do so, but I genuinely find it difficult to understand how one can defend the concept of, say, the assistant chief executive of Hackney being the former housing chairman of Lambeth council. How can one defend that, in a situation where somebody who did not happen to agree with the extremist policy that the executive held in Lambeth needs his advice in Hackney, whether or not as an opposition member in Hackney?
  Mr. Soley rose—
  Mr. Gummer: No. I am not going to allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene. The hon. Gentleman has helped me so far by giving me as little time to speak as possible.
  That means that anybody who lives in Hackney who does not happen to agree with the extremist policy of his assistant chief executive can have little confidence that he will get proper independent advice. Even if he did get that, would he be comfortable in asking for it? That is a serious matter.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor rose—
  Mr. Gummer: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) for his congratulations and his kindness. When I went to Taunton Deane, even the opposition members of the local council were at least interested enough to listen, to talk and to discuss, which is more than the guilty consciences of the Opposition are willing to do this evening—[Interruption.] We shall be considering carefully the two points that the hon. Member raised. I hope to give him a better reply in other circumstances.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) asked about improvement grants for the disabled. We recently issued a consultation paper on the proposed means test, including its application to the disabled. We believe that, if the occupants have the resources to pay for or contribute to the work, it is right for them to do so, but we shall of course consider carefully the responses that we receive to the consultation paper before these matters are discussed in Committee.
  Mr. Battle rose—
  Mr. Gummer: I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman.
  The most remarkable part of the debate was the speech by the hon. Member for Copeland, who suggested that the Government have changed their mind and their response to Widdicombe, which was somehow disgraceful. But we went out to consultation, and as a result of that we decided that Widdicombe was right and that the Government and their White Paper were not so right.
  Dr. Cunningham rose—
  Mr. Gummer: No, I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman. We discovered—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is not giving way.
  Mr. Gummer: We discovered that the business of twin tracking was very much wider—
  Dr. Cunningham rose—
  Mr. Gummer:—and on a much greater scale than we had expected. When the hon. Gentleman was bowled—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Dr. Cunningham: That is outrageous.
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Gummer: When the Member for Copeland was bowled middle stump by my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) about Middlesbrough, he could not answer the fact, and thereafter did not give way lest he was beaten again. The hon. Gentleman was afraid to give way.
  Dr. Cunningham: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Copeland must resume his seat.
  Mr. Gummer: He then went on to try to suggest that we intended to subsidise the community charge from the housing revenue account—a fictitious, wrong and unacceptable statement. The hon. Gentleman does not know the facts and that is why he is making a noise now. He knows that he lost, in an appalling opening speech.
  Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—
  Question put, That the Bill be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 279, Noes 203.

  Division No. 92]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Alexander, Richard

  Bowis, John

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Allason, Rupert

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Amess, David

  Brazier, Julian

  Amos, Alan

  Bright, Graham

  Arbuthnot, James

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

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

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Atkins, Robert

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Atkinson, David

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Baldry, Tony

  Burns, Simon

  Batiste, Spencer

  Burt, Alistair

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Butcher, John

  Beggs, Roy

  Butler, Chris

  Bellingham, Henry

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Benyon,W.

  Carrington, Matthew

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Carttiss, Michael

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Churchill, Mr

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Colvin, Michael

  Boswell, Tim

  Conway, Derek

  Bottom ley, Peter

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  251

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Couchman, James

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Cran, James

  Lilley, Peter

  Critchley, Julian

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

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

  Lord, Michael

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Day, Stephen

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Devlin, Tim

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Maclean, David

  Dicks, Terry

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Dorrell, Stephen

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Dover, Den

  Madel, David

  Durant. Tony

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Dykes, Hugh

  Malins, Humfrey

  Eggar, Tim

  Maples, John

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Marland, Paul

  Fallon, Michael

  Marlow, Tony

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Mates, Michael

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Forman, Nigel

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Fry, Peter

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Gale, Roger

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Gow, Ian

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Moss, Malcolm

  Grist, Ian

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Mudd, David

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Needham, Richard

  Hannam, John

  Nelson, Anthony

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

  Neubert, Michael

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hayes, Jerry

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hayward. Robert

  Norris, Steve

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Heddle, John

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Page, Richard

  Hind, Kenneth

  Paice, James

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Holt, Richard

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Pawsey, James

  Howard, Michael

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

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

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Price, Sir David

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Raffan, Keith

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hunter, Andrew

  Redwood, John

  Irvine, Michael

  Renton, Tim

  Irving, Charles

  Riddick, Graham

  Jack, Michael

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Janman, Tim

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Jones, Robert B (Hens W)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Kilfedder, James

  Rost, Peter

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Knapman, Roger

  Ryder, Richard

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Knox, David

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Scott, Nicholas

  Lang, Ian

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Latham, Michael

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Shelton, Sir William

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  252

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Trippier, David

  Shersby, Michael

  Trotter, Neville

  Sims, Roger

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Speller, Tony

  Walden, George

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Squire, Robin

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Waller, Gary

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Steen, Anthony

  Warren, Kenneth

  Stern, Michael

  Watts, John

  Stevens, Lewis

  Wells, Bowen

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Wheeler, John

  Stokes, Sir John

  Whitney, Ray

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Sumberg, David

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Summerson, Hugo

  Wilkinson, John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Wilshire, David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Wood, Timothy

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Woodcock, Mike

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Yeo, Tim

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Thorne, Neil

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Tracey, Richard

  Mr. Sydney Chapman.

  Tredinnick, David

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cummings, John

  Allen, Graham

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Alton, David

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Anderson, Donald

  Darling, Alistair

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Ashton, Joe

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

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Dewar, Donald

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Dixon, Don

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Dobson, Frank

  Barron, Kevin

  Doran, Frank

  Battle, John

  Douglas, Dick

  Beckett, Margaret

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Bell, Stuart

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Eadie, Alexander

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

  Eastham, Ken

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Blair, Tony

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Blunkett, David

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Boateng, Paul

  Fatchett, Derek

  Bradley, Keith

  Fearn, Ronald

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

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

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Flannery, Martin

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Flynn, Paul

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Buchan, Norman

  Foster, Derek

  Buckley, George J.

  Foulkes, George

  Caborn, Richard

  Fraser, John

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Galloway, George

  Canavan, Dennis

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Clay, Bob

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Clelland, David

  Gordon, Mildred

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Gould, Bryan

  Cohen, Harry

  Graham, Thomas

  Coleman, Donald

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Corbett, Robin

  Hardy, Peter

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Cousins, Jim

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Crowther, Stan

  Haynes, Frank

  Cryer, Bob

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  253

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hinchliffe, David

  Parry, Robert

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Patchett, Terry

  Home Robertson, John

  Pendry, Tom

  Hood, Jimmy

  Pike, Peter L.

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Radice, Giles

  Hoyle, Doug

  Randall, Stuart

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Redmond, Martin

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Reid, Dr John

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Richardson, Jo

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Illsley, Eric

  Robertson, George

  Ingram, Adam

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Janner, Greville

  Rooker, Jeff

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Salmond, Alex

  Lamond, James

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Sheerman, Barry

  Leighton, Ron

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Lewis, Terry

  Short, Clare

  Litherland, Robert

  Skinner, Dennis

  Livingstone, Ken

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Livsey, Richard

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

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

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

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Snape, Peter

  McAllion, John

  Soley, Clive

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Spearing, Nigel

  McCartney, Ian

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McFall, John

  Stott, Roger

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Strang, Gavin

  McKelvey, William

  Straw, Jack

  McLeish, Henry

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  McTaggart, Bob

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  McWilliam, John

  Turner, Dennis

  Madden, Max

  Vaz, Keith

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Wall, Pat

  Marek, Dr John

  Wallace, James

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Maxton, John

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Meacher, Michael

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Meale, Alan

  Wilson, Brian

  Michael, Alun

  Winnick, David

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Worthington, Tony

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Wray, Jimmy

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Mullin, Chris

  Nellist, Dave

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Mr. Robert N. Wareing and

  O'Brien, William

  Mr. Frank Cook.

  O'Neill, Martin

  Question accordingly agreed to

Local Government and Housing Bill [Money]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Local Government and Housing Bill, it is expedient to authorise

(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any sums required for the payment by the Secretary of State of grants, subsidies or contributions under the Act;

(b) any sums required by the Secretary of State for fulfilling any guarantees under the Act;

(c) any other expenses of the Secretary of State under the Act; and

(d) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums so payable under any other enactment; and

(2) the payment of any sums received by the Secretary of State under the Act into the Consolidated Fund.

10.13 pm
Mr. Terry Fields: Having spent all day observing the ineptitude of the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister for Local Government, the House is now asked to approve the money needed to finance the disgraceful legislation that it has just debated.
We do not view the Bill in isolation, but see it as part of a general attack on the working class and on the working people of our society. We see it also as an attack on the working wage, and on what the Prime Minister defines as Socialism—local authority housing, local authority education, the National Health Service, and the social services. The Prime Minister regards them all as elements of Socialism that must be attacked—and the ministerial lapdogs are prepared to go through the Lobbies and vote for legislation that serves that purpose. We shall oppose this legislation and certainly not agree to finance what the Government intend to do under it.
Although we may refer to the ineptitude of the Government, let us not deceive ourselves into thinking that the Secretary of State is a bumbling idiot. He is far from being that. He is astute, certainly on behalf of those whom he represents.
We recall the Ridley plan which was arranged in detail prior to the miners' strike. Every facet was examined and every possibility was taken into account, including precise details of coal stocks. That all resulted in mines being closed and privatised. This legislation and the money we are being asked to approve are part of the Government's salami tactics to undermine local democracy and attack the living standards of the British people.
We spoke earlier of the way in which 70,000 civil servants will be disfranchised—the Minister did not like me using that word—and not permitted to participate in our democratic processes, simply because of the arbitrary figure of £13,500 being written into the measure. When we questioned why the same provision was not being applied to other areas of society, including this House, the Secretary of State said that Members of Parliament were above reproach and criticism. Yet, as we know, Conservative Members receive vast sums for their directorships and consultancies. Contrast that with local officers earning £13,500 a year. Where is the equality in society?
Whatever Conservative Members say about politics on the rates and so on, there is no even-handedness by the Government. Their agents have been acting as officers of local authorities, including Labour-controlled ones,

255
putting a brake on the democratic processes by interfering with the ability of councils to carry out their mandates and manifestos. Those people will remain free to continue to impede the democratic processes.
We are being asked to approve money for the introduction of ring fencing. That is bound to increase rents for low-paid members of the community. There are great problems in places like Liverpool in paying housing benefit to the needy. Clearly, the poor will be paying to help the very poor in society. Presumably that is what the Government mean by shifting the burden.
Do the Government seriously expect somebody like me, coming from Liverpool, and particularly the Broadgreen part of it—Liverpool still has 23,000 people on the housing waiting list and no chance of accommodating them—to agree to this money measure?
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Considering the council that has been in power in Liverpool for some years, it is not surprising that the city is in a devastated state.
Mr. Fields: The hon. Lady's ignorance is displayed by her attitude.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Lady worked there.
Mr. Fields: As in other aspects of her life, she is taking jobs from good Liverpool people.
Overcrowding, homelessness and strains on families are all matters which our Christian Minister for Local Government should be heeding. Indeed, the nature of his speech on Second Reading revealed the scandalous nature of the legislation.
Repairs to council house estates will be further delayed because of the poll tax. I have spoken to the Liverpool city treasurer about the implications of this legislation. Rather than placing a burden on ordinary working people, we have been using a process of capitalisation to reduce expenditure. Under the legislation the housing revenue account will be underfunded to the tune of £30 million, compounding the problem caused by the Government's cutbacks in rate support grant over the years. We used to assist council tenants through subsidised rents.
The Government and the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman) may criticise Liverpool city council, but we have a programme of urban regeneration under way. Despite what the Government and the district auditors have done—despite the removal of 47 councillors from office—we have built the best part of 5,000 council houses, with gardens back and front. We have built nurseries for our families and sports centres for our deprived youth. Yet tonight we are expected to vote for the money to allow the Government to attack inner-city councils such as ours, with disastrous consequences.
Today we are free to go out and put forward to the electorate a manifesto including a programme of house building, but when the Bill becomes law the Secretary of State will have the so-called discretion to intervene. It is all part of the Government's pathological hatred of Labour-controlled authorities. They are trying to undermine authorities such as Liverpool where the Tory party is only a rump, but the workers will understand that the Tory legislation for which we are being asked to provide money is responsible for cuts meaning that fewer
256
people will be able to get council houses and that repairs will not be carried out. As with the poll tax, it will mean even less support for the Government.
Instead of saying yes to the money, we shall be out campaigning all over the country. The Government have their heads in the sand. Already anti-poll tax unions are being set up to provoke resistance to their plans. Trade unions and other workers will campaign in a similar way against the selling off of council properties, housing action trusts, water privatisation and higher water rates.
Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Fields: I have not time to allow any interventions. We got no change out of the hon. Gentleman earlier, and now he will get no change out of me.
We appeal to private as well as local authority tenants. We can go further. We have something going for us: the Labour party is in the process of a policy review. Those who, like myself, see the inadequacies of Government funding will demand that our party starts to consider what we shall do when we come to power. We shall demand a massive house building programme to serve those in need rather than the greed and avarice of those represented on the Conservative Benches.
We shall follow the example of Liverpool. Instead of cod schemes and phoney rates of pay, we shall want to give people decent jobs on trade union rates and to reduce the unemployment registers. We are proud of our record in Liverpool. Conservative Members may sneer, but we have built houses, put people to work and set up nurseries. This legislation will do nothing to help the workers.
We shall not say yes to this money, but we shall talk about money as part of our policy review. There will be agitation in the Labour party in favour of taking over the banks, insurance companies and finance houses at their expense. [Laughter.] Tory Members may laugh, but it is a laugh of embarrassment. They know that when Socialism takes off in this country their days will be numbered, as will those of the people whom they represent.
In saying no to the legislation and the money, we warn the Government, who have turned the screw on the workers and continue to do so, to watch out. The workers are getting up from their knees, and when they have done so the Government's days will be numbered.
10.24 pm
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The voice of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) is a minority in the House, but his views have much support :in the Labour party nationally. That is why the activists in the Labour party throughout the country who talk in the rhetoric of the class war of the 1930s have managed to make the Labour party unelectable. When Socialism was in action in Liverpool, the Labour-controlled council was sending redundancy notices by taxi cab to the work force of the Liverpool city council.
We also know that the city council ranks No. 1 in the country for the number of council properties standing empty. One house in 10 owned by the city council stands empty and uninhabitable because of a Left-wing, Hattonist, Trotskyite, Militant council, of which the hon. Member for Broadgreen is a representative, which votes for the destruction of Liverpool.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I had the humiliating experience of taking a delegation from the European Parliament regional affairs committee round some of that property in Liverpool when the Labour Government were in office. An Italian Socialist asked me, "What has lived in these houses—pigs?"
Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Liverpool city council has made it its policy to make sure that its tenants live in serfdom, and to drive away from Liverpool any chance of industry and enterprise because of its absolute adherence to the trade unions and the far Left.
Liverpool city council has destroyed the core of Liverpool. It has destroyed jobs and housing and brought that noble city to the edge of bankruptcy. The hon. Member for Broadgreen lectures the House on how to run the country, but his views carry weight in the Labour party and we must pay attention to them because at the next general election the activists in the Labour party will be spouting such nonsense and the public will reject them for the fourth time.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He is quite right that a considerable number of houses in Liverpool are in need of maintenance and repair. That is perfectly true, but is he aware that between 1973 and 1983 Liverpool city council was controlled not by the Labour party but by the Liberal party, with the assistance of the Tory party, or what was left of it in Liverpool? Instead of investing in houses that people could afford to rent, they decided to build houses for sale. They failed to use the rising rate support grant that was provided for the city of Liverpool throughout the 1974–79 Labour Government.
Mr. Bennett: Whatever the Liberal-controlled Liverpool city council did during those years, it did not take illegal actions. It did not have a deputy leader with his own army that went around intimidating other political parties as the Trotskyite Militant Liverpool city council did. I should have thought that the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) would not attack the Liberals, because only yesterday, the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) announced that the Labour party was willing to have pacts with the Liberals in the council elections.
Mr. Clive Soley: In the interests of accuracy, because the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) has mentioned it twice, my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) made it clear that that was not correct and the Press Association issued an apology.
Mr. Terry Fields: The hon. Gentleman should apologise as well.
Mr. Bennett: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if I am wrong as my remarks were based on what the Press Association said. It would not surprise us if there were pacts with the Liberal party because for the past four years county councils that have been run in alliance with the Liberal party have imposed massive rate rises and increases in staff. We know that between 1977 and 1979 the Labour and Liberal parties ran an alliance in the House—
Mr. Andrew Rowe: My constituency suffers from just such a council. Were it not raiding every conceivable reserve, the projected rate rise for next year would be 49 per cent.
Mr. Bennett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for providing us with yet another example of Liberal good housekeeping—suspending everything just before an election campaign is due.
I want to make two relatively non-controversial points about the Bill. I welcome the DOE's moves on low-cost rural housing, which are of particular interest in my constituency, in which there are considerable housing problems among the low paid. Secondly, I welcome the fact that improvement grants will in future be linked to income. One of the problems facing local authorities is that they often run out of such grants early in the year and cannot supply cash to people who have applied for it—regardless of whether they can afford to renovate their properties. Cash-linking improvement grants to people's incomes will enable us to target the money on the lower paid, who, as we know from survey after survey, tend to live in the worst sort of housing.
I believe that local government is vital to this country. I served for eight years on a London borough council—three of them as leader of the opposition—and for three years as a member of ILEA. Central Government cannot do everything; it relies on local government to provide local services and to be aware of local needs. But local government needs to remember that it was created by statute, and it is not co-equal with central Government. The problem with the GLC, South Yorkshire and some other local authorities around the country was that they thought they were co-equal and could challenge the Government on major matters of economic policy while running little Soviet states in the United Kingdom. Local government has a job to do and must remember to work in partnership with central Government; it must not pretend that it is central Government and try to take over their role.
I particularly welcome the campaign to end twin tracking which has been launched as a result of the Bill. It is scandalous that serving officers of one authority are often appointed by that authority—because they are Labour councillors—to sinecures, while serving as councillors in other authorities. They give advice to councillors in their capacity as officers in one authority, and then go out the same evening to their own authorities to take part in political decisions. No one can have any confidence in officers who are party political councillors in other boroughs—
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Bennett: The hon. Gentleman was not here for the Second Reading. He always turns up late at night to conduct his guerrilla campaign. Perhaps if he took more part in the day-to-day affairs of the House, and served on a few Standing Committees he might win a little more respect from the rest of us.
Examples of the sort of abuses I have described are legion. The leader of Brent council, Mr. Dorman Long, is employed by Lambeth council as a race relations officer. The chair of the travellers committee, Councillor Moleney, is employed as a travellers warden by next-door Ealing council. Councillor Esmie Sargeant, who works for Ealing's women's unit, chairs the housing committee in Brent—
Mr. Ian Gow: What is the function of the travellers committee?
Mr. Bennett: It is something to do with gipsies. Quite why they need a committee and chair—whatever that is—to look after them I do not know. It is certainly strange that the chairman of a committee to do with travellers can be warden of another similar committee in a neighbouring borough.
The chairman of the housing committee in Brent is a legal officer in Southwark. The erstwhile leader of Bradford city council, now leader of the opposition there, is employed as an anti-privatisation adviser by next-door Wakefield district council. The leader of Barnsley council worked for Sheffield council and the leader of Sheffield council worked for Barnsley. I give way to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer).
Mr. Cryer: I am most grateful. The hon. Gentleman will of course know that I chaired a Select Committee today, and I do not think anybody in this House will deny that I play as full a part as any other Member, so his cheap, snide remarks are wasted.
Can I ask him if he thinks that, when people go to Sir Jeffrey Sterling for advice, they feel they are getting impartial advice, when he is an adviser to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and gets involved in transport issues? Is he also aware that the leader of the Tory-controlled Bradford council is or was actually employed by Conservative party central office? Does he think that people got impartial advice from the leader of the Tory opposition?
Mr. Bennett: The hon. Member for Bradford, South is not able to distinguish between people who are employed at taxpayers' expense on one authority while being councillors on another, and people who are employed as advisers to the Conservative party, usually at no cost, and who have no public position. Sir Jeffrey Sterling has no public position, and what he does with his spare time is surely his business.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South can talk about moonlighting; he is also a Member of the European Parliament, with two incomes. When he addressed us the other night he was saying how no Minister should be paid more than an ordinary Member of Parliament. When he was a Minister he got paid as a Minister. He is adopting different policies, twin tracking on principles, when he is in opposition. We take no lectures from the hon. Member when it comes to two incomes and doing two different jobs.
There are other examples of abuse. In Camden council, for instance, the director of social services, Patrick Kodikara, is also a member of Hackney social services committee. In Camden at one time 48 per cent. of the Labour councillors were working for other authorities. So we see the corruption that goes on.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Bennett: No, I am not giving way. The hon. Member was also not here for the Second Reading. If Labour Members are really interested in local government they can turn up at 4 o'clock and sit through the debate, instead of arriving at half past 10. I am not giving way.
The fact is that we are seeing corruption in local government; we are seeing the Labour party appointing its own councillors to well-paid jobs.
Mr. Paul Boateng: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the hon. Member has given a whole list of persons appointed by one authority while being
260
councillors in another, and he went on to refer to the word "corruption". I think he ought to make it clear whether he is referring to them.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): That is a matter of argument, not a point of order for the Chair.
Mr. Bennett: I think that it is corrupt when the London borough of Hackney has on its shortlist two Lambeth Labour councillors for the job of deputy chief executive, neither of whom appears to have much in the way of academic qualifications for the particular job, and one of them gets the job. It seems to me that we have to end this twin tracking to ensure that councillors are elected as party politicians and do their job, but are not able at the same time to go to another Labour-controlled authority to get their mates to give them a well-paid job.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Is my hon. Friend aware that sometimes this does not quite work out, and that occasionally county councils appoint somebody at a very senior level who has formerly been a Labour Member of Parliament, and this great love relationship actually has a very short life span, as happened in Derbyshire, when the county council appointed a Mr. Reg Race, and somehow within nine months he had gone. They sacked him or he resigned or something like that.
The Minister for Local Government (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): How much did they pay him?
Mr. McLoughlin: The Minister asks how much he was paid. I have no idea. It is an official secret in Derbyshire. These love affairs do not always last the course. Derbyshire was one. The Government are really trying in the Bill to protect the Labour party from its own follies.
Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is very interesting, but surely it would be more appropriate for a Second Reading debate. We are supposed to be debating the money resolution. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) is dealing with matters that go much wider than the money resolution.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The debate on a money resolution is fairly wide, but I should like to hear a little more about money in this debate.
Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) has just been talking about the money that the ratepayers of Derbyshire had to pay out to this person, Reg Race. The public are not being told how much Derbyshire county council paid out for his very short sojourn as a council official. My hon. Friend has made it clear why his majority shot up at the last general election and why Derbyshire will become a Conservative county council in May of this year.
The money that is to be spent as a result of the Bill will be well spent on preventing local authorities from having one-sided, totally unbalanced committees. I welcome clause 13, which refers to the need for local authority committees to have a proper party political composition. When I was the leader of the opposition on the London borough of Lewisham we were excluded from the council's policy committee. That committee fixes the local authority rate each year. As elected councillors, 23 of us were not allowed to take part in the rate-fixing discussions. We

261
knew what our local authority rate was only when we saw it in a press release. That is not the way to treat opposition members of local authorities. I am glad, therefore, that clause 13 tackles that point.
We must ensure that councillors who run up massive rate and rent arrears are debarred from office. It is a scandal that the chairman of the Lambeth housing committee owes her authority £2,000 in rent and rates. Before any Opposition Member says that she may be hard up, I should point out that she collected £28,000 in council attendance allowances last year. Even so, she does not pay her rent and rates to her local authority. What can we say to the people of Lambeth when their elected councillors do not pay their rent and rates?
Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I return to the point that I made earlier. What does this have to do with the money resolution?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will leave these matters to the Chair.
Mr. Bennett: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You distinctly heard me say money.
Mr. Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a very short debate. The hon. Gentleman is getting very close to disputing the judgment of the Chair.
Mr. Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not challenging your ruling in any way whatsoever. I am asking you whether it is in order for an hon. Member to make personal attacks on the financial position of a member of a local authority in the way that the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) has just done. I think that it is out of order in this House.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) has said nothing so far that is out of order, but I know that he will recognise that other hon. Members wish to speak in this short debate.
Mr. Bennett: I have attempted to speak as quickly as I can because I want to be generous to the Opposition.
On the Order Paper today there is a motion standing in my name and the names of five of my hon. Friends concerning Coventry city council. It relates to two of my constituents in Pembrokeshire who owned a shop in Coventry. They were forced by Coventry city council, which is Labour controlled, to surrender their lease to the city council for £20,000, despite the fact that they had been offered £37,000 by a company to take over their shop. A few months later, Coventry city council, having forced my constituents to sell their lease for £20,000, sold the same lease to the same company for £51,000, having swindled my constituents out of £17,000.
Coventry city council has been found guilty twice by the ombudsman of maladministration. On both occasions it has ignored his reports. When I intervened during the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, he said that publicity would deal with that. I regret that publicity does not get at the hard-nosed, Left-wing Labour councillors on the council who are defying the ombudsman. I urge the Minister to make sure that the Bill
262
contains powers to force local government officers and councils found guilty of maladministration to pay the constituents they have injured.
10.45 pm
Mr. Bernie Grant: I should like to say why we should not be voting money to allow the Government to proceed to obliterate local government. In giving the reasons, I want to concentrate on this Bill's implications for racial equality. This aspect has not been mentioned in the House, and I should like some time to raise several points.
Before doing so may I comment on something that the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) said? He talked about twin tracking, about people getting jobs with one council and being members of another. Perhaps one good reason that a local authority has for employing councillors is that they are the best people for the job. [Laughter.] I willingly agree that it is an old-fashioned reason for appointing people, but it is a fact that people get jobs because they are the best-qualified.
In this case, one of the reasons for their being the best-qualified is precisely that they have experience in a particular section of local government that may not have been discussed or worked on before. I refer, of course, to areas such as race discrimination, sex discrimination, disability and so on, where new policies have to be made to ensure that disadvantaged people in those local authority areas get a fair return for the rates that they pay.
Hon. Members opposite talk about the golden days of local government. In those golden days, no concern was ever shown for black people, or for women, or for people with disabilities, or for any other disadvantaged group. One of the reasons those councillors get jobs in local government is that they have experience in precisely those areas, and these are the areas that are very important for large numbers of people.
Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend accept that the attitude displayed in the Bill is not supported by the Prime Minister's political activities? Since 1981 the Prime Minister, in her office alone, has spent over £1·3 million of taxpayers' money to pay the salaries of political advisers. What is good enough for the taxpayer, she says, is not good enough for the ratepayer. She is spending far and away more than any local authority ever contemplates spending.
Mr. Grant: Of course I agree with my hon. Friend.
I should like to deal with some issues of race, and I hope that the Minister will listen, because these issues have not been mentioned before. There are four particular clauses on which I want to touch—clause 1, which deals with political restrictions on officers and staff; clause 11, which deals with the voting rights of members of some committees; clause 25, which concerns the promotion of economic development; and clause 28, which amends the existing power to incur discretionary expenditure.
On clause 1, I think everyone should be heartened by the increase in the numbers of black and ethnic minority councillors over the last decade and by the beneficial effect that this has had by improving race relations. It is a fact, however, that the black and ethnic minority communities are still seriously under-represented in local government, and this clause will have a deterrent effect on black and ethnic minority participation in party political activity and on any public activity that could be construed as political.

263
I am further concerned by the disproportionate effect that this clause will have on black and ethnic minority officers who are already councillors on another authority. Given that local authorities are more likely to operate equal opportunities policies in employment, the number of black and ethnic minority councillors in local government employ is not surprising.
By pushing through the Bill, the Government will punish local government officers for getting jobs under equal opportunity policies on the one hand, and on the other they will punish local authorities which have brought in equal opportunities policies by forcing the black officers whom they have taken on to give up as councillors or to leave their jobs. In such a situation, why should we pay any money to the Government to carry on like that?
The catch-all nature of the definition of persons regarded as holding politically restricted posts causes further difficulties by setting a threshold for remuneration at £13,500 per annum. In effect, the Government are setting a cut-off point in salary equivalent to the grade of principal officer. Because of London weighting allowance, people in London who are not principal officers may be caught in the trap. I refer to dustmen or school caretakers, or people who work for direct labour organisations as carpenters. All those people could suddenly find themselves unable to run for council because they are earning more than £13,500 per annum. As a result of equal opportunities policies, a substantial number of balck and ethnic minority people are in those grades and they will be punished by the Government for getting those positions. In those circumstances, why should we give the Government money to carry out these policies?
It is uncertain whether the regulations to be made by the Secretary of State to restrict the political activity of local government officers will relate to party political activity or to public political activity. If it is public political activity, it will deprive bodies such as community relations councils of the voluntary services of local government officers, because community relations activity could be deemed to be public political activity. Indeed, in some areas Conservative councils deem that if a person is working in a voluntary capacity for a community relations council that person is somehow a demon or a political henchman who is there to upset the position of the council.
The impact of these clauses on the promotion of equality of opportunity and good race relations will be twofold. First, they could lead to local authorities being denied the opportunity to make the best appointments designed to help them fulfil their duties under section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976. Secondly, they will deprive staff in the politically restricted group of the opportunity to influence local change, designed to improve relations between persons of different racial groups.
I understand that clause 1 may be against article 10(1) of the European convention on human rights, which says basically that no public authority should deny citizens their right to partake in political activity. If that is the case—our brief legal opinion is that it could be—we shall take all the necessary steps to protect the rights of ordinary people.
Mr. Keith Vaz: Will my hon. Friend consider the example of my sister, whom he knows, who is deputy leader of the London borough of Ealing and has recently taken up an appointment as a solicitor for the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham? If the Bill becomes law, she will have to choose. Many oft he officers mentioned by the
264
hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) and others are in public service as councillors. Does my hon. Friend agree that those people will have to make an unfair choice?
Mr. Grant: I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend. His mention of his sister is particularly apposite as her position encompasses all the problems.
Mr. Terry Fields: My hon. Friend has made a valuable point about the breach of the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights. However, given their past record, what confidence can we have in the Government's attitude towards EEC legislation and especially rulings of the European Court of Human Rights? If we are appointed to the Standing Committee, how can we ensure that the legislation has sufficient safeguards for us to be able to raise matters in the European Court of Human Rights and receive proper results in the interests of our constituents?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We appear to be straying from the money resolution. Would the hon. Gentleman relate his remarks to the money resolution?
Mr. Grant: I agree with my hon. Friend. I was in Europe myself, and I must say that people there are taking a dimmer view of the Government as time goes by.
On the question of voting rights of members of committees, in their response to the report of the Widdicombe committee of inquiry, the Government acknowledged the value of the contribution made by co-opted members to policy formulation. In paragraph 2·0 Cmnd. 433, the committee said of co-option:
"It is a means of involving the community in local authority proceedings, especially those sections of the community (eg women, ethnic minorities, council tenants) that are under-represented among elected members."

The Commission for Racial Equality has recommended the use of co-options by local authorities as a means of discharging its functions under section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976, for the simple reason that it brings in outside expertise and experience which is not available—given the under-representation of black and ethnic minority communities among elected members—and as a means of providing access to the decision-making process. To remove the voting rights of co-optees would render the under-represented groups powerless in challenging ineffective and ill-informed policies. That is yet another reason why we should vote for this money resolution.
Clause 25 raises the question of economic development. The legislation aimed at giving local authorities a new specific power to promote economic development is welcomed. I am disappointed that black and ethnic minority business enterprises have not been given a high priority and that the consultative procedures introduced do not include any mention of the need to involve black and ethnic minority communities. That exclusion is surprising in the light of the Government's so-called commitment to inner-city enterprise, as exemplified by the Home Office-administered racial disadvantage fund, which is geared towards assisting black businesses.
I should like to mention the power to incur discretionary expenditure. The inner-city areas will clearly be the hardest hit by the proposed amendment on the basis for calculating the ceiling on section 137 expenditure. Black organisations in these inner-city areas will be especially affected because the majority of them are revenue projects.
It being three-quarters of an hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted Business).
The House divided: Ayes 183, Noes 59.

Division No. 93]

[10.58 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Haselhurst, Alan

Amess, David

Hayes, Jerry

Amos, Alan

Hayward, Robert

Arbuthnot, James

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Heddle, John

Aspinwall, Jack

Hind, Kenneth

Atkins, Robert

Hordern, Sir Peter

Atkinson, David

Howard, Michael

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

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

Baldry, Tony

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Batiste, Spencer

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Beggs, Roy

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Bellingham, Henry

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Benyon, W.

Hunter, Andrew

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Irvine, Michael

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Jack, Michael

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Boswell, Tim

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Bottomley, Peter

Kilfedder, James

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Bowis, John

Knapman, Roger

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Brazier, Julian

Latham, Michael

Bright, Graham

Lawrence, Ivan

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

Lee, John (Pendle)

Burns, Simon

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Burt, Alistair

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Butcher, John

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Butler, Chris

Lightbown, David

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Lilley, Peter

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Carrington, Matthew

Lord, Michael

Carttiss, Michael

McCrindle, Robert

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Chapman, Sydney

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Maclean, David

Colvin, Michael

McLoughlin, Patrick

Conway, Derek

Maligns, Humfrey

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Maples, John

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Cope, Rt Hon John

Maude, Hon Francis

Couchman, James

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Cran, James

Mitchell, Andrew (Gelling)

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

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

Monro, Sir Hector

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Morrison, Sir Charles

Day, Stephen

Moss, Malcolm

Devlin, Tim

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Neubert, Michael

Dover, Den

Nicholls, Patrick

Durant, Tony

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Fookes, Dame Janet

Norris, Steve

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Page, Richard

Gale, Roger

Paice, James

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Patnick, Irvine

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Gow, Ian

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Porter, David (Waveney)

Grist, Ian

Powell, William (Corby)

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Rattan, Keith

Hannam, John

Rathbone, Tim

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

Redwood, John

266

Riddick, Graham

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Temple-Morris, Peter

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Rowe, Andrew

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Tracey, Richard

Ryder, Richard

Tredinnick, David

Sackville, Hon Tom

Trippier, David

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Trotter, Neville

Sayeed, Jonathan

Twinn, Dr Ian

Shaw, David (Dover)

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Walden, George

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Waller, Gary

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Sims, Roger

Warren, Kenneth

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Wells, Bowen

Speller, Tony

Wheeler, John

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Widdecombe, Ann

Squire, Robin

Wilkinson, John

Stanbrook, Ivor

Wilshire, David

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Steen, Anthony

Winterton, Nicholas

Stern, Michael

Wood, Timothy

Stevens, Lewis

Yeo, Tim

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Summerson, Hugo

Tellers for the Ayes:

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Mr. Stephen Dorrell and

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Mr. Michael Fallon.

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

NOES

Alton, David

McLeish, Henry

Battle, John

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Bradley, Keith

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Buckley, George J.

Meale, Alan

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Michael, Alun

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Morgan, Rhodri

Canavan, Dennis

Mullin, Chris

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Nellist, Dave

Clelland, David

Parry, Robert

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Pike, Peter L.

Darling, Alistair

Prescott, John

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Redmond, Martin

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Reid, Dr John

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Ruddock, Joan

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

Skinner, Dennis

Galbraith, Sam

Spearing, Nigel

Graham, Thomas

Steel, Rt Hon David

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Hinchliffe, David

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Hood, Jimmy

Vaz, Keith

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Wallace, James

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Wigley, Dafydd

Ingram, Adam

Wilson, Brian

Kirkwood, Archy

Worthington, Tony

Lewis, Terry

Wray, Jimmy

Livsey, Richard

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Tellers for the Noes:

McAllion, John

Mr. Bob Cryer and

McAvoy, Thomas

Mr. Harry Barnes.

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Local Government and Housing Bill, it is expedient to authorise--

(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any sums required for the payment by the Secretary of State of grants, subsidies or contributions under the Act;

(b) any sums required by the Secretary of State for fulfilling any guarantees under the Act;

(c) any other expenses of the Secretary of State under the Act; and

(d) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums so payable under any other enactment; and

(2) the payment of any sums received by the Secretary of State under the Act into the Consolidated Fund.

Farm and Conservation Grant
11.9 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Richard Ryder): I beg to move,
That the draft Farm and Conservation Grant Regulations 1989, which were laid before this House on 2nd February, be approved.
With permission, Mr. Speaker, and since they form a single package, I hope it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the Second motion:
That the Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 128), a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd February, be approved.
Mr. Speaker: I take it that that is agreeable to the House.
Mr. Ryder: It is only about a month since some of us, including the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) debated in Standing Committee the statutory instruments which closed our previous farm capital grant scheme, the agriculture improvement scheme, to new applicants.
At that time I explained that the new grant scheme, which had been announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in November, was still subject to discussion in Brussels. I am glad to report that those consultations were successfully completed at the end of last month, thus enabling us to lay the new measures before Parliament for approval. I am also happy to confirm that we have been able to finalise our proposals in very much the form that my right hon. Friend the Minister was able to outline to the House last November.
The proposals are divided into two parts. Under the regulations, farmers will be able to submit investment plans covering all the items set out in the schedule. Under the scheme, they will be able to claim grant on a rather more restricted range of items but without the need to secure prior approval for their investments.
Mr. Bowen Wells: I am deeply grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way before he has reached the substance of his speech. Is the House entitled to alter in any way the measures being put before it tonight? If so, would it not have been better for him to bring the regulations to the notice of the House before the negotiations were completed in Brussels, so that the House could express an opinion before they were agreed in the Council of Ministers?
Mr. Ryder: The preliminary negotiations in Brussels have been completed. The final details have yet to be worked out. If any of my hon. Friends wish to raise any matters of substance this evening, I shall consider them later.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Ryder: No, I want to get on, please.
Mr. Taylor rose—
Madame Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The Minister wants to make progress.
Mr. Ryder: Except in the case of some horticultural investments, the rates of grant available will be the same under both parts of the scheme.
The highest rates of grant will be for the installation and improvement of equipment designed to prevent pollution caused by farm operations. That will attract grant at 50 per cent. In the uplands, or less favoured areas as they have been designated, conservation work will also get grant of 50 per cent. of the total cost.
Mr. Ron Davies: Are the details of the scheme that the Minister is giving us subject to further amendment if his right hon. Friend concludes in his discussions with the EC that the existing details are unsatisfactory? Are those amendable figures or do they represent the scheme as it will be?
Mr. Ryder: They represent the scheme as it will be.
Mr. Teddy Taylor rose—
Mr. Ryder: I shall give way to my hon. Friend in due course.
Outside the less favoured areas, the rate will be 40 per cent. The items qualifying for grant will include hedges, traditional stone walls, shelter belts, trees for shading stock, stiles and footbridges and heather and bracken control. All those qualify for grant under the agriculture improvement scheme. To them we shall be adding grants for fencing out stock from heather moors and native woodlands to encourage natural regeneration and grants for repairs to traditional buildings.
In addition, we shall be continuing grants for grassland regeneration and reseeding, with associated fencing and liming and fertiliser. Drainage grants, however, will be confined to the replacement of existing systems. All these items will attract grant at 25 per cent. in the hills and 15 per cent. in the lowlands, and will be available only under an investment plan.
We shall be continuing to offer special assistance to the horticultural sector, with grants of 40 per cent. for replacement of heated glasshouses and 35 per cent. for heating systems, and the reinstatement of grants for orchard replanting again at 35 per cent. Slightly lower rates of grant will apply to work done outside an investment plan.
Perhaps I can now explain the objectives behind our new arrangements, and the considerations which have given rise to them. They follow from an internal review which my right hon. Friend set up last year together with the Secretaries of State for Wales, for Northern Ireland and for Scotland, and the Secretary of State for the Environment, as well as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. That review was designed to examine how far we needed to adapt capital grants to take account of the very significant changes in agricultural policy which we have seen since 1985 both in the United Kingdom and in the European Economic Community.
In the Community we have taken some important steps towards controlling surpluses and the excessive expenditure they entailed. In the United Kingdom, the ALURE package of initiatives has opened up new opportunities for many farmers and underlined our concern to do more to enhance the farming environment. In particular, we wanted a capital grants scheme which would complement these new policies, target expenditure more effictively,

269
provide value for money and not discriminate against United Kingdom farmers. I believe that we have achieved this in the instrument before the House.
I am sure that the House will agree that in present circumstances it does not make very good sense for us to focus capital grants expenditure on the expansion of existing production capacity. Capital grants have played a very important part over the years in helping United Kingdom agriculture to achieve its current level of efficiency. But even the industry's own reaction to the agricultural improvement scheme suggests that farmers are now looking to different kinds of investment. Helped by the structure of grant rates under the AIS, there has been a very marked shift from spending on buildings, drainage and other production facilities towards conservation and pollution control work. Under the new scheme, we intend to promote that reorientation still further.
Concern to protect and enhance the beauty and wildlife variety of our countryside is growing all the time. Increasingly, too, the public look to the farmer as the guardian of the countryside. They recognise that the way he farms will materially affect the character of the landscape and the diversity of the flora and fauna within it. All of us have come to expect a certain standard of conservation management from the farming community. The land the farmers manage is not theirs only, but the heritage of the entire community.
What is less often recognised perhaps is the extra cost this can impose on the farmer. A hedge is generally much more attractive than a fence, but a fence can be put in much more cheaply and quickly. It is therefore entirely appropriate that in targeting our capital grant support we should recognise the additional expenditure which environmentally sympathetic management can require from farmers and assist them to achieve something which both they and the public at large want.
The new scheme gives very high priority to conservation. I want to make it clear, however, that this means conservation in its best sense. We are not grant-aiding things simply because they are attractive; we are also grant-aiding them because they are useful. One of the aims of the new scheme is to enable farmers to manage existing assets more profitably, as well as in ways that will enhance the attractions of our countryside.
That is the thinking behind the three new grants we are introducing for the regeneration of heather moors and woodlands and for the reinstatement of traditional buildings. A neglected or overgrazed woodland is not only a blot on the landscape but a lost opportunity for the farmer. By offering a grant for fencing out stock for a period, we hope to make it possible not only for natural regeneration to occur but for the wood in time to become much more useful as a shelter for stock.
Similarly, we shall grant-aid the regeneration of existing pasture and the renewal of existing drainage systems, to keep the land in good heart. But in line with our approach elsewhere, we shall not grant-aid improvement work to virgin land or moorland. Nor shall we pay grant for new drainage. Assisting the creation of new production capacity at a time when we are struggling—although with increasing success—to master the problems caused by
270
surplus production is clearly no longer appropriate. But helping farmers to manage well and sympathetically their existing farm assets is money well spent.
Another important priority under the new scheme deals with the problems of pollution from farm effluent. The pressure on farmers to clean up their act is acute, and rightly so. The farm and conservation grant scheme will offer grants of 50 per cent. in the lowlands for the installation and improvement of facilities for the storage, treatment and disposal of slurry and silage effluent. That is the highest level of grant ever offered in the lowlands. It is also the best rate of grant available anywhere in the Community.
That substantial grant increase, as well as extensions to grant coverage to include fixed disposal piping, safety fences, and more help for the intensive livestock sector, is clear evidence of the Government's commitment to dealing with the problems of pollution from farm operations. It also shows again our determination to target assistance where it can do most good, both for the farmer and for the community as a whole.
At the same time, I must make it clear that, with grants of that order available, there can be no excuse for any continuation of the high incidence of farm pollution that we have seen recently.
As to less favoured areas, right hon. and hon. Members who are familiar with the grant schemes will have noticed from the schedules to the farm and conservation grant scheme 1989 that we are narrowing the differential between grant rates in the LFAs and those outside. That will mean small reductions in grant of 5 per cent. and 10 per cent. on most items. For effluent facilities and traditional buildings, grant rates will remain the same, at 50 per cent. and 35 per cent.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Before the Minister proceeds to tell the House about all the Government's dramatic new grants for heather reclamation, and all the rest of it, will he clarify what appeared to be a misunderstanding in his answers to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) and to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies)? The Minister told my hon. Friend that the proposals are subject to further review and amendment in discussions with the Commission. I can understand that, yet in answering the hon. Member for Caerphilly, the Minister gave the impression that the proposals before the House have been finalised.
Can the Minister explain why on earth the House is discussing the regulations and scheme tonight, when, under the 1987 structures plan, the Government are obliged to observe the measures now before the House, which have been approved by the Commission? It seems a total waste of time, both of right hon. and hon. Members and of the staff.
Mr. Ryder: The regulations cannot be amended, but I said that if any right hon. or hon. Members wish to make any objections or suggestions, I will be happy to consider them in the course of time. We are not looking to amend anything tonight.
Another aspect of the scheme that I draw to the attention of right hon. and hon. Members is the continuation of enhanced rates of grant for horticulture. Since 1983, we have offered that sector a good deal of special assistance, to help with modernisation to meet fierce—and not always fair—foreign competition. The

271
industry has responded well, despite setbacks that some parts of it suffered after the great storm in 1987, and a major reinvestment programme is in train.
The Government want to keep up the momentum, by continuing to offer grants for the replacement of heated glasshouses and for the installation of heating systems. From the end of November, when the current measures under the AIS expire, we shall offer grant of 40 per cent. on glasshouses and 35 per cent. on heating systems. We shall, from the start of the farm and conservation grant scheme, reintroduce grants for orchard replanting of 35 per cent. We have taken the opportunity to simplify and clarify the arrangements for the horticulture sector, as we have tried to do in a number of small but important ways throughout the new scheme.
I said at the outset that we were determined that our new scheme should complement our existing agricultural policies, and it does just that. It removes incentives to surplus production. At the same time, it encourages farmers to make better use of existing assets, and to do so in a way which enhances the attractiveness of the countryside for us all. In so doing, it offers good value for money.
It is also closely targeted on those sectors and types of investment which are now clear priorities. Chief among these is the need to reduce pollution. For a small dairy farmer in one of the large catchment areas in the south-west, the cost of installing and maintaining an efficient slurry containment system can make heavy inroads on his income. A Government grant of 50 per cent. towards this necessary expenditure is far more appropriate in present circumstances than a grant for a new building.
By targeting our assistance in this way on essential but costly investments, we are contributing far more effectively to the present and future financial soundness of the industry than some other member states which continue to grant-aid increases in capacity irrespective of whether there are markets for the resulting surpluses. That is why this reordering of our grant priorities has been warmly welcomed as responding closely to the current needs of Britain's farming industry.
11.26 pm
Mr. Ron Davies: I wish at the outset to express to the Parliamentary Secretary our understanding of the difficulty in which he found himself in explaining to his hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) the precise status of the instruments before the House. In our experience, the Parliamentary Secretary is always helpful and courteous in his presentation of measures and when he tells the House that he is prepared to be flexible, that is not so much an indication that he may have got the proposals wrong as a genuine willingness to listen to what we have to say.
When we last debated agriculture, we had to convey to the Parliamentary Secretary our best wishes to his right hon. Friend the Minister who that very day had been taken ill in Brussels when negotiating the latest agreement. I am pleased to note that the right hon. Gentleman has regained his health. I am not sure that he will recover so rapidly from the St. Valentine's day present—indeed, the birthday present—delivered to him today by the National Farmers Union. At its annual conference today the NFU presented the Minister with—
Mr. John Home Robertson: A brie?
Mr. Davies: No, not a brie—a unanimous vote of no confidence. Given the way in which the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is being run just now, it came as no surprise when that vote of no confidence was resoundingly passed.
My hon. Friends and I welcome the opportunity to debate the scheme and we welcome the instruments in broad terms because they show a Government commitment to transfer the emphasis on agricultural capital grants away from increasing production and towards improvement of the environment.
When the Minister announced the scheme in a written answer on 6 February, he said that he had consulted the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but I understand that the instruments relate only to Great Britain. Will the scheme be extended subsequently to Northern Ireland or will there be a separate instrument relating to Northern Ireland?
The Government's recent expenditure plans reveal a substantial reduction in spending on agricultural grants. The Minister made some play about the reduction in expenditure from 1987 to the current year. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the expenditure White Paper of January of this year. Expenditure on major capital grants in 1983–84 totalled £217 million. The current year's estimated outturn will be £89 million and next year's £86 million. The forecast for 1990–91 is as low as £78 million. When the thrust of Government support was to increase production, they managed to find more than £200 million for capital grants, but now that the emphasis has moved towards more environmentally sensitive grants the amount has been reduced from £217 million to £78 million. That reflects poorly on a Government who claim that care for the environment is the centrepiece of their policy.
The Minister paid tribute to his debate with my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) in Standing Committee when the old scheme was closed. The haste with which it was closed suggests a desire by the Ministry to save money, as was revealed when the Minister was challenged in Committee about its sudden termination. He gave something away when he said that it had been impossible to give any warning of the scheme's closure because it
"would have led to a rush of expenditure for which we have no provision."—[Official Report, Fifth Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c., 18 January 1989; c. 4.]
Unfortunately that was at the expense of farmers who had prepared improvement plans with considerable effort and at considerable expense and were about to submit their schemes to the Ministry for approval. Would it not have been possible to allow farmers in such circumstances to undertake the works that they had planned—at their own risk—while awaiting the Ministry's announcement about the level of grant that they would attract? A commitment could have been given that such grant would be paid retrospectively, and delays to farmers and contractors at what is usually the busiest time of year for such works could have been avoided.
The transfer of capital assistance from measures which increase production to those that enhance the environment is certainly in the spirit of the times, and is—to say the least—considerably overdue. We particularly endorse the increase in grant payable on the planting of hedgerows and shelter belts in lowland areas from 30 to 40 per cent., and the grants for the restoration of vernacular buildings are also welcome. Can we expect the new-found enthusiasm

273
for hedgerows to extend to support for the Hedgerows Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy)? There seems little point in giving financial support to the development of hedgerows if the Government are not prepared to take action to support their protection once they have been established.
We also welcome the changes in respect of heather burning and the enclosure of woodland and moorland. These measures themselves will increase the value of such areas as wildlife habitats and will help the conservation of wildlife as well as assisting in the better use of those areas for agricultural production. We are also pleased at the increased grant available for bracken control. Bracken is a major threat to agricultural land, and as it is increasing at a rate of 5 per cent. per year it represents a significant loss of such land.
I challenge the Minister, however, on his suggestion that enclosure of woodlands would be a major step forward. I think that there will be very little take-up. There will be precious little incentive for farmers in either uplands or lowlands merely to enclose existing woodland. The effect of the measure will be to reduce the amount of land available for grazing, and it certainly will not ensure any profitable crop from the proceeds of forestry, at least within the lifetime of the farmer or his immediate family.
I suggest a course of action that we have pressed on the Minister within the last 12 months—to look again at the provisions of the farm woodland scheme. If he is now providing grant to allow the enclosure of existing farm woodlands, is it not now appropriate to introduce amendments to the scheme so that annual payments available under it will be made available to farmers who enclose existing woodland? Otherwise there will be no financial benefit whatever. Indeed, it will be a financial disbenefit to farmers in disadvantaged areas in the uplands or the lowlands to enclose existing woodlands. We pressed the Minister's predecessor, now the Minister for Local Government, about that in Committee. At the time he said that he was not opposed in principle to such a move but thought that it would be precipitate. To show how strongly we felt, we divided the Committee on the issue and the Government felt sufficiently strongly to defeat an amendment which would have given effect to such payments.
Now that the Minister has accepted the need to provide fencing for existing woodlands, will he consider modifying the farm woodland scheme to allow the payment of annual sums to farmers who follow that course of action? Without such a payment, I suspect that the measure will come to nothing.
Having welcomed the general shift towards conservation, we have to condemn unreservedly the telescoping of differential rates between favoured and less favoured areas.
Mr. Andrew Hunter: The hon. Gentleman is rapidly moving away from a point which I had hoped that he would expand, and I invite him to do so. With reference to the grant for repairing and reinstating traditional agricultural buildings, will he explain further, so that we understand his argument fully, whether he is satisfied with the proposals in the schemes?
Mr. Davies: I shall come to that in a moment. I have been dealing with the farm woodland scheme and I shall return to the question of vernacular buildings later. I suspect that I know the point which concerns the hon. Gentleman and I hope to demonstrate where we stand, although he may not be happy with the position that we have adopted.
Turning to the diminution of differentials between favoured areas and less favoured areas, the reduction in the grants payable on hedgerows and walls, slurry handling facilities and shelter belts in the less favoured areas from 60 per cent. to 50 per cent. is regrettable, particularly as it accompanies increases in the grants and grant ceilings applicable to effluent and waste disposal and poultry manure stores which will be a charter for the intensification of lowland livestock production—an issue which concerns my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones).
Mr. Martyn Jones: I am particularly concerned because that part of the scheme means that the incomes of farmers in less favoured areas and upland areas generally will be much less. Money will be transferred from less favoured areas to more favoured areas, which is the reverse of what is intended by these measures.
Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend is right. The provision is socially unjust because it represents a transfer of Government funding from low-income farmers in less favoured areas to the high-income farmers in more favoured areas. If the Minister is not concerned about that social injustice, does he recognise that in general the less favoured areas have the most sensitive environments and care must be taken to protect the environment? I suspect that the diminution of grant will lead to the degradation of the environment in less favoured areas without corresponding benefit in the lowlands.
Mr. Ryder: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. He rightly mentioned the fact that we have increased the grants for conservation of hedges, particularly in lowland areas; the worst ravages to hedgerows in Britain have been carried out in lowland areas, as the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) probably knows better than any of us. Precisely because of that, we have altered the grant scheme so that more money can be spent on lowland areas, particularly on hedgerows.
Mr. Davies: At least the Minister understands why we are concerned. We acknowledge and accept that more money is being spent in the lowland areas because of the problem of hedgerow destruction. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South-West, who represents almost exclusively a less favoured area, raised the particular point that that transfer of resources is at the expense of the uplands. Surely if additional expenditure is to be given for the rejuvenation of hedgerows in the lowlands, that should not be done at the expense of a sensitive environment.
If, as the Minister said, the aim is to reduce the incidence of water course pollution by agricultural slurry, why do not the Government enforce the regulations which already exist, and increase the penalties, rather than handing out more money to intensive producers, to the detriment of farmers in less favoured areas? There was an example of this in my constituency last week. A small industrial concern had been guilty of polluting a river with

275
slurry in the summer of last year. That resulted in the devastation of four or five miles of the river Rhymney and the loss of about 2,800 game and course fish. The firm was taken to court, fined £1,000, and made to pay more than £1,000 costs. That was derisory, given the damage done to the environment and the financial burden imposed on the water authority and the various angling clubs which had to restock the river.
If the Minister wants to protect the environment, why does he not agree to give farmers the additional grants to tackle slurry pollution of water courses but also ensure that the penalties are severe enough to inspire adequate take-up and deal properly with the problem of slurry pollution? If the Conservative party is, as it maintains, the party of law and order, why does it not enforce that law and order in the context of protecting the environment? Why is there not a more rigid application of environmental standards?
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The penalties mentioned by the hon. Gentleman sounded wholly inadequate, but I should be interested to know what maximum penalty was available to the court.
Mr. Davies: That was the subject of some discussion between the research department of the Library and myself before this debate, so I can answer with some authority. The provisions were laid down in the Control of Pollution Act 1974, which determined that grade 5 penalties would apply. Those penalties were last confirmed by order pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act 1982, which fixed the maximum penalty at £2,000. In the case that I mentioned, I could see no extenuating circumstances which might have led to the 50 per cent. reduction in the fine handed down. Nevertheless, the maximum would have been only £2,000, which is still negligible. Now that the Government have taken the first financial step to ensuring that there is no need for the pollution of water courses by slurry or farm effluent, they must rigorously apply the control of pollution regulations.
Next, there is the abolition of the 35 per cent. feed rule. The old regulations required that any applicant for assistance under one of these schemes had to provide 35 per cent. of his fodder from his own holding. That requirement is being abolished. That may encourage new entrants to farming—particularly people who start with small livestock units—but it will also encourage more intensification. Will the Government commit themselves to tackling the worst sort of intensive units, such as the beef lot owned by Frans Buitelaar Farms Limited? That unit is situated in an area of outstanding beauty in Lincolnshire and recently excited a great deal of press comment because of its pollution of the water table and defiance of local planning regulations.
I should like to quote briefly from an article in Adscene of January-February 1989, the current issue. It describes that feed lot in Lincolnshire. I am sure that hon. Members who follow these matters will be aware of the case. Adscene describes what was seen:
"Each feedlot contains around 100 cull cows, bought in from all over the country. In the lots they are fed a sloppy mash mix made from waste vegetable matter, poultry manure, spent brewers grains etc. and in this way they put on a little extra flesh before slaughter in Mr. Buitelaar's nearby slaughterhouse. The lots are surrounded by earth banks five metres high ‖
At the end of September Anglian Water Authority were successful in their case against Frans Buitelaar Farms Ltd.
276
The latter were fined £1,000 with £700 costs for allowing effluent 15 times the strength of raw domestic sewage to run into tributaries of the Salmony Beck."
That is, I believe, the consequence of the abolition of the 35 per cent. feed rule, and we really must press the Government to ensure by administrative means that the abolition of that 35 per cent. feed rule will not lead to an increase in the number of intensive units and will not lead to the sort of abuses of the environment that we have seen in that particular instance.
Producers in the less-favoured areas will suffer as a direct result of these changes—most directly by the reduction in the levels of grant for working the LFAs themselves. If, as the Government claim, the level of expenditure is to remain the same under the new scheme as under the old, how can the decrease in rates in the LFAs and the increase in rates elsewhere result in anything other than a decrease in the amount of grant aid to the LFAs themselves? It cannot, so we must take these changes a s a signal of declining support for agriculture in the marginal areas.
At a time of particular debate about the future of the uplands and the balance of support between the prosperous south and east and the more marginal areas of the north and west, it is a matter of real concern to us on these issues, which are not usually the subject of disagreement between us, that the Government are now signalling that they are withdrawing support from the extensive regimes in the marginal uplands and are prepared to give increasing support to the intensive regimes in the intensively farmed lowlands.
The scheme will also impact on the marginal areas in another way—through the price mechanism, the importance of which the Government never tire of reminding us. If capital grants to intensive livestock producers are increased, their costs of production will decline. This will increase the competition facing upland livestock rearers, which will drive down the prices that they receive. So livestock producers in marginal areas face the prospect of reduced capital grants and declining incomes. That is a development that we must condemn.
I ask the Minister to monitor very closely the take-up of the new grants in vernacular buildings—a point that the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) raised in his intervention to me. As I have already said, we welcome the principle of restoration using traditional materials, but we fear that the level of grant proposed will nowhere near cover the increased costs of such building methods, and I am conscious of the fact that pressure in areas such as those that the hon. Gentleman represents are particularly acute. If this turns out to be the case and those grant levels are too low, will the Minister undertake to review the situation?
While I can understand the Government's desire to limit this grant to farmers who derive most of their income from farming so as to avoid financing barn conversions, for example, by yuppy or nouveau riche landowners, if their intention is the maintenance of our rural heritage I fear that this exclusion will limit still further its efficacy. The Government must therefore monitor the take-up very carefully to ensure that not only have they got inclusions rightly balanced with exclusions but that the grant limits are set at an appropriate level.
It is not our intention to divide the House this evening because we are broadly in sympathy with the spirit of what the Government have introduced. I hope that I have been

277
able to show, however, that although we accept it as a small step in the right direction we have considerable reservations about the practical application of these schemes, particularly on the uplands, particularly the question of woodland management, and particularly the incentive that it will give to the development and encouragement of intensive agricultural systems. That is something about which we have grave reservations. I hope that, as the Minister suggested in his opening speech, there will be amendments, improvements and modifications to the scheme in the not-too-distant future.
11.49 pm
Sir Charles Morrison: I go further than the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies). I am not broadly in favour of the scheme; I am strongly in favour of it. I congratulate the Minister and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on introducing it.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly referred to his doubts about the value of enclosing woodlands by fencing to protect them from livestock. He believes that the grant will not be taken up unless an adjustment is made to the farm woodland scheme. I am not averse to favourable adjustments being made to the farm woodland scheme, but I do not think that it is necessary here. The enclosure of areas of grazed woodland can be of considerable benefit. The fencing of woodland can result in a large amount of natural regeneration. Furthermore, the development of undergrowth can be of great value to wildlife. Enclosure that results in totally bare woodlands becoming much more alive areas can be of considerable benefit. Woodlands will benefit from the grant.
Mr. Ron Davies: I accept that there will be considerable environmental improvement and that there may be other benefits, such as shelter for wildlife and natural regeneration that may lead to a timber crop in 20 to 50 years' time. My doubt is that there will be no economic incentive for the farmer for fence off areas of woodland. There will be no cash return, unless the sporting rights can be let. The amount of land that is available for grazing will be diminished. Unless provision is made to compensate the farmer for the loss of income from that land, he will not fence off his woodland.
Sir Charles Morrison: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I agree with him that there will be no cash return, although I do not believe that the loss to the farmer will be very great. However, there will be an ultmate return to the farmer, in the sense that by fencing off his woodland he will improve the capital value of his land. I accept, nevertheless, that that is a long-term matter.
I note that the regulations are introduced under sections 28 and 29 of the Agriculture Act 1970. I welcome the emphasis in the schedule on the provision, replacement or improvement of hedges and shelter belts and on burning heather and bracken control. Bracken control will be of enormous benefit to the upland areas. Over the years more and more land has been taken over by bracken. The spraying and control of bracken will be of benefit to livestock, particularly sheep, and also to wildlife. The enhanced grants for bracken control are very much to be welcomed.
278
I want to refer in particular to paragraph 4 of schedule 1 which relates to the
"enclosure of areas of heather moorland or heathland with fencing protecting the areas from livestock."
Again, in principle, I welcome very strongly the introduction of the grant for that purpose. There is no doubt that fencing on heather moorland will be of very considerable benefit. It will not so much protect areas from livestock all the time but will enable such areas to be rested from grazing by livestock for part of the time. In fact, there is no reason why a reasonable sheep stock should not graze heather moorland from mid-May to mid-October or perhaps a little earlier, depending on the part of the country. During that time, to a very considerable extent, the sheep live on the grasses that are growing among the heather. The damage done to the heather is done during the winter months, and it is very important, if possible, to remove the sheep or at least reduce their numbers very considerably during the winter months when the damage is done to heather.
Equally, in upland areas of Scotland—of course, the regulations cover Scotland and Wales—fencing can rest heather areas from excessive grazing by red deer. So, in general terms, I welcome that aspect of the order.
However, I have no doubt that, in drawing up the regulation my hon. Friend will have taken account of the 1970 Act and of section 17(1) of the Agriculture Act 1986. Perhaps the House will bear with me for a moment while I remind hon. Members of what that subsection says:
"In discharging any functions connected with agriculture in relation to any land the Minister shall, so far as is consistent with the proper and efficient discharge of those functions, have regard to and endeavour to achieve a reasonable balance between the following considerations—

(a) the promotion and maintenance of a stable and efficient agricultural industry;

(b) the economic and social interests of rural areas;

(c) the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside (including its flora and fauna and geological and physiographical features) and of any features of archaeological interest there; and

(d) the promotion of the enjoyment of the countryside by the public."

I was glad also to hear my hon. Friend refer to the need to enhance the beauty and wildlife variety of the countryside. I want to make a point about fauna in the 1986 Act and wildlife variety. It may well be covered by item 10 in schedule 1 to the regulations, but according to research that has been undertaken by the Game Conservancy in North Yorkshire 11 per cent. of the winter kill of the one bird that is unique to Great Britain—the red grouse—stems from birds flying into fences. That is in an area where fencing is decidedly limited, but the situation in the research areas of the Game Conservancy in Scotland is infinitely worse. The proportion of winter deaths in Scotland stemming from fencing is 26 per cent. That means that slightly more than a quarter of winter deaths in Scotland stem from birds flying into fences.
There is a solution to this: the attachment of reflective metal plates to fencing. I suspect that many hon. Gentlemen will have seen balls attached to electricity power lines. I do not know what they are called, but they look like balls. Their purpose is to enable the power lines to be seen by birds. The same is true of old telephone lines, to which corks are attached. There must be similar provision for the fencing of heather moorland if there is not to be a high death rate amongst red grouse, which is

279
not only a bird of considerable national interest but is unique to this country. It is also of great economic importance to the upland areas of the United Kingdom.
Will the cost of attaching reflective metal plates to fencing be covered by item 10 in schedule 1 which refers to
"Any work, facility or transaction … incidental to the carrying out of any work, facility or transaction specified in any of paragraphs 1 to 9 above"?
I hope that my hon. Friend can tell me that the cost of the plates or similar additions to fencing for the same purpose will be covered. There should be protection not only for red grouse but for other moorland birds that fly close to the ground and which can be carried away in a full gale such as there has been in the last few days. The cost must be covered if my hon. Friend is to live up to his desire to enhance the beauty and wildlife of the countryside and to the commitment in section 17 of the Agriculture Act 1986. I hope that my hon. Friend will give me a positive reply.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Mr. Roger Livsey.
12.1 am
Mr. Richard Livsey (Brecon and Radnor): Madam Deputy Speaker, you know that in this place I am either Roger or Doctor—
Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has film star good looks.
Mr. Livsey:—Doctor coming from "Treasure Island" and Roger coming from films of old.
I welcome the order concerned with the farm and conservation grant scheme 1989. It shows progress in Government policy. However, there are important points which affect the rural economy. When capital grant priorities pointed towards increased production, there was a pay-off in increased production and an improvement in farm incomes as a result. The change to farm pollution control and conservation is desirable, but unfortunately it will not have the same consequences for farm incomes. That is worrying from the point of view of keeping the rural economy and farms going, in particular in the less favoured areas.
It is against that background that the National Farmers Union has censured the Minister of Agriculture. Concurrent with these trends have emerged the lowest farm incomes in real terms since the second world war. Understandably, farmers are disturbed. There has been a great loss of capital grants which were oriented towards increased production. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) pointed out that there has been a drop from £217 million to £78 million. That is an awful lot of money to take out of the rural economy. We must remember that many of the upland areas are remote and that incomes on the farms are low. In addition, the earnings of people in the rural economies are extremely low. Many upland areas of Britain have the lowest disposable incomes in the whole country. That concerns us all.
Among the farmers in those areas are small farmers who are under intense pressure from the Government because of high interest rates. We all know that those high interest rates have been imposed by the Chancellor, because of the credit card spending spree in the high street. However, that bears no relationship to what is happening in rural Britain and the ability of farmers to achieve a realistic net income in order to stay afloat.
280
There are tremendous problems for farmers in attempting to stay afloat. About four years ago, my area of Powys was obtaining about £30 million-worth of capital grants. Of course, it is now receiving only a shadow of that sum. Money has been taken away not only from the farming community, but also from the contractors and other support groups in the industry. That together with the loss, for example, of the tax benefits for purchasing new machinery—where there was 100 per cent. dispensation at one time—has affected machinery dealers too. We must be careful how we approach this subject. Obviously, pollution control and conservation are important, but they bring with them problems. The principles, however, are certainly to be welcomed. Perhaps part of the problem is that there is not enough money on the table.
The support of native woodlands, heather moorlands and traditional buildings must be welcomed. However, the loss of grants for new farm buildings—which enabled increased production and, therefore, increased income on farms—needs to be considered further. Many of those buildings enabled farmers to increase their incomes. We must not forget that costs—especially fixed costs—are continually rising. The missing part of the jigsaw in the Government's present proposals must be the fact that the previous grants enabled higher incomes to be achieved.
I certainly agree with the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) that the reduction in grant aid from 60 to 50 per cent. for certain items in less favoured areas is regrettable. By their very description, those areas have far fewer options and therefore, need as much support as possible in order for the farms to remain viable.
I understand that there will be no more assistance for new drainage. I trust, however, that there will be some assistance for the maintenance of existing drainage, because many of the areas to which I have referred are high rainfall areas and, if the drains are not maintained, there will be a rapid reversion and the land will be less able to produce properly.
I was pleased to hear about the grants for orchard replanting and horticulture, and that there is some support for energy in those areas. As in other parts of the European Community, our horticulture has suffered grievously because of lack of support. Support, therefore, is something to be welcomed.
The problem is that the return on investment in farms at present is not that good, and, of course, that has not been helped by the interest rate increases. I believe that it should be possible to design environmentally friendly systems of farming which are also profitable. The Government, however, have cut research and development by £30 million, when, in fact, it should be expanded to cover different farming systems—ones which are profitable and will maintain the people on the land, but will also maintain the conservation of the countryside.
I particularly welcome the support for hedgerows, as I come from an area where they are cherished. The hedges in my area with their crop and pleach style are the finest in the land. They are superbly maintained and I am pleased that support will be given to them.
I am disappointed about the support for liming, which is put at 25 per cent. That is nothing like the support given when the lime subsidy was in operation. Liming not only increases productivity in an environmentally friendly manner, but assists in creating a buffer against the tremendous problems of acidity that exist in upland areas.

281
The Government should be encouraged to increase support for liming as it will have double effects and will considerably improve matters. There is no doubt that the pH levels in rivers, for example, have fallen dramatically since the mid-1970s as a result of the loss of liming subsidies.
In the final analysis we must ask whether the measures will assist the economic viability of our farms. I believe that they will not do enough. They will help to improve conservation efforts as they will support pollution control—there must be more enforcement of such policies—but they will not increase the viability of farms. The Ministry must now work hard to ensure that the farmers and their families will still be living on their farms in 20 years' time. That is what the National Farmers Union was complaining about today.
12.11 am
Mr. James Paice (Cambridgeshire, South-East): The measures are especially welcome as they signify a change in direction. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) said that he was sad that they will do nothing to improve farm income. While I sympathise with that, it would be rather strange if, at the very time the Government are leading the fight in Europe to deal with agricultural surpluses, we produced a profligate scheme to give money to farmers to invest in their farm structures.
The measures are important because they concentrate on some of the priority areas. I welcome the grants for horticulture, especially those relevant to the bulb production industry, which is important in my constituency and throughout many parts of the Fenlands and East Anglia. It is not often recognised that the British bulb industry is far larger than the Dutch industry and that we export a large number of bulbs to Holland.
I also welcome the grant enhancement for young farmers contained in regulation 10. About 14 years ago I represented British young farmers in Brussels and I worked on what was then known as the draft young farmer directive. Even though neither "young" nor "farmer" applies to me any more, it is nice to see that that directive—even at this late stage—is beginning to see the light of day.
Regulation 10 also allows enhanced grant to partnerships. It does not apply to existing limited partnerships that were devised simply as a way round the outdated tenancy laws—they are an anachronism in our free society. The grant applies to the true partnerships that are known in Europe, particularly in France, and in some parts of the United Kingdom. Under those partnerships, individuals join their farms to improve the efficiency of the total unit.
The most important part of the measures relates to conservation. All hon. Members want to see considerable increases in conservation schemes throughout the countryside. As the population becomes more prosperous, and leisure and travel become available to more people, everyone wants to see the countryside of their dreams, the countryside that they have read about and believe to exist. Thus, these measures, alongside the farm woodland scheme that has already been referred to, are very welcome. They are particularly apposite at present because farm incomes have been diminishing and are continuing to
282
diminish substantially, and income has become a negative factor for many farmers. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) implied that.
We cannot expect farmers to invest large sums of money in totally non-productive investments, such as conservation, however desirable and admirable an investment it might be generally for all of us. Despite what my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) said about capital value, conservation does not enhance farm incomes one iota. Therefore we must recognise that, if we want farmers to carry out conservation measures such as the creation of hedgerows, it can be done only with substantial grant encouragement from the Government. I welcome that very much.
As profits disappear, farmers will look increasingly to this sort of encouragement. This encouraging set of regulations reflects the changing times in agriculture, and I am very pleased to give it my support.
12.15 am
Mr. Andrew Welsh: I suppose that we should be grateful for any financial assistance to farming during a period of financial stress and change, but I must express some disappointment at these measures, especially given the major problems confronting agriculture. The proposals will do nothing to assist Scottish farmers who face bankruptcy due to bad weather, poor yields, annual price reductions and appallingly high interest rates. The regulations are designed to tease out further investment by farmers, but farmers have every right to be wary.
During the 1970s, farmers were consistently encouraged to borrow relatively large sums to invest in their businesses and become more efficient. The level of today's interest rates shows just how misguided that policy turned out to be. But what is worse is the prospect of untold damage being done to Scotland's rural economy if the Government continue to ignore the financial crisis in farming.
Unemployment and rural depopulation will inevitably increase if farms go under. Therefore, instead of paying chickenfeed subsidies for minor improvements, as in this measure, the Government should deal with the cripplingly high interest rate burden.
This small measure must be seen in the context of a commercial situation where our European farming competitors in West Germany and the Netherlands pay interest at less than half the rate facing our farmers—6 per cent. as against 13 per cent. Instead of promoting minor EEC measures such as the regulations, the Government should be encouraging more relevant and appropriate EEC action for our agriculture.
Has the Minister really looked at the index of average net farm incomes produced by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland? The index shows that since 1978, farm income has dropped in real terms by more than 35 per cent. Average net farm incomes outwith the dairy sector are well below the average in other sectors, and there is no sign of improvement.
How, then, will these farm and conservation grant measures stem that tide? That is the question facing the Minister early this morning. In promoting the grant scheme, the Government clearly have no understanding of the main factors involved in the rural income multiplier. Agriculture expenditure is the mainstay of many more jobs in distribution and the ancillary sectors.

283
To take just one example, under the regulations the 40 and 50 per cent. grants that will be available for tree planting in enclosed areas of grazed woodlands will do very little to get rid of the massive surplus of nursery stocks. Yet these are the very producers that the Government were addressing in their farm woodland scheme. They were supposed to assist in taking surplus land out of production, and they have been actively encouraged to expand by the Government.
After substantial disruption caused by changes in the forestry taxation regime, the Government have refused point blank to meet the industry to discuss any form of compensation to meet the present problems. The so-called adjustment or market correction process used recently by various Ministers is a euphemism for Government-induced disaster. Why will not the Government face up to their responsibilities in that matter?
In a letter to the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Horticultural Trades Association says:
"when the Farm Woodlands Scheme was first being considered, representatives of the nursery industry met with the Ministry of Agriculture to give assurances that stock would be available to meet the expected uptake in this planting season. Having now produced the trees, we are faced with minimal uptake at present and little likelihood of applications under the scheme being processed and approved in time for this season's programme."
In a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), a constituent says:
"We in the nursery trade have been led up a path to the wilderness. The Farm Woodland Scheme appears to be a total or near-total fiasco. I understand that the paper work is so complicated that it is a disincentive to anyone who may be interested and even for the keen it takes many months to have all paper work processed. It is all very disturbing."
I regret that the Minister seems to have abandoned the Front Bench. I should have liked him to listen to the final sentence written on behalf of people who are dealing with the industry. It says:
"There is no doubt in my mind but that the government haven't much of a clue as to the damage they are doing to our industry."
No wonder, when the Minister leaves the Front Bench to wander off to talk to other people. He should listen, perhaps even to his civil servants. It is in that context that the measures must be viewed and criticised. I welcome the Minister back.
On the credit side, the measure seeks to improve energy conservation in its proposal to supply wind or water pumps and generators, and investment in solar and other forms of energy saving. From an environmental angle I hope that the Government will consider giving at least 50 per cent. grants across the board for energy-saving devices instead of the paltry 15 and 25 per cent. proposed at present. That is inadequate for the task.
To ensure that the job is done properly greater incentives must surely be offered. For only a little investment substantial gains can be made in energy-saving devices, yet the proposal offers merely a token gesture in the direction of the long-term saving of energy costs which will be crucial to the industry's survival.
Similarly, the proposed field drainage and reseeding grants should be substantially increased, or an opportunity for reform will be lost. The measures are an opportunity missed and will be seen by the industry as no more than short-term palliatives which do not address the
284
real problems facing farmers in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom during a period of change and readjustment.
In short, I am disappointed with the package. It could have been so much better and I hope that the Minister will go back to Europe and argue the case better for the needs of our farmers.
12.23 am
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: We are running short of time so I shall be as quick as I can. First, I join my hon. Friends in congratulating my hon. Friend the Minister on introducing these suggestions into our legal system. I have a series of questions to put to him, which I shall fire one after the other and hope that he will have an opportunity to deal with them.
The first is a technical question. I am not at all clear why draft regulations from Europe and a statutory instrument should be laid before the House when both seem to cover almost entirely the same ground. As draft regulations from Europe go straight into our legal system without any need for ratification by the Government of the day, as I understand it, why do we need both? Why, apart from regulations 6 to 10, does the statutory instrument appear merely to parrot what the European regulations say? I should be grateful if my hon. Friend could explain why we need to introduce legislation in that dual form under our new status as a full member of the European Community.
I wish also to make one or two points about some of the proposals in the two papers.
I see that the schedule 1(1)(c) of the draft regulations there is a distinction between the grants to be given in shelter belts of broad-leaved trees and other shelter belts, the former being given a 40 per cent. grant and the others only 15 per cent. While I appreciate that broad-leaved trees are much more attractive in the countryside than some of the other shelter belts, as a practical farmer I must point out that it is often much more to the advantage of the farm and the livestock shelter to plant a quicker-growing shelter belt than the rather more attractive broad-leaved one. In cereal areas, where there will clearly be a need for new shelter belts when the cereal farmer tries to diversify into other forms of farming, I hope that the Government will see the sense of giving a larger grant for quick-growing shelter belts to enable that transition to be made more effectively.
In schedule 1(2), the enclosure of areas of grazed woodland is expressly mentioned as qualifying for the 40 per cent. grant. I am not clear as to the distinction between grazed woodland and non-grazed woodland. Will this cover only woodlands which are being deliberately grazed at the moment, or will it cover woodlands into which the animals can get willy-nilly but from which fencing would enable the farmer to exclude them? I very much hope that it will be the latter. Otherwise the application of this provision will be extremely limited and therefore of very narrow value.
With regard to schedule 1(5), concerning reinstatement of vernacular buildings, I associate myself with what the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) said. I believe that he is right to seek a balance between restoring agricultural buildings in the proper, old-fashioned materials and enhancing the property developer's profit when the buildings are turned over to the use of yuppies in the south-east of England. That balance must obviously be

285
found. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the way in which he handled the debate. It is always refreshing when the Opposition can join the Government and welcome proposals. It is always nice for the Opposition to get congratulations from the Conservative Benches—they wonder what they have done wrong. The points that the hon. Gentleman made in criticism will also find some sympathy on this side of the House. We must work together to ensure that the draft regulations come into our law in the proper form and give the maximum benefit to our farming community.
The next point that I wish to raise in detail concerns schedule 1(9). I see that it is only in Scotland that the making, improving or alteration of banks or channels of watercourses will be eligible for grant. Perhaps the Minister can tell me why the less fortunate areas in the rest of the United Kingdom are excluded when parts of the north, of Wales and of Northern Ireland are at least as liable to damage from flooding as parts of Scotland. I welcome the provision for Scotland, but I hope that we can find ways of extending it to other parts of the country.
I have one rather important query about the draft regulations. The explanatory note to the document says, in sub-paragraph (f), that in addition to all the things that we have already discussed today regulation 18 will confer rights of entry. I was not aware that we were talking about conferring rights of entry at all today and I would view with considerable suspicion new rights of entry being brought into our laws of trespass by such means. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to reassure me that no radical changes will be made by these regulations from Europe to the way in which the laws of England operate in relation to rights of entry and ownership.
12.29 am
Mr. John Home Robertson: I am sorry if the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) is alarmed by any aspect of the measures, which, as he pointed out, have been acknowledged by right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House as being at least a half-step in the right direction. It is a matter of some joy whenever the Government produce intervention or direct assistance; we keep asking them to do so in respect of other industries. We should be thankful for small mercies, and that the Government are still prepared to invest in rural areas through agriculture.
It is important to recognise the direct impact that such an investment incentive has on the rural economy, because the money is not going into farmers' pockets but must be spent immediately on employing people to carry out works in the rural economy—which, given the new thrust that the Minister outlined, will be completed in an environmentally sensitive manner.
I take the point of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) concerning drainage. The old under-drainage systems in the principal arable areas of the country are collapsing or silting up considerably more rapidly than they are being replaced. Further incentives are important to ensure that Britain's arable land is kept in a reasonable state and fit for cultivation. I wonder whether the grants will go far enough.
286
As to the repair and reinstatement of vernacular buildings, will the Minister confirm that grants can be extended to cover adaptations? It is no use restoring a cart shed that was designed 100 years ago for use by horses and carts, when it is impossible to get modern equipment into it. I hope that that measure can be interpreted reasonably flexibly.
The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) put his finger on a relevant point when he said that pure conservation investment is, ipso facto, unlikely to create any increase in the farmer's income. Grant regulation 6(1) states:
"An improvement plan shall not be approved under these Regulations unless the appropriate Minister is satisfied that the investments to be made under the plan are justified from the point of view of the situation of the agricultural business and its economy and that completion of the plan will bring about a lasting and substantial improvement of that situation, and in particular of the income per labour unit reasonably required in the carrying on of the business."
I do not see how it is possible to square that circle. I fear that a certain amount of fiction may have to be written in preparing investment plans, to make programmes eligible for the scheme. Nevertheless, I hope that the measures work—but I wish that they were rather more generous.
12.32 am
Mr. Ryder: We have had, as I expected, a well-informed debate on the scheme, and I am grateful for the generally warm welcome that it received. Right hon. and hon. Members raised a host of specific points, to which I shall endeavour to respond. If I do not cover them all in the short time remaining to me, I shall write to the right hon. and hon. Members concerned.
The Government recognise the special difficulties of hill farming and the important part that it plays in the economy and environment of the areas in question. That is why we are retaining an LFA differential across the board, apart from waste treatment and traditional buildings. It is also why we are careful to retain grants that are particularly important in LFAs—especially those for reseeding, regeneration, liming and fertilising. We are also introducing some new grants for heather moors, native woodlands, and repairs to vernacular buildings that should prove particularly helpful in the uplands.
Farmers in LFAs have had the benefit of 60 per cent. grants for three years since 1985. Over that period, we have contributed a great deal to the cost of conserving the uplands environment. The greatest pollution problems are associated with dairy farms, which are concentrated in the lowlands. The prime concerns for environmentalists have been the removal and neglect of lowland hedgerows, to which I referred, so, in my view, it makes sense to shift the balance of support in the way that I described.
The regulations cannot be amended. The scheme will be put through the formal EC approval procedures after the United Kingdom Parliament has approved it. But, as I have said previously, I am always ready to take up the views of hon. Members to take them into account for future purposes. We have had extensive discussions with the European Commission, which has indicated informally that the scheme conforms with Community rules.
It is recognised that the United Kingdom is breaking new ground in Europe, and we have probably set a lead which others will wish to follow. We shall still need to submit the scheme through the formal clearance procedures, but we have been grateful for the informal

287
guidance that the Commission has been able to offer and for its confirmation that it conforms with the necessary regulations.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) made an interesting speech. He was right to say that the scheme will be extended to Northern Ireland under a separate instrument. He asked whether there could be any help for farmers who had prepared but not submitted improvement plans. The closure regulation of necessity had to operate from a set date and it was inevitable that some would fall on the wrong side. We have accepted that where prior notification was required—as in, for example, national parks—notification can count as a plan submitted.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly raised the problem of pollution, and I, too, am concerned about that. I re-emphasise that our anti-pollution grants are running at about £50 million over three years, and I strongly support appropriate prosecutions against farmers causing pollution; legislation permits a maximum fine of £2,000 for each offence, plus clean-up costs.
The hon. Gentleman cast some doubt on the enclosure of native woodlands. There is a need for the new grant. Indeed, the RSPB pressed strongly for a fencing grant. The farm woodland scheme to which he referred is about planting trees for commercial timber production. The new grant that we have been discussing is about the better management of existing woodlands, irrespective of their value as timber.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly referred to the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy). I recognise the value of hedges as wildlife habitats and landscape features and their value for agricultural purposes, and I had discussions with the hon. Member for Wentworth as I said in a previous Question Time that I would.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) alluded to farm incomes. I remind him that the latest
288
economic forecasts show for the second year running an increase in incomes of livestock producers generally across less-favoured areas. Net farm incomes in the United Kingdom LFAs are forecast to be 7 per cent. higher in real terms in 1988–89, following an increase of 48 per cent. in 1987–88.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) asked about fencing to encourage the regeneration of heather moors and the possibility of reflective plates, and I shall consider that idea.
My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) spoke of the relationship between the regulations and the scheme. They are United Kingdom regulations; they are our detailed implementation of the more general rules in EC regulation 797/85. The scheme is similar because this is the other part of the farm and conservation grant scheme. He also questioned me about rights of entry. This is not a new right. It is a continuation of a right which was in the agriculture improvement scheme.
My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster asked about the exclusion of livestock from grazed woodland. The grant will cover woods used as shelter for livestock or for grazing. There is no specific requirement that this use shall be at a particular level before the grant will be paid. It is open to the farmer to decide whether stock are inhibiting regrowth and therefore whether fencing is necessary—
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 ( Exempted Business).
Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Farm and Conservation Grant Regulations 1989, which were laid before this House on 2nd February, be approved.
Resolved,
That the Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 128), a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd February, be approved.—[Mr. Ryder.]

Severn Bridge (Tolls)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]
12.39 am
Mr. Roy Hughes: I welcome the opportunity to raise again the issue of tolls on the Severn bridge. I note that the Minister for Roads and Traffic is to reply: I have nothing against him personally, but for me he is essentially the fall guy called upon to defend the indefensible. He is also essentially the voice of south-east England, with little understanding of the chronic problems of Wales.
The man who should be in the hot seat tonight is the Secretary of State for Wales. For the past 18 months or so he has been running around Wales telling us how marvellous he is, and of the miracles that he is performing. The truth, of course, is a little different. Two major collieries are scheduled for closure, Marine colliery in Ebbw Vale and Cynheidre in the Llanelli area. Last weekend we received the shattering news that the newly privatised British Steel was making over 1,000 people redundant. The Velindre steelworks at Swansea were to be closed completely; over 700 jobs would go there, and several hundred more in other steelworks in Wales.
The instant response from our Secretary of State was that we must attract new jobs, and one of the best ways of doing that is to get rid of tolls on the Severn bridge. The issue is vital to the future well-being of Wales: the bridge is our main access point in and out of Wales, and it is merely a short stretch of the M4.
Tolls are a major factor in hindering the economic development of Wales. This additional tax on our people is completely unjustified. For example, my constituents living in Caldicot will now have to earn more than £13 gross to pay £10 per week in toll charges when pursuing their employment on the other side of the channel. That is grossly unfair: it is a charge even before they get their cars out of the garage.
There are no tolls on the Avon bridge which serves nearby Bristol, our principal competitor in attracting new jobs. The old argument that vehicles could use other routes if they did not wish to use the Severn bridge is pretty ridiculous. Any significant increase in traffic in the Gloucester area now would cause chaos and a public outcry.
The Government tend to treat Wales as though it were the south-east of England, but our unemployment—even according to the official figures—is 9·5 per cent. I understand, however, that there have been no fewer than 24 changes in the method of compiling the statistics, and those changes have taken off the register many thousands of people perfectly capable of a normal day's work. Admittedly, the number of unemployed people has fallen in the past year or so, but we could ask who put it up in the first place. I feel that a little modesty in certain quarters would not go amiss. Even allowing for recent improvements, with the same method of compiling the statistics, unemployment is still roughly double what is was when Labour left office in 1979.
Unemployment is only one facet of our argument. Health problems in Wales compare unfavourably with just about any region. We have the highest proportion of pre-1918 housing and so many of those properties lack even basic amenities. I could say much more besides. It is
290
hardly the time for the Government to bring forward a proposal to double tolls on the Severn bridge, when logic demands that they should be abolished.
When we examine the finances of the bridge, the position becomes simply farcical. The total cost of building the Severn crossing, comprising the Severn bridge, the Wye bridge and viaduct and the approach roads with all ancillary equipment was £14,362,334. That figure includes £1,710,143 in respect of interest capitalised during construction. The bridge was opened in September 1966 by Her Majesty the Queen, since when, until 31 March 1988, £48,547,086 has been collected in tolls. The bridge was paid for originally out of the Consolidated Fund, so there was no bank loan, yet I am now told that the debt on the bridge was £85,469,667 at 31 March 1988. All those statistics are from very recent parliamentary answers. The basic figures are the cost of construction at about £14 million, the tolls collected at more than £48 million, and the debt of £85 million.
It has to be recognised that those figures are nearly 12 months out of date. To add insult to injury, I am told that the debt on the bridge will be finally discharged in 2006, if the Government's proposal to double the toll charges is carried through. In other words there are to be 40 years of a superimposed Government tax on a depressed region.
The Government have the cheek to blame the Labour Government. The Thatcher Administration has been in office for nearly 10 years, with a large majority throughout. The Labour party was elected at the end of 1964 with a wafer-thin majority. The legislation for the Severn bridge had already been prepared by the late Mr. Ernest Marples, the then Minister for Transport. Welsh Labour Members had earlier tended to dissociate themselves from the crossing project because of the imposition of tolls. Also, when Labour was in power, unemployment was minimal compared with what it has been in recent years—so the need to remove tolls was not so urgent.
Still, the principle of a toll-free bridge has always been relevant. In bygone years, our Welsh ancestors fought bitterly over a similar principle, and their fight was symbolised by the famous Rebecca riots.
In a letter to me dated 9 February, the Secretary of State for Wales said:
"the main demand is to proceed as quickly as possible with the building of a second crossing".
He went on:
"This we will do."
Yet the response of the Department of Transport has been ringed about with ifs, buts and maybes. It has repeatedly stated that a second crossing will be provided if traffic needs justify it and Parliament decides to build it.
Now there are weird Government plans for a privately funded project. The £200 million estimated cost would be attractive to a private developer only if tolls were sky-high. What if tolls on the new crossing are significantly higher than on the present bridge? Motorists would tend not to use the new private crossing. That provides us with a clue to the reason for the proposal to double charges on the existing bridge—to make the whole proposition more attractive to private capital. That is a cynical exercise on the part of the Government.
What is the state of the bridge? In an Adjournment debate a few years ago, I revealed the contents of a report that until then had been secret and which had been written by an internationally renowned firm of consulting

291
engineers on the state of the bridge. It painted a frightful picture. Subsequently, the Government announced that £33 million was to be spent on strengthening and maintenance work. The Minister told me in a parliamentary written answer on 31 January that £38·9 million had already been spent, and that the estimate for the whole works is now £70 million. Those figures do not say much for the forecasting or technical expertise of the Department.
Meanwhile we suffer perpetual hold-ups and lane closures, the costs of which to the economy of Wales must be astronomical. A few years ago, the situation was summed up by Mrs. Shelagh Salter, then the chairman of the Welsh Consumer Council. She said:
"We have been paying tolls every day but if the Sale of Goods Act applied to the Severn bridge we would be entitled to get our money back … It is neither fit for the purpose, nor of merchantable quality."
The public would certainly endorse those remarks.
Surely my request tonight is a reasonable one. Why cannot Wales, with all its economic and social problems, have a decent, toll-free crossing at its main access point? The motorist is contributing hand over fist in taxes between £16 million and £17 million in the current year, I understand. Less than a quarter of this will actually be spent on roads and maintenance. The Treasury, in this run-up period to the Budget, is awash with money. In February 1986, we had the report of the Select Committee on Transport. It called for the abolition of toll charges on estuarial crossings and set out clearly and simply how this could be brought about.
Vast sums of money have been written off by this Government in pursuit of and to facilitate their privatisation ventures. By comparison, the amount involved in writing off the debt on the Severn bridge is simply peanuts, but such a decision on the part of the Government would be a tremendous psychological boost to Wales, and soon the economic benefits would be self-evident.
12.56 am
The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Peter Bottomley): I congratulate the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) on making an extempore speech and for so nearly sticking to half the time available for this debate. I also recognise that he has raised this issue on many occasions. Perhaps I could also acknowledge the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Sir J. Stradling Thomas), who takes a keen interest, and I think has been acknowledged to do so, whether or not he has been in a position to speak.
I make it plain that the convention in Adjournment debates is that the hon. Member who is fortunate enough to be chosen in the ballot can speak, but I recognise my hon. Friend's interest, and also that of the hon. Member for Clywd, South-West (Mr. Jones) and, just in case there are toll bridges to come in Wells, my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory).
The totally unjustified attack by the hon. Member for Newport, East on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales makes it appear that the hon. Member believes that my right hon. Friend is a Labour Member and therefore the normal courtesies of the Labour party can be extended to him. I point out that he is actually a Conservative and he should be treated with courtesy.
292
The Severn bridge was opened and the tolls imposed when the Labour party was in government. The legislation governing the Secretary of State's power to levy tolls is the Severn Bridge Tolls Act 1965; that is a point which my hon. Friend for Monmouth would have made.
Section 1 gives the Secretary of State power to levy tolls subject to, and in accordance with, the other provisions of the Act. Sections 2 and 19 provide that he may make orders setting out toll levels for classes of vehicles. Section 3 prescribes the procedure for making orders. In particular, subsection (3) sets out the circumstances in which an inquiry is required. In the present case an inquiry is necessary because one has been demanded by several local authorities and representative objectors.
We must keep toll rates in perspective. When the bridge opened in September 1966 the toll paid by cars was 2s. 6d. That is not quite, but almost, equivalent to the £1 now proposed for cars. We must not forget that there have been only two increases in tolls since the bridge opened, one in 1979 and the other in 1985. The increase now proposed is in line with the Government's intentions to bring to an end the spiral of rising debt on the Severn bridge. Without an increase, debt would rise to abut £400 million by the end of the tolling period in the year 2006. That would be wholly unacceptable. The proposals are designed to enable all debts to be repaid over the period of 40 years that was envisaged by the Labour Government who enacted the legislation in 1965.
This is a rather inopportune moment for the hon Member for Newport, East to raise the question of tolls on the Severn bridge. As he well knows, a public inquiry into the proposed toll increase starts next Tuesday, 21 February. The House will appreciate that I cannot speculate about the results of the inquiry. To do so would prejudice the role of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State who must determine the outcome of the inquiry, having considered the report of the independent inspector and all the evidence put before him. I intend, therefore, to be careful about my remarks.
On a personal basis, may I say that if we had a Labour Government and if there were many talented Welsh Labour Members of Parliament, with the hon. Member for Newport, East being appointed a Minister with responsibility for issues affecting London, I do not think that I should insult him by making remarks of the kind that he made about me and Wales. The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that in 1968 I was in industrial relations with the Steel Corporation and was concerned with the R, T and B works—and, for that matter with Velindre as well.
I ought also to say that I go to Wales as often as I can to see the Severn bridge and to keep in contact with the police services in Wales that have done much by leading the battles for road casualty reductions. On both the economic and life-saving factors that affect Wales I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who can speak with such fluency about them, but it might be a courtesy and a kindness if he were to acknowledge that we live in the united kingdom and that there are many Welsh people who have an interest in England and that there are many English people who have an interest in Wales.
The hon. Gentleman has received and no doubt read the Department's published statement of reasons for the forthcoming inquiry. Copies have been placed in the Library. We have outlined the Government's policy

293
towards tolling estuarial crossings, the legislation under which the toll increase is proposed, the history of tolling on the bridge and the justification for the proposed increase.
At the pre-inquiry meeting on 17 January, which the hon. Gentleman did not attend, the inspector made it clear that although he would report to the Secretary of State any views expressed at the inquiry, it would not be for him to make recommendations that related to the merits of Government policy. We can now look at that policy and at how little it has changed over the years, including the years when the Labour party formed the Government. It should enable the hon. Gentleman to resist the temptation to make too much of the matter at the public inquiry.
This Government's policy towards the tolling of estuarial crossings was set out in a memorandum submitted by the Department of Transport to the Select Committee on Transport in April 1985. The memorandum noted:
"Over the past 30 years successive governments have justified the policy of charging tolls on major estuarial crossings on the grounds of the high cost of provision and the exceptional benefits to users conferred by large reductions in journey lengths and times except where tolls would cause substantial diversion of traffic to alternative, untolled routes."
Section 4 of the 1965 Act provides for a toll period of 40 years, with the possibility of extensions for periods of five years. It also sets limits on the tolls that may be levied. In particular, subsection (2) says:
"In the exercise of his powers under section 2 of this Act the Secretary of State shall not specify scales of tolls exceeding those which in his opinion would be requisite to ensure that, taking one year with another, the revenue produced by the tolls during the toll period, if applied for the purposes mentioned in Schedule 2 to this Act, would be sufficient, but not more than sufficient, for those purposes."
Schedule 2 specifies the purposes to which toll revenue may be applied. These include the repayment, with interest, of the construction cost of the bridge and of any additions or improvements carried out during the toll period. It further provides for the defrayment of all expenditure incurred during the toll period on the operation, maintenance, repair or renewal of the bridge and the provision for defrayment after the end of the toll period of likely expenditure on the maintenance, repair or renewal of the bridge.
The bridge was built from national funds, but in order to set a limit on the power to levy tolls the 1965 Act introduced the concept of users paying for it as if the bridge had been built by means of a loan. On 1 December 1964, during the debate on the Ways and Means resolution on the Severn bridge, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Mr. MacDermot, said:
"the intention is that tolls should cover amortisation of the capital cost over a period of 30 to 40 years, with interest, and also the maintenance costs of the bridge and the cost of collection."—[Official Report, 1 December 1964; Vol 703, c. 413.]
I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's interests in this matter. I note that the Welsh Nationalists do not appear to be here, nor do the Social and Liberal Democrats, and I am not certain that we have maintained the interest of the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West. But perhaps I should let that pass.
It has since been the objective of successive Secretaries of State that, so far as reasonably possible, the toll levels should be such that revenue will be sufficient to meet, over
294
a 40-year period, the expenses set out in schedule 2. In practice, the toll levels set in the past have proved insufficient to meet that objective.
It is quite clear that successive Governments since the war have pursued a consistent policy in relation to the tolling of estuarial crossings, including the Severn bridge. There are those who will argue that nothing should ever be tolled and that tolls are inappropriate on trunk roads and motorway crossings. These views were expressed by the Transport Committee in 1986 in its report on tolled crossings. The hon. Member is clearly in sympathy with them.
The Government's policy is quite clear. We said in our response to the second report of the Transport Committee:
"The Government does not accept the Select Committee's view that tolls are inappropriate on trunk road and motorway crossings. The provision of adequate estuarial crossings is a costly matter; where they offer a substantial time and cost saving to users, like the Severn Bridge and the Dartford Tunnels, the Government considers it appropriate for users to contribute directly to the cost through tolls.
The Government is also unable to accept that it should write off or discharge the debts of tolled crossings. It does not regard tolls as unfair, and it takes the view that there are more pressing demands on its resources."
We said that we were willing to consider reasoned argument for special treatment in particular cases. We did not accept that the write-off or discharge of all debt was justified.
In that response to the Select Committee's report the Government made it clear that they considered the Humber bridge to be a special case. We are currently considering a report by the inspector into proposals by the Humber Bridge Board for a toll increase. When that has been decided by the Secretary of State we shall consider the carefully reasoned case submitted by the Humber Bridge Board for writing off a proportion of that bridge's debts which cannot be met from tolls or other sources of revenue available to it under the Humber Bridge Act. As we said in our response to the Transport Committee, most crossings should prove to be viable under prudent financial management. That would certainly seem to be true of the Severn bridge.
Directly after the 1979 toll increase the annual deficit, which reflected the system of amortisation or capitalising the debts of the Severn bridge, fell. From 1980–81 onward, toll revenue has been insufficient to cover operating costs, and debts therefore continued to grow. It was clear that a further toll increase was required, especially in view of the need to provide for a substantial part of the cost of repair and strengthening works required on the bridge.
In successive reports on the Severn bridge account the Comptroller and Auditor General has drawn attention to the accumulating deficiencies on the account, having regard to the objective of recovering the total deficit over 40 years after the opening of the bridge. The debt to the Consolidated Fund had reached £46 million at 31 March 1984, and then increased by £10 million in each of the succeeding two years, to bring the total to over £65 million at March 1986. This figure had increased to nearly £77 million at March 1987, and to £85 million at March 1988.
Our current proposals for a toll increase have been embodied in a draft Severn Bridge Tolls Order, which, if made, will revoke the current order of 1985. The draft order proposes an increase in tolls for cars from 50p to £1, and for buses, coaches and goods vehicles having an unladen weight in excess of 1·525 tonnes an increase in tolls from £1 to £2.

295
I should say something about the second Severn bridge. On 28 July 1988 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced the next step in the provision of this crossing, so we will be in a position to provide the bridge by the mid-1990s, if the traffic justifies it. We are well up to programme and hope shortly to announce a shortlist of companies who will be invited to tender. The construction of this second crossing will require new legislation. It has not been taken into account in considering the need for a tolls increase on the existing bridge.
The House will probably be grateful to the hon. Member for allowing some of these points to be made, but
296
he will understand that I have not spoken with quite my normal articulation—though. I am not sure that "articulation" is the word for a Transport Minister. I repeat that I welcome the fact that the hon. Member instigated the debate. He may have been outnumbered three to one—leaving aside yourself, Madam Deputy Speaker—by the Conservatives who are interested in the subject. I think we should look forward to the inquiry and to the results that will follow from it when the Secretary of State has been able to consider the inspector's report.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past One o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  AIDS
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has made an assessment of the stability of the sub-Saharan countries under the long-term impact of AIDS.

  Mr. Eggar
  Research into the long-term demographic, social and economic consequences of AIDS are being financed under the overseas aid programme. We are also providing support through the World Health Organisation to those countries affected by the disease.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiatives under article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty 1986 are planned by Her Majesty's Government with regard to United Kingdom nuclear weapons, in advance of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty 1990 review conference.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Minister of State on 8 December 1988, at column 316.

  Council of Europe
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government plans to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Council of Europe during 1989.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We will be represented at the 40th anniversary celebration of the Council of Europe on 5 May 1989. A postmark bearing the Council of Europe's slogan will be in use in Mount Pleasant sorting office for four weeks from 1 May 1989. We are considering what else might be done to mark this anniversary.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Trees
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Attorney-General if the Lord Chancellor will draw the Magistrates' Association's attention to the requirement for the courts to have regard to any financial benefit which may accrue, or appear likely to accrue, to offenders convicted of unauthorised felling of a protected tree; and if he wil make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The possibility of benefit is a matter which magistrates should take into account in such cases. The Lord Chancellor, in his capacity as president of the Magistrates' Association, will take the opportunity of referring to this matter, and expressing his personal views on it, on a suitable occasion when addressing members of the association.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what is the total annual cost of written parliamentary questions each year since 1979; how such a figure is calculated; and what is the average cost per hon. Member in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Records of the total cost of answering parliamentary questions are not kept and details of the average cost per hon. Member are not, therefore, available. However, an assessment is made of the average cost of answering a written question. This average figure is updated regularly and currently stands at £51. The calculation is based on a sample of staff time using average rates of pay and associated costs (such as national insurance and superannuation) for the Civil Service grades concerned and substantive non-staff costs such as computer usage.

  Paper Products
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make it his policy to buy chlorine-free recycled paper products for the House.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Responsibility for monitoring the safety and health aspects of paper products supplied to the House lies with Her Majesty's Stationery Office. There is no reason to believe that its present policy in this respect is in need of change.

TRANSPORT

  Trunk Roads
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many single carriage equivalent miles of trunk roads his Department will have renewed in the year 1988–89.

  Mr. Bottomley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) on 8 December 1988, at column 243.

  Cherished Number Plates
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether his Department auctions cherished number plates on newly issued registered numbers 1 to 40.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Not at present. Proposals for selling attractive registration marks are being prepared. Auctions, and sales of new year-letter numbers in the series 1–20 which are currently not issued, are both under consideration.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the estimated costs of administration, per vehicle registered, of road fund licences issued in the most recent year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Registration, licensing and taxation of vehicles forms part of the same administrative
  109
  process. The total cost of that process in 1987–88 was £108·3 million. Thirty-three million vehicle licences were issued in that year; there were also 20 million other vehicle transactions, such as new registration documents issued.

  Driving Licences
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, if he will publish the estimated costs of administration, per licence issued, of driving licences in Great Britain in 1987–88.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The overall cost of administration of the driver licensing system in 1987–88 results in an average cost of £3·24 per driving licence issued.

  Merchant Fleet Tonnage
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will be revising his assessment of the merchant fleet tonnage emergency requirements, in the light of the further loss of North sea output from the Fulmar Auk and Clyde oilfields in December 1988.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I have been asked to reply.

  No. The temporary loss of North sea output in peacetime would not affect the merchant tonnage needed to service the North sea in wartime.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Lancashire Constabulary
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many police posts have been civilianised by Lancashire constabulary since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the chief constable of Lancashire that 235 police posts have been civilianised in this period.

  Naturalisation
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many naturalisation applications are at present outstanding; and how many of these applications were made one or more years ago.

  Mr. Renton
  Precise figures are not available. Estimates suggest that around 80,000 applications for naturalisation are now outstanding, of which about three quarters were made over a year ago.

  Crime Statistics
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what have been the crime clear-up rates for the area covered by Lincolnshire constabularly for each of the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The recorded clear-up rate in the Lincolnshire constabulary was 49 per cent. in 1983, 35 per cent. in 1984 and 42 per cent. in 1985. From 1986 the information is published annually in table 2.18 of "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales".

  Civil Defence
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to issue guidance on 110
  planning for the National Health Service in war for inclusion in current emergency planning guidance to local authorities.

  Mr. John Patten
  Revised guidance on civil defence planning was issued by the Department of Health and Social Security to the National Health Service in July 1988. The guidance was also circulated to all local authorities in England and Wales. The substance of the guidance will be incorporated shortly in the emergency planning guidance to local authorities.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Don Valley of 7 December 1988,Official Report, column 205, if he will give details of the amounts of capital expenditure by the United Kingdom warning and monitoring organisation since 10 July 1987; and if he will give details of the purposes to which such expenditure was put; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  Capital expenditure by the United Kingdom warning and monitoring organisation since 10 July 1987, when my right hon. Friend announced a review of warning and monitoring arrangements, has been limited to items essential to the maintenance of the organisation's effectiveness and readiness for operation. The carrier warning system was completed with expenditure of £2·1 million, automatic telephone exchanges were installed in operational controls at a cost of £1·75 million, and building projects amounted to £0·43 million.

  Missing Persons
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consult the appropriate police authorities concerning increased police liaison with Interpol in respect of persons missing in the United Kingdom and wanted in connection with criminal inquiries.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No. I refer the hon. Member to the reply to his question on 19 December 1988, at column 144.

  Voting Rights
  Mr. Thorne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he hopes, with the aid of modern technology, to be able to give service personnel the right to vote by post.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Service personnel may vote in person or by post or by proxy if they are living in the United Kingdom. Service personnel overseas must vote by proxy, because the Representation of the People Act 1983 does not permit ballot papers to be sent outside the United Kingdom. To be useful, alernatives or new aids provided by modern technology to the letter post would need to be consistent with the arrangements for the secrecy of the ballot.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) blacks, (b) Asians, (c) men and (d) women are currently serving in (i) the Metropolitan police, (ii) other police forces, (iii) the prison service and (iv) the probation service.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The available information is as follows:
  111

  Police

  Officers1

  Men

  Women

  Metropolitan Police (as at 5 February 1989)

  414

  24,788

  3,220

  Other police forces (as at 30 November 1988)

  769

  87,000

  9,929

  1 From ethnic minorities.

  Person Services

  Of some 11,500 members of the service (including staff in headquarters and regional offices) who responded to a survey in 1986, 111 stated that they were of ethnic minority origin. The results of a more recent survey of those who did not respond are currently being analysed. Information on the number of women and men in the service is not immediately available.

  Probabtion Service

  Information on the ethnic composition of the probation service derives from a survey as at 31 December 1987. Of all employees 330 were recorded as Afro-Caribbean or Other Black and 86 as Asian. Because of the extent of non-recording these figures are minima.

  As at 30 September there were 3,811 men and 2,972 women (whole-time and part-time) in the probation officer grades.

  Broadcasting (Training)
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what information he has on the level of expenditure on training made by(a) the BBC and (b) ITV companies in each of the last five years;

  (2) what provision he intends to make for training by (a) the BBC and (b) ITV companies after 1992;

  (3) if he has any plans to bring forward proposals for training in broadcasting.

  Mr. Renton
  No information is available centrally on expenditure incurred on training by the BBC and ITV companies. It is for the broadcasting industry to provide its training, and there are no plans for Government intervention.

  Television Licences
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the estimated costs of administration, per licence issued, of television licences in Great Britain in 1987–88.

  Mr. Renton
  The figure for the United Kingdom is £3·15, exclusive of VAT. A separate figure for Great Britain is not available.

  Metropolitan Police
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what will be the total cost to public funds of the Metropolitan police in 1989–90; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  As police authority for the metropolis I have approved estimates which provide for net revenue expenditure by the Metropolitan police of £1,082·391 million in 1989–90, an increase of 7·7 per cent. on the expenditure I approved for 1988–89. This will be a cash limit.

  The increase in expenditure is largely to meet increased manpower costs including the extra 300 police officers and 250 civilian staff which I announced on 30 January.

  I have also authorised the issue of a precept requiring rating authorities to levy rates at 18·88p in the pound for Metropolitan police purposes. This is an increase of 14·4 per cent. on the 1988–89 precept of 16·5p.
  112
  The precept has been affected by block grant payments to the Metropolitan police due in 1989–90. The Metropolitan police are subject to the same block grant arrangements as local authorities and like them benefits from block grant in some years more than others. Although the Metropolitan police will receive over £9 million less in block grant in 1989–90, overall, London will receive £175 million more.

  Viraj Mendis
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the costs of the operation by police and immigration service officers to seize Mr. Viraj Mendis; and by whom these costs will be borne.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 25 January 1989]: Additional costs of the operation were in the region of £5,000, of which about £1,100 were police costs and about £3,900 immigration service and prison department costs. For this purpose the operation includes the removal of Mr. Mendis from the church; escorting him to London; his detention for two nights at Her Majesty's prison Pentonville; and his deportation under escort to Sri Lanka. Normal police funding arrangements apply to the additional police costs. Immigration service and prison department costs are borne by the Home Office.

THE ARTS

  Disabled People
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts(a) how many civil servants and (b) what percentage of the total number of civil servants in the Office of Arts and Libraries were registered disabled in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Luce
  There are at present no registered disabled persons in the Office of Arts and Libraries. The Departments for which I am responsible continue to pursue opportunities to employ people with disabilities.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  IMF
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many occasions since becoming Chancellor he has met representatives of the International Monetary Fund in London; and if he will list the individuals who were present, the date and the topic discussed on each occasion.

  Mr. Lilley
  Since becoming Chancellor, my right hon. Friend has met representatives of the International Monetary Fund on six occasions:

  Representatives

  Date

  Mr. P. de Fontenay, Mr. H. Vittas

  9 December 1983

  Mr. H. Schmitt, Mr. H. Vittas

  10 December 1934

  Mr. P. de Fontenay

  13 December 1985

  Mr. P. de Fontenay, Mr. H. Vittas

  28 November 1986

  Mr. M. Russo, Mr. H. Vittas

  27 November 1987

  Mr. M. Russo, Mr. B. Smith

  2 December 1988

  The discussions have covered United Kingdom economic developments and policies in the context of the fund's annual article IV review of the United Kingdom's economic policies.
  113
  In addition, my right hon. Friend has met the managing director of the International Monetary Fund in London on four occasions. He met the then MD, Mr. J. de Larosiere on 28 June 1983, 17 April 1984 and 3 February 1986 to discuss a wide range of international economic issues and met the current MD, Mr. M. Camdessus on 11 May 1988 on the occasion of the United Kingdom's formal agreement to a contribution to the IMF's enhanced structural adjustment facility (ESAF).

  GNP
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the gross national product has been received by the Exchequer in each year since 1979; from which sources it came; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Major
  The information on receipts by the Government can be found in "Financial Statistics" tables 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3. Figures for GDP are shown in Economic Trends, table 2.

  East Midlands Business Survey
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received a copy of the half yearly east midlands business survey commissioned by Price Waterhouse and the business school of Trent polytechnic; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Major
  The recently published east midlands business survey confirms that the region shares in the strong economic performance of the country as a whole. In particular, the survey highlights the high percentage of businesses expecting to increase capital investment and to take on more employees in the next six months.

  Public Sector Debt
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the effect on the monetary aggregates of public sector debt repayment in 1988.

  Mr. Lilley
  The Government's policy is to fund fully the net total of maturing debt, the PSBR and any underlying change in foreign exchange reserves by sales of debt outside the banking and building society sectors. This policy neutralises the impact of the public sector on the monetary system. The progression from public sector borrowing to the net repayment of public sector debt does not affect this. Should the net total be negative "unfunding" is required, that is, the Government make purchases of debt.

PRIME MINISTER

  Clifton-on-Dunsmore
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to visit Clifton-on-Dunsmore, near Rugby.

  The Prime Minister
  I have at present no plans to do so.

  Senior Private Secretary
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make it her policy to introduce Civil Service regulations whereby no civil servant shall occupy a post of a senior private secretary in No. 10 Downing street for a period of more than three years.
  114
  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Retirement
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps she proposes to take to implement the concept of the decade of retirement, outlined in the Government's Green Paper, Cmnd. 9517, of June 1985.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) on 18 January 1988, at column 246.

  Central Statistical Office
  Mr. Fishburn
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list the budget for and the number of people employed by the Central Statistical Office over the past five years.

  The Prime Minister
  The net expenditure of the Central Statistical Office for each of the financial years 1984–85 to 1988–89 and the number of staff employed at 1 April in each year are given in the table:

  Financial year

  Number of staff

  Net expenditure £ million

  1984–85

  191

  3·8

  1985–86

  187

  3·3

  1986–87

  1200

  3·5

  1987–88

  173

  3·0

  1988–89

  160

  3·2

  1 Twenty-five computer staff were transferred to Treasury between 1 April 1986 and 1 April 1987.

  Mr. Fishburn
  To ask the Prime Minister what funds have been spent by the Central Statistical Office buying in statistical services or market research from the private sector.

  The Prime Minister
  In the past, CSO has spent very little on buying in statistical or market research services. In 1988ߝ89 it expects to spend around £1,000. However, in 1989–90, a programme of external studies and research into problem areas of the national accounts undertaken by individuals and organisations in the private sector amounting to over £100,000 has been planned.

  Mr. Fishburn
  To ask the Prime Minister what income was generated last year by the Central Statistical Office from the commercial sale of its services to the private sector.

  The Prime Minister
  Information is not available in the precise form requested. In 1987–88 total income to the CSO from the sale of publications was £314,000. In the same year sales to the private sector from the CSO commercial databank service generated £34,000.

  Pensioners
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will appoint a Minister for pensioners' affairs.

  The Prime Minister
  Pensioners' affairs already fall within the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Social Security.

  Mr. Rupert Murdoch
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list the occasions since 1979 when she has met Mr. Rupert Murdoch at No. 10 Downing street.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) on 13 February 1989, at column 1.

  Engagements
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 February.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 February.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 February.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 February.

  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 February.

  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 February.

  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 February.

  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 February.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 February.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 February.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 February.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty The Queen.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Capital Allocations (Nottinghamshire)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from Nottinghamshire county council regarding(a) the adequacy of the 1989 capital allocations and (b) a meeting to discuss the above.

  Mr. Butcher
  My right hon. Friend has received a letter from the chairman of the education committee of 116
  Nottinghamshire county council setting out the committee's views on the capital allocation for 1989–90 and seeking to bring a deputation to discuss this allocation covering both county and aided schools. I will be writing shortly to arrange a meeting with interested parties from Nottinghamshire.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is capital allocation to Nottinghamshire county education authority for(a) county schools, (b) aided schools and (c) any other categories; and what is the total allocation for each of the years since 1979 indexed using 1979 prices as a base of 100.

  Mr. Butcher
  Nottinghamshire's total prescribed capital allocation for education for the financial year 1989–90 is £3,215,000. Of this, £3,128,000 was notionally allocated for county and controlled schools. In addition, £237,000 was allocated for governors' expenditure at aided and special agreement schools within Nottinghamshire.

  The information requested for the total allocations from 1981–82 to 1989–90 is set out on the table. Before 1981–82 local education authorities did not receive block allocations but were notified annually, in the context of a rolling programme, of a limit on the value of building starts in the following year.

  TABLE: Capital allocations1 to Nottinghamshire for 1981–82 to 1989–90

  (all figures in £ thousands)

  Year

  Allocations for Governors' expenditure at aided and special agreement schools

  Prescribed expenditure allocations (schools and further and higher education)

  Cash prices

  Constant prices2

  Cash prices

  Constant prices2

  1981–823

  —

  —

  6,756

  6,756

  1982–83

  259

  242

  4,903

  4,576

  1983–84

  619

  553

  2,493

  2,225

  1984–85

  190

  161

  2,666

  2,265

  1985–86

  22

  18

  3,421

  2,758

  1986–87

  66

  51

  3,043

  2,374

  1987–88

  322

  239

  2,379

  1,763

  1988–89

  203

  142

  2,461

  1,716

  1989–90

  237

  157

  3,215

  2,136

  Notes:

  1 The allocations shown are those announced before the start of the financial year in question and do not include subsequent revisions.

  2 Calculated at 1981–82 prices using the GDP deflator.

  3 Allocations for aided schools in 1981–82 were made on a different basis from those for later years and have therefore been omitted.

  School Meals
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish figures showing the estimated cost of providing free school meals to(a) pupils and (b) teachers in (i) 1970–71, (ii) 1979–80 and (iii) 1984–85.

  Mr. Butcher
  The available information is given in the table.
  117

  Estimated cost1 of free school meals—England

  £ million

  1970–71

  1979–80

  1984–85

  cash terms

  1984–85 real terms

  cash terms

  1984–85 real terms

  cash terms

  Net cost of all meals

  82

  396

  409

  626

  432

  Cost of free meals to

  pupils

  n/a

  n/a

  106

  163

  198

  teachers

  n/a

  n/a

  25

  38

  30

  1 The gross expenditure by local education authorities on all meals has been apportioned to the two categories in the ratio of the number of meals taken by each group to the total number of meals taken by paying and free pupils and adults.

  Note: The figures for the earlier years have been converted to 1984–85 real terms using the gross domestic product (market prices) deflator.

  It is not possible to give a full set of figures for 1970–71 because the number of meals served to adults, including teachers, is not available.

  Leigh and Bransford School
  Mr. Temple-Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to be able to announce his conclusions regarding the public inquiry concerning access and other matters relating to Leigh and Bransford primary school, Worcester, held on 12 September 1988.

  Mr. Butcher
  My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and Science and for Transport are in the final stages of consideration of the public inquiry concerning compulsory purchase orders relating to the new site for and access to the combined Bransford primary school and Leigh Sinton Church of England (voluntary controlled) school and they expect to announce a decision very shortly.

  Council of Europe Anniversary
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science in what ways his Department is intending to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Council of Europe in schools during 1989; and if the Council of Europe's special teaching kit is to be used.

  Mr. Jackson
  My Department intends to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Council of Europe in schools by issuing a letter to chief education officers, drawing their attention to the programme of events which has been arranged and sending them sufficient copies of the materials now being prepared by the council for distribution to secondary schools and further education colleges in England and Wales.

  Student Awards
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will publish tables to show the number of discretionary awards to students attending(a) drama schools, (b) dance schools, and (c) art colleges, made by each local education authority in England and Wales in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Jackson
  This information is not available centrally.

  Theatre in Education
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has on the local education authorities in England and Wales which give financial support to theatre in education companies.
  118
  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information for England is not collected centrally. Provision in Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Education Reform
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what guidance he has given to local education authorities as to who is responsible for meeting legal costs of school governors involved in litigation relating to opting-out procedures or other litigation arising out of the Education Reform Act 1988.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Department wrote to the chief education officers of all local education authorities in England on 13 February on the question, inter alia, of costs relating to legal action against governors in connection with applications for grant-maintained status under the Education Reform Act 1988. The relevant paragraph stated:"This is a matter which could only be determined finally by the Courts. But the Secretary of State's view is that, where the governing body has acted in good faith in pursuance of its duties, any legal costs it may incur in such circumstances would qualify as part of the expenses of running the school to be defrayed by the local education authority in accordance with section 114(2) of the Education Act 1944. The costs would therefore fall to be met by the local education authority: there would be no personal liability on individual governors".

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the names, the areas and type of those schools in respect of which he has received a notification concerning a governors' resolution or parent petition for a ballot for a grant-maintained school.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  There is no duty on governors to notify the Department when ballots on grant-maintained status are pending. Ballots have been completed at 29 schools. In addition, the Department is aware that governors have passed the necessary two resolutions, or have received a written request from parents, in respect of the following schools:

  School and LEA

  Character (county school unless otherwise indicated)

  Beechen Cliff School, Bath, Avon

  Comprehensive Boys—11–18

  Claremont High School, Harrow, Brent

  Secondary Mixed—11–18

  Chesterfield School, Derbyshire

  Comprehensive Boys—13–18

  St. Helena School, Chesterfield, Derbyshire

  Comprehensive Girls—13–18

  Foster's Grammar School for Boys, Sherborne, Dorset

  Grammar Boys—11–18

  119

  School and LEA

  Character (county school unless otherwise indicated)

  Lord Digby's Grammar School for Girls, Sherborne, Dorset

  Grammar Girls—11–18

  Ribston Hall High School, Gloucester

  Grammar Girls—11–18

  Marling Grammar School, Stroud, Gloucester

  Grammar Boys—11–18 voluntary-controlled

  Stroud Grammar School, Stroud, Gloucester

  Grammar Girls—11–18 voluntary-controlled

  Gaynes Comprehensive School, Upminster, Havering

  Comprehensive Mixed—11–18

  Hadham Hall School, Herts.

  Secondary Mixed—11–18

  Cardinal Vaughan Memorial School, Hammersmith and Fulham (ILEA)

  Secondary RC Boys—11–18 voluntary-controlled

  Weald of Kent Grammar School for Girls, Tonbridge, Kent

  Grammar Girls—11–18

  Castle Hall Middle School, Mirfield, Kirklees

  Middle—9–13

  Ruffwood Comprehensive School, Kirkby, Knowsley

  Comprehensive Mixed—11–19

  Bacup and Rawtenstall Grammar School, Lancs.

  Grammar Mixed—11–18

  St. Francis Xavier RC Comprehensive School, Liverpool

  Comprehensive Boys—11–18 voluntary-aided

  Chichele School, Rushden, Northants.

  Secondary Girls—11–18

  Siddal Moor High School, Heywood, Rochdale

  Secondary High Mixed—11–18

  The Guildford County School, Surrey

  Secondary Mixed—12–18

  Droylsden County High School, Tameside

  Comprehensive Girls—11–16

  Hindley Park High Community School, Wigan

  Comprehensive Mixed—11–16

  Under-fives
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to his reply of 6 February to the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East,Official Report, column 462, what has been the total annual amount of grant related expenditure in respect of the additional educational needs of under-fives in each year from 1976–77 to 1988–89, in cash and real terms.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information is not available in the form requested. The table shows the grant-related expenditure for nursery education in England from the start of the current local government finance system. The additional educational needs element of nursery education forms approximately half of the control total. Expenditure on under-fives in primary classes does not fall within the control total for grant related expenditure for nursery education, but is contained within the overall grant related expenditure for primary education.

  Grant related expenditure assessment for nursery education

  £ million

  Cash

  At 1987–88 prices

  1981–82

  129·3

  174·5

  1982–83

  122·6

  154·4

  1983–84

  134·6

  162·1

  1984–85

  153·4

  175·9

  1985–86

  152·2

  165·6

  1986–87

  160·3

  168·8

  1987–88

  185·0

  185·0

  1988–89

  220·6

  207·6

  1989–90

  262·0

  234·8

  Private Sector (Grant-aid)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the total cost to his Department of grant-aid schemes to the private education sector for the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Butcher
  My Department's Votes cover expenditure in England on the assisted places scheme and the music and ballet scheme. The information requested is as follows:

  Total Department of Education and Science expenditure Financial year 1987–88

  £ million

  Assisted Places Scheme

  46·04

  Music and Ballet Scheme

  3·56

  Total

  49·60

  University Grants Committee
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will announce the recurrent grants allocated to universities for the academic year 1989–90 by the University Grants Committee.

  Mr. Jackson
  The University Grants Committee's initial allocation of recurrent grant to universities in the academic year 1989–90 is shown in the table. Responsibility for making the payments will fall to the UGC's successor body, the Universities Funding Council, whose chairman has accepted the announced distribution. Copies of the general letter of guidance that the chairman of the UGC has sent to all universities have been placed in the Library of the House. The general letter will be followed within the next few weeks by a set of institutional annexes providing further details for individual universities. The annexes will also be placed in the Library.

  The total grant distributed by the UGC as announced in the table does not include items which it is the UGC's practice to allocate separately, such as local authority rates and the overseas research student awards scheme. These items amount to £140 million. Nor does the distribution include provision which is to be allocated separately in the targeted programme of restructuring for which my right hon. Friend has provided £184 million over four years.

  The distribution does not include the £67 million third instalment of additional funding in the financial year 1989–90 towards the cost of the 1987 academic pay restructuring settlement. The release of this funding will be subject to continued satisfactory progress on staff appraisal, probation and promotion arrangements.

  University or college

  Basic distribution 1989–90 £ million

  Recurrent grant 1989–90 £ million

  Aston

  15·457

  15·763

  Bath

  17·198

  17·349

  Birmingham

  40·828

  42·114

  Bradford

  16·063

  16·480

  Bristol

  35·770

  36·649

  Brunel

  14·262

  14·458

  Cambridge

  49·336

  50·662

  City

  12·673

  12·759

  Durham

  17·751

  18·303

  East Anglia

  14·364

  14·586

  Essex

  9·573

  9·702

  121

  University or college

  Basic distribution 1989–90 £ million

  Recurrent grant 1989–90 £ million

  Exeter

  18·321

  18·572

  Hull

  15·384

  15·900

  Keele

  8·426

  8·732

  Kent

  12·827

  13·254

  Lancaster

  15·009

  15·188

  Leeds

  45·884

  46·841

  Leicester

  20·250

  20·711

  Liverpool

  40·376

  41·221

  London Business School

  1·732

  1·739

  London

  274·003

  294·042

  (of which Imperial College)

  (33·810)

  (35·039)

  Loughborough

  22·108

  22·618

  Manchester Business School

  0·866

  0·872

  Manchester

  54·226

  55·754

  UMIST

  18·532

  18·874

  Newcastle

  33·825

  34·776

  Nottingham

  31·094

  32·222

  Oxford

  50·272

  51·784

  Reading

  20·579

  20·811

  Salford

  14·407

  15·314

  Sheffield

  34·136

  35·313

  Southampton

  30·542

  31·716

  Surrey

  14·387

  14·976

  Sussex

  16·774

  17·096

  Warwick

  23·134

  24·426

  York

  14·108

  14·619

  Total England

  1,074·477

  1,116·196

  Aberystwyth

  10·722

  10·916

  Bangor

  10·859

  11·476

  Cardiff

  27·867

  28·247

  St. David's

  2·195

  2·202

  Swansea

  13·877

  14·597

  UWCM

  7·755

  8·094

  Welsh Registry

  2·601

  2·601

  Total Wales

  75·876

  78·133

  As at December

  Average salary

  Annual increase

  Annual percentage increase:

  Actual

  In real terms ( RPI-based)

  In relation to non-manual average earnings

  1976

  5,578

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1977

  6,209

  631

  11·3

  -5·2

  1·8

  1978

  7,220

  1,011

  16·3

  7·7

  3·6

  1979

  8,458

  1,238

  17·1

  6·4

  4·5

  1980

  9,979

  1,521

  18·0

  -3·1

  -5·7

  1981

  11,187

  1,208

  12·1

  0·1

  -3·2

  1982

  11,936

  749

  6·7

  -2·5

  -2·5

  1983

  12,543

  607

  5·1

  1·0

  -3·7

  1984

  13,342

  799

  6·4

  1·1

  -1·7

  1985

  13,964

  622

  4·7

  -2·1

  -2·7

  1986

  14,242

  278

  2·0

  -1·0

  -6·4

  1987

  16,592

  2,350

  16·5

  10·6

  7·3

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the average polytechnic lecturer's rise in salary for each of the last 10 years(a) in absolute cash terms, (b) in real terms and (c) in relation to the rise in average earnings.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  [pursuant to her reply, 9 February 1989, c. 749]: The average salary of full-time lecturers in
  122

  Aberdeen

  21·677

  21·889

  Dundee

  14·265

  14·656

  Edinburgh

  47.713

  49477

  Glasgow

  49·040

  50·295

  Heriot-Watt

  12·112

  12·598

  St. Andrews

  12·264

  12·294

  Stirling

  8·306

  8·681

  Strathclyde

  26·704

  28·222

  Total Scotland

  192·081

  198·112

  TOTAL GREAT BRITAIN

  1,342·434

  1,392·441

  Queen's Belfast

  30·630

  30·976

  Ulster

  34·877

  35·007

  Lecturers (Pay)
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the average university lecturer's rise in salary for each of the last 10 years(a) in absolute cash terms, (b) in real terms and (c) in relation to the rise in average earnings.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  [pursuant to her reply, 9 February 1989, c. 749]: The average salary of full-time lecturers in universities for each of the last 10 years for which data are available is given in the table. The actual percentage increase is also tabulated for each year, as well as the percentage increase relative to the retail prices index at April each year and average non-manual earnings. The index used covers employees in professional and related, administrative, clerical, managerial, selling, security, literary, artistic and sporting occupations.

  The average is calculated by dividing the aggregate salary by the number of lecturers in universities. The annual increases thus reflect other factors as well as pay settlements, such as any change in the proportions of lecturers in the various grades.

  polytechnics for each of the last 10 years for which data are available is given in the table. The actual percentage increase is also tabulated for each year, as well as the percentage increase relative to the retail prices index at April each year and average non-manual earnings. The

  123
  index used covers employees in professional and related, administrative, clerical, managerial, selling, security, literary, artistic and sporting occupations.

  The average is calculated by dividing the aggregate salary by the number of lecturers in polytechnics. The

  As at March

  Average salary

  Annual increase

  Annual percentage increase:

  actual

  in real terms ( RPI-based)

  in relation to non-manual average earnings

  1976

  5,909

  1977

  6,358

  449

  7·6

  -9·5

  -10·7

  1978

  6,684

  326

  5·1

  -10·5

  -3·8

  1979

  7,462

  778

  11·6

  3·4

  -0·6

  1980

  9,016

  1,554

  20·8

  9·7

  7·8

  1981

  11,399

  2,383

  26·4

  3·8

  1·0

  1982

  12,359

  960

  8·4

  -3·2

  -6·4

  1983

  13,152

  793

  6·4

  -2·7

  -2·7

  1984

  13,842

  690

  52

  1·2

  -3·6

  1985

  14,516

  674

  4·9

  -0·3

  -3·1

  1986

  15,459

  943

  6·5

  -0·4

  -1·0

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the average college of further education lecturer's rise in salary for each of the last 10 years(a) in absolute cash terms, (b) in real terms and (c) in relation to the rise in average earnings.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  [pursuant to her reply, 9 February 1989, c. 749]: The average salary of full-time lecturers in colleges of further education excluding polytechnics for each of the last 10 years for which data are available is given in the table. The actual percentage increase is also tabulated for

  As at March

  Average salary

  Annual increase

  Annual percentage increase:

  Actual

  In real terms ( RPI-based)

  In relation to non-manual average earnings

  1976

  5,058

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1977

  5,463

  405

  8·0

  -9·2

  -10·4

  1978

  5,710

  247

  4·5

  -11·0

  -4·4

  1979

  6,321

  611

  10·7

  2·6

  -1·4

  1980

  7,608

  1,287

  20·4

  9·3

  7·4

  1981

  9,559

  1,951

  25·6

  3·2

  0·4

  1982

  10,325

  766

  8·0

  -3·6

  -6·7

  1983

  10,924

  599

  5·8

  -3·3

  -3·3

  1984

  11,486

  562

  5·1

  1·1

  -3·7

  1985

  12,128

  642

  5·6

  0·4

  -2·4

  1986

  12,990

  862

  7·1

  0·2

  -0·5

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the average rise in salary for each of the last 10 years, expressed in relation to the rise in average professional earnings, for (i) university lecturers, (ii) polytechnics lecturers and (iii) college of further education lecturers.

  Mr. Jackson
  [holding answer 10 February 1989]: The percentage rise in the average salaries of full-time lecturers in universities, polytechnics and other colleges of further education, relative to the index of non-manual earnings, for the most recent years available are as given in the table. There is no recognised index for average professional earnings. The index used covers employees in professional and related, administrative, clerical, managerial, selling, security, literary, artistic and sporting occupations.

  The average has been calculated by dividing the aggregate salary by the number of lecturers. The annual
  124
  annual increases thus reflect other factors as well as pay settlements, such as any change in the proportions of lecturers in the various grades.

  each year, as well as the percentage increase relative to the retail prices index at April each year and average non-manual earnings. The index used covers employees in professional and related, administrative, clerical, managerial, selling, security, literary, artistic and sporting occupations.

  The average is calculated by dividing the aggregate salary by the number of lecturers in colleges. The annual increases thus reflect other factors as well as pay settlements, such as any change in the proportions of lecturers in the various grades.

  increases thus reflect other factors as well as pay settlements, such as any change in the proportions of lecturers in the various grades.

  Universities

  Polytechnics

  Colleges of further education (excluding polytechnics)

  1976–771

  —2

  -10·7

  -10·4

  1977–78

  1·8

  -3·8

  -4·4

  1978–79

  3·6

  -0·6

  -1·4

  1979–80

  4·5

  7·8

  7·4

  1980–81

  -5·7

  1·0

  0·4

  1981–82

  -3·2

  -6·4

  -6·7

  1982–83

  -2·5

  -2·7

  -3·3

  1983–84

  -3·7

  -3·6

  -3·7

  1984–85

  -1·7

  -3·1

  -2·4

  1985–86

  -2·7

  -1·0

  -0·5

  1986–87

  -6·4

  —

  —

  1987–88

  7·3

  —

  —

  1 Universities data is as at December of the earlier year named and the other data as at March of the later year.

  2 Not available.

ENERGY

  British Coal (Redundancies)
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will consult British Coal on the implications for policy on redundancy of arrangements and promises made to its employees over the age of 50 years who were persuaded to accept redundancy from 1984.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend and I consult British Coal regularly on all aspects of the coal industry.

  Nuclear Power Stations
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make it his policy to ask Her Majesty's nuclear installations inspectorate to conduct a review of corrosion and cracking problems at the Central Electricity Generating Board nuclear plants at Heysham, Hartlepool and Dungeness B.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  These are issues which the Health and Safety Executive takes fully into account as part of its duties.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will request Her Majesty's nuclear installations inspectorate to conduct a study of the tolerability of risk to United Kingdom citizens of the French nuclear power programme, in particular those plants sited on the Channel.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  No. The safety of French nuclear installations is a matter for their regulatory authorities. I have no reason to doubt that French nuclear safety standards are as high as those in the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, in proposing a stringent level for societal risk, HSE was fully aware of the possibility of accidents outside the United Kingdom.

  Aerogenerators
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will initiate a departmental assessment of the study by the Swedish energy consultancy VBB into the feasibility of the offshore siting of aerogenerators at sea.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  As part of its wind energy research programme my Department is investigating the feasibility of siting wind turbines offshore. I hope to be able to obtain a copy of the VBB report so that its findings can be taken into account in our own studies.

  Hinkley Point
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will submit evidence for cross examination on the tolerability of nuclear plant risk to the Hinkley C nuclear inquiry.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  No. The Health and Safety Executive has given evidence on the tolerability of risk from nuclear power stations to the Hinkley Point C inquiry.

  Coal Production (Costs)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will publish the marginal costs of coal production of 126
  both opencast and deep mined coal for each year from 1981–82 to 1988–89, or for which the latest figures are available.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is a matter for the British Coal Corporation. I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Health Authorities (Land)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give for each health board(a) the square footage of unused properties and (b) the square footage or acreage of unused land and the estimated value of each category as a percentage of total land and property and as a percentage of the total land and property value of each board; and if he will make a statement as to his Department's policy on the sale of unused land and property.

  Mr. Needham
  The information requested is not collected routinely by either the Department of Health and Social Services or by the four health and social services boards and could be obtained only at disproportionate costs. The total acreage of the health and personal social services estate and the acreage and estimated value of property (that is both land and buildings) which have been declared surplus to the requirements of each health and social services board at 6 February 1989 is as follows:

  Board

  Total estate

  Surplus estate

  Estimated value of surplus estate £ million

  (Acres)

  (Acres)

  Per cent·

  Eastern

  1,428·11

  196·305

  13·74

  2·9

  Northern

  634·82

  194·232

  30·59

  0·8

  Southern

  332·29

  30·154

  9·07

  0·75

  Western

  1,018·28

  12·72

  1·25

  1·4

  Total

  3,413·50

  433·411

  12·70

  5·85

  The policy on the sale of land and property which has been declared surplus to requirements is that it should be disposed of in a publicly acceptable manner, and for the best price which in the opinion of the Valuation and Lands Office can reasonably be obtained.

  Land Registry
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the extent of monthly backlog of cases over each of the last three years in the Land Registry Office in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  Details of the stocks of work held are as follows:

  1986

  1987

  1988

  January

  11,964

  13,461

  15,181

  February

  11,851

  13,233

  15,410

  March

  12,245

  13,198

  15,020

  April

  12,306

  12,919

  14,306

  May

  12,097

  14,250

  14,343

  June

  12,979

  14,568

  14,015

  July

  13,075

  14,965

  13,951

  August

  13,625

  14,577

  14,006

  127

  1986

  1987

  1988

  September

  14,903

  14,375

  14,613

  October

  14,294

  15,062

  14,636

  November

  14,718

  14,844

  14,764

  December

  14,864

  15,289

  14,686

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases at present await clearance at the Land Registry Office in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  14,766 at the end of January 1989.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish an indicative list of charges made by the Land Registry in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  The information requested is contained in the Land Registry (Fees) Order (Northern Ireland) 1988 (SR 1988 No. 410), a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any proposals to speed up Land Registry transactions in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  A comprehensive efficiency review of the Land Registry functions in Northern Ireland is to be undertaken. It is anticipated that the review will be under way by mid-1989.

  Housing
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much extra funding has been provided so far to implement the findings of the Policy Studies Institute report on housing in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Tom King
  As I indicated in my reply to the hon. Member of 23 January, at column 396, I am advised that the research to which he refers, commissioned by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, is not yet complete.

  Social Security Payments
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the measures the Government are using to monitor the effects of the new social security system on those claimants who were targeted by the new legislation and on the Government's assessment of the position of single parents since the benefit changes of April 1988.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 13 February 1989]: Monitoring of the effects of the new system is based on a range of statistical information and will also have regard in due course to various research findings. It is estimated that the large majority of single parents were better off or no worse off in cash terms as a result of the changes in their weekly benefits. Estimates are not available of the overall impact taking account of the introduction of the social fund.

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he has on the number of social fund applications made by single parents, the numbers which are successful, and the amounts given in loans and payments to these applicants.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 13 February 1989]: Information for the period 11 April 1988 to 31 December 1988 (the latest for which it is available) is as follows:
  128

  (a) Applications received

  (b) Number allowed

  (c) Amount awarded

  Loans

  12,682

  11,163

  £2,443,294·62

  Community Care Grants

  2,396

  1,614

  £556,315·99

  Funeral and Maternity payments

  1,558

  1,504

  £199,001·83

  Total

  16,636

  14,281

  £3,198,612·44

  The balance of applications in each category were withdrawn by the applicant, or refused, or are still to be considered.

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he has on the numbers of single parents who are having deductions made from their benefits in respect of social fund loans, rent arrears, fuel arrears or overpayments.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 13 February 1989]: The information is not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

WALES

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what support his Department is giving to local authorities which wish to reduce or eliminate their use of CFC's.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to him earlier today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley).

  Mental Handicap Nurses
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will list, for each health authority, the number of mental handicap nurses from each of the old grades who have been assimilated to each of the new grades.

  Mr. Grist
  This information is not held centrally.

DEFENCE

  Torpedoes
  Sir Peter Hordern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what United States supplied alternatives to the Spearfish and Stingray torpedoes were considered at the time of the decision to proceed with those programmes; and what were their costs.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The United States MK46 and MK48 torpedoes were evaluated as alternatives to Stingray and Spearfish respectively. The estimated total programme cost for the MK46 was £200 million (at September 1979 prices) and for the MK48 it was £475 million (at September 1980 prices).

  Sir Peter Hordern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the original estimate of the cost of the Spearfish torpedo; what was the value of the joint fixed price contract with Marconi for the completion of development and initial production of Spearfish and Stingray torpedoes; and what has been the expenditure on Spearfish and Stingray torpedoes to the latest convenient date.
  129
  Mr. Sainsbury
  The original estimated total programme cost of Spearfish was £155 million (at current prices). The fixed price contract for the development and initial production of Spearfish and Stingray was let in 1981 at a value of £496 million.

  Total programme expenditure to 31 January 1989 was £594 million on Spearfish and £1,443 million on Stingray, both figures at current prices.

  Tigerfish
  Sir Peter Hordern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the original estimate for the cost of the Tigerfish torpedo; what was the estimate when Marconi became principal contractor; and what was the final cost when Tigerfish came into service.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The original estimate of the cost of Tigerfish MOD "O" was calculated in 1959; records of this estimate are not immediately available. The MOD "O" Tigerfish entered service in 1974 when its total programme cost was £450 million (at current prices).

  Marconi became principal contractor for the improved MOD 1 Tigerfish torpedo in 1972; the estimated programme cost at that time was £226 million (at current prices).

  Sir Peter Hordern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when development of the Tigerfish torpedo was begun; when was it originally expected to come into service; when it received fleet weapon acceptance; and when Marconi became principal contractor for the programme.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Development of Tigerfish began in 1959 with a view to an in-service date of 1967. The MOD "O" torpedo entered service in 1974 and received fleet weapon acceptance in 1979.

  Marconi became principal contractor for Tigerfish MOD 1 in 1972.

  Foxhunter
  Sir Peter Hordern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the original estimate of the cost of the Foxhunter radar system; when it was due to come into service in full; when it came into service in full; and what was the final cost on delivery.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The original forecast in-service date for the Foxhunter radar was 1982. Radars to an agreed

  Royal Air Force applications to leave and exits before completion of contract

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89 to date

  1.GD (Air) Officers:

  PVR/OEP applications

  314

  220

  161

  149

  148

  145

  188

  245

  281

  299

  222

  PVR/OEP exits

  200

  205

  172

  163

  160

  120

  160

  173

  177

  203

  227

  2.Airmen:

  (a) Airmen Aircrew

  PVR applications

  See note 2(a)

  10

  22

  44

  30

  48

  24

  PVR exits

  Included with ground airmen

  13

  2

  10

  11

  19

  17

  32

  31

  17

  Other exits

  9

  9

  8

  6

  9

  6

  13

  8

  5

  (b) Ground Airmen

  PVR applications

  3,132

  1,782

  1,038

  842

  1,115

  1,669

  1,752

  2,097

  2,005

  2,483

  2,404

  PVR exits

  1,103

  1,468

  1,114

  854

  1,069

  845

  1,405

  1,692

  1,610

  1,682

  1,835

  Other exits

  Not available

  897

  313

  242

  636

  527

  562

  574

  581

  404

  Notes:

  1. Officers:

  (a) PVR—Premature voluntary release on giving certain preiods of notice.

  (b) OEP—Optional exit points related to decisions at specified career points.

  (c) Applications do not necessarily lead to exits in the same financial year (FY).

  (d) Applications and exits related to exceptional circumstances are not available.

  2. Airmen:

  (a) Records of airmen aircrew PVR applications are not available prior to April 1983.

  (b) PVR—Premature voluntary release by purchase, or to pension or by notice general right after nine years.

  130
  interim standard entered service in 1985. Final deliveries under the programme of work placed under firm price contractual arrangements with Marconi Defence Systems last year will take place in the early 1990s.

  It is not normal practice to publish a detailed breakdown of costs for defence equipment. Total estimated costs of the Foxhunter radar programe were given in the 1988 "Statement on Defence Estimates (Volume 2)" as some £800 million; on the same basis, the original estimate for Foxhunter would be some £600 million.

  Contacts
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all his Department's contracts with(a) Zeus and (b) Securipol Ltd. since 1979; and if he will give the purpose of each contract.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We have no record of any headquarters contracts having been placed with Zeus Security Consultants or Securipol Ltd. since 1979.

  Pension Scheme
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he anticipates the Defence Council instruction enabling additional voluntary contributions to the Armed Forces pension scheme will be issued.

  Mr. Neubert
  A DCI was published on 3 February 1989 explaining the opportunities open to members of the armed forces to make additional voluntary contributions to enhance the benefits payable under the armed forces pension scheme.

  Royal Air Force
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list in the Official Report the total number of airmen/aircrew who have applied in each of the past 10 years to leave the Royal Air Force before completion of their period of contract, indicating for each year the number of such applications which were based on exceptional circumstances; and how many of these have been successful.

  Mr. Neubert
  Information about premature exits of Royal Air Force airmen and aircrew over the past 10 financial years is summarised in the following table:
  131
  (c) Applications do not necessarilly lead to exits in the same financial year and more than one application may be submitted.

  (d) Other exits include exits on compassionate grounds, on nine year notice engagements after three years at 18 months notice and other administrative categories under which airmen may apply to leave the service. Numbers of other applications are not available.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many Royal Air Force airmen served in each of the following categories:(a) armament engineering, (b) mechanical engineering, (c) electrical engineering and (d) electronic engineering, in each year since 1979;

  (2) how many Royal Air Force airmen became qualified to serve in the following branches (a) armament engineering, (b) mechanical engineering, (c) electrical engineering and (d) electronic engineering, in each year since 1979;

  Table 1

  Number of trained airmen (including airwomen) at 1 January points

  1 January 1980

  1 January 1981

  1 January 1982

  1 January 1983

  1 January 1984

  1 January 1985

  1 January 1986

  1 January 1987

  1 January 1988

  1 January 1989

  Armament engineering

  2,493

  2,753

  3,004

  2,919

  3,067

  3,188

  3,249

  3,255

  3,285

  3,390

  Mechanical engineering

  14,346

  15,416

  16,333

  15,905

  15,370

  16,279

  16,496

  16,098

  15,880

  15,447

  Electrical engineering

  3,727

  3,977

  4,166

  4,147

  4,259

  4,381

  4,386

  4,420

  4,436

  4,372

  Electronic engineering

  9,633

  10,187

  9,498

  10,694

  10,680

  10,946

  11,212

  11,386

  11,554

  11,127

  Table 2

  Number of ground airmen (including airwomen) who became qualified in engineering trades by CY

  CY 80

  CY 81

  CY 82

  CY 83

  CY 84

  CY 85

  CY 86

  CY 87

  CY 88

  Armament engineering

  360

  371

  72

  276

  260

  222

  153

  152

  275

  Mechanical engineering

  1,680

  1,552

  301

  153

  1,569

  1,075

  523

  632

  572

  Electrical engineering

  405

  397

  198

  324335

  252

  292

  224

  246

  Electronic engineering

  987

  833

  802

  571

  817

  942

  876

  739

  381

  Table 3

  Number of trained airmen (including airwomen) who left the RAF in CY and the number who failed to complete their engagement

  CY 80

  CY 81

  CY 82

  CY 83

  CY 84

  CY 85

  CY 86

  CY 87

  CY 88

  Armament engineering

  Total outflow

  100

  120

  157

  128

  139

  161

  147

  122

  170

  Not completing engagement

  41

  52

  76

  54

  64

  92

  85

  63

  107

  Mechanical engineering

  Total outflow

  610

  635

  729

  688

  660

  858

  921

  850

  1,005

  Not completing engagement

  312

  285

  333

  244

  280

  394

  436

  380

  517

  Electrical engineering

  Total outflow

  155

  208

  217

  212

  213

  247

  258

  208

  310

  Not completing engagement

  69

  76

  85

  83

  98

  98

  110

  103

  164

  Electronic engineering

  Total outflow

  433

  522

  606

  585

  551

  676

  702

  571

  808

  Not completing engagement

  174

  203

  199

  181

  222

  303

  333

  246

  436

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many trained fast-jet pilots took premature voluntary release in each financial year between 1969–70 and 1978–79.

  Mr. Neubert
  Information about exits by trained pilots on premature voluntary release was not maintained prior to 1 April 1975; since that date overall numbers of pilot exits on PVR were recorded and role-related statistics were introduced on 1 April 1979. For the period 1 April 1975 to 1 April 1979 the overall numbers of PVR exits by trained pilots were as follows:

  Number

  1975–76

  77

  1976–77

  86

  1977–78

  92

  1978–79

  84

  132
  (3) how many Royal Air Force airmen left the Royal Air Force in each of the following categories: (a) armament engineering, (b) mechanical engineering, (c) electrical engineering and (d) electronic engineering; and how many of these failed to complete their engagement, in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Neubert
  The numbers of ground airmen (including airwomen) in each category in each of the specified groupings of trades, in each year since 1980, are given in tables 1 to 3. The numbers for 1979 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Pay Scales
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate has been made of savings likely to accrue as a result of the downbanding recommendations made by the joint services job evaluation team in relation to pay-scales for airmen/aircrew and air electronics operators.

  Mr. Neubert
  There will be no immediate savings arising from the downbanding of air electronic operators. This is because the individuals concerned will retain their existing rate of basic pay on a mark-time basis until such a time as pay review awards lift the lower pay band scale above this rate. In the longer term the reduction in the annual paybill resulting from the change is estimated to be £438,000.

  Ethnic Minority Personnel
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) blacks, (b) Asians, (c) men and (d) women are currently serving in (i) the Army, (ii) the Royal Navy and (iii) the Royal Air Force.

  Mr. Neubert
  The number of men and women serving in the United Kingdom regular forces as at 31 December 1988 was as follows:

  Males

  Females

  Royal Navy and Royal Marines

  61,286

  13,365

  Army

  149,651

  6,383

  Royal Air Force

  85,785

  6,274

  1 Royal Navy only.

  It is our policy not to keep records of the ethnic origins of serving members of the armed forces.

  Air Combat Training
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what financial provision he has made for the years 1990–91, 1991–92, 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95, respectively for the use of the planned British Aerospace air combat manoeuvring installation in the North sea;

  (2) what understandings he has entered into with British Aerospace as regards future use of their air combat manoeuvring installation in the North sea.

  Mr. Neubert
  British Aerospace's proposal to construct an instrumental air combat facility in the North sea remains under consideration by the Government. MOD has no current plans to utilise such a facility, if constructed, and has therefore made no financial provision for its use.

  Air Publications and Forms Store
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what proposals he has to replace the roof of the building now occupied by the air publications and forms store at Woolwich arsenal; and at what estimated cost;

  (2) when the building now occupied by the air publications and forms store at Woolwich arsenal is expected to be vacated; and what new use will be found for it;

  (3) what specialist refitting has been undertaken to the building now occupied by the air publications and forms store to provide for its present use; and at what cost;

  (4) how many existing employees of the air publications and forms store at Woolwich arsenal will be offered the opportunity to transfer to the proposed new location in North Wales; and how many new staff will be recruited locally;

  (5) what arrangements will be made to train new employees recruited for the air publications new location in north Wales;

  (6) what is the estimated cost of transferring the air publications and forms store from Woolwich arsenal to north Wales.

  Mr. Neubert
  Consultations have recently taken place with trades unions on a proposal to transfer all service forms and publications stores from their existing locations to create a centralised organisation at the former Royal 134
  naval store depot at Llangennech, Dyfed. Under that proposal, vacation of the building now occupied by the air publications and forms stores at Woolwich arsenal would be expected in 1991. Any further use of the building would be dependent on a future decision on the location of the directorate general of defence quality assurance.

  As the hon. Member is aware, the original intention was to replace the roof of the air publications and forms store, which was to be a major undertaking estimated to cost in excess of £1·5 million. In the light of the Llangennech proposals, however, the work and expenditure involved could not be justified, although any essential repairs required in the intervening period would be carried out.

  To provide for its present use, in 1968 the building now occupied by the air publications and forms store was installed with a Dexion three-tier racking system, including associated conveyor belts, an internal classified store, fitted with mobile racking, a conveyor system in the distribution area, and a fire detector and sprinkler system. In 1969 fans were incorporated into the existing heating system to ensure that adequate storage conditions could be maintained. Due to the length of time since the various works were undertaken, cost figures are not available.

  Under the Llangennech proposal, careful consideration would be given to any individual request for transfer there from civil servants currently employed in the four existing stores. Nevertheless, it is expected that most of the 250 staff that would be required for the Llangennech operation would be recruited locally. A comprehensive training programme would be designed to meet the needs of all employees of the new organisation. The cost of centralisation at Llangennech is estimated to be about £5·7 million. It is not possible to say how much of this is attributable to the air publications and forms store alone.

  Territorial Army (Ammunition Theft)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps the Territorial Army proposes to take following the conviction of Warrant Officer Nigel John Hicks for stealing ammunition.

  Mr. Neubert
  It must first be said that Mr. Hicks was not, in fact, convicted of theft of ammunition. Within the Territorial Army, strict regulations apply to the issue, use and storage of weapons and ammunition. The circumstances relating to Mr. Hicks' case are now being reviewed to see if any further action is required.

  Race Relations
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer to the right hon. Member for Stoke on Trent, South,Official Report, 6 February, column 513, how many of the complaints cases submitted to the service boards, records of which are kept centrally, involved allegations of racial discrimination or abuse.

  Mr. Neubert
  None.

  War Stocks
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether the current level of Royal Air Force war stocks meets all of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation requirements;

  (2) whether the current level of Royal Navy war stocks meets all of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation requirements;
  135
  (3) whether the current level of Army war stocks meets all of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation requirements.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) on 22 December 1988, at column 371.

  Nuclear-Powered Vessels
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a study of possible radioactive contamination at Holy Loch, Faslane and Rosyth caused by nuclear-powered defence vessels.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a study of possible radioactive contamination at Holy Loch, Faslane and Rosyth caused by nuclear-powered defence vessels.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a study of possible radioactive contamination at Holy Loch, Faslane and Rosyth caused by nuclear-powered defence vessels.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a study of possible radioactive contamination at Holy Loch, Faslane and Rosyth caused by nuclear-powered defence vessels.

  Mr. Younger
  [pursuant to his reply, 7 February 1989, c. 655]: I wish to point out that I should have referred to a level of radiation exposure of "consistently less than 1 per cent." rather than of "consistently less than 0.1 per cent".

EMPLOYMENT

  Tourism
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to meet the chairman of the British tourist board to discuss the promotion of British tourism abroad; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  My right hon. Friend and I regularly meet the chairman of the British Tourist Authority to discuss all aspects of the authority's work in promoting tourism to Britain. My right hon. Friend last met the chairman on 8 February. We have no plans as yet for a future meeting.

  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he hopes to announce his proposals following the current review of tourism; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  The tourism review report is currently under consideration and an announcement will be made in due course.

  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has for participation in the European Tourism Year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  I recently chaired a meeting of the national tourist board chairmen and representatives from the territorial departments to begin to plan the United Kingdom's participation in European Tourism Year in 136
  1990. At that meeting it was agreed that the British Tourist Authority would take the lead in co-ordinating the United Kingdom's campaign. To promote the interest and active involvement of the United Kingdom tourism industry, I propose to chair a United Kingdom standing conference of senior figures in the industry. This conference will take place on 25 May.

  Mr. Bevan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the effect of the single market in 1992 upon tourism.

  Mr. Lee
  Although tourism within the European Community is a relatively open sector, I believe that the completion of the single market presents a major opportunity for the industry's further development. This should be apparent in increased flexibility of travel, particularly air and coach travel. The Channel tunnel, due for completion in 1993, should complement and augment this development.

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the number of people employed in the United Kingdom in tourism and tourism-related industries.

  Mr. Lee
  It is estimated that in September 1988 there were 1·4 million employees in employment in tourism-related industries in Great Britain. There are no directly comparable estimates for the number of self-employed, but it is estimated from the labour force survey that there were 0·2 million self-employed workers in the hotel and catering industry in the spring of 1987.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the effect of the Channel tunnel upon tourism in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lee
  The completion of the Channel tunnel in 1993 will provide a major opportunity for the tourism industry in Great Britain. Estimates suggest that some 15 million people will use the tunnel in its first year of operation.

  It is important that the United Kingdom tourism industry begins to plan now to ensure that the full potential offered by the tunnel is realised.

  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of the tourism review.

  Mr. Lee
  I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) on 31 January 1989, at column 75.

  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many tourist visits were made to the United Kingdom by citizens of the European Economic Community in 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  It is estimated that 3,530,000 visits were made to the United Kingdom by residents of the European Economic Community in the first six months of 1988 (the latest period for which figures are available). Of these, 2,430,000 were leisure visits (the remainder were business), representing 69 per cent. of all visits from EEC countries and 50 per cent. of all leisure visits in this period.

  Mr. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to meet the chairman of the English tourist board to discuss the promotion of tourism; and if he will make a statement.
  137
  Mr. Lee
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State frequently meets the chairman of the English tourist board to discuss a range of subjects, including the promotion of tourism in England.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Crowther
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the unadjusted and adjusted number and percentage of male, female and total employees in employment in part-time work in September 1988 in Yorkshire and Humberside.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The only available information on part-time employees is for females. In September 1988 there were 401,000 female part-time employees in employment in Yorkshire and Humberside. This represents 48 per cent. of female employees and 22 per cent. of all employees in the region. Employment estimates for regions are not seasonally adjusted.

  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are currently employed in the United Kingdom; what are the comparable figures for other European Economic Community countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  The current level of the work force in employment in the United Kingdom is, at nearly 26 million, at its highest ever level. Since 1983 it has grown by well over 2 million. Between 1983 and 1987 the increase in employment in the United Kingdom at nearly 1·7 million was greater than that for any other European Community member and was approximately equal to that in the rest of the Community combined.

  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are currently employed in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  Between March 1983 and September 1988 the work force in employment in the United Kingdom increased by 2,297,000 to 25,858,000, the highest level on record. This rising trend has now continued for more than five years.

  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide the figures for the work force in employment to date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In September 1988 the work force in employment in Great Britain was 25,291,000, the highest level on record. This represents an increase of 2,294,000 since March 1983. This rising trend has now continued for more than five years.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the levels of employment in the United Kingdom and other countries in the European Economic Community; and if he will make a statement.
  138
  Mr. Lee
  The current level of the work force in employment in the United Kingdom is, at nearly 26 million, at its highest level.

  Since 1983 it has grown by well over 2 million. Between 1983 and 1987 the increase in employment in the United Kingdom at nearly 1·7 million was greater than that for any other European Community member and was approximately equal to that in the rest of the Community combined.

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people aged 18 to 25 years were unemployed in(a) December 1985 and (b) December 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  Unemployment figures by age are compiled on a quarterly basis. In October 1988, the latest available quarter, there were 606,348 unemployed claimants aged 18 to 25 years in the United Kingdom, compared with 1,034,023 in October 1985. A fall of 427,675 or 41·4 per cent. The comparison is slightly affected by the change in the compilation of the count in March 1986 to reduce over-recording.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the unadjusted and adjusted number and percentages of male, female and total employees in employment in part-time work in September 1988 in Scotland.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the unadjusted and adjusted number and percentage of male, female and total employees in part-time work in September 1988 in the north.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the unadjusted and adjusted number and percentage of male, female and total employees in employment in part-time work in September 1988 in the east midlands.

  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the unadjusted and adjusted number and percentage of male, female and total employees in employment in part-time work in September 1988 in Greater London.

  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the unadjusted and adjusted number and percentage of male, female and total employees in employment in part-time work in September 1988 in the west midlands.

  Mr. Lee
  My Department does not seasonally adjust employment estimates for regions. Regional estimates of part-time male employees are not available for September 1988. The available information is as follows:
  139

  September 1988

  Part-time female employees in employment

  Part-time female employees in employment as a percentage of all female employees in employment Per cent.

  Part-time female employees in employment as a percentage of all employees in employment Per cent.

  Scotland

  389,000

  44

  21

  North

  241,000

  48

  22

  East Midlands

  314,000

  45

  20

  Greater London

  505,000

  32

  14

  West Midlands

  412,000

  44

  20

  Sir Marcus Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the rate of change in unemployment levels in the last 12 months in Yorkshire and Humberside; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  In December 1988 the level of unemployment, seasonally adjusted, in Yorkshire and Humberside was 203,000 compared with 248,100 in December 1987, a fall of 45,100 or 18·2 per cent.

  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current levels of employment in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lee
  Between March 1983 and September 1988 the work force in employment in the United Kingdom increased by 2,297,000 to 25,858,000, the highest level on record. This rising trend has now continued for more than five years. The figures have been adjusted for the effects of seasonal variations. The work force in employment is the sum of employees in employment, the self-employed, Her Majesty's forces and participants in work-related Government training programmes.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest number of employed and self-employed people at the latest available date.

  Mr. Lee
  In September 1988 there were 25,291,000 people in the work force in employment in Great Britain, of which 2,956,000 were self-employed. The work force in employment comprises employees in employment, the self-employed, Her Majesty's forces and participants in work-related Government training programmes.

  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the fall in unemployment and the number of jobs created in east midlands region in the 12 months to September 1988.

  Mr. Lee
  In the 12 months to September 1988 the level of unemployment, seasonally adjusted, in the east midlands fell by 32,400 to 137,100 from 169,500 in September 1987. Over the same period the size of the civilian work force in employment in east midlands, unadjusted, rose from 1,761,000 to 1,791,000, a net increase of 30,000. The civilian work force in employment is the sum of employees in employment, the self-employed and participants in work-related Government training programmes.

  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the rate of change in unemployment levels in the last 12 months in East Anglia.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the rate of change in unemployment levels in the last 12 months in East Anglia.
  140
  Mr. Lee
  In December 1988 the level of unemployment, seasonally adjusted, in East Anglia was 41,200 compared with 60,000 in December 1987, a fall of 18,800 or 31·3 per cent.

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many full-time and part-time jobs were created in the 12 months to September 1988 in Yorkshire and Humberside region.

  Mr. Lee
  There are no figures for job gains and job losses. In the year to September 1988 the civilian work force in employment increased by 31,000 in the Yorkshire and Humberside region. This includes net increases of 12,000 in female full-time employees in employment, 7,000 in female part-time employees in employment and 3,000 in participants in work-related Government training programmes (who are counted as being in part-time employment). Comparable estimates are not available for male employees in employment or the self-employed.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the percentage fall in unemployment in the last 12 months in the south-west.

  Mr. Lee
  In December 1988 the level of unemployment, seasonally adjusted, in the south-west was 113,100 compared with 153,900 in December 1987, a fall of 40,800 or 26·5 per cent.

  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the fall in unemployment amongst the long-term unemployed since June 1983.

  Mr. Lee
  Unemployment figures by duration are compiled on a quarterly basis. In October 1988, the latest available quarter, there were 885,504 claimants in the United Kingdom who had been unemployed for more than a year, 15·7 per cent. lower than the level of 1,050,487 in July 1983. The comparison is slightly affected by the change in the compilation of the count in March 1986 to reduce over-recording and the change in the coverage from September 1988 due to the new benefit regulations for those young people aged under 18.

  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the level of unemployment in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lee
  In December 1988 unemployment, seasonally adjusted, was 2,039,100, the lowest level for nearly eight years. Unemployment has now fallen for 29 consecutive months, by 1,094,000 altogether since July 1986, the largest fall on record.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment by what proportion unemployment has fallen in Warrington since June 1987.
  141
  Mr. Lee
  In December 1988 the level of unemployment in the Warrington local authority area was 5,427 compared with 8,914 in June 1987. These figures represent a fall of 39·1 per cent. The comparison is slightly affected by the change in benefit regulations for under 18-year-olds from September 1988 and also by seasonal influences.

  Benefits (Fraud)
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on his recent crackdown on fraudulent benefit claims.

  Mr. Fowler
  My Department's fraud investigations during 1988 led to savings of around £65 million and to 90,000 people withdrawing their claims to benefit. A serious problem of benefit fraud persists and we are maintaining the drive against this.

  Single Union Agreements
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what recent representations he has received about single union agreements; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  None. The Government believe that single union, no strike agreements can have an increasingly valuable part to play in improving future industrial relations. It is of course for employers individually to decide on what arrangements best suit their own circumstances.

  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to meet the general secretary of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers to discuss the establishment of a single union agreement at the proposed Toyota factory; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I have no such plans. It is for employers to decide which unions, if any, they wish to recognise for collective bargaining purposes.

  YTS
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many summer 1988 school leavers in the Bristol travel-to-work area have not yet been offered a YTS place if they have requested one.

  Mr. Cope
  None. The Training Agency has made more than sufficient YTS places available for all those who apply for one.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to increase the non-work content in YTS; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) earlier today.

  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people are currently training on the two-year YTS; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people are currently on YTS training schemes; and if he will make a statement.
  142
  Mr. Cope
  At the end of December 1988 there were 419,900 young people in training on YTS. Of these, 396,800 were on a two-year training programme.

  As the Government made clear in the recent White Paper "Employment for the 1990s", YTS is a highly successful programme. The task now is to increase still further the contribution which YTS can make to meeting the needs of the changing labour market.

  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current number of YTS places in Barrow-in-Furness; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  At 3 February 1989 there were 1,453 YTS places in the Barrow-in-Furness local authority district. There are sufficient YTS places available to meet both current and anticipated demand.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many young persons are on YTS in the Eccles area; and how many of them have their excess fares paid.

  Mr. Cope
  The information is not available in the precise form requested. At 31 December 1988 there were 1,844 young people on YTS in the Salford local authority district. Information on how many were in receipt of excess fares could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Job Creation
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many full-time and part-time jobs were created in the 12 months to September 1988 in the east midlands region.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In the year to September 1988 the civilian work force in employment increased by 30,000 in the east midlands region. The only available information about full and part-time employment in the regions is for female employees in employment. This shows increases of 4,000 in female full-time employees and 16,000 in female part-time employees.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many full-time and part-time jobs were created in the 12 months to September 1988 in the south-west region.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In the year to September 1988 the civilian work force in employment increased by 31,000 in the south-west region. The only available information about full and part-time employment in the regions is for female employees in employment. This shows increases of 13,000 in female full-time employees and 9,000 in female part-time employees.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the fall in unemployment and the number of jobs created in the Yorkshire and Humberside region in the 12 months to September 1988.

  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the fall in unemployment and the number of jobs created in Yorkshire and Humberside in the 12 months to September 1988.

  Mr. Lee
  In the 12 months to September 1988 the level of unemployment, seasonally adjusted, in Yorkshire and
  143
  Humberside fell by 43,200 to 218,100 from 261,300 in September 1987. Over the same period the size of the civilian work force in employment in Yorkshire and Humberside, unadjusted, rose from 2,092,000 to 2,123,000, a net increase of 31,000. The civilian work force in employment is the sum of employees in employment, the self-employed and participants in work-related Government training programmes.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the fall in unemployment and the number of jobs created in the Greater London region in the 12 months to September 1988.

  Mr. Lee
  In the 12 months to September 1988 the level of unemployment, seasonally adjusted, in Greater London fell by 70,400 to 269,400 from 339,800 in September 1987. Over the same period the size of the civilian work force in employment in Greater London, unadjusted, rose from 3,925,000 to 3,950,000, a net increase of 25,000. The civilian work force in employment is the sum of employees in employment, the self-employed and participants in work-related Government training programmes.

  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the fall in unemployment, and the number of jobs created, in the north-west region in the 12 months to September 1988.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the fall in unemployment and the number of jobs created in the north-west region in the 12 months to September 1988.

  Mr. Cunliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the fall in unemployment and the number of jobs created in the north-west region in the 12 months to September 1988.

  Mr. Lee
  In the 12 months to September 1988 the level of unemployment, seasonally adjusted, in the north-west fell by 61,200 to 310,900 from 372,000 in September 1987. Over the same period the size of the civilian work force in employment in the north-west, unadjusted, rose from 2,606,000 to 2,611,000, a net increase of 5,000. The civilian work force in employment is the sum of employees in employment, the self-employed and participants in work-related Government training programmes.

  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the expected growth in total employment in the north of England over the next two years; and which sectors are expected to show the greatest increase.

  Mr. Lee
  My Department does not produce forecasts of employment growth, either in total, by region or by sector. However, last year's White Paper "Employment for the 1990s" (Cm. 540) described recent employment trends at national level.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many full-time and part-time jobs were created in the 12 months to September 1988 in Great Britain.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many full-time and part-time jobs were created in the 12 months to September 1988 in Great Britain.
  144
  Mr. Lee
  There are no figures for job gains and job losses. In the year to September 1988 the work force in employment in Great Britain increased by 399,000, of which 220,000 were in full-time employment and 179,000 were in part-time employment. The work force in employment is the sum of employees in employment, the self employed, Her Majesty's forces and participants in work-related Government training programmes. In classifying the work force in employment between full and part time, all programme participants are counted as in part-time employment.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many full-time and part-time jobs were created in the 12 months to September 1988 in the east midlands region.

  Mr. Lee
  There are no figures for job gains and job losses. In the year to September 1988 the civilian work force in employment increased by 30,000 in the east midlands region. This includes net increases of 4,000 in female full-time employees in employment and 16,000 in female part-time employees in employment, offset by a net decrease of 1,000 in participants in work-related Government training programmes (who are counted as in part-time employment). Comparable estimates are not available for male employees in employment or the self-employed.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many full-time and part-time jobs were created in the 12 months to September 1988 in Wales.

  Mr. Lee
  There are no figures for job gains and job losses. In the year to September 1988 the civilian work force in employment increased by 10,000 in Wales. This includes a net increase of 6,000 in female part-time employees in employment, offset by a net decrease of 1,000 in female full-time employees in employment, and a net increase of 1,000 in participants in work-related Government training programmes (who are counted as in part-time employment). Comparable estimates are not available for male employees in employment or the self-employed.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the percentage fall in unemployment in the United Kingdom during the past 12 months.

  Mr. Lee
  In December 1988 the level of unemployment, seasonally adjusted, in the United Kingdom was 2,039,100 compared with 2,568,600, in December 1987, a fall of 529,500 or 20·6 per cent.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the fall in unemployment and the number of jobs created in Great Britain in the 12 months to September 1988.

  Mr. Lee
  In the 12 months to September 1988 the level of unemployment, seasonally adjusted, in Great Britain fell by 516,800 to 2,080,100 from 2,596,900 in September 1987. Over the same period the size of the work force in employment in Great Britain rose from 24,892,000 to 25,291,000, a net increase of 399,000. The figures have been adjusted for the effect of seasonal variations. The work force in employment is the sum of employees in employment, the self-employed, Her Majesty's forces and participants in work-related Government training programmes.
  145
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the fall in unemployment and the number of jobs created in the south-east region in the 12 months to September 1988.

  Mr. Lee
  In the 12 months to September 1988 the level of unemployment, seasonally adjusted, in the south-east fell by 165,500 to 461,900 from 627,400 in September 1987. Over the same period the size of the civilian work force in employment in the south-east, unadjusted, rose from 8,600,000 to 8,768,000, a net increase of 168,000. The civilian work force in employment is the sum of employees in employment, the self-employed and participants in work-related Government training programmes.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will take special measures to tackle localised pockets of high unemployment.

  Mr. Lee
  My Department's training, enterprise and employment programmes are already available to help unemployed people in all areas.

  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on employment prospects for Lincolnshire in 1989.

  Mr. Lee
  In the year to December 1988 unemployment in Lincolnshire fell by 6,303; 26 per cent. of the December 1987 figure. I see no reason why the position should not improve further in 1989.

  Job Creation
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many jobs have been created in the London docklands; and what is the employment potential for the other 10 urban development corporations.

  Mr. Trippier
  I have been asked to reply as English urban development corporations are the responsibility of my Department. Since the London Docklands development corporation was established in 1981 more than 20,000 jobs have been created or attracted to the area, and the increase in jobs is accelerating. There is considerable potential for all UDCs to stimulate employment. This is, of course, only one of the benefits that they will bring to their areas.

  Closed Shop
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he intends to bring forward Government proposals to ban pre-entry closed shops.

  Mr. Fowler
  We announced in our White Paper "Employment for the 1990s" that we would examine the operation of the pre-entry closed shop over the coming months and review the steps employers take to use the freedom the law has given them to get rid of closed shop arrangements. This examination and review is currently taking place.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Kirkhope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are currently working in jobs related to the Channel tunnel; what effect this will have on the economy of northern England; and if he will make a statement.
  146
  Mr. Lee
  It is not possible to estimate the total number of people currently working in jobs relating to the Channel tunnel, but I am aware that around 5,000 people are currently employed at the tunnel site in Kent. In addition, contracts worth £500 million have been awarded to date by the tunnel contractors: 90 per cent. of this work has gone to firms in the United Kingdom, 20 per cent. to firms in northern England. The Channel tunnel should have a beneficial effect on the economy of the whole of the United Kingdom.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Bright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to meet the chairman of the British Venture Capital Association to discuss the financing of small businesses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) on 17 January, at column 177.

  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to meet the general secretary of the Confederation of British Industry to discuss the development of small businesses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) on 17 January, at column 177.

  Labour Mobility
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his policy on encouraging the movement of employees in(a) the public sector and (b) the private sector from full-time to part-time working; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  We are in favour of encouraging flexibility in the labour market such as that provided by working part-time. In general, employers and employees should be free to work out the arrangements which best suit their individual circumstances. My Department's jobshare scheme aims to help employers in the public and private sector to adopt more flexible working patterns and open up job opportunities directly or indirectly for the unemployed.

  Training
  Mr. Fishburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide figures on training in 1979 and the estimate for 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  Some 876,000 people entered training in 1987–88 under schemes funded by the Employment Department Training Agency (formerly the Manpower Services Commission) compared with 91,000 in 1979–80. This nearly tenfold increase underlines the importance attached by the Government to developing a skilled and flexible work force capable of meeting the challenges of the 1990s and beyond. The principal responsibility for training must lie with employers themselves, but the Government play an important role through the major training programmes they support, in particular the youth training scheme and employment training.
  147
  The White Paper "Employment for the 1990s", which I issued last December, sets out radical proposals for building on the achievements of the last few years. These include the creation of local employer-led training and enterprise councils over the next three to four years and the establishment of a new programme, "Business Growth Training" to help employers, particularly small employers, improve the effectiveness of their training activity.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of the employment training scheme.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Employment training continues to make excellent progress and at 27 January 1989 there were 131,000 people on the programme. There is considerable interest in employment training among longer-term unemployed people who clearly recognise the value of worthwhile training to help them get a job.

  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are currently on Training Commission training schemes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Information is not available for all Training Agency schemes in the form requested. However, in December 1988, 527,900 people were in training on employment training and YTS. This huge investment reflects the central importance which the Government attach to creating a skilled and flexible work force which will contribute to Britain's economic prosperity in the 1990s and beyond.

  YTS has been a great success and the new employment training, the most ambitious training programme for unemployed adults anywhere, has made an excellent start.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the number of people on YTS and employment training, at the latest available date, for the north.

  Mr. Nicholls
  At 31 December 1988 there were 32,300 youngsters on YTS, and at 27 January 1989 there were 14,400 adults on employment training in the Training Agency's northern region.

  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the number of people on YTS and employment training, at the latest available date, for the north-west.

  Mr. Cope
  At 31 December 1988 there were 65,700 youngsters on YTS, and at 27 January 1989 there were 18,500 adults on employment training in the Training Agency's north-west region.

  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are currently engaged in the employment training scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The number of people on employment training at 27 January was 130,900. This is a tremendous achievement after less than five months of the programme's operation and is a reflection of the considerable interest shown by unemployed people in getting high quality training to help them get back into a job.
  148
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide figures for spending on training in 1979 and 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  Records are kept on the basis of the standard financial year for accounting for Government expenditure. This year runs from 1 April to 31 March.

  The figures represent expenditure by the Department of Employment Training Agency (ex MSC, ex Training Commission) on training programmes in the relevant financial years.

  £ millions

  1978–79

  374

  1979–80

  451

  1987–88

  1,613

  These figures include all related administrative costs, net of receipts.

  Employer School Compacts
  Mr. Tracey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many areas have applied for development funding for employer school compacts to date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  Forty six areas applied for funding to establish a compact. Partnerships of employers and education authorities in 30 of those areas were granted development funding and are currently preparing applications for four years operational funding.

  I have been very pleased by the positive responses from both employers and the education service and I look forward to the establishment of the first compacts later in the spring.

  National Training Task Force
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what progress has been made in establishing the national training task force; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  The membership of the national training task force was announced on 4 January 1989 and it held its first meeting on 31 January. The task force will be assisting in the establishment of a national network of training and enterprise councils and will have a leading role in promoting to employers the importance of investing in the skills of their workers.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions he has had regarding the level of disabled unemployment recorded in the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys survey.

  Mr. Lee
  The recently published information in the report by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, on the financial circumstances of disabled adults living in private households does not provide sufficiently precise information about the unemployment of economically active people who have handicaps which are relevant to employment. My Department has recently commissioned a survey to provide such information. I expect the results to be available in the second half of this year.

  Productivity
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the effect of higher productivity on the current level of pay settlements.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Pay, including its relationship with productivity, is a matter for the judgment of individual employers in the light of their particular circumstances, but moderation in pay settlements is essential for competitiveness and jobs. Our international competitors enjoy lower growth in unit labour costs because they have considerably lower growth in earnings.

  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the increase or decrease in productivity for the last 12 months for which figures are available.

  Mr. Lee
  Productivity in manufacturing, as measured by output per person employed, was 7·7 per cent. greater in the three months ending November 1988 than in coresponding period of 1987.

  Productivity for the economy as a whole was 2·6 per cent. higher in the third quarter of 1988 than in the third quarter of 1987.

  Construction Industry Training Board
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make a statement on the future of the Construction Industry Training Board.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The White Paper "Employment for the 1990s" set out the Government's view that independent and voluntary arrangements are more likely to be effective than those imposed by statute. We are now consulting the construction industry training board and organisations representing employers in the construction industry about future arrangements for the industry.

  Luncheon Club Meals
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many luncheon club meals will be lost to retirement pensioners in east Cleveland as a result of changes in the training programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Training Agency officials are currently discussing the east Cleveland luncheon club project with the local training manager. They will do all they can to help the service to continue, so long as the project can provide the training which unemployed people of east Cleveland need to help them get a job. I hope that the luncheon club will be able to continue under employment training and that no meals will be lost to pensioners in east Cleveland.

  Retail Prices Index Advisory Committee
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which of the recommendations of the 1986 retail price index advisory committee he has currently under review.

  Mr. Lee
  As the hon. Member was told in a written answer on 17 January, the advisory committee is shortly to review progress on implementing the longer-term 150
  recommendations made in its 1986 report. The recommendations in question concern the treatment of holiday expenditure, charges for financial services, new car prices and quality changes, improvements to price collection procedures and the family expenditure survey, and the release of a technical manual on the index methodology. The Government will be ready to consider the committee's recommendations on these points in due course.

  Elderly People
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on his proposals to encourage people over the age of 60 years to remain in the labour force.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Government believe that employers should see older workers as a valuable resource. "Agism" is unfair and, because of demographic trends, it is irresponsible to ignore the talents which older workers can contribute to the economy. Although recruitment decisions must be left to employers, in making them they should not discriminate unfairly on age grounds. They should also be considering how best to use workers who want to continue beyond 60. We are putting these messages across to employers through various media, thus creating opportunities for workers over 60 to remain in or return to employment if they so wish.

  Wages Councils
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received on his proposal to abolish the wages councils; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects to publish the results of the consultation exercise on the Government's proposals to abolish wages councils; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Hunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will summarise the responses which he has received to the recent consultative document on wages councils.

  Mr. Lee
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations on the proposal to abolish the wages councils contained in the recent consultation document. He will publish a summary of the responses when these have been analysed and considered.

  Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will seek to amend section 53 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 so that in all circumstances a dismissed employee has the right to be provided with a written statement, giving the reasons for his/her dismissal.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No. To do so would add to the burdens on employers. A written statement of reasons for dismissal is intended to enable a worker to assess whether he/she has grounds for complaining of unfair dismissal to an industrial tribunal. Originally the qualifying period for both rights was the same. The current Employment Bill seeks to restore that position by increasing the qualifying period for a written statement to two years.

  Self-employed People
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have become self-employed during the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  The number of self-employed people in the United Kingdom is estimated to have risen by 124,000 from September 1987 to September 1988, the latest period for which figures are available. It is estimated that over 3 million people are now self-employed and the number is still rising. The numbers of self-employed people have risen by over 60 per cent. since 1979 and they now represent more than one in nine of the employed work force.

  Employment Service
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of the Employment Service.

  Mr. Lee
  In the nine months since April, the Employment Service placed over 1·4 million people into jobs, including over 178,000 who had been long-term unemployed. New procedures such as more effective interviews with those making a new claim for benefit will continue to reinforce this trend. Since the establishment of the Employment Service in October 1987 unemployment has fallen by 626,500 overall, with particularly steep falls in long-term unemployment.

  Industrial Relations
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to meet the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress to discuss the current state of industrial relations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend meets the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress from time to time to discuss matters of mutual interest.

  Hotels (Investment)
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his Department's estimate of the amount of investment in hotels and hotel building in 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  The English tourist board's "Tourism Investment Reports" show that the total amount spent on hotel building, extension and refurbishment projects, with a value of £0·5 million or more, that were completed in 1988 was £319 million. Investment in such projects which were still under construction on 31 December 1988 was £730 million.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he expects the number of accidents at work to decrease in 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The statistical evidence is difficult to interpret, because of changes over time in industry 152
  structure and in reporting regulations, exacerbated by under-reporting. Forecasts of future rates would not be meaningful.

  I welcome indications in the Health and Safety Commission's annual report for 1987–88 that, subject to these caveats, the rate of reported major injuries to employees in manufacturing may have levelled off. But the rate remains too high, while higher rates for workers in some other sectors, notably construction and quarrying, give particular cause for concern.

  Responsibility for ensuring health and safety at work rests primarily with employers. I welcome the indications in the commission's report of increasing safety-related activity in industry. I believe this trend will continue, as employers become more aware of the economic as well as the human costs of accidents.

  The Government support the work of the Health and Safety Commission and Executive to stimulate and guide industry towards higher standards. Ministers' decisions in the 1988 public expenditure survey will increase real provision for the commission in each of the next three years, enabling the executive to employ more inspectors and carry out more inspections.

  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has on the relative current standards of(a) United Kingdom and (b) other European Community countries legislation on safety at work and health at work; and how much amending legislation will be necessary in the United Kingdom between now and 1992.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Direct comparisons are not possible because of differences in legal systems, enforcement arrangements and statistical systems. I am arranging for a copy of evidence given by the Health and Safety Commission to the Employment Committee (January 1987) on these issues to be sent to my hon. Friend.

  The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 was a forward-looking enabling measure designed to maintain or improve existing health and safety standards while providing flexibility to adapt to changing technology. The Act and its associated regulations, codes and guidance provide for a high standard of protection and I believe offers a useful model for the EC in developing harmonised minimum standards.

  We seek in negotiations to make our standards the basis of EC ones wherever practicable, thus limiting amendments needed to our own law. Some amendments will, however, be required, not least in areas—such as noise, or major chemical hazards—where a need for improved provisions is generally perceived and can best develop internationally.

  A major United Kingdom aim, as the scope of EC health and safety law expands, will be to ensure that our high standards of enforcement are matched throughout the EC. We shall pursue this as appropriate in negotiations, and in studies and discussions with the Community institutions and other member states.

  Strikes (Lost Working Days)
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many working days were lost through strikes in(a) December 1978 and (b) December 1988; and if he will make a statement.
  153
  Mr. Lee
  The number of working days lost through stoppages of work due to industrial disputes in December 1978 was 542,000. The most recently available figure relates to November 1988, for which it is provisionally estimated that 173,000 working days were lost; the December 1988 figures will be published on 16 February in the "Labour Market Statistics Press Notice".

  Restart Scheme
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many redundant miners have been interviewed in relation to the restart scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  The information is not available.

  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many long-term unemployed have been offered help under the restart programme to date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  Since 1 July 1986, just over 5 million interviews have taken place under the restart programme, of which just under 90 per cent. have resulted in an offer of positive help. It is not possible to state the number of people who have been interviewed, as some will have been interviewed more than once.

  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the number of individuals participating in the enterprise allowance scheme in Scotland and the United Kingdom in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Cope
  In 1988, 101,816 people joined the enterprise allowance scheme in Great Britain, of which 9,045 were in Scotland. Since the scheme began in 1982 over 414,000 unemployed people have been helped to start their own businesses, of which 36,832 were in Scotland.

  Jobcentres
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the range of facilities available at jobcentres.

  Mr. Lee
  Jobcentres offer a wide range of facilities which are mainly designed to support the employment service key responsibilities of helping unemployed people back to work and providing a gateway to the Government's employment, training and enterprise programme.

  Jobcentres have two main avenues of help to get people back to work. They provide facilities which are available to everyone for display of vacancies and submissions to jobs. They also undertake specialist measures designed to help longer-term unemployed and disadvantaged people. These include jobclubs, restart courses, the restart counselling programme, a range of services to help the disabled, and particular assistance to inner city residents. Jobcentres are usually the first point of contact for most inquiries about Government employment provisions. The list of employment, training and business help programmes gives some indication of the range of facilities available.

  The jobcentre "gateway" role extends beyond the schemes and services provided by the Employment
  154
  Department group. A key function of staff is to provide information and to direct inquirer to appropriate "external" organisations and agencies, for example citizens advice bureaux, local enterprise agencies and adult literacy centres.

  Jobcentres also have display facilities for self-help material, for example leaflets, pamphlets and reference books, giving details of the services available.

  M25 (Hotels)
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has on the extent to which there is a shortage of hotel accommodation in the M25 corridor; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  I have no detailed information. However, I understand that the London tourist board and the hotel industry report a considerable demand for additional accommodation along the M25 corridor.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress being made in the establishment of training and enterprise councils.

  Sir Hal Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the setting up of training and enterprise councils.

  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many representations he has received in response to his proposals to create training and enterprise councils in the White Paper "Employment for the 1990s"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  Since the White Paper "Employment for the 1990s" was published on 5 December over 600 individuals and organisations have been in contact with me or my Department to inquire about training and enterprise councils. I am very pleased about the positive response. I will publish a prospectus in March and I expect to announce the first training and enterprise councils before the end of the year.

  Discrimination
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the outcome of his policies for taking discrimination out of employment.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There are encouraging signs that our policies are producing results. More girls and women are gaining the qualifications and experience necessary to fill higher level jobs. Recent trends also suggest that progress is being made against race discrimination. There is obviously still more to do—women and ethnic minorities are still under-represented in more skilled and higher paid jobs. I am, however, confident that the 1990s will provide even greater opportunities for equality in all areas where discrimination may occur. The Government welcome this.

  Skilled Workers
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the anticipated shortfall in the
  155
  availability of skilled workers in England and Wales in 1989–90; and what steps are being taken to increase the supply of skilled workers, especially in the manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Cope
  There is no overall measure of the shortfall in the availability of skilled workers. The steps being taken by the Government to increase the supply of skilled workers in all industries are set out in the training section of the White Paper "Employment for the 1990s" published in December.

  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has received recent representations from the Confederation of British Industry about skill shortages; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  I have received no recent representations from the Confederation of British Industry about skill shortages. My Department is working closely with employers to ensure that they are fully equipped to meet their skill needs in the 1990s. The training section of the White Paper "Employment for the 1990s" published in December sets out the steps being taken to counter skill shortages.

  EETPU Training Centre
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on his visit to the training centre of the EETPU.

  Mr. Cope
  My right hon. Friend visited the EETPU training centre at Cudham hall on 19 April 1988. We welcome the initiative that EETPU has taken to provide training for its members to meet the demands of rapidly changing technology.

  Graduates
  Mr. James Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the analysis of graduate employment in the latest labour force survey.

  Mr. Lee
  Relevant results from the spring 1987 labour force survey, the latest available, were analysed in an article, "Graduates and the labour market in the 1980s", published in the January 1989 edition of the Employment Gazette. The Employment Gazette is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Business in the Community
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about his meeting with Business in the Community representatives.

  Mr. Cope
  I met Business in the Community representatives to discuss the White Paper "Employment for the 1990s" published on 5 December last, and particularly the opportunities arising from it to improve services to small businesses. The local training and enterprise councils announced in the White Paper will become a focal point for local enterprise agencies and others in the network of organisations providing advice and support to small businesses and those wishing to start up on their own.

  Enterprise Agencies
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many local enterprise agencies are currently operating; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  We know of 434 local enterprise agencies operating in the United Kingdom. Of these, 393 are approved under provisions of the 1988 Income and Corporation Taxes Act (previously under provisions of the 1982 Finance Act), which allow business sector sponsors tax relief on their contributions to such bodies.

  The local training and enterprise councils announced in the White Paper "Employment for the 1990s" will provide a means for ensuring that the provision of small firms counselling and training relevant to local needs is extended and co-ordinated. There will be an important opportunity here for local enterprise agencies, as the councils will be able to sub-contract small firms work to agencies which can demonstrate a high quality of service.

  National Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many national vocational qualifications have been awarded since the scheme's start; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  I regret that this information is not available. The National Council for Vocational Qualifications is developing a computerised system which will require awarding bodies whose qualifications have been accredited as national vocational qualifications (NVQs) to provide details of the number of awards made on a quarterly basis.

  The council has accredited 83 qualifications to date.

  Small Firms Service
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many counselling sessions were provided by the small firms service during the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  In 1987–88 the small firms service in England conducted 39,138 counselling sessions.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many inquiries were dealt with by the small firms service during the last 12 months.

  Mr. Cope
  In 1987–88 the small firms service in England handled 266,174 inquiries.

  Business Growth Through Training
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received about the business growth through training programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  I have received no representations about business growth training, which I announced on 24 January in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) at column 550.

  European Community (Unemployment)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he will next be meeting other
  157
  European Community Employment Ministers to discuss current levels of unemployment in the Community; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on Tuesday 17 January at column 175.

  Redundant Mineworkers Scheme
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects to make an announcement on the redundant mineworkers' payments scheme arising from discussions between officials from his Department and the Department of Energy.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I have been asked to reply.

  Discussions between officials on the effect of restart on beneficiaries under the redundant mineworkers payments scheme are proceeding urgently. I hope it will be possible to reach conclusions shortly.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Potato Marketing Board
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to make a statement about the future of the Potato Marketing Board.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to announce the result of the review of the potato marketing scheme.

  Mr. Ryder
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor) is now considering and evaluating the responses to the consultation document issued in September 1988. We are not yet in a position to say when this process will be completed, but a decision will not be unduly delayed.

  Salmonella
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many egg production units have been found to contain salmonella enteritidis; and what percentage this is of the national total.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The most recent figures show that there were 35 reports of isolation of salmonella enteritidis in 1988 in table egg laying and breeder laying flocks. There are estimated to be 38,534 holdings with table egg laying flocks and 11,403 with breeder laying flocks in Great Britain, but it is not possible to give as a percentage those flocks in which salmonella enteritidis has been reported as more than one report may relate to the same flock.

  Mr Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many table poultry production units have been found to contain salmonella enteritidis; and what percentage this is of the national total.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The most recent figures show that there were 276 reports of isolations of salmonella enteritidis in broiler flocks in 1988. There were estimated to be 1,704 holdings with broiler flocks in Great Britain. In addition, birds will be sold for the table from laying flocks and breeding flocks, which are kept on an estimated 50,000 holdings. It is not possible to give as a percentage those flocks in which salmonella enteritidis has been reported as more than one report may relate to the same flock.
  158
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether salmonella enteritidis T4 has been isolated inside an egg destined for eating.

  Mr. Ryder
  Salmonella enteritidis PT4 has been isolated from the contents of eggs obtained from flocks supplying eggs for human consumption.

  Market Research
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his definition of near market research in respect of the agriculture industry.

  Mr. Ryder
  Near market research is research which offers the prospect of commercial application or exploitation, whether as a product, process or system, within a short enough timescale to justify investment by industry.

  Dioxins
  Dr. David Clarke
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has made an assessment of the length of time traces of dioxins from pesticides remain in soil after application; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I understand that where traces of dioxins have reached the soil they may remain for some years, depending on a variety of physical, chemical and biological processes favourable to degradation. My Department, in conjunction with the Department of the Environment and the Department of Health, has been working on a statement on dioxins in the environment which will be published shortly and will include a discussion of this aspect.

  For pesticides, where reaction mechanisms and manufacturing process conditions suggest the possible co-production of dioxin contaminants, the approval of the pesticide is dependent on the manufacturer meeting an acceptable specification for his product. If necessary, maximum limits for dioxin contamination can be set. For example, an upper limit of 0·1 mg/kg for the presence of the most toxic dioxin, 2·3, 7·8—Tetra chloro dibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) in the herbicide 2, 4, 5-T was imposed in 1970 and this was reduced to 0·01 mg/kg in technical 2, 4, 5-T in May 1980 as soon as suitably sensitive methods of analysis had been developed and validated. This condition of approval has statutory force under the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Retirement (Harmonisation)
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures he is considering to harmonise the retirement age of men and women.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) on 18 January at column 246.

  Public Appeals
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will specify each donation which his Department has made in each financial year since 1979–80 in response to public appeals for financial aid.
  159
  Mr. Moore
  My Department has made no donations in response to public appeals for financial aid since its creation in July 1988. However the Government do make donations to a variety of organisations working in the social security field. For example, I announced to the House last October that the Government will be contributing £5 million to a special trust fund set up to celebrate the tenth anniversary of Motability, the scheme set up to help disabled people to obtain cars on favourable terms and up to £5 million has also been made available in the current financial year to the independent living fund.

  Regional Boundaries
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how the boundaries of social security regions prior to 1982 reconcile with those after 1982.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  During the period August 1981 to April 1983, the number of social security regions was reduced from 12 to seven. This resulted from a departmental efficiency scrutiny published in July 1981.

  Of the original 12 regions, only Scotland remained unchanged. The former Wales and south-west regions were combined, and the remainder were merged to form five new regions. Where possible the existing county, local authority, and other accepted boundaries were retained. Full details of the earlier regions and the areas which they served, and a map showing the current regional boundaries have been placed in the Library.

  Availability for Work
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what, by standard Great Britain region, including Greater London, is the average length of time between an unemployed claimant receiving an adjudication officer's adverse decision as to availability for work and a subsequent appeal; and what proportion of appeals result in a decision revised in favour of the claimant.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Bridging Allowance
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what arrangements were made to publicise the availablility of a bridging allowance to young people aged 16 to 18 years who lost entitlement to income support in September 1988; whether any plans were drawn up by his Department to instruct local offices to publicise both bridging allowances and the payment of child benefit to parents; and whether any offices caried out exercises to publicise such allowances.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  From May 1988 a supplement was included in the leaflet FB23 "A young persons' guide to Social Security". The supplement was entitled "New Income Support rules for people under eighteen". It included sections on both bridging allowance and extended child benefit. Any young person leaving school could obtain the leaflet FB23 and the supplement free from careers offices, DSS local offices, and from schools and local authority social service departments.

  Young people aged 16 or 17 years at 12 September 1988 who were receiving income support up to that date were
  160
  sent a letter advising them that their income support was being withdrawn. The letter included details of the availablility of a bridging allowance. No mention was made in the letter of the payment of child benefit for an extended period since most of these young people would have left school at Easter 1988, or before, and their parents would not have qualified for payment.

  Transitional Payments
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have applied for a transitional payment to date; how many applications have been(a) awarded, (b) refused and (c) are still outstanding; and what has been the average payment made.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Of the 423,657 applications for housing benefit transitional payments received at 8 February, 177,948 cases have been successful and 204,883 have been refused. Of the 40,826 applications outstanding, 25,737 are awaiting return of inquiry forms from the local authority. The average weekly payment is £3·89.

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average length of time taken to process an application for a transitional payment.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The clearance times for applications for transitional payments will vary considerably from case to case and depend on how long the local authorities take to return the inquiry forms and whether further inquiries have to be made from the unit. For straightforward cases, it takes at present two days from receiving an application in the unit to sending the inquiry form to the local authority, 35 days for the local authority to return the inquiry form to the unit, and a further five days from receiving that inquiry form at the unit to deciding whether a payment can be made. The transitional payments unit has contacted a number of local authorities to encourage them to return the inquiry forms promptly.

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State For Social Security how many full and part-time employees there are in the transitional payments unit in Glasgow.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There are 360 full-time employees at the transitional payments unit. Of these 158 are permanent DSS staff; the remainder are employed on a limited period contract. There are no part-time employees.

  Income Support
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing current numbers of people claiming income support by local authority area.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that this information is not available on a local authority basis.

  Information on the number of people claiming income support by local office is contained in my reply to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) on 1 February 1989 at columns 286–92.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing the numbers receiving housing benefit in each local authority in each of the last three years.
  161
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 1 February 1989]: The information requested, for the years 1986–87 to 1988–89 has been placed in the Library. The table for 1988–89 is incomplete as returns have yet to be made by a small number of local authorities and the validity of others is still being checked.

  Benefits
  Mr. Graham Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants will not receive any overall increase in their benefit income in April 1989(a) for the United Kingdom as a whole and (b) for his Department's local offices in the county of Nottinghamshire, both numerically and as a percentage of benefit claimants.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]: I regret that precise information is not available. Of some 20 million social security benefit recipients whose benefit increases in April 1989 around 570,000 income support recipients and an estimated 1,200 in receipt of housing benefit transitional protection payments will not receive any overall increase in their benefit income. Family credit awards are for a fixed period, normally six months, and they are not uprated during this period. The new rates take effect only from the following claim.

  Information for Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Public Donations
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will specify each donation made by his Department in response to public appeals for financial aid during each financial year since 1979–80.

  Mr. Forth
  My Department keeps no separate record of donations made in response to public appeals. I am not aware of any such payments having been made by my Department since 1979–80.

  Inward Investment Projects (Nottingham)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will give the total number of inward investment projects brought to Nottingham, North by location in each year since 1979, giving the number of jobs involved and the volume of expenditure.

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department is aware of eight inward investment projects having been brought to Nottingham, North since 1979, all at Blenheim industrial estate, Bulwell:

  Year

  Number of projects

  Jobs

  1980

  1

  40

  1984

  2

  95

  1986

  1

  30

  1987

  2

  25

  1989

  2

  245

  No information on the volume of expenditure is available.

  Metrological Control of Equipment
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will seek to implement all the recommendations of the Eden committee on the metrological control of equipment for use for trade which the Government accepted in their response dated July 1986.

  Mr. Forth
  Those recommendations accepted by the Government's response (Cmnd. 9850) to the report of the Eden committee which did not require primary legislation have already been implemented. It remains my Department's intention to introduce legislation to implement the remaining accepted recommendations when parliamentary time is available.

  Air Combat Training
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what discussion his Department has had with British Aerospace regarding its planned British Aerospace air combat manoeuvring installation in the North sea; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  My officials have discussed British Aerospace proposals for air combat manoeuvring installations and in particular the ensuing communications requirements.

  Sanitary Products
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) if he will meet representatives of the sanitary products industry to review urgently its manufacturing procedures;

  (2) if there are any proposals to introduce specific legal standards governing the manufacture of sanitary tampons;

  (3) what consumer safeguards exist to regulate the composition of sanitary protection products;

  (4) what action he will take to publicise the danger to women of toxic shock syndrome when using sanitary tampons and printing such information on sanitary tampon packets.

  Mr. Forth
  Four years ago the Government set up a voluntary prior approval scheme with the sanitary protection industry, under which manufacturers submit to the government any new tampon or tampons to which there have been significant changes in design or materials, and toxicologists from the Department of Health scrutinise them to decide whether they pose a health hazard. I am satisfied that this scheme is adequate to safeguard the public and I commend it as a good example of a responsible industry voluntarily looking after the interests of its customers.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will introduce a code of conduct or guidelines on the sanitary protection industry with regard to problems related to the disposability of their products.

  Mr. Forth
  I have no plans at present to introduce such a code of conduct or guidelines.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) if he will make it his policy to encourage manufacturers of disposable soft tissue products to change to unbleached pulp for manufacture;
  163
  (2) when he last met representatives of the sanitary protection industry to discuss organochlorines and dioxins remaining in the product following wood pulping and bleaching of raw materials and their health implications; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  Chlorine bleaching of pulp is the process which gives the whitest finished product. It produces very small amounts of dioxins in the effluent, and minute quantities—parts per billion or less may be retained in the pulp itself. There is no evidence at present that this is a hazard to consumers, but the expert Committee on Toxicity, at the Department of Health, will shortly be advising the Government on the toxicity of dioxins generally, and we shall back any action needed. Organochlorine pesticides do not occur in wood pulp.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether cotton fibre intended for use in tampon manufacture is guaranteed free of herbicides and pesticides applied in the country of origin.

  Mr. Forth
  I have no reason to think that materials used in the manufacture of tampons are contaminated with herbicides or pesticides, but I am asking the industry to check this aspect of its supplies of imported cotton fibre.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what additives are used to enhance the absorbency of sanitary towels; and what are the health implications thereof.

  Mr. Forth
  I shall ask the Association of Sanitary Protection Manufacturers what chemicals are used to enhance the absorbency of sanitary towels and about their bioavailability. Toxicologists at the Department of Health will then consider whether they pose any hazard to health.

  Paper
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on EEC initiatives for a chlorine-free paper industry.

  Mr. Forth
  I am not aware of any current EEC initiatives with this intent.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) how may paper pulp mills in the United Kingdom use the Kraft process with chlorine bleaching;

  (2) how many pulp mills in the United Kingdom use the sulphite process with chlorine bleaching;

  (3) how many paper mills in the United Kingdom carry out further chlorine bleaching of imported paper pulp.

  Mr. Forth
  None.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what tonnage of paper pulp is imported into the United Kingdom annually;

  (2) what is the percentage of paper pulp imported into the United Kingdom annually that is chlorine bleached.

  Mr. Forth
  Imports of paper pulp in 1988 were 2 million tonnes, of which 1·7 million tonnes (84 per cent.) were bleached or semi-bleached. It is not possible to identify what percentage of paper pulp is chlorine bleached.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what figures are available to his Department on the amount of chlorine gas required to bleach one tonne of paper pulp.
  164
  Mr. Forth
  This process is not undertaken in the United Kingdom.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish a table expressing as a percentage of gross domestic product the total(a) Government expenditure on civil research and development (b) other expenditure on civil research and development and (c) (a) plus (b), for each year since 1970.

  Mr. Forth
  The available information relates to gross expenditure on research and development in the fields of science, technology, social science and humanities, performed in the United Kingdom and the Government financing of it, as a percentage of gross domestic product. The data are available only for years in which a survey of research and development performed in industry was carried out and is as follows:

  Gross expenditure on research and development as a percentage of gross domestic product

  Gross expenditure on research and development financed by Government as a percentage of gross domestic product

  1972

  2·1

  1·1

  1975

  2·2

  1·2

  1978

  2·2

  1·1

  1981

  2·4

  1·2

  1983

  2·3

  1·2

  1985

  2·3

  1·0

  1986

  2·4

  1·0

  European Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Davyhulme of 6 February, he will give details of the projects funded from the European regional development fund in(a) the city of Manchester and (b) the Trafford district of Greater Manchester in respect of each of the past five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Atkins
  Commitments made from the European regional development fund were as follows:

  £

  (a) the City of Manchester:

  Infrastructure projects

  1984

  Manchester Science Park

  63,900

  Mini Industrial Units (Denhill Road and Hulme Hall Lane)

  40,800

  Floats Road Wythenshawe

  29,400

  Castleford Urban Heritage Park

  Phase 1

  122,550

  Phase 2

  376,200

  Advance Factories, Tulketh Street Muston

  78,600

  Pollard Street

  253,200

  Strangeways Highway Network

  50,100

  1985

  Chapman Street/Railway Street Junction

  49,500

  1986

  Park Street Access Road

  145,000

  1987

  Manchester Science Park

  102,000

  165

  £

  Mill Street Reconstruction

  32,500

  A6010 Improvement (Pottery Lane/Gorton Lane)

  20,500

  Manchester/Salford Inner Relief Road

  2,603,000

  Beswick Street Junction

  33,000

  Grey Mare Lane Junction

  35,500

  Bank Street Junction

  45,000

  Middleton Road/Leicester Road/Bury Old Road Junction

  356,500

  1988

  Longsight District Centre, Highway Improvements

  246,500

  Great Ancoats Street Bridge

  66,000

  Ashton New Road Junction

  19,500

  Wood Street Improvement

  27,500

  Old Street Improvement

  78,500

  Industry projects

  1986

  Sellars Electronics Ltd., Instrumentation for Quality Control Testing

  35,000

  Presbar Diecasting Ltd., Aluminium Diecasting Manufacture

  375,000

  1987

  Polybay Ltd., Drainage Channels of Polyester, Resin and Concrete

  90,000

  1988

  Motivation and Display Ltd., Point of Sale Display Equipment

  22,000

  Brentcast Ltd., Furniture

  20,000

  Cyril Bernstein Ltd., Kitchen and Bedroom Furniture

  175,000

  Trafford Rubber Products Ltd., Rubber Products

  20,000

  (b) the Trafford District of Greater Manchester:

  Infrastructure project

  1985

  Trafford Park Village Highway

  237,500

  Industry project

  1988

  Isaac Bentley, Water Oil and Gas Industry Products

  49,000

  European Single Market
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what percentage of the total number of registered businesses in the United Kingdom have made use of the Europe—Open for Business 1992 database; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  Around 190,000 requests for information have been received since the Europe—Open for Business campaign was launched in March last year. Spearhead, the Department's on-line database of single market measures, has a subscriber base of around 100,000. In total there are just over 1 million registered limited companies in the United Kingdom.

  Exports
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement about steps being taken to help British companies compete in world markets.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer
  I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) on 17 January, at columns 106–08.

  Disposable Nappies
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will commission a study on the side effects of the manufacture of disposable nappies for infants styled superabsorbent.

  Mr. Forth
  I have asked the two brand leaders for full details of the chemical composition of the active ingredient in superabsorbent disposable nappies. Our toxicologists at the Department of Health will check whether they are liable to pose a hazard to health.

SCOTLAND

  Salmonella
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the cases of salmonella food poisoning connected with eggs which were referred to in Government press advertisements, giving the number of people affected, the area of the outbreak and the most likely source of the eggs in question for each case.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The figures referred to in the press advertisements related only to England and Wales. In Scotland five outbreaks of salmonella were reported during 1988. These involved 99 people. Details are as follows:

  Area of outbreak

  Number of people affected

  Most likely source

  Fife

  5

  Free range group of hens kept for domestic egg supply.

  Argyll and Clyde

  54

  Supermarket—source could not be traced.

  Borders

  24

  Free range poultry farm.

  Lothian

  3

  Anecdotal evidence only that raw egg in a sponge mix was involved.

  Lothian

  13

  Supplier receives eggs from a variety of sources so that precise source of eggs cannot determined.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the incidence of salmonella-infected hens in chicken flocks in Scotland; and if he has instituted a survey of such incidence.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The number of salmonella reported incidents in poultry units in Scotland during the past five years have been as follows:

  Number

  1984

  9

  1985

  27

  1986

  11

  1987

  12

  1988

  21

  As is customary in these cases all incidents were investigated by the state veterinary service.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the number of salmonellae in eggs produced or marketed in Scotland, and on any survey he has instituted in order to compile such information.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Precise information on the extent to which eggs produced or marketed in Scotland are
  167
  currently affected by salmonella is not available. The Government's concern is to eliminate the risk of infection at all stages of production and in the preparation of food in the home and in eating places. The steps which we have announced are directed to that end.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will make a statement on the incidence of transmission of salmonella into eggs by trans-shell and transovarian routes, respectively; and if he has instituted any research into this question;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the frequency with which hens infected with salmonella lay infected eggs; and if he has instituted any survey on that subject.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  As the recent report from the joint MAFF, DH and BEIC working group made clear, further information on both these aspects is required before definitive conclusions can be reached. Consideration is being given to how this might best be pursued.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement concerning the action that would be necessary to achieve a long-term solution to the problems associated with salmonellae in poultry and eggs.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) on 18 January at columns 214–15. Action on a number of the proposals has already been taken. This includes further controls on protein processing plants; the imposition of restrictions on units where salmonella is suspected; and the compulsory slaughter of laying flocks where salmonella is confirmed. Taken together, these various measures underline our resolve to tackle the problem of salmonella.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the distribution of salmonella infection in chicken flocks in Scotland; and if he has instituted any survey of such infection.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Salmonella was reported on 21 poultry units in Scotland during 1988. In all cases the state veterinary service visited the premises and gave advice on hygiene and control measures.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what date he received the information on eggborne salmonellosis in Scotland contained in appendix 2 of the joint report of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Department of Health and BEIC working group; and if he will list the actions he has taken since then to advise the public about any risks and to promote the reduction of salmonella contamination in laying flocks.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Appendix 2 lists seven incidents of salmonella food poisoning involving eggs. These isolated incidents, spread over 1987 and 1988, represented a small proportion of all salmonella incidents reported to the communicable diseases (Scotland) unit, Ruchill. Advice on the consumption of eggs was given to community medicine specialists and directors of environmental health in August and November, 1988. A press release was issued in August 1988 and advertisements were 168
  placed in the national press in mid-December. Regarding laying flocks, proposals designed to reduce salmonella contamination were announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 18 January 1989.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what support his Department is giving to local authorities who wish to reduce or eliminate their use of CFC's.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Bottomley).

  Student Awards
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will publish tables showing the number of discretionary awards to students attending(a) drama schools, (b) dance schools and (c) art colleges, made by each local education authority in Scotland in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested by the hon. Member is not held by the Department and could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.

  Theatre in Education
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the local education authorities in Scotland which give financial support to Theatre in Education companies.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on this subject is not held centrally.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will arrange to collate centrally information on the processing of the community charge in relation to the proper completion of inquiry and registration forms and on the imposition of penalties for improper completion and for other offences.

  Mr. Lang
  My officials maintain regular contact with community charge registration officers to discuss general progress in compiling the community charge registers. I do not consider that a formal system for the central collection of data is practicable or necessary.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will give any advice or assistance to employers about payment of the community charge by employees in tied housing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The liability of people living in tied houses to pay community charges is no different from the liability of most other members of the community. I therefore have no plans to issue special guidance. Employers who provide tied housing will need to negotiate with their employees any changes in the conditions of employment under which such houses are provided, which may be required to take account of the effects of the abolition of domestic rates and the introduction of the community charge arrangements.

  Nurses
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give a breakdown by health boards in Scotland of the number of registered general nurses graded D who have more than one year's service.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not held centrally.

  Debtors (Imprisonment)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people are in prison in Scotland for non-payment of debts, excluding non-payment of fines.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 9 February 1989]: This information is not available in the form requested. In December 1988 the average daily population of civil prisoners in Scottish penal establishments was 0·6 persons. In the year 1987, 113 applications for civil imprisonment were disposed of by the courts; 98 of these were for non-payment of aliment.

  Civil imprisonment has therefore been a relatively little used procedure for anything other than non-payment of aliment. Since the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987 came into

  Total area (has)

  Estimated extent of agricultural land (has)

  Estimated number of eligible farmers/ crofters

  Concluded agreements

  Area covered by agreements (has)

  Breadalbane

  120,000

  90,000

  160

  68

  30,400

  Loch Lomond

  42,000

  30,600

  89

  22

  10,500

  Whitlaw and Eildon

  8,000

  7,500

  65

  3

  330

  Stewartry

  42,000

  39,000

  300

  25

  3,400

  The Machair of the Uists, Benbecula, Barra and Vatersay

  7,000

  7,000

  '800

  69

  900

  1 Plus 65 Grazing committees.

HEALTH

  Child Abuse
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects his Department's 1989–90 programme of research in the sexual abuse of children to be concluded and announced to the public.

  Mr. Freeman
  Current projects being undertaken cover the period 1987 to 1993. Each project will end as determined by its timetable. Projects in the 1989–90 programme have not yet been commissioned. Each individual project will be considered carefully and thoroughly through the Department's research commissioning mechanism. The precise start and finish dates are dependent on the research design and any changes needed in the light of professional, scientific or interdepartmental advice.

  AIDS
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) for what specific medical or public health purpose it is necessary to collect and report on AIDS surveillance clinical report forms submitted by clinicians to the PHLS communicable disease surveillance centre, the full names and addresses of people diagnosed with AIDS to the centre; what precautions are taken to protect this information during and after transmission to the centre;170
  operation on 30 November 1988 there can be no civil imprisonment for rates, tax penalties or the majority of civil fines and penalties due to the Crown. Civil imprisonment has never been a competent penalty in respect of non-payment of community charges or of civil penalties imposed by community charges registration officers in Scotland.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state in respect of environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland(a) the total extent, in hectares, of each environmentally sensitive area, (b) the extent of agricultural land within each environmentally sensitive area, (c) the number of farmers eligible to enter into management agreements in each environmentally sensitive area, (d) the number of agreements concluded with farmers in each environmentally sensitive area and (e) the total area of land covered by agreements in each environmentally sensitive area.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 13 February 1989]: The information is as follows:

  what information is stored in computer databanks and where; for what medical or public health purpose; and subject to what safeguards against unauthorised disclosure;

  (2) what precautions are taken in respect of HIV and AIDS clinical report forms and data submitted by microbiologists or clinicians to the PHLS communicable disease surveillance centre to ensure that such information is not accessible to temporarily employed staff;

  (3) in respect of AIDS surveillance clinical report forms submitted by clinicians to the PHLS communicable disease surveillance centre, to what extent the collection of data not necessary for specific medical or public health purposes has contributed to the national under-reporting of AIDS which has recently been identified and assessed by the centre and Office of Population Censuses and Surveys staff;

  (4) in respect of AIDS surveillance clinical report forms submitted by clinicians to the PHLS communicable disease surveillance centre, what steps he proposes to take to limit data collection to that necessary to ensure the most comprehensive possible reporting of AIDS diagnoses and deaths.

  Mr. Freeman
  The system for reporting HIV and AIDS cases to the communicable diseases surveillance centre (CDSC) is designed to provide the data necessary for surveillance while safeguarding confidentiality.
  171
  The information collected consists of personal and clinical data required to identify the health district of residence and the clinical condition. The forms used for data collection are kept under review in the light of experience, and are currently being revised.

  CDSC takes a number of steps to safeguard confidentiality. It urges reporting clinicians to encode surnames and provide assistance to them on the use of the soundex code. Addresses are not usually given as only the health district of residence is required. If addresses are given, CDSC encodes them. Only certain members of the staff have access to the written reports which are stored in lockable cabinets in particularly secure buildings. Data held on computer contains no names and addresses and access to it is protected by special security software. On starting employment, all staff have to sign a form drawing their attention to their responsibility to protect confidentiality.

  Current evidence suggests that the reporting of known AIDS cases is reasonably complete. To improve the completeness of reporting further, we announced on November 30 that we were asking Dr. Joe Smith, director of the public health laboratory service, to make proposals for reducing under-reporting to a minimum.

  General Practice
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioner practices with more than 11,000 patients there are in(a) Nottingham district health authority, (b) Nottingham, North constituency, (c) the city of Nottingham and (d) the Rushcliffe constituency.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  We collect the information requested from family practitioner committees, which are not necessarily coterminous with health authority boundaries. As at 1 October 1987 (the latest date for which figures are available) the number of partnerships in the area covered by the Nottingham family practitioner committee (which includes Nottingham district health authority) with 11,000 patients or more was 19. Information on Nottingham, North constituency, the city of Nottingham and the Rushcliffe constituency is not available centrally.

  Medical Advisers
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what regulations govern the appointment of medical advisers to local authorities.

  Mr. Freeman
  There are no regulations governing such appointments, but the Department's advice on procedures for the appointment of community physicians extends to doctors who provide services to local authorities.

  Select Committees (NHS Employees)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his policy regarding the attendance of National Health Service employees at Select Committees; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department's policy on the attendance of National Health Service employees before Select Committees is that this should happen whenever it seems likely to be of material assistance to a Committee's inquiry. To date, National Health Service employees have 172
  appeared on a number of occasions before the Public Accounts Committee and the Social Services Committee, either at the request of the Committee concerned or, with the agreement of the Committee, to join witnesses from the Department of Health. We believe that they have made a useful contribution to the work of those Committees.

  Dental Videos
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the total cost of producing the second in the series of dental postgraduate education videos, "ALARA"; and whether this can be broken down, approximately, into cost per video;

  (2) what was the total number of the dental education videos, "ALARA", distributed in Britain; and what was the regional distribution pattern in terms of dental practices supplied;

  (3) what categories of dental personnel were involved in the making of the dental educational video, "ALARA"; and what were the total numbers;

  (4) what arrangements have been made by his Department to collect and analyse responses to the second educational dental video, "ALARA"; and whether the results of such an analysis will be made available generally to the dental profession.

  Mr. Freeman
  The dental educational video, ALARA, was produced at a cost of approximately £41,500, just under £4 a copy, and distributed to all dental practices in England providing general dental services. The video has also been made available to dental practices in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  Twelve members of the profession took part in the production, including the president of the British Dental Association, a professor of dental radiology, a consultant dental surgeon, a postgraduate dental dean together with general dental practitioners and senior dental officers of the Department.

  Arrangements have been made by the British Postgraduate Medical Federation, which commissioned the video, to receive dentists' comments. These will be analysed and the results published.

  Children in Care
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children there were in local authority care for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Freeman
  The numbers of children in local authority care for each year 1979–86 and provisional figures for 1987 are given in "Children in care of local authorities, year ending 31 March, England", published annually, copies of which are available in the Library of the House. Over this period the numbers in care have decreased.

  General Practitioners (Budgets)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide exemplifications of the total cost of indicative prescriptions budget for general practitioners n each National Health Service region.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I will be publishing shortly a working paper which discusses arrangements for the introduction of indicative drug budgets.
  173
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps he proposes to take to ensure that general practitioner practices accept chronically sick or disabled people on to their registers when cash limited budgets are introduced;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the effect of cash-limited budgets for general practitioners upon chronically sick people in the community.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Practice budgets will be set to reflect the age and tendency to sickness of practice lists to ensure that doctors have no reason at all to refuse patients for financial reasons. In exceptional cases adjustments will be required in respect of individual patients who require more costly treatment. The practice budgets and drug budgets of GPs will therefore have no effect at all on the attractiveness of chronically sick or disabled people as potential patients.

  Regional Health Authorities (Funding)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide exemplifications of allocations to regional health authorities on a weighted capitalisation basis for the 1988–89 financial year and also give the actual allocations made and the resources allocation working party targets for National Health Service regions in that year.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The table shows the initial 1988–89 revenue allocations to regional health authorities, together with their distances from RAWP targets. A comparison with allocations on a weighted capitation basis as set out in the White Paper "Working for Patients" is not possible in the absence for that year of any negotiations between regions about payments for cross-boundary flows.

  1988–89 Revenue Allocations and Distance from RAWP Targets

  Region

  Initial allocation1 £ million

  Distance from target per cent.

  Northern

  758

  -1·56

  Yorkshire

  851

  -1·39

  Trent

  1,058

  -2·70

  East Anglian

  451

  -3·99

  North West Thames

  878

  4·46

  North East Thames

  1,084

  7·29

  South East Thames

  949

  1·69

  South West Thames

  768

  0·97

  Wessex

  633

  -1·79

  Oxford

  499

  -2·58

  South Western

  749

  -1·39

  West Midlands

  1,214

  -1·32

  Mersey

  609

  1·48

  North Western

  1,039

  -1·35

  1 Includes RAWP allocation, joint finance and earmarked sums eg supra-regional services, AIDS, breast cancer screening. But excludes later additions for review body pay award.

  Sanitary Tampons
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to change the status of the sanitary tampon and redefine it as a medical appliance.

  Mr. Freeman
  No.

  Organochlorines (Human Milk and Tissue)
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement following the World Health Organisation investigation into the levels of PCBs, PCDDs and PCDFs in breast milk.

  Mr. Freeman
  The draft report of the World Health Organisation into the levels of polychlorinated biphenyls, polychlorinated dibenzoparadioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans in breast milk is among the data being considered by the Department's committee on toxicity of chemicals in food, consumer products and the environment. It has been asked to advise on the possible health effects from all dioxins.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the presence of organochlorines in infant body tissues.

  Mr. Freeman
  Organochlorine compounds persist in body fat which is therefore a good indicator of exposure of body tissues. Surveys of human fat for these compounds were done in the United Kingdom between 1963 and 1977 as well as more recently between 1982 and 1983. These surveys dealt with persons aged five years and over but the 1982–83 survey also looked at four samples of fat from infants aged from five days to three months. The results confirmed that residues of organochlorine compounds (OCCs) might occur in newly born infants but the results were too few to allow further interpretation. A further survey of human fat is being planned and it is intended to look at samples from infants where available. The levels of OCCs found in these human fat samples show a downward trend and are unlikely to result in any adverse health effects.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information is available to his Department on the presence of organochlorines in breast milk and umbilical cord tissue.

  Mr. Freeman
  Surveys of organochlorine compounds in breast milk were carried out in the United Kingdom in 1979–80 and 1983–84, the results being published in MAFF food surveillance papers No. 9 (1982) and 16 (1986). Copies of these are in the Library.

  There are no United Kingdom data on levels of organochlorine compounds in placental tissue and umbilical cord blood, but limited information from other countries, available in the published scientific literature, shows that organochlorine compounds do cross the placenta into the foetus. However, these compounds are highly fat-soluble and greater exposures occur postnatally via breastmilk than prenatally via the placenta.

  The independent expert committee advising the Government on these matters, the committee on the toxicity of chemicals in food, consumer products and the environment, has stated that the toxicological information available is not adequate to exclude the possibility of effects on infant health from exposure to organochlorine compounds in breast milk, and recommended continued monitoring of human milk samples in the United Kingdom. A further survey has been planned.

  Meningitis
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been conducted into a possible link between sea water pollution and cases of meningitis.
  175
  Mr. Freeman
  I am not aware of any such research. The research projects into meningitis supported by the Medical Research Council were listed in the reply given on 21 December by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science at column 292.

  Sanitary Tampons
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been undertaken on the effects on women's health of dioxins in sanitary tampons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Research in Sweden has shown that the level of dioxins in sanitary tampons is extremely low. These levels are likely to present a negligible risk to women's health. The relevant trade association has been asked to provide information on levels found in products on sale in the United Kingdom and data on the bioavailability of dioxins in tampons. A further assessment of risks to health will then be made.

  Dioxins
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether there is a declared safe level for TCDD (tetrachlorodibenzodoxin);

  (2) whether there is a safe level of dioxins with regard to human health.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department's committee on toxicity of chemicals in food, consumer products and the environment has been asked to advise on the possible health effects from all dioxins. One of these, TCDD, has been classified by the International Agency for Research into Cancer as a possible human carcinogen.

  Legionnaire's Disease
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will instruct local authorities and health authorities to provide the recently developed Legionnaire's disease rapid testing kits for use in water cooling systems to their engineers and environmental health officers.

  Mr. Freeman
  The latest advice available to me on this matter is from the expert advisory committee on biocides. Its report, published on 8 February, welcomed the appearance of this kit but considered a thorough evaluation of it was essential.

  Rutland Memorial Hospital
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received since September 1988 from residents of Rutland against the proposed closure of the maternity unit at the Rutland Memorial hospital, Oakham; what action he intends to take to prevent the Leicestershire health authority from proceeding with that closure; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have received 22 local representations on the matter.
  176
  Responsibility for the provision of local health services rests with the district health authority concerned.

  Ministers are not involved in such decisions unless agreement cannot be reached locally.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the scientific basis for the assumption in the report of the joint working group on salmonella in eggs that a multiplication factor of 100 is appropriate in estimating total salmonella infections from recorded cases.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The report does not make this assumption, but it does quote some American practice of using a multiplication factor of 100.

  The public health laboratory service considers that there is considerable under-reporting of salmonella food poisoning, because not all affected persons consult a doctor, and those that do may not have a culture taken. Even when doctors secure positive results, the cases may not be reported. However, it is difficult to assess the degree of under-reporting of salmonella food poisoning in England and Wales as no specific studies of this question have been made.

  There is therefore no multiplier which can be specifically applied to this country.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to establish an independent inquiry into food poisoning.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  An expert committee is to be established on microbiological safety in food. It will report to me and my hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but it will have an independent chairman. Its members will include outside experts and Government advisers—for example, scientists or those with practical experience in the production, processing, retailing or preparation of food in the home or in catering. It will investigate issues referred to it by Departments, but it will also be able to initiate its own investigations. Its reports will be published.

  Ambulance Service
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of the ambulance service under the proposals in the White Paper on the National Health Service.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (M r. Blunkett) on Wednesday 8 February at column 696.

  National Health Service (Finance)
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish a table showing the relevant figures in table 14.19 of Cm. 614 adjusted by the hospital and community health service pay and price deflator.

  Mr. Freeman
  Following is the information:
  177

  Hospital and community health services, United Kingdom—current expenditure

  £ millions

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Cash figures table 14.19 Cm. 614

  Gross

  11,070

  11,706

  12,348

  13,249

  14,604

  Net

  10,767

  11,398

  12,018

  12,892

  14,219

  Figures adjusted by hospital and community health services pay and price deflator

  Gross

  14,284

  14,276

  14,325

  14,370

  14,604

  Net

  13,893

  13,900

  13,942

  13,983

  14,219

  The table sets out hospital and community health services current expenditure figures from 1983–84 adjusted by the hospital and community health services pay and price deflator for the years in which it is available. These figures do not take account of income from cash releasing cost improvements which, in the years shown, provided a significant contribution to the total resources available for service development.

  Parkside Hospital
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information is taken from patients in Parkside hospital area concerning patients' nationality and country of origin.

  Mr. Freeman
  This information is not held centrally. My hon. Friend, however, may wish to contact the chairman of Parkside health authority for further details.

  "Working for Patients"
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether any hospital wards which have been closed in the last two years will be reopened under the proposals of the White Paper "Working for Patients".

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 9 February 1989]: Hospital wards may be closed for a variety of reasons including, for example, the development of better alternative facilities. But under the present funding arrangements a hospital which becomes more efficient and could treat more patients may be prevented from doing so because funds do not flow with the patients. The White Paper's proposals will make it easier for NHS hospitals to offer their services to their own and other districts in a way which enables them to attract the funds they need in line with the work they are asked to do.

  Kidney Dialysis
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those district health authorities which have contracted out kidney dialysis services to(a) charities and (b) commercial companies.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 30 January 1989]: I am aware of only one district health authority which has contracted out hospital dialysis services in England. East Suffolk health authority has let a contract to Unicare Medical Services for provision of dialysis at Ipswich.

ENVIRONMENT

  Public Health Act 1933
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to introduce legislation to amend section 33 of the Public Health Act 1933.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I understand that my hon. Friend is referring to section 33 of the Public Health Act 1936. I have no plans to introduce legislation to amend that provision.

  Mortgage Repossessions
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the figures for 1979 to the present for mortgage repossessions in the north-west of England and each of the metropolitan boroughs of the north-west of England.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Department has no estimate for the numbers of mortgage repossessions in the north-west of England. The Building Societies Association publishes numbers of repossessions only for the United Kingdom, because the numbers are too small to break down by regions. My Department collects information on repossessions instigated in respect of mortgages made by local authorities, who made less than 1 per cent. of the total mortgage loans in the United Kingdom in 1987. In 1987–88 there were an estimated 90 repossessions in the north-west administrative region which were made by local authorities.

  Building society repossessions, United Kingdom

  Number

  1979

  2,530

  1980

  3,020

  1981

  4,240

  1982

  5,950

  1983

  7,320

  1984

  10,870

  1985

  16,770

  1986

  20,930

  1987

  22,930

  1 1988

  9,770

  1 First half

  Local authority mortgage repossessions, England

  Number

  1981–82

  1,100

  1982–83

  950

  1983–84

  840

  1984–85

  570

  1985–86

  630

  1986–87

  490

  1987–88

  330

  Thames Water Authority (Prosecutions)
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will indicate how many successful prosecutions were brought against the Thames water authority in(a) 1987 and (b) 1988, to the extent that information is available, for (i) causing pollution or (ii) in any other ways failing to meet their obligations as a water authority.
  179
  Mr. Moynihan
  In 1987 there was one successful prosecution against Thames water authority for the failure of a sewage treatment works to comply with the terms of its discharge consent.

  Tenants' Choice
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how the appointed teller described in his Department's consultation paper "Tenants' Choice: Consultation and Voting" will be able to communicate in the manner described with a seaman on active service overseas serving on Her Majesty's submarines for extended periods in times of international tension;

  (2) whether a service man or service woman on active service overseas who does not respond to the tellers' inquiries as described in "Tenants' Choice: Consultation and Voting", will have his or her home transferred to another landlord.

  Mr. Trippier
  The numbers of service personnel affected by tenants' choice will be small. Any who are, including submariners, will be enabled by regulations to cast an advance vote at any point in the 13-week consultation period if they expect to be absent during the vote itself. In addition, the independent teller will be able to contact virtually all service personnel overseas through the British Forces Post Office. Where the tenancy concerned is a joint one, a vote may be cast on behalf of all the joint tenants, including any service personnel on overseas duty. Tenants eligible to vote who did not do so would become tenants of the applicant if a tenants' choice transfer went ahead.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what detailed advice he has given as to recommended procedures for balloting tenants to determine whether tenants wish to remain local authority tenants as provided under the Housing Act 1988.

  Mr. Trippier
  A consultation paper "Tenants' Choice—Consultation and Voting" was issued to interested parties on 8 December 1988; copies were placed in the Library. Secondary legislation is being prepared to give effect to this and other provisions of part IV of the Housing Act 1988.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library information showing the form of questions put, to date, by local authorities to tenants, in ballots to determine whether tenants wish to remain local authority tenants.

  Average domestic rate poundages and illustrative community charges in Cambridgeshire

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Cambridge

  Average Domestic Rate Bill

  (£)

  307

  345

  357

  481

  513

  552

  Domestic Rate

  (p)

  124·5

  139·5

  144·5

  194·0

  206·0

  221·0

  Community Charge

  (£)

  n/a

  95

  110

  154

  190

  213

  East Cambridgeshire

  Average Domestic Rate Bill

  (£)

  205

  233

  244

  333

  357

  378

  Domestic Rate

  (p)

  119·8

  134·9

  140·7

  190·1

  201·1

  211·0

  Community Charge

  (£)

  n/a

  84

  104

  150

  182

  196

  Fenland

  Average Domestic Rate Bill

  (£)

  195

  220

  231

  312

  334

  356

  Domestic Rate

  (p)

  124·8

  139·3

  145·3

  194·4

  206·5

  218·7

  Community Charge

  (£)

  n/a

  90

  110

  158

  185

  208

  180
  Mr. Trippier
  ; Copies of ballot forms from the three authorities which have so far applied for consent to the sale of their housing stocks have been placed in the Library.

  Climatic Change
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the extent to which the current mild winter is a result of climatic change.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I am advised by the Meteorological Office that the current mild winter in the United Kingdom is a result of unusually persistent south-westerly winds. There is no evidence that this pattern heralds a lasting climate change.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice is being given to district councils about the best time to canvass for the information necessary for the community charge registers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Charging authorities have been advised that we propose to bring the regulations which will place a duty on individuals to provide information to registration officers into effect on 22 May, following the distribution by the Government of a public information leaflet.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish his best estimates of the costs of administration, per community charge account, of the community charge in England.

  Mr. Ridley
  Price Waterhouse estimated that the annual cost of collecting the community charge would be between £374 million and £430 million, an average of £9·40 to £10·70 per account. This is in line with the current unit cost of collecting rates.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the average domestic rate for each district in Cambridgeshire for each year from 1983–84 to 1988–89; and what the community charge would have been for each year if the system had been in place.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 6 February 1989]: The information requested is given in the table.

  The actual average domestic rate bill and poundage in each year is shown for each district together with the illustrative full community charge, where available.
  181

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Huntingdonshire

  Average Domestic Rate Bill

  (£)

  246

  276

  288

  382

  406

  429

  Domestic Rate

  (p)

  126·0

  140·3

  145·8

  192·6

  202·9

  213·5

  Community Charge

  (£)

  n/a

  96

  117

  157

  181

  203

  Peterborough

  Average Domestic Rate Bill

  (£)

  254

  282

  295

  384

  408

  435

  Domestic Rate

  (p)

  139·5

  154·5

  161·5

  209·5

  221·5

  234·5

  Community Charge

  (£)

  n/a

  125

  141

  182

  214

  231

  South Cambridgeshire

  Average Domestic Rate Bill

  (£)

  308

  351

  364

  493

  526

  554

  Domestic Rate

  (p)

  121·4

  137·6

  142·0

  191·2

  201·4

  211·6

  Community Charge

  (£)

  n/a

  80

  104

  135

  167

  186

  n/a—No illustrative community charge figures available.

  Palace of Westminster
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what areas of the Palace of Westminster remain to be cleaned and repaired; what is his estimate of the cost of this work; when he expects the work to be done; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The repair, restoration and cleaning of the stonework of the Palace of Westminster is being carried out in a number of phases. The current phase, covering the Central Lobby tower, is scheduled for completion towards the end of this year.

  The only sections of the external elevations then remaining to be tackled will be the Victoria tower and the south elevation, overlooking the Victoria tower gardens. These together will form the next phase of the programme. Work is scheduled to start early in 1990 and will take about two and a half years to complete. The cost is estimated at between £7 million-£8·5 million.

  The final stage will be the repair, restoration and cleaning of the stonework in the inner courtyards. A preliminary estimate made last year indicated that the cost would exceed £15 million.

  CFCs
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what support his Department is giving to local authorities who wish to reduce or eliminate their use of CFCs.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Local authorities, in common with all other consumers, have an important contribution to make in achieving the objective of reducing use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and halons to the maximum possible extent. We welcome the steps they are already taking. The Department, in conjunction with the Scottish Office, Welsh Office and the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland, will shortly be meeting representatives of the local authority associations to discuss practical ways of reducing CFC and halon use, including dissemination of information and guidance to local authorities.

  Houses and Flats (Huyton)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list, by year for the last 15 years for which figures are available, the annual number of completions, within Huyton borough council area of(a) private sector houses and flats, (b) council houses and flats and (c) housing association houses and flats.
  182
  Mr. Trippier
  Housebuilding completions, as reported by Knowsley metropolitan council for 1980 to 1987, appear in table 1 of "Housebuilding in England by local authority areas: 1980 to 1987". For earlier years figures appear in the following issues of "Local Housing Statistics".

  Year

  Issue number

  Table

  1974

  33

  5

  1975

  37

  5

  1976

  41

  5

  1977

  45

  5

  1978

  49

  5

  1979

  59

  4(a)

  Copies of these publications are available in the Library. Comparable figures for 1973 are not available because of the reorganisation of local government in 1974.

  Water Cooling Systems
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what extra resources have been given to local environmental health officers to ensure that guidance notes and best practice advice are available to owners of water cooling systems.

  Mr. Gummer
  It is for local authorities to decide what resources to allocate to environmental health officers to enable them to meet the needs of their area. Central Government support local authorities' revenue spending by way of block grant. Entitlement to block grant is calculated on the basis of each authority's assessed expenditure needs, taking into account environmental health duties. The grant is, however, unhypothecated. It is for each authority to determine its expenditure priorities.

  Dog Registration
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning the desirability of establishing a dog registration scheme; whether he has any plans to introduce legislation to provide for such a scheme on the lines advocated by the RSPCA; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Since 24 May 1988 when the Local Government Act 1988 came into force 110 letters have been received from hon. Members and 130 letters from members of the public, local authorities and animal welfare organisations. The majority of the letters refer to a registration scheme. We have no plans to introduce a registration scheme.

  Radiological Monitoring (Cumbria)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the levels of radiological monitoring and public protection for people living in Ravenglass and along the River Esk in Cumbria.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement regarding the levels of radioactive contamination found recently on the banks of the River Esk in Cumbria.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I am satisfied with the level of radiological monitoring undertaken by the authorising departments and British Nuclear Fuels plc. Data obtained from this monitoring confirms that members of the public living in the Ravenglass/River Esk area are exposed to doses of radiation that are well within internationally recommended limits.

  Winsor Housing Scheme, Newham
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what approach or consultations he has had with the London Docklands development corporation concerning the cost of construction and level of rent of the Winsor housing scheme in the London borough of Newham; and if he will state his current determination of the level of affordable rent expressed as a range of percentages or a given percentage of mean or average income, or similar computation.

  Mr. Trippier
  The London Docklands development corporation has recently submitted proposals for the Winsor park housing scheme to the Department. All aspects of these are currently under consideration.

  Water Suppliers
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any proposals to require the Crown estates Commissioners to pay compensation for(a) the failure to supply water, (b) the provision of water of a harmful quality and (c) failure of water suppliers to respond to queries.

  Mr. Moynihan
  No.

  South Bank Theatre of Dance
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the chairman of the London residuary body about the preservation of a site for a south bank theatre of dance.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  None.

  Planning Appeals (Durham)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many appeals against Durham city council's planning decisions were made to him in each of the last five years; and what proportion of these were successful in each case.

  Mr. Chope
  The number of planning appeals made against decisions of the Durham city council since 1 April 1984 (the earliest date for which such information is available) is shown in the table, together with the number of such cases decided and the number and proportion of these for which planning permission was granted.
  184

  Year

  Appeals received

  Appeals decided

  Appeals allowed

  Per cent allowed

  1984–85

  11

  8

  0

  —

  1985–86

  8

  6

  1

  16·7

  1986–87

  16

  11

  6

  54·5

  1987–88

  17

  17

  6

  35·3

  London Docklands Development Corporation
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the London Docklands development corporation target for new jobs for residents in(a) the urban development area, and (b) the London borough of Newham, Tower Hamlets and Southwark in 1989.

  Mr. Trippier
  LDDC has set itself the target of bringing unemployment down to a minimum and at a faster rate than London and national trends. These and other employment aims are set out in an LDDC occasional paper, published on 10 February, which has been sent to the hon. Member. LDDC has not set targets for particular areas, but under its memorandum of agreement with the London borough of Newham it will help ensure that 25 per cent. of jobs in the Royal docks area will be taken by Newham residents.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what mechanism has been established to ensure that the memorandum of agreement between the London Docklands development corporation and the London borough of Newham is implemented.

  Mr. Trippier
  The memorandum represents a commitment by the LDDC and the London borough of Newham to work together to secure the benefits of regeneration for the area. Progress is reviewed by regular meetings at both officer and member level.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of London Docklands development corporation expenditure was spent in 1988; and what are the forecasts for future years on(a) community needs of the residential population and (b) transport infrastructure.

  Mr. Trippier
  Approximately half of LDDC's expenditure in 1988–89 will relate to transport projects. Firm forecasts are not available for future years. All of LDDC's expenditure on regeneration should benefit the local communities, directly or indirectly.

  Thames House
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when Thames house, the temporary annexe of Newham community college, will be up and running; and what is the basis of its capital and revenue funding.

  Mr. Trippier
  The LDDC expects to complete refurbishment of its former Thames house office by mid-June, but parts will be available for college use before then. Opening dates will be decided by the college.

  The corporation is paying the costs of refurbishment, and will licence the building to the London borough of Newham on a peppercorn basis. In addition it will contribute 20 per cent. of revenue costs for five years, up to agreed cash limits. Annual revenue costs are expected to be approximately £1 million.

  Dogs
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what he estimates to be the non-working dog population, and the number of dogs destroyed as sick or unwanted during the last 10 years for which statistics are available.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department does not collect this information. I understand that the Pet Food Manufacturers Association estimate the total dog population in the United Kingdom to be 6·8 million. It is not known how many are working dogs, nor how many are destroyed as sick or unwanted.

  D. Harvey
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to how long the Nature Conservancy Council has been negotiating with D. Harvey, of Ninham Farm, Shanklin.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I am advised by the Nature Conservancy Council that its negotiations with Mr. Harvey over a variety of proposed uses of the land commenced in March 1986.

  Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what solutions his Department is seeking to reduce polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in tap water; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  At the request of the Department, water undertakers are conducting a major survey of their supplies to establish whether standards for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) are being exceeded. If they are, remedial programmes will be needed comprising the flushing, relining or replacement of water mains.

  Management Agreements
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average waiting time for management agreements to be entered into by the Nature Conservancy Council.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I am advised by the Nature Conservancy Council that the average time for negotiating agreements involving payments of under £5,000 per annum is slightly under six months. In cases involving higher payments negotiations can be complex and can take up to two years, or more, to complete. In such cases short term interim agreements can sometimes be agreed.

  Dioxins
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if there are any research proposals from his Department regarding sources of dioxin production;

  (2) what research is carried out into the formation of TCDD from less harmful dioxins;

  (3) whether the release of dioxins from hospital incinerators is monitored;

  (4) what was the level of dioxins created by the chemical, plastics and pharmaceutical industries at the most recent date.
  186
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the level of dioxins arising from the manufacture and use of pesticides, herbicides and slimicides.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Detailed information is not available on the levels of dioxins created by hospital incinerators, the chemical, plastics and pharmaceutical industries, nor by the manufacture and use of pesticides, herbicides and slimicides. The Department of the Environment, in conjunction with the Department of Health, HSE, DTI and MAFF have been working for some time on a statement on the known sources of dioxins, their possible health effects and the expected exposure of the public to them. This statement will be published shortly.

  There are 75 different dioxins of which 22 are TCDDs. Only one of these, 2,3,7,8-TCDD is considered particularly harmful. I understand that some research has been done on the formation of TCDDs from the other dioxins. It does not indicate that 2,3,7,8-TCDD is formed preferentially. This topic will be addressed in the report.

  Sanitary Towels
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action is currently taken to ensure that the legal provisions covering the disposal of sanitary towels are fully enforced.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There are no specific legal requirements. Disposal is conducted within the general statutory controls of local authorities under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 over waste handling and disposal methods and standards.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what statistics are available relating to the disposal via the sewage system of sanitary towels and tampons and the persistence of these items in coastal waters and on beaches.

  Mr. Moynihan
  None.

  Sea Water (Pollution)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action is being taken to deal with the increasing appearance of pathogens resistant to the natural disinfectant action of sea water.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I am not aware of any evidence to suggest that the number of pathogens entering the sea, which are resistant to natural disinfectant processes, is increasing. If the hon. Member has any information on the subject she might wish to send it to me.

  The Department continues to sponsor research to investigate the survival of human pathogens from sewage effluent in sea water.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on pollution of the sea by plastics.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Discarded plastic at sea is a serious hazard to marine life, affecting seabirds, fish and mammals. The United Kingdom Government are committed to help prevent it. New regulations introduced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for
  187
  Transport under the Merchant Shipping Act make it an offence to throw plastic overboard from any ship or boat. These regulations give effect in the United Kingdom to annex V of the international convention for the prevention of pollution from ships, 1973 and are being extensively publicised. Litter left on beaches or carried by rivers also contributes to this problem which everyone can help to tackle.

  Paper Industry (Toxic Material)
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what information he has as to which countries have tried to reduce or eliminate the use of chlorine in paper manufacture;

  (2) if he will undertake a study on the effects on the environment during the production of paper pulp for use in the manufacture of disposable nappies at all points in the process from tree felling to pulping and bleaching;

  (3) what representations he has received from environmental organisations over the production of dioxins associated with chlorine-bleached paper pulp; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what information he has on the United States paper industry dioxin strategy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  As far as is known, paper pulp for use in disposable nappies is not manufactured in the United Kingdom, and consequently a study on environmental effects is not called for.

  Sweden and Canada have taken steps to reduce the use of chlorine in paper manufacture and are encouraging manufacturers to change to a mechanical pulp process which does not involve chlorine bleaching. This is primarily because of concern over the effluents discharged by pulp mills using chlorine bleaching. In the United Kingdom, pulp is manufactured solely by processes which do not involve the use of chlorine bleaching.

  I have not received any representations from environmental organisations concerning the formation of dioxins during the chlorine bleaching pulp process.

  Copies of the United States paper industry dioxin strategy are available and are being examined for their relevance to United Kingdom circumstances.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what resources are available to monitor toxic effluent from paper mills.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Arrangements for authorising and monitoring waste effluents from paper mills and other industrial premises are currently matters for the regional water authorities.

  Re-Chem
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on environmental aspects of the closure of Re-Chem plants at Pontypool and Bonnybridge.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The plant at Bonnybridge was closed for commercial reasons in October 1984 before an independent review group, appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland reported in February 1985 that there was no substantive evidence of any abnormal environmental effects from the plant.

  The plant at Pontypool is still in operation and is subject to an appropriate range of environmental controls.

  Agent Orange
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department has received copies of any United States studies on the effects of Agent Orange herbicide.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Considerable information on the United States studies on the effects of Agent Orange herbicide has been published in scientific literature which is available to the Department.

  Disposable Nappies
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the percentage that disposable nappies form of domestic refuge as a whole.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No precise figure is available but it is estimated that disposable nappies represent less than 1 per cent. by weight of total household waste.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether there have been any reports of viruses discovered in rubbish tips associated with soiled disposable nappies handled as normal domestic waste.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We are not aware of any such reports. It would, however, be very difficult to determine whether or not viruses discovered in landfill sites are directly attributable to the presence of disposable nappies.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the closed-circuit television monitoring of sewers; and if he will estimate the annual cost of drains blocked by disposable nappies.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The water authorities use mobile closed circuit television equipment extensively and successfully to make detailed surveys of the most critical sections of their sewage systems. It is neither necessary nor practicable to extend its use to monitor all public sewers.

  WCs and private drainage systems are not designed to deal with disposable nappies. Maintenance and repair of these systems are the responsibility of the owners and no information is available centrally on which to base an estimate of the annual cost of clearing blockages in them.

  Drinking Water (Pesticides)
  Mr. Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, further to his answer of 7 February, if he will list in the Official Report the number and location of breaches in the precautionary standard for pesticides in drinking water in 1988 in supplies provided by the Anglian water authority.

  Mr. Moynihan
  During the period December 1987 to November 1988 there were breaches of the standard of 0·1 microgram per litre for pesticides, specified in the EC drinking water directive, in water supplies leaving 14 of Anglian water authority's treatment works. These were:Alton, Ardleigh, Bedford, Clayhill, Covenham, Drove Lane, Etton, Foxcote, Grafham, Heigham, Houghton, Marham, Pitsford and Wing.

  Local Authority Pension Funds
  Mr. Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which local authority pension funds had
  189
  implemented the results of an interim valuation before 28 July 1988 and will therefore be covered by the protection offered by him in his letter of that date.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information requested is not available to the Department. I shall be writing in response to a letter which I have received from the hon. Gentleman on this subject.

  Local Authorities (Funding)
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish, for each local authority in England, as available, its(a) cash backed, (b) non-cash backed and (c) total capital receipts as at 31 March 1988.

  Mr. Ridley
  My Department has now received accumulated capital receipts returns for 1987–88 from 99 per cent. of English local authorities. On the basis of these it is estimated that at the end of 1988–89 local authorities in England held accumulated receipts of £11·7 billion. Some of these receipts such as leasing disposals, were notional. The cash from much of the remainder had been used for such purposes as repaying debt and financing capitalised housing repairs. After allowing for such factors only £6·4 billion out of the £11·7 billion could be converted to cash.

  I have today placed in the Library a table showing for each local authority which has provided a return, (a) the accumulated receipts and (b) the amount which could be converted into cash.

  Football Hooliganism
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) of 1 February,Official Report, columns 56–60, whether he has received letters from Southampton or Fulham football clubs regarding the table of arrests for the 1987–88 football season.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 9 February 1989]: The chairman of Southampton football club wrote to me on 3 January about the 1987–88 arrest figures in respect of the club. I have received no correspondence from Fulham football club.

  Water Charges
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide information showing(a) the range of rates paid, (b) rateable values and (c) water charges paid as a proportion of rates paid and rateable values prevailing in each water authority area in England and Wales (i) in 1979, (ii) in 1983 and (iii) for the last twelve months, to date; and if he will estimate, on the basis of recently announced increased water charges, the figures for the next 12 months.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 10 February 1989]: Information in the form requested by the hon. Member is not available centrally.

  Rates Statistics
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing the relationship of domestic rates to net equivalent household 190
  income, assuming a 100 per cent. rate rebate broken down in to (i) income bands of under £75, £75 to £100, £100, to £150, £150 to £200, £200 to £250, £250 to £300, £300 to £350, £350 to £400, £400 to £500 and over £500, all showing how many households fall into each income band and (ii) decile groups, showing how many households fall into each decile group.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 13 February 1989]: No. I have published illustrative community charge figures together with comparative figures for domestic rates on the basis of the latest tax and benefit rates. I have not been prepared to proceed by hypothetical example—either in forecasting the future or by "what-if" versions of history.

  Sewage Works
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to his answer of 8 February, he will list for each water authority in England the number of sewage works which breached their discharge consents in 1987–88.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 13 February 1989]: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave him on 20 December 198 at column 194. Figures for 1988 are not yet available.

  Environmental Health Officers
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many environmental health officer posts on the establishment of each local community are currently unfilled;

  (2) if he will make additional funds available to local authorities for the purpose of employing additional environmental health officers;

  (3) what discussions he has had concerning the level of training places for environmental health officers;

  (4) how many environmental health officers are employed by Westminster city council; and how many posts are on the establishment.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 13 February 1989]: Decisions on the resources to be made available within local authority budgets for the employment of environmental health officers, on the numbers of such posts to be created, on recruitment, and the timing of appointments to those posts, and on the training of such officers are all matters for the local environmental health authorities.

  Water Authorities (Privatisation)
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what indication he has had of the European Commission's view of the Government's proposals for a golden share in the water authorities after privatisation.

  Mr. Howard
  The Government have never been in any doubt about the legality of our policy on competition and merger in the water industry, and our proposals for a "Golden Share" to protect the new water plcs from takeover in their first five years in the private sector.

  In view of the quite unjustified doubts raised by some critics of water privatisation, I welcome the European Commission's clarification of the position.

  In a statement on 7 February, the Commissioner responsible, Sir Leon Brittan, said that having looked into the matter, the Commission

  191
  "has not found anything … which would raise problems as far as the Community law is concerned in the fields of competition or company capital structure".

  This is exactly as we had expected, since our proposal involves absolutely no element of discrimination as between different categories of potential investors. I recognise that this will disappoint those opposed to water
  192
  privatisation and therefore opposed to this sensible and temporary protection of the new plcs and their customers. Our proposals will simply avoid major and potentially damaging upheaval too early in their private sector existence, and provide a long-term safeguard against loss of comparative competition.

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

Universities Funding Council: Composition
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that the composition of the Universities Funding Council is of such an academic stature as will uphold the university standards of this country.
Viscount Davidson: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, in the Answer to a Written Question which I put down before Christmas, the noble Viscount said that the Universities Funding Council would consist of six full-time university academics, one polytechnic director and six members with industrial or commercial experience. I was asked to put down this Question by one of the universities with which I am associated. Is the noble Viscount satisfied that the council will not be dominated by commercial interests? Secondly, how is it that no member of the council can rightly be classified as a social scientist?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am not prepared to discuss the merits of individual appointments. However, the overall aim has been to achieve a reasonable balance and I believe we have achieved that.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Viscount answer my second question? Why is there no social scientist on this important body?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I have to give the same answer.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, while accepting that the list of members is a very distinguished one, I note that England and Scotland are very well represented but there is no university representative specifically from Wales. There is a well-known Welsh professor whom I greatly admire on the list of members but he is resident and stationed in England. Can the noble Viscount say why no Welsh representative has been appointed?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the UFC will have statutory advisory committees for Scotland and Wales, to be chaired by Sir Donald McCallum and Professor Gareth Roberts respectively.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am aware of that and I appreciate it. However, while there are eminent members of English and Scottish universities on the committee there is no comparable person from
62
the Welsh universities on it. Why is that? Why is Wales constantly neglected by the Government in this way?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I do not know. I have every sympathy with the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. But even if the council were much larger, some interests would doubtless still feel excluded. The council was deliberately kept to 15 members in order to help ensure effective working. This follows the recommendation of the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Croham, and is now provided for in the Education Reform. Act which your Lordships spent so much time debating last summer.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I appreciate that the noble Viscount is in a difficult position, but will he be good enough to have a word with his noble friend Lord Trefgarne?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am always prepared to have a word with my noble friend Lord Trefgarne.
Lord Butterworth: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Croham Committee envisaged that an executive committee should be set up under the council and that academic interests would be represented on it? The committee would be responsible for setting the recommendations on financial matters which we hope would encapsulate the highest academic standards.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Butterworth. As vice-chairman of the Croham Committee he knows a; much as, if not more than, most of your Lordships on the subject. I think I can add that the council will be able to take as much expert and other advice as it wishes in deciding on grants allocations and in framing advice to the Government. It has explicit powers under the Act to establish committees which may include non-members.
Baroness David: My Lords, is there any overlap between the membership of the Universities Funding Council and the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council? It would seem sensible if each of those councils knew what the other was doing.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, among the points taken into account when setting up the UFC were the need to balance academic disciplines in the area of non-academic expertise and the need for cross-membership with the polytechnics and colleges sector.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does the Minister, in his confidence in the new council, agree that as a first step to establishing its confidence more widely it should stop the abuse of university time by sending round silly questionnaires? Those questionnaires are designed by people with no understanding of how universities operate and they take away time that should be devoted to teaching and research.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I do not think that is a question for me to answer. All I can say is that the Government have full confidence in the membership of the council to get to grips with the challenges it will face when it takes on its full responsibilities from 1st April.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that many of the colleges of the University of Wales are concerned about this matter? Will he ask his right honourable friend whether he will be gracious enough to get in touch with the vice-chancellor of the University of Wales to see whether some help and provision can be provided along the lines outlined by my noble friend Lord Cledwyn?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I shall certainly pass on the question of the noble Lord.
Baroness White: My Lords, will the noble Viscount let us know what is the relationship of the two chairmen of the advisory committees for Scotland and for Wales respectively with the funding council? Will they be members thereof or will they have any right of audience or direct access?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I do not have the answer to that question, but I shall certainly write to the noble Baroness.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, regardless of the composition of the council, how independent will it be in giving advice from the Department of Education and Science or any other government department?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, it will be quite independent.
Lord Peston: My Lords, the stupid questionnaires to which the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, referred have their origin in the Department of Education and Science. That department totally backs them as its system of staff appraisal. However, I ask the noble Viscount to return to the original Question. It is a serious matter when some quarter of all undergraduates study social studies and business but those subjects are not represented at all on the Universities Funding Council. Will the noble Viscount at least draw to the attention of his right honourable friend the Secretary of State the fact that that scale of omission is rather serious?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, as I have already said, the council was limited to 15 members. It is always likely that some specialties will feel excluded. But its composition followed the recommendation of the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Croham. That is how the legislation was drafted.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Viscount tell the House how many of the six representatives of commercial and industrial interests are members of companies which give subventions to the Conservative Party?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I think that is another question.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Viscount said that some specialties will be excluded. However, a speciality which covers no less than 25 per cent. of students is surely in a rather special position. For that number to be excluded is not acceptable.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, all the representatives of the academics will be on the sub-committees. They will give advice to the council.
Lord Annan: My Lords, is it not a fact that this insistence upon representing every interest has led to the constitutions of universities being overloaded by vast committees which are then incapable of taking executive action?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the noble Lord has a very good point. I wish I had thought of that.

EC Budget: Frauds
2.47 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will report on the discussions at the European Community's Economic and Finance Council on the frauds referred to in the Question asked by Lord Bruce of Donington and answered by Lord Young of Graffham on 20th January 1988 (H.L. Deb., cols. 206–207).
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, the Council discussed the 1987 Court of Auditors report in March 1988 and made a recommendation to the European Parliament on the discharge to be given to the Commission regarding the implementation of the 1986 EC budget. The Parliament voted to grant the discharge on 13th April 1988.
The Court's 1987 report was notable for devoting a specific chapter to fraud and irregularities. ECOFIN welcomed this and drew particular attention to the setting up of an anti-fraud unit in the Commission. The Paymaster General and officials have subsequently had detailed discussions with the head of the unit about his priorities.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord be kind enough to explain why it was, despite the specific instances of fraud set out in the 1966 annual accounts and the report of the Court of Auditors thereon and despite the misgivings that were raised by me in your Lordships' House on 20th January, nevertheless the Council of Ministers recommended the discharge of the 1966 accounts when its only method of obtaining a further investigation into the matter was to refuse the discharge until an investigation had been made?
Is the noble Lord aware that recently the new chief of the Commission's anti-fraud team estimated in evidence given before a European Parliamentary

65
Committee that at the moment frauds are running at somewhere between 10 and 20 per cent. of the Commission's budget? In those circumstances will the noble Lord instruct or cause to be instructed the council representatives that we have on ECOFIN to decline to discharge the 1987 accounts?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, at the European Parliament's budget control committee hearing on fraud which took place on 23rd to 25th January of this year, Herr Waechter, who is the head of the Commission's anti-fraud unit, reported that many people had said that fraud could amount to as much as 10 to 20 per cent. of the Community budget but that he considered that to be an area about which nothing definite could be said. Later in the hearing the chairman of the Parliament's budgetary control committee suggested a figure of 8 per cent. to 10 per cent.
The only figures which we have concerning irregularities, including fraud, in the period from 1980 to 1987 amount to approximately £130 million of which some £4 million relate to the United Kingdom. Those figures relate to detected fraud. We all know that there is probably a substantially larger amount of undetected fraud. That is a matter to which Commission officials are now giving their full attention.
Lord Jay: My Lords, since on any interpretation according to the Court of Auditors fraud amounts to at least tens of millions of pounds, a high proportion of which comes indirectly from the British taxpayer and is apparently caused by corruption and fraud in the distribution of export subsidies from the Commission, is it not time that the Government took more effective action to stop what is surely a scandalous misuse of British taxpayers' money?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the Prime Minister is of course very concerned about fraud within the Community and intends to raise the matter at the next European Council meeting. I believe that that is the correct forum in which the matter should be raised.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, while one accepts that the question of fraud is of great importance and that measures ought to be taken to curb it, and also that fraud extends beyond the CAP into other areas, can my noble friend explain why proposals which I put forward in 1986 on behalf of the Commission to amend the mutual assistance directive to enable the Commission in collaboration with member states to conduct investigations into fraud were vetoed by the United Kingdom in conjunction with the Finance Ministers of the other eleven member states?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, my noble friend was a Commissioner at the time and knows full well the answer to that question. I suspect that there must be rather more to the matter than that the veto was led by the United Kingdom, which is the impression that he has given to your Lordships' House. I shall certainly look into the matter and consult my colleagues.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, will the Minister give the House the answer to the allegation of the noble Lord?
Lord Young of Graffham: No, my Lords. The noble and learned Lord will know that I am not a Finance Minister and was not present at the meeting in 1986. If my noble friend cares to put down a Question I shall of course provide an answer to your Lordships' House.
Lord Benson: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Court of Auditors made a report on the 1987 accounts of the Community and, to use the gentlest words that one can, states that those accounts are misleading—in short, they are subject to grave irregularities? Will he tell the House what the Government intend to do about the accounts of the Community, which are full of irregularities?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I already told the House in an earlier answer that the Prime Minister is very concerned about fraud in the Community, and that includes the way in which the accounts are audited. She intends to raise the matter specifically at the next meeting of the European Council.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, asked an extremely serious and fundamental question. Thus far the Minister has failed to answer his noble friend. In the circumstances, and as a member of a Cabinet with collective responsibility, why is he unable to answer on behalf of his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Will he consider very carefully before he answers this question? Will he now give his noble friend a proper answer as to why on that occasion Her Majesty's Government vetoed his proposal?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition and all Members of your Lordships' House should know the procedures which the House has adopted for the convenience of noble Lords in respect to the answering of questions. If he cares to put down the Question I shall be happy to answer it. Surely not even the noble Lord could expect that I would have the sum of all knowledge of all events which have taken place in the European Council from time immemorial, or at least since 1979.
My noble friend referred to a specific incident a year or two ago at a meeting of Finance Ministers at which I was not present. Surely the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition cannot expect that I should have instant recall and know the answer.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords. does the noble Lord realise that his response to his noble friend's question has given the impression that he is complacent about the whole issue of fraud?
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Perhaps he has not given that impression to his noble friends behind him, but he has certainly given it to noble Lords on this

67
side of the House. He did so earlier this year in his original reply to my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington. Is the Minister aware that the public have now been informed that the amount of fraud could involve as much as £6 billion every year and that this country contributes about one-third of that sum? Will he tell the House whether the matter was raised yesterday by our own Minister of Agriculture in the Council of Agriculture Ministers as was promised? If it was raised, as it should have been, what was the outcome?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, while I accept full responsibility for all events which concern my department, and indeed all events which transpire in government, I cannot be expected to accept responsibility for impressions which noble Lords opposite might draw from my behaviour. I thought that I was absolutely firm in answering the question about fraud. I think that it is important to put the matter into perspective.
I quoted the words of the member of the Court of Auditors in reporting to the head of the Commission's anti-fraud unit that many people had said that fraud could amount to as much as 10 per cent. to 20 per cent. of the Community budget. At the upper level, that figure would represent £6 billion. However, no one has suggested a figure as high as that. I disclosed that the entire cumulative figure of detected fraud for the period from 1980 to 1987 was a total of —130 million. I said that the Prime Minister intends to raise the matter at the very next meeting of the Council of Ministers. I do not believe that gives any impression of complacency. I merely cited the facts. It is important that we should not be led astray by wild speculation.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, as one who shares collective responsibility with my noble friend for the matter at issue today, I do not know the answer any more than he does. Nor would I expect that he should know it. I cannot accept that, because he does not know the answer to a question of a very specialised nature put by my noble friend Lord Cockfield, that means that either he or I is in any way complacent about the matter. I should have thought that it would be far better if he were able to give a considered answer if my noble friend chooses to put down a Question.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, as I have now been named by my noble friend Lord Whitelaw, perhaps I may say this.
A noble Lord: Question!
Lord Cockfield: I shall put it as a question if the noble Lord will kindly possess himself in patience. Is my noble friend aware that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister raised the matter, very properly indeed? Does he recall that I began by saying that this is an important subject which needs
68
to be addressed? In those circumstances, does he agree that it would have been not unreasonable for the Minister to have been provided by his officials with adequate background briefing? While I could give an explanation as to why Her Majesty's Government decided to veto that particular proposal, is he aware that it is not my function but his to explain the actions of Her Majesty's Government? Is he further aware—
Noble Lords: Order! Too long!
Lord Cockfield: Is the Minister further aware that this is a matter of substantial importance?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, it is obviously some considerable time since my noble friend stood in my position answering questions on these matters in your Lordships' House and he has perhaps forgotten the formalities of this matter. If my noble friend would look at the Question to see precisely to what it relates, he would realise that, as in the ordinary course of events, we cannot expect to be armed with knowledge of every single occurrence in every possible area. If my noble friend will merely do as I ask and put down a Question on the Order Paper, I am absolutely certain that he will receive an Answer that will satisfy him and your Lordships' House.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in order to assist him in replying to my noble friend Lord Stoddart, is the Minister aware that his right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture yesterday elicited a promise from the Spanish President of the Council that the matter would come on to the agenda sometime in March or April? I do not in any way accuse the noble Lord of complacency in this matter, but may I draw his attention to the fact that that does not apply to his right honourable friend the Paymaster General, who published a summary of the Court of Auditors' report on 24th January which nowhere mentions fraud at all?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful for the assistance that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has given me and for the incidental information that he has given to your Lordships' House about the occurrences at the agriculture Ministers' meeting yesterday. However, I said that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister intended to put this matter to the next Council of Ministers' meeting in March. I believe that to be the proper place for this matter to be raised, and there it will be raised.

Social Security Payments: Uprating
3.12 p.m.
Baroness Jeger Baroness Jeger asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will revise the social security uprating decisions, due to come into effect in April, to take account of the current and projected increase in the inflation rate since the upratings of 5.9 per cent. were agreed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): No, my Lords.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, why not?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, whatever method of uprating is in force, it has always, under all governments, taken six months between the announcement and its implementation. That is because a centrally issued order book runs for 20 weeks. As the lead time for printing and dispatching the books to post offices is three to four weeks, a minimum period of six months is needed between the setting of the new rate and the new rate coming into force.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, in view of that answer, how can the noble Lord presume to fulfil the election manifesto of the Conservative Party, which stated quite clearly: "We will continue to maintain the value of the state retirement pension"? How can the Government say that they are doing that when they are proposing the 5.9 per cent. increase in April and when even the Chancellor of the Exchequer has warned that the increase in inflation is likely to be 7 per cent. and more? Why, at this point in time, are the poorest people suffering a fall in their standard of living which is contrary to the Conservative manifesto?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I do not think that it is contrary to the Conservative manifesto. Under the present system, recipients will always catch up in the longer term. On an annual basis, of course, they gain when inflation falls and they lose—this is the point made by the noble Baroness—when inflation rises. That is why a major factor in this Government's policy of keeping control of inflation reflects this major priority. The historic method of uprating ensures that changes in the rate of inflation are taken into account and benefits are thus fully protected against price increases.
Lord Carter: My Lords, will the Minister inform the House whether, besides uprating benefits, there is an intention to put right the many anomalies and injustices in the new social security system? For example, is he aware that, in the case of an elderly couple where one partner receives a severe disability premium, that couple receives a lower income by way of benefit than a person living alone who receives a severe disability premium? Do the Government believe that, in the case of disabled people, two can live more cheaply than one?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to paraphrase what I believe to have been the noble Lord's question: are the long-term sick and disabled being disadvantaged under the method that we have chosen? The answer is "No", because we have increased their benefits over and above inflation. Of course, there are occasionally —sometimes more often—very good reasons for favouring one group over and above another group. That is one of the factors that must be taken
70
into account in the annual calculations before the uprating of benefits.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the uprating of the national insurance retirement pension is an enormous operation covering many millions of people, that it is quite impossible to alter it at the last minute and that any attempt to do so would only cause confusion and hardship?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, yes; my noble friend is quite right. We are talking about around 11 million cases.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, will my noble friend also confirm that, under the statutory arrangements which are now in force, any shortfall that may occur in one year will automatically be made up at the next uprating? If the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, shakes her head, she is perhaps harking back to the time when her own Front Bench missed out the period of the peak months of inflation in the 1970s and never made it up at all.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend's first supplementary question, he put the matter much more succinctly than I did, but clearly we both agree.
As regards changing from the forecast to the historic method of accounting, it is in fact the case that, over a period of eight months, pensioners lost £1 billion in today's prices.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister to clarify one matter which I raise in a totally non-partisan spirit and which has always troubled me. How can national newspapers, for example, produce 4 million copies overnight when the Government claim that the printing of small benefit books takes six months? Is our technology still so primitive that we cannot print these documents much more rapidly and could therefore update in a much more fine-tuned fashion?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord finds it difficult to be non-partisan. However, the reason for his dilemma is that all 4 million newspapers are identical—4 million Guardian newspapers or 4 million Sun newspapers are virtually identical, although I accept that there are slight differences around the country. However, social security benefits are dealt with on an individual basis and that inevitably takes time.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, will the Minister tell us when old-age pensioners, many of whom may well be dead before too long, will catch up on the 7 per cent. increase that the Chancellor has predicted? Will they have to wait another six months, for example, before there is another uprating that will help them?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Baroness well knows that the next uprating will be announced next autumn and will come into effect in April next year. We must all hope and strive for a reduction in

71
the inflation rate, because that is the one thing that will most help pensioners and anyone else on benefit.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the noble Lord answer the Question? Can he assure us that the 5·9 per cent. will be raised to the present inflation rate as soon as possible? Does he recall, as we do, that in recent years pensioners were alleged to have been overpaid and that that money was clawed back by the noble Lord who spoke a few moments ago? Can he give us a guarantee that there will be uprating to bring this 5·9 per cent. up to the current rate of inflation?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, since 1979, the increase given to pensioners has exceeded by several per cent. the total amount by which inflation has risen. As regards the noble Lord's primary supplementary question, of course the next uprating will take account of past inflation, as it did last year and the year before.
Lord Banks: My Lords, the noble Lord has said that when the rate of inflation is falling the present historic period of reference helps those on benefit and that when the rate of inflation is rising people on benefit suffer because they lag behind. In view of that fact, have the Government considered returning to a reference period half in the past and half in the future so that an estimate has to be made each year for, say, six months from November as to what the rate of inflation for the year will be? I do not necessarily advocate that system, but would it not allow likely future trends to be taken into account as well as past experience?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I believe that it would be damaging to people on benefit. History has proved that forecasting inflation, even if one forecasts only half the amount of inflation, is an unreliable method of uprating which was more often wrong than right. Even the government of the party opposite switched, as my noble friend Lord Jenkin reminded us, from the historic to the forecast method in 1976. They then promptly switched back again.

Commonwealth Governments: Advice to the Queen
3.11 p.m.
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the institutional arrangements by which Her Majesty the Queen seeks and receives advice from Commonwealth Prime Ministers other than the British.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, it is for the government of each Commonwealth country of which the Queen is Head of State to make its own arrangements for proffering ministerial advice to Her Majesty. The question does not arise with Commonwealth countries of which the Queen is not Head of State.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, will the Government always bear in mind that it is no longer the British Commonwealth of Nations as it used to be but just the Commonwealth? Will they consider an extension of the practice whereby at Commonwealth Prime Ministers' meetings which are held in different places round the world the chair is taken by the Prime Minister of the host country for that meeting?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the Queen is present at Commonwealth Heads of Government meetings as Head of the Commonwealth at the invitation of the host government.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Lord enlighten the House on one point? When Commonwealth governments proffer advice to Her Majesty as Head of the Commonwealth, is that advice proffered directly to Her Majesty or is it filtered through No. 10 Downing Street?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I understand that this might normally be from the Prime Minister concerned through the Governor General direct.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, if that is the case, will the noble Lord tell the House how the findings of the recent Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Harare regarding sanctions on South Africa would be filtered through to Her Majesty? Do they come through No. 10 Downing Street? The Government were not represented in Harare and are known to be opposed to the findings of that meeting.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the Question that was asked related to Commonwealth Heads of Government meetings, as I understood, that the Queen attends. In the next case the meeting will be in Malaysia in October. Questions concerning South Africa go rather wider than the Question on the Order Paper.

Business
3.14 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Companies Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Access to Personal Files (Social Services) Regulations 1989, the Access to Personal Files (Social Work) (Scotland) Regulations 1989, the Access to Personal Files (Housing) Regulations 1989, and the Local Authority Social Services (Designation of Functions) Order 1989 will be taken.

Tees (Newport) Bridge Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
United Medical and Dental Schools Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and referred to the Examiners.
Vale of Glamorgan (Barry Harbour) Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Companies Bill [H.L.]
3.15 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: 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.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 227Z(1):
Before Clause 50, insert the following new clause:
("Investigations which damage reputations.
.—(1) Whenever the Secretary of State or any competent authority initiates an investigation or enquiry under the provisions of any of the Acts amended by this Part of this Act, the Secretary of State or the competent authority shall have regard to the reputation of individuals who may be affected by the investigation or enquiry.
(2) Where no misconduct or malpractice is revealed by the investigation or enquiry referred to in subsection (1) above, and the existence of the investigation or the enquiry has become known to the public, the Secretary of State or the competent authority shall take all necessary steps to protect the reputation of the individuals affected.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 227Z(1) standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Peston. Members of the Committee will notice that the numbering on the Marshalled List is rather curious this afternoon. I think that I owe the Committee a word of explanation about that. We have been taking the Bill in different stages and, as the Secretary of State said on Second Reading, the Bill involves a number of different, quite discrete, parts. We have been tabling amendments from the Opposition on each part as it comes forward because it was extremely difficult for us to table amendments on the whole Bill at the outset of the Committee stage.
The result has been that the numbering on the original Marshalled List—which obviously has to stay as it is—has become slightly confused because of the fact that our amendments are tabled at a particular stage. The numbering being frozen, the Public Bill Office has to add these rather curious letters such as "Z(1)", and so on. If Members of the Committee will agree, I propose that in discussing amendments I shall refer only to the number (1), and so on, in brackets. I shall omit the numbers 227Z (or, as misprinted in subsequent pages of the Marshalled List, 272Z) for the purposes of the Committee's convenience. Therefore, with the permission of the
74
Committee I shall move Amendment No. (1) and speak to Amendments Nos. (3) and (24).
We are now embarking on a new section of the Bill which relates to investigations. The section sets out to amend a number of Acts which are in force. This part, and the subsequent part that the Committee will be discussing later this afternoon, are both rather technical. Nevertheless, they contain some fairly serious issues of principle. Amendment No. (1) is addressed to one of those.
In my Second Reading speech I mentioned that the announcement of an investigation by the Secretary of State, or indeed any other official authority which is entitled to conduct investigations, may well give rise to problems of individuals' reputations There is a general belief, which is perhaps reflected in some of the press comment on invesitgations when they are announced, that there is no smoke without fire. Therefore, if the Secretary of State announces an investigation it is generally assumed in the headlines that there is automatically something wrong. That may not be the case. The Secretary of State's investigators may find at the end of the day that there has been no malpractice or misconduct of any kind; and the investigation, though launched for good and bona fide reasons, may reveal that nothing has gone wrong. Under those circumstances it seems to us that there should be proper protection for the reputation of any individuals who may have been affected either by the original announcement or by the fact that the investigation may have been leaked in some way or have come to public notice.
Nothing that I am suggesting lessens the commitment from these Benches for the pursuit of misconduct or malpractice. I do not wish to make that suggestion. We are as anxious as the Government to make sure that any misconduct or malpractice should be discovered and properly dealt with. Nevertheless, there was an occasion—I referred to one case during my Second Reading speech although I referred to it anonymously and I hope that the Committee will accept that I do not mention names—when the chairman of a major public company, whose market capitalisation ran into several hundreds of millions of pounds, was the object of an investigation announced by the Secretary of State himself. He and the company were named and as a result he and the share price of the company came under rather severe pressure.
In the event, the inspectors reported to the Secretary of State that there was no misconduct or malpractice, that the investigation had been properly carried out and that the chairman of the company in question was free from all taint. As a result, the department issued a release which made that absolutely clear. However, a year or so had passed while that gentleman was under some sort of a cloud. When the announcement was made at the end of the day that nothing was wrong it appeared on about page 24 of some colour supplement somewhere; whereas the major story that the Secretary of State had announced the investigation appeared on page 1 of the business news of practically every financial newspaper in London.
It is the same when from time to time there are leaks about investigations, which are confidential

75
when the Secretary of State wishes them to be so—he is entitled to wish them to be so under the statute—but there are occasions when it gets out to the press that an investigation is taking place. The press is obviously very interested because it normally deals with figures who are in the public eye and the press, particularly in the City of London, is very interested in what is going on. It will seize on things and its members will interrogate people and indulge in what is known as investigative journalism. That is the job of the press and I have no particular complaint about that. But the people who are affected by the mere fact of an investigation will find themselves under a curious penumbral cloud until something is done to clear their names.
I make it clear that I am not suggesting that the amendment is anything other than a probing amendment to find out the Government's intention and their view of this problem. I do not intend to try to write this into the Bill because I accept that my drafting is undoubtedly defective. I accept that as it stands the amendment would give rise to all kinds of problems. Nevertheless, a major point of principle is involved to which I believe the Government should address their collective mind. After all when the police or Customs and Excise or other bodies launch inquiries it is very unusual for them to announce that they are to investigate whether Mr. Bloggs is guilty of smuggling heroin into this country. That would be very unusual. It is normally done as an undercover operation and is kept discreet and secret until such time as they are prepared to act on the basis of proven or substantiated evidence of malpractice or misconduct.
With investigations launched under any of the Acts with which this part deals, the announcement that an investigation is taking place puts the investigation into quite a different category from those I have mentioned that are launched by the police, the Customs and Excise or other authorities with the power and the duty to pursue criminal acts.
Nothing I have said lessens our commitment to the pursuit of any criminal or suggested criminal malpractice or misconduct. I wish, however, that the balance should be kept and the Government should recognise that there is a natural justice problem here. I hope very much that when the Secretary of State replies he will be able to give us some thoughts on how the Government propose to deal with the matter. I beg to move.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: As the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, has indicated, this part of the Bill deals with investigation powers, but it also deals with powers to obtain information. Like the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, we on these Benches support the Government in every way to prevent malpractices and misconduct of all kinds. It may help if I were to say now that I shall be supporting many of the amendments put forward for this part, particularly those which improve access to information. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Williams, I am concerned with the basic principles of natural justice. In some cases it seems that the human rights of
76
individuals may be affected unless some of these amendments are accepted.
Amendments Nos. 227Z(1), (3) and (24) deal with an important matter relating to the damage that may arise to the reputation of people who are perfectly innocent of all these matters. Therefore, particularly as the Secretary of State is given some powers in this matter, I feel that it should be clarified in the Bill that the position of certain persons should be defended.
The usual slick answer to a question where individual rights are being affected that has often come from the Government Benches is that the individual concerned can go to court. It is a very expensive and difficult solution for a person to take action in the courts in many of these cases. Therefore it would be very helpful in dealing with questions of natural justice if there were embodied in the Bill some kind of protection, as is suggested by these amendments.
Lord Young of Graffham: I am sympathetic to the principles behind these amendments. I believe that we should and do have regard to the reputation of individuals (and for that matter, companies and firms) who may be affected by an investigation or inquiry. It is our policy to conduct investigations in a way which, so far as possible, does not unduly damage the business or other affairs of the persons or companies concerned. We recognise that damage can be caused simply by the announcement of my department's investigations which is why, as a matter of policy, Section 447 of the Companies Act and Sections 105 and 177 financial service investigations, which do not lead to a publishable report are not normally announced. The current policy is set out in my department's booklet Investigations: How they work, which was recently published and circulated widely. In the case of the new powers proposed by Clauses 50 and 73, which will not lead to a report, we propose that they should similarly not be announced.
It is natural that noble Lords should wish to defend the innocent and protect the rights of individuals. I do not, however, consider legislation to be necessary or appropriate in this particular instance. I should like to explain why. In the first place, when considering whether an investigation should be set in train, the Secretary of State—the holder of my office—is required to act fairly. Secondly, the Secretary of State's investigatory powers are there for a purpose: essentially to establish the facts in relation to matters of concern affecting companies, partnerships or individuals. That purpose should not be subverted by making the need to have regard to the reputation of an individual the primary consideration. That would be entirely wrong and I do not think for one moment that this is the wish or expectation of noble Lords opposite. Indeed the case to which I suspect the noble Lord, Lord Williams, referred concerned another matter, not this kind of investigation; it could have been an investigation involving insider dealing or other market-making opportunities, which is entirely different and on which policy since then has been changed.
I remind the Committee that the reputation of individuals is not the only issue to which we have to have regard when initiating and carrying out

77
investigations. We must also have regard (among other things) to the interests of shareholders, depositors, creditors and customers. We need to have regard to the efficient and fair operation of markets and to regulatory requirements. This is what the investigatory powers are there for. All of these issues however are subsumed into the general requirement to act fairly. Accordingly, subsection (1) of the first amendment is both unnecessary and inappropriate.
I accept that the noble Lord was not looking for details. However, subsection (2) of that amendment would have the effect of limiting the Secretary of State's discretion (or that of the competent authority) and would result in an approach which is not always to the advantage of the innocent. It is most difficult to fetter discretion to that extent on a statutory basis.
The effect of Amendment No. 227Z(3) would be to defeat the object of Clause 50, which is to speed up the investigation process in those cases where the underlying purpose of the investigation is to decide whether an offence has been committed or whether there are grounds for regulatory action. If the inspectors are appointed under the new provision, they will conduct their inquiry and draw up their report on the basis that it will not be for publication. The effect of this amendment would be that inspectors could never be certain that their report might not, at some future date, be published because their appointment had become public knowledge. They would be forced into the time-consuming exercise of producing a report for possible publication. It is inevitable in carrying out investigations that numerous individuals not under suspicion of any wrong doing will need to be questioned by inspectors so as to enable the inspectors to get at all the relevant facts in a case. In so doing it is unfortunately inevitable that the fact that an investigation is in progress will sometimes get into the public domain. I do not believe that the mere fact that there is a rumour, substantiated or not, that an investigation is in progress should be grounds for publishing a report.
Turning to Amendment No. 227Z(24), I should underline the fact that those exercising this power to require information are, as a matter of general law, required to act fairly and reasonably and can be expected to have regard to the rights of individuals in appropriate cases. It is however not immediately obvious that the privacy of individuals is much threatened by the investigation provision, which noble Lords seek to amend, since it concerns a power to require the books and papers of an insurance company.
I have given these amendments careful consideration, but I do not think that any of them are either necessary or desirable. I should say that where the existence of an investigation has become public, we are prepared at an appropriate stage to state either that particular action is being taken or that no further action is planned. Further than that, I believe each case should be taken on its own merits. An all-ornothing policy, which is proposed in the amendments by which we should always have to take steps to protect innocent individuals in cases where the investigation reveals no misconduct (but apparently not otherwise), would be unworkable and frankly
78
impossible. To begin with, investigations are conducted into the affairs of companies or businesses (be they investment or insurance) and only coincidentally into the affairs of individuals. We are looking into companies. The purpose of any investigation is to establish the facts in relation to the matters under inquiry. The results may point to the guilt or innocence of individuals most closely associated with those matters, but it is most unlikely that they could ever amount to positive clearance of everyone caught up in the inquiry.
In the case of investigations under the Companies Act—Sections 431, 432, 442 and 446—we publish the report of the inspectors wherever possible. It may assist the Committee if I read the guidance to the inspectors. It is in the following terms:
"Attention has already been drawn to the fact that inspectors are not called upon to conduct a trial of those associated with the company but to ascertain the facts and to make them available. For this reason, and because there is no appeal against the validity of any criticisms made by inspectors, it is most important that inspectors should exercise great restraint when making critical comment and should do so only to the extent unavoidable for the purpose of their reports."
It would be difficult for any Secretary of State to speak plainer than that without intruding on the inspectors' area of responsibility.
Nevertheless, I can assure the Committee that we shall continue to have regard to the reputation of individuals who may be affected by an investigation and that we shall in appropriate cases announce that no further action is planned. There are difficulties in going further than that as I have explained, and for that reason I must resist these particular amendments. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Williams, to withdraw them and reflect on the remarks that I have made.
Lord Peston: I should like to reiterate our view and then ask two additional questions. Where prima facie evidence of misconduct or malpractice exists, or might exist, we believe that the Secretary of State should pursue the matter vigorously and precisely in order to establish the facts. In anything that we say we do not wish to cause him to believe that he ought to hold back from doing so.
The noble Lord appeared to change his answer to my first question at different times. The amendment states:
"shall have regard to the reputation of individuals".
It does not provide that the reputation of individuals shall be paramount and all other matters shall be excluded. I thought that on several occasions I heard the noble Lord say, "Yes, that is exactly the case and in that sense the amendment is unnecessary". I thought that I heard him say that his department would have regard to the reputation of individuals, and that there are legal grounds for it having to have regard in any event. However, I do not speak as a legal expert.
Given that it is a probing amendment, I ask whether the simple answer is that there is no need to write the provision into the Act because it is already contained in the law generally and is his department's practice.

79
My second question relates to the second part of Amendment No. 227Z(1) which states:
"Where no misconduct or malpractice is revealed",
but there is public knowledge that an investigation has taken place. The form of words used can be of overwhelming importance. For example, the Secretary of State or the inspectors may say. "We have established that there is no misconduct or malpractice". That is a definite statement and would protect the reputation of the individual concerned. However, it might instead be said, "We have not established that there is no misconduct". That statement is in the negative and provides the small amount of smoke from which the fire begins to grow. If I were the individual concerned, I should be far less happy with that form of words. A further form of words is, "We have not been able to find any evidence". In other words, it has happened but it cannot be established.
One must distinguish between the different statements that may be made. Regarding the protection of the reputation of innocent individuals, they would wish the Secretary of State to declare, "We have established that there has been no misconduct or malpractice". However, we hope that such cases are rare.
Has the Secretary of State's department considered a possible form of words? Is it aware that if it chooses the wrong form of words, it can make the innocent look guilty in a sense that they were guilty but they did not get caught? That is a different outcome from that which would result from the statement, "We are quite clear that no malpractice occurred". We wish to have such cases investigated, but we are concerned with the innocent individual and would prefer the statement, "There was no misconduct or malpractice and that has been established".
Lord Young of Graffham: The difficulty arises in that there is a wide spectrum of cases. However, there is no need to write into any statute that we must act fairly, because I am labouring under a general duty to do so. That requirement exists and it is fundamental.
The problem arises in what is stated. We believe that it would be fairer not to publish a report. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, would lead us down an alternative road whereby there may be cases—one would hope the majority—where we could say unequivocally that nothing was found and there was total innocence. There may be a few cases in which we say nothing and which then go to the Serious Fraud Office or the DPP. One then comes to the grey area of cases where, on advice, there is insufficient evidence to take the matter further but where we cannot say that unequivocally. Yet those people are innocent because they have not been charged and one does not say anything about them at all. Therefore, the advantage of not publishing the report is that one is not drawn into that grey area which is very difficult.
The second stage is that as a general rule inspectors write a different report depending on whether it is to be published. Frankly, in this sort of case it is often more useful to the holder of my office to have a report which is not to be published since the inspector can
80
then be absolutely frank. Therefore, that is of the greatest utility to the holder of my office. Of course, if it is decided that the report is to be published, it has to be amended and agreed with a number of innocent parties who are mentioned in the report.
Therefore, on balance, having regard to all the circumstances, I hope that Members of the Committee opposite will realise that this is a difficult area and should not be confused with insider dealing cases, which come in a different category. My department's previous policy was to announce in the case of a person who is prominent in the market, because the longer an investigation continues the more rumours there are and there is then a great danger of an unfair market. However, recognising that that may not be the best method, we have changed our policy and we no longer investigate. Despite the risk of rumours we believe that that is fairer. Of course if in the future it were to become public and affect the market, we should have to contemplate making an announcement. However, as a general rule I believe that it is better not to announce because in the long run as difficult as it may be, it is fairer to the individual. I repeat that my responsibility and general duty are to be fair to the individual, and it is a duty which I am sure I and all my successors will discharge.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I accept that the Secretary of State will be fair to individuals, as will all his colleagues. However, at some stage he will say that no further action will be taken. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that that is not adequate. Could he not indicate quite clearly that no malpractices or misconduct have been found which defame or go against the reputation of the individuals concerned?
Perhaps I may also suggest—and it may be that I am not familiar with all the procedures which take place with regard to all these investigations—that the names of individuals should not be disclosed as early as is sometimes done. Therefore the names of the individuals should not be disclosed at a very early stage.
Lord Young of Graffham: I fear that my explanation was not as clear as it should have been. We propose that we do not announce for that very good reason; namely, that we do not put people under a burden and then later on my department has to say that they are clear. There may well be cases in which we cannot say that for reasons of taking further proceedings, or there may be further cases where we cannot say that there is no evidence because there may be evidence but it is insufficient for further action to be taken. When all things are considered I hope that Members of the Committee will feel that this is fairer in a very difficult and imperfect world.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for what he has said. Perhaps I could briefly draw his attention to the fact that the amendment relates to all or any of the Acts amended by this part of the Bill so that we are dealing not just with this Bill but with the Insolvency Act, the Insurance Companies Act and of course the

81
Financial Services Act 1986, which contains investigatory powers of a very powerful nature. I deliberately framed the amendment in that way because I did not wish to restrict it to Companies Act investigations. I wished to widen it to deal with insider dealing Financial Services Act investigations. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that in the light of the explanation I have given of the amendment.
I recognise that the Secretary of State agrees that this is a very difficult area. I believe that it is common ground between us that this is not an easy matter to deal with and I accept that it is not easy to put into statute, which is why I moved this as a probing amendment. Nevertheless, as would be natural, my sympathies lie with the noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. I very much hope that on reflection the Government may conclude that for the protection of individuals it might be necessary to go just a bit further. Instead of saying that no further action is to be taken, it should be said that there is no evidence of malpractice or misconduct, or words to that effect. I am sure that something can be devised without tying the Secretary of State's hands too tightly.
Before deciding what to do with my amendment perhaps the Minister will comment on what I have said.
Lord Young of Graffham: I confess that I suffer occasional disappointment at the hands of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and the knowledge that his sympathies do not lie with this side of the Committee comes as a slight blow, but I shall learn to live with it.
Perhaps I may confirm that I misled the Committee slightly. I accept that this applies to all investigations, and that is part of the problem. All investigations are initiated on information which comes to us from a wide variety of different sources. It may be that dealing on a market has thrown up suspicion of insider dealing; that happens quite frequently. It is then looked at by my department and if the facts do not appear capable of simple explanation, we often quietly employ investigators to look at the matter, which may go a stage further and then a stage further.
At what point does the department have to announce that there is an investigation? We may then be in a difficult position of having to announce clearance, which may or may not be possible. I shall look at this, but I ask the noble Lord to take the amendment away because it is so broad. Of course I shall look to see whether there is anything which I can do. I assure the Committee that I am very conscious of the difficulty which this matter causes individuals in circumstances where they are publicly named, by rumour or otherwise, on matters which are not properly founded. I do not believe that there is anything that I can do because the alternative will lead us into greater difficulties.
Perhaps I may add that I do not believe that there is any reason to suppose that the discretionary system is not adequate. Indeed, I should have to be persuaded that there are serious and widespread problems—and I am willing to accept that there have
82
been some problems—before we could consider any amendment which inhibits flexibility and undermines the effect of investigations, largely because such a broad range of investigations are covered. We are in a world which changes very quickly. We find that new techniques and new methods arrive on the market and to return with new legislation in order to change our powers from time to time would be most difficult.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will look at this and I understand that he will do so without any commitment to bring forward further amendments on Report. However, I hope he recognises that this is a matter of considerable concern and that rumours, announcements and leaks that investigations may be in the air are almost daily occurrences. It is not merely a problem of a one-off event per year but is something on which the market and the press live. I hope that the Minister will look at the matter in that light and arrive at a formulation which will be closer to the opinion of the noble Lords, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran and Lord Peston, and myself. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 227Z(2):
Before Clause 50, insert the following new clause:
("Inspectors
.Inspectors appointed by the Secretary of State or a competent authority under the provisions of any of the Acts amended in this Part shall be fit and proper persons.").
The noble Lord said: Again, this is a probing amendment. As it stands, the legislation does not provide for inspectors to be other than those appointed by the Secretary of State. There seems to be a lacuna, because we should like to see some constraint on whom the Secretary of State appoints to be inspectors under the various Acts that are amended by this part of the Bill. The insider dealing and financial services powers of investigation are extremely robust. We approve of that and I am not trying to say that we do not. On the other hand, inspectors can march in and behave, as they have behaved on some occasions, with rather reckless brutality in the way they conduct their investigations.
I am reminded of a personal friend of mine, a Queen's Counsel, who told me when I was preparing this amendment that he and 12 colleagues who are senior members of the Bar signed a round robin to the noble Lord's predecessor Secretary of State, seeking the removal of an investigator from an investigation because of his behaviour. He had been appointed by the Secretary of State of the day. That seems to me an unfortunate thing to happen. I am sure that all Members of the Committee recognise that it is unfortunate if investigators behave in such a way as to attract that reaction.
Although I do not intend to press this amendment, because I do not think it is suitable for the Bill, I should like the Secretary of State and other noble Lords to reflect for a moment on what sort of people will be appointed as inspectors and whether there is to be any constraint on whom the Secretary of State can appoint. I beg to move.
Lord Young of Graffham: Perhaps I should first describe how decisions to appoint inspectors are taken. The practice of my department is to approach the persons considered to be the most suitable for a particular investigation, since investigations vary considerably. In the normal event a lawyer and accountant are appointed, although in many cases suitably qualified persons from other walks of life could be considered should the need arise. Lists are kept by the investigations division of the names of suitable legal and accounts candidates and those lists are regularly updated.
I fear that I am unaware of the round robin received by one of my predecessors. I shall certainly look into the matter but I have little doubt that the result was to ensure that the inspector concerned no longer figures on the list kept in my department. However, I shall certainly check.
Any approach to a legal candidate is then made by the department's solicitor and any approach to an accountancy candidate is made directly by my officials. We take the views on the suitability of possible appointees from the Attorney-General, the Institute of Chartered Accountants and from relevant professional bodies. Of course, professional qualifications are not required by statute, but the subject matter of the investigations almost invariably means that it is appropriate to appoint someone with relevant professional qualifications.
I am sure that there is no suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that any of the inspectors appointed by me or my predecessors are not honest, competent or solvent. I accept that totally. The existing provisions which enable me or a competent authority to appoint competent inspectors have been in place for many years without ill effect—excluding the one case mentioned by the noble Lord. There was a provision for the appointment of competent persons as inspectors in Section 164 of the Companies Act 1948. Persons appointed as inspectors have to be properly qualified to undertake the investigation. In all those circumstances, unless the noble Lord can convince me that there is a problem I must ask him to withdraw the amendment. However, having said that, I shall certainly investigate the facts of the case he mentioned.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the Secretary of State. In mentioning that particular case I was not seeking to draw attention to any one case which I wished him to investigate but merely using it to illustrate a point. I accept in general that all inspectors are the sort of people one would hope to be in charge of such work.
Nevertheless, it has been useful to have the exposition from the Secretary of State on how inspectors are appointed. It is now on the record and if any inspector deviates from the high standards to which we are accustomed from inspectors we shall be able to refer to what the noble Lord said today and take the necessary action, if action is required. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): As mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, there is a printer's error in the next amendment and on all the following amendments up to Amendment No. 227Z(81) on page 9. These should all read 227Z, followed by the relevant figure, and not 272Z. Therefore, the next amendment is Amendment No. 227Z(3).
Clause 50 (Investigations by inspectors not leading to published report):
(Amendment No. 227Z(3) not moved.)
Clause 50 agreed to.
Clause 51 [Production of documents and evidence to inspectors]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 227Z(4):
Page 52, line 18, at end insert ("and to meet the expenses thereof").
The noble Lord said: Clause 51 provides very properly that inspectors can require of officers many things. They can require the production of documents, and in this day and age they are usually photostat copies of documents and not the originals as they used to be. They can require that people attend before them, all very properly, and that in very broad terms the person so required is to give every assistance that the inspectors may reasonably require.
However, nowhere is the matter of expenses mentioned—at all events, in this clause. Obviously, the Committee will agree that if a party happens to be a guilty party, it would be proper when the award of expenses takes place that the inspectors should be able to say that the expenses shall be borne by the guilty party. If, however, the party happens to be perfectly innocent and is required to do all the things I have mentioned, again I believe the Committee will agree that it would be appropriate if the expense came out of the general expenses of the inspection itself and are repaid to the party concerned.
That is provided for in the old Companies Act 1985. Section 439(1) of that Act provides that the expenses of an incidental to an investigation shall be defrayed in the first instance by the inspectors, but the persons mentioned in certain subsections are liable to make repayment to the Secretary of State.
The reason for my amendment is purely to clarify the position, to ensure that there is not a lacuna in the Bill, and to provide in the first instance, if that is what the Secretary of State considers expedient, that it be an expense of the inspectors carrying out their work. There should be a power to ensure that those expenses are not paid by an innocent party. Therefore this amendment is moved for the puposes of clarification. I beg to move.
Lord Young of Graffham: The costs incurred by persons required to assist inspectors under Section 434 of the Companies Act have nearly always been met by the person so required on the principle that inspectors should not have to pay to receive evidence. This amendment seeks to clarify that situation. However, I must resist the amendment partly because I believe it is unnecessary and partly because it may cast doubt on the position in other cases where no

85
such express provision is made. For example, it could have an adverse impact on requirements made under Section 447 of the Companies Act and on requirements made under the Insurance Companies Act, the Financial Services Act, and even under the Insolvency Act.
Of course, exceptions are made on their merits. Exceptions are made by my department in cases of genuine hardship. Indeed, where a particular body is repeatedly required to produce copies of documents to inspectors—perhaps because of its function in the market, the kind of information it holds or to which it has access, and where the costs to that organisation might be high—I would be prepared to give consideration to the possibility of sharing the costs of that burden. However, I should emphasise that I would only envisage offsetting some of the costs incurred in meeting inspectors' requirements in very exceptional circumstances. In most cases I believe that the cost of producing documents should continue to fall to the producer whose duty it is to comply with any such reasonable requirements.
4 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: It is very rare that I have to say this of the noble Lord the Secretary of State, but there is some injustice arising from the remarks that he has made. In broad terms, I do not see why a perfectly innocent citizen of this land is required as an officer of a company (which also may be perfectly innocent) to produce copies for the benefit of the state acting through the inspectors and to attend before them as often as they require—it may be for days on end—without being given every assistance that he may reasonably require. I am not trying to defend any guilty party. By all means such a person should bear such expense. But why should the ordinary citizen not be covered by a provision in the Bill? I am not asking that it should be put in the Bill if he is proved innocent. Under the provisions of Section 439 it should be within the competence of the inspectors—and it should be the duty of the inspectors—to see that his costs are duly paid.
The noble Lord the Secretary of State said that this might apply as a result of the graciousness of his department to people who could prove that they were in some pecuniary need. I believe that most of us do not wish to be beholden in charity to the Secretary of State's department. Neither would we wish our fellow citizens to have to prove that they were impecunious before their proper expenses were paid. I believe that that kind of case would not be very frequent when one is dealing with officers of the company. I am pleading for justice and decency. I do not wish to press this amendment to a Division. I hope that the Secretary of State will come forward with something more reasonable than he did earlier before I leave this amendment.
Lord Young of Graffham: I am under a great deal of difficulty because the noble Lord speaks about justice and decency in terms that I find difficult to recognise. The costs incurred by persons required to produce books and documents to inspectors, and to attend before inspectors, under the terms of Section 434, have always been met by the person so required.
86
That is a principle of many of our dealings. We have an obligation to produce information, for example, to the Inland Revenue to establish our case concerning the amount of tax due on our income.
The noble Lord speaks in terms that the innocent should not pay but the guilty should. This is not a trial. Here we have cases where circumstances have arisen in which quite reasonably the holder of my office decides that inspectors should be appointed in order to ascertain the merits of the matter. It has been a principle for a long while that we should not pay for such evidence. I have said that in cases of genuine hardship we shall be quite prepared to look at the situation. If I were to do what the noble Lord asks me to do, at the end of an investigation I would have to judge whether the person was guilty or innocent, whatever that may mean. I would then have to decide whether all, part or none of the costs should be recovered out of public funds.
That would be giving a judgment on a report which in the vast majority of cases is not published. I believe that would put us in a very difficult position. I am well aware of the noble Lord's genuine and quite justified concern for the innocent. In this particular instance I ask that he withdraw his amendment. I hope that he will try very hard to understand my reasons.
Lord Mishcon: There is a great willingness to understand the Secretary of State's reasoning. I am finding it very difficult to do so. I believe that it is not a matter on which Members would expect us on this side, being as responsible as we are, to divide the Committee. I shall consider his remarks again in order to see whether there is a shred of equity in them. I shall do that between now and the Report stage. In those circumstances, and purely for the reasons that I have given, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 227Z(5):
Page 52, line 21, after second ("oath") insert ("or affirmation").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is very simple. In addition to the word "oath", we wish to add the words "or affirmation" to the Bill. We cannot see any good reason why they should not be there. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: The amendment appears to be unnecessary. By virtue of the Interpretation Act unless the contrary intention appears, the word "oath" when used in legislation includes "affirmation" and "declaration". Therefore I hope it was not an oversight on the part of the noble Lord. Perhaps he will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am very grateful to the noble Lord. I understand that the point he made is correct. It escaped my legal advisers at the time the amendment was put down. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 227Z(6) not moved]
Clause 51 agreed to.

87
Clause 52[Duty of inspectors to report]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 227Z(7):
Page 52, line 40, after ("State") insert ("after consultation with the Director of Public Prosecutions").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I also speak to Amendment No. 227Z(8). These two amendments deal with the ability of the Secretary of State to direct inspectors to cancel investigations and to direct them to take no further steps. The problem arises under what circumstances may the Secretary of State so decide. A second problem is one that goes back to the matter that I raised regarding the first amendment; namely, what happens if the report contains material which should legitimately be published and the Secretary of State has technically closed down the investigation so that it cannot be reopened.
My Amendment No. 227Z(7) is framed quite simply:
"after consultation with the Director of Public Prosecutions".
That may be any other officer of the Crown or any other responsible authority. I wish to probe the Government as to whether they would be prepared to accept some qualification on the Secretary of State's own authority to close down an investigation. If the Secretary of State can satisfy me that there is some constraint or advice that he has to take or what is the procedure that he will adopt, that will go a long way to meeting the thrust of this amendment.
Amendment No. 227Z(8) concerns the second point that I raised. Is there any possibility under the Bill as drafted of reopening the investigation in order to publish the report? If not, should there be one? I beg to move.
Lord Young of Graham: Perhaps I may deal first with Amendment No. 227Z(7). In practice, we would expect to consult the relevant prosecuting authorities before directing inspectors to take no further steps as regards an investigation or such further steps as are specified in the direction under the provisions contained in Clause 52. It will not always be appropriate to consult the Director of Public Prosecutions. There may be cases where the suspected offence was within the jurisdiction of the Scottish courts and in those circumstances it would be more appropriate to consult the Lord Advocate rather than the Director of Public Prosecutions for England and Wales.
In any event, legislation is not required to ensure that the relevant prosecuting authorities are consulted in appropriate cases. It is a matter of practice of my department, and it would operate elsewhere. It would operate in the normal way. As regards Amendment No. 227Z(8) I believe that it will be difficult to reopen an investigation and to be seen to be reopening it simply because a prosecuting authority has found no grounds on which to prosecute.
I wonder whether the noble Lord can explain to me further why he thinks this should happen when in the normal event the holder of my office would look at a
88
report, decide whether there was a suitable case for taking it further and then send it to the prosecuting authority. The prosecuting authority would decide whether or not to prosecute. In the event of a decision that there was not sufficient evidence, should that not be the end of the matter?
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his response to Amendment No. 227Z(7). Is he saying that the Secretary of State, whoever he may be, will as a matter of course consult the prosecuting authority before deciding to direct the inspectors not to take further action, and that therefore my amendment, which I agree would put that imperfectly into the Bill, is a matter of course when the Secretary of State takes his decision? Perhaps the noble Lord will cover that point first.
Lord Young of Graffham: On looking at the report of inspectors, it is the responsibility of the holder of my office to decide whether or not to take any further action in the sense of forwarding the matter to the prosecuting authority. That is something which the holder of my office would normally do.
Lord Williams of Elvel: But this clause refers to the Secretary of State directing the inspectors,
"to take no further steps in the investigation or to take only such further steps as are specified in the direction".
In other words, this is before the final report of the inspectors has been produced. They are in the middle of an investigation and something happens. The Secretary of State decides that matters have come to light. Matters have been referred to the prosecuting authority but then he closes down that investigation. The prosecuting authority may or may not proceed. The prosecuting authority may proceed with an investigation but may decide in the end not to prefer charges. The inspectors are then left with an investigation that has been shut down. The party or parties concerned have not been charged with misconduct, malpractice or any criminal offence. In taking the decision to shut down the investigation, does the Secretary of State consult automatically with the prosecuting authority?
Lord Young of GraiTham: The holder of my office would always consult the prosecuting authority. If I may turn to the noble Lord's point, I should point out that the power to terminate or curtail an investigation would be exercisable only if it appeared to the then Secretary of State that matters had come to light during the course of the inspectors' investigation which suggested that a criminal offence had been committed and if those matters had been referred to the appropriate prosecuting authority. There is no provision for stopping or curtailing investigations for any other reason, so in those circumstances the investigation would continue.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I take the noble Lord's point. Indeed that is the point of the Bill as it is presently drafted. But let us suppose that, having referred those matters to the appropriate prosecuting authority, the authority decides not to prosecute. The investigation has been closed down, the matter has been passed to the prosecuting authority and the

89
prosecuting authority has decided not to prosecute. There is no mechanism for reopening the investigation if the Secretary of State so wishes.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Young of Graffham: If new information came to light after the investigation had been closed—the matter would go to the prosecuting authority only at the end of the investigation—and if it were in the public interest to reinvestigate the affairs of the company, then I or the holder of my office would consider appointing inspectors to carry out a new investigation. In those circumstances I suspect that that would be the more appropriate action.
Lord Williams of Elvel: We are now getting to what I regard as the meat of this problem. Instead of having to appoint new investigators to start the whole process rolling again, it might be appropriate to have a mechanism to reopen the investigation to avoid the rather cumbersome procedure which the noble Lord has just described.
Amendment No. 227Z(8) comes from the Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators, which is concerned about this problem. It is appreciated that it is sometimes not in the public interest to publish a report, but, when the investigation has taken place and no prosecution is tendered against any individual or company, those individuals or companies who are the objects of the investigation should be given an opportunity to clear their names by having the report of the inspectors or at least the conclusions of it published. In the interests of individuals who are so affected, the Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators puts forward this amendment. The noble Lord asked me to explain the reason for the amendment. That is the reason for Amendment No. 227Z(8).
Lord Young of Graffham: In those circumstances, which would be slightly extreme, it would be open to the holder of my office to reappoint the same persons as inspectors so that they could carry on. Perhaps I may explain how I see the existing power in the Bill operating. I would expect that an investigation would be stopped or curtailed only if there were no reason to go on with it once the matters suggesting a criminal offence had been uncovered and passed to the relevant prosecuting authority—in other words, it had come to the end of the road for the investigation. Because of that the subsequent decision not to prosecute would not alter the fact that there had been no good reason to continue with the investigation. Indeed, if it were reopened, it would only be for the purpose of going through the motions and would be a waste of both time and resources. The decision whether to have a report or to publish it is a separate matter.
By the time the matter goes to the prosecuting authority a considerable period may have passed. The real ground for reopening is if there are new facts. Then the holder of my office would have the alternatives either of appointing new inspectors or of reappointing the existing inspectors to carry out another specific investigation to look at the new facts that had arisen.
Lord Williams of Elvel: We have had a long discussion on the amendments. I shall read carefully what has been said and discuss it with the institute. It is an important point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 227Z(8) not moved.]
Clause 52 agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 53 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Williams of Elvel: I have two questions to ask on the Question, Whether Clause 53 shall stand part of the Bill? What exactly is the purport of the clause? Having read it through several times I cannot understand what it intends to do. My next question relates to the Companies Act 1985 as well as to this Bill. How does the Secretary of State interpret the public interest in deciding whether or not to take civil proceedings on behalf of companies?
Lord Young of Graffham: Clause 53 makes a minor amendment to Section 438 of the Companies Act 1985. Section 438 confers on the Secretary of State the power to bring civil proceedings on behalf of any body corporate if on the basis of the results of an investigation he thinks that there are grounds for doing so in the public interest.
The purpose of the clause is to ensure that the Secretary of State may act under Section 438 on the basis of any information obtained or report made under Part XIV of the Act and net simply on information obtained under Sections 447 and 448 of the Act or indeed reports made under Section 437. In particular, it enables action on the basis of information obtained under Section 444, which gives power to investigate share ownership without the appointment of inspectors, and Section 437(1)(a), which enables information to be given by or obtained from inspectors without a formal report being made under Section 437.
I am not aware of any logical reason why the Secretary of State should not be able to bring proceedings in the public interest on behalf of a body corporate when the relevant information is obtained under one section of Part XIV and not when it is obtained under another.
Public interest is a broad question and I am not sure that I could define it in the Bill. I shall certainly consider it if the noble Lord wishes to raise the point at a later stage of the Bill. I shall endeavour to do some further homework.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the Secretary of State. I shall raise the point later. I look forward with great anticipation to what the noble Lord will have to say about it.
Lord Young of Graffham: I do not.
Clause 53 agreed to.

91
Clause 54[Expenses of investigating a company's affairs]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 227Z(9):
Page 53, line 24, leave out ("staff costs and").
The noble Lord said: This is a simple and almost a drafting point. It is whether "staff costs and" are words that it is necessary to include in the Bill. It seems to us that general overheads cover "staff costs and". If they do not, are we to suppose that staff costs are in some way over and above whatever overheads may be allocated to the particular expenses to be charged? Is, for instance, the Secretary of State's salary part of the staff costs which have to be allocated, in which case the staff costs will be greatly inflated? I should be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who I understand will be dealing with the amendment, could explain why the draftsman felt it necessary to include those words as they seem to be subsumed in the expression "overheads". It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendment No. 272Z(21), which covers the same ground. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: I hope that I can put at rest the noble Lord's mind on the amendment. Where investigations are carried out by any officials, the main costs of the investigation are the staff costs. It would be odd therefore for outside investigators' fees to be recoverable but not the costs of official salaries. It is desirable that the question as to whether those costs are expenses and so recoverable should not be in any doubt. Such doubt could arise were the noble Lord's proposals to be accepted. I therefore ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Peston: As an economist I too was extremely intrigued by this point. Surely "the expenses of an investigation"—if I may refer to a previous paragraph—refer to the expenses of an investigation whatever they happen to be. The whole of the paragraph that we wish to amend is irrelevant. As an economist—I give my advice freely to the department on this occasion—I believe that "expenses of investigation" is a well-defined concept. It means what it costs to undertake the investigation. The amendment is a drafting amendment and I do not wish to push it too much; but it seems to me that the department is unduly nervous at the use of the English language. The paragraph is not required. It is right that the expenses of the investigation should be recoverable.
Lord Strathclyde: I am sorry if I have not explained the point. It is that expenses tend to carry the sense of being disbursements. Lawyers are not economists and that may explain the difference.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. Speaking not as an economist but as a banker, I am afraid that expenses mean expenses whether incurred in-house, as they say, or out of house. Nevertheless, if the noble Lord insists upon the wording, we probably have to accept it for the time being. I hope that the department will think a
92
little about what is in the Bill because we do not want confusion on the issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 54 agreed to.
Clause 55 [Power of Secretary of State to present winding-up petition]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 227Z(10):
Page 54, line 19, leave out from ("up") to end of line 20.
The noble Lord said: On reading this amendment to the Insolvency Act, it seemed to me that, although the words appear in the Insolvency Act, as they appear in the Bill, some confusion may be read into them. It depends upon where one puts a mental comma when reading that paragraph. Perhaps I may read it twice and illustrate what I mean. If the Secretary of State thinks:
"that it is expedient in the public interest that a company should be wound up, he may present a petition for it to be wound up, if the court thinks it just and equitable for it to be so".
I shall read the subsection again with a different emphasis. If the Secretary of State thinks:
"that it is expedient in the public interest that a company should be wound up, he may present a petition for it to be wound up if the court thinks it just and equitable for it to be so".
There are two different interpretations depending upon how one reads the subsection. I was hoping that the draftsman might be able to clean it up a bit so that we can be certain as to which interpretation we are required to take. I beg to move.
Lord Young of Graffham: It is rather more than a third of a century since I last studied law. In those days it was always my impression that commas in legislation did not exist. The matter was one for interpretation by the courts.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Mental commas.
Lord Young of Graffham: Mental commas as well as physical commas. I hope that noble Lords opposite who still practise law will give me some support for that simple assertion.
It may help if I go a little wider and give the noble Lord some background to the clause. Clause 55 repeals Section 440 of the Companies Act and reenacts it with minor modifications in the Insolvency Act.
Section 440 enables the Secretary of State to apply to the court for a winding-up where on the basis of specified investigation results it appears to him to be expedient in the public interest for the company to be wound up if the court thinks it just and equitable. That provision is a re-enactment of a previous provision. It has not appeared to cause any interpretation problems over the years and it may not do so in the future.
Lord Williams of Elvel: We shall have to see whether that explanation is satisfactory. I hope that the Secretary of State understands that the point is serious and not frivolous. I understand that the

93
provision has caused no difficulty to date. Perhaps it has not been tested to date because the Insolvency Act is a recent Act. Nevertheless, we shall read what the Secretary of State said and perhaps return to the point at a later stage. In the meantime, if the draftsman would like to look at it to see whether any clarification can be introduced on Report, we should be happy to see that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 55 agreed to.
Clause 56 agreed to.
Clause 57 [Investigation of company ownership]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 227Z(11):
Page 54, line 27, leave out from ("ownership") to end of line 28 and insert ("insert after subsection (4)—
"(5) Where an application for an investigation is made under subsection (3), section 431(4) applies.").
The noble Lord said: Parliament's time should not be wasted. That is the way in which I start to move the amendment. Parliament gave the greatest consideration to the Companies Bill which eventually became the Companies Act 1985. We thought that we then lived in the age of company predators. I suppose in dealing with the Companies Bill I could now say that we live in the age of predators unlimited.
It was therefore of great consequence, even in 1985, to have a section in the Act which provided that the Secretary of State, on the application of a sufficient number of shareholders in a company, should appoint inspectors to inquire into the true ownership of shares, a matter that is of the gravest of concern to many companies, especially—I do not say this out of any xenophobia—when it becomes apparent that shareholdings have changed and a foreign company may be involved. All sort of questions should then perhaps be addressed to the Secretary of State. It could, for example, be the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
In the Bill which we considered in 1985 there was a provision that the Secretary of State could appoint inspectors if he saw fit to do so. That provision remains. When I say that I do not understand and do not welcome the deliberate omission now of the right of shareholders if there is a sufficient proportion of them to ask the Secretary of State to appoint inspectors to look into the true ownership of the shares, I hope that I shall not be given the answer that the Secretary of State can do that in any event if he sees fit. That was the position in 1985 and it is still the position now: he can, if he sees fit, do so. However, before the power and the right of shareholders in sufficient number to make this demand for inspectors to be appointed is removed, I think that Parliament ought to ask, "Why did you or your predecessor advise the inclusion of that power as recently as 1985?"
It occurred to those responsible for this amendment that one of the things that might be worrying the Secretary of State—and quite rightly so, with, I imagine, the Treasury as always on his heels—was that he would have to say, "That is all
94
very well, but if a sufficient proportion of shareholders demand this and I have to make the arrangements, who is going to pay?" That is why we provide in this amendment that the inquiry is indeed to be at the cost of the shareholders concerned. So there is no excuse, if I may say so, that an unjust financial burden will fall upon the Secretary of State's department, or on any other government department, if this clause remains.
I repeat: it is a clause that we passed as recently as 1985. We considered all aspects of company operations, the threats to them and the safeguards that there ought to be. I suggest that there is a heavy onus on the Secretary of State to prove the need for the omission of this section for which this Bill now provides.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Young of Graffham: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who no doubt recalls far better than I that the 1985 Act was a consolidating measure and of course the provision was in place before that. Before addressing the effect of this amendment I should like briefly to explain our intention in bringing forward Clause 57. It is intended to give the Secretary of State more discretion on whether to appoint inspectors. The amendment would not change the current position where the Secretary of State is required to appoint inspectors and where the application is made under Section 442(3), unless he is satisfied that the application is vexatious.
It would also leave unchanged the limit of my discretion to define the scope of such an investigation, which is contained in Section 442(3)(b). If the noble Lord's intention is that the provisions of Section 442(3) should be consistent with the provisions contained in Section 431, this amendment would not achieve that aim. Applicants under Section 431 have to support their application with such evidence as the Secretary of State may require for the purpose of showing that they have good reason for the investigation. The Secretary of State has discretion as to whether or not to act on the application as well as being able to recover the costs of his investigation in whole or in part.
However, on reflection, I think that there may well be some merit in amending the provisions of Section 442(3) on lines similar to those of Section 431. However, conscious as I am of the desirability of not wasting the time of your Lordships' Commitee, if the noble Lord would care to withdraw his amendment we will consider this further and in all probability I shall come forward with government amendments at a later stage.
Lord Mishcon: I regard that as a most gracious speech from the Secretary of State, which I would ask him to repeat in reply to future amendments that come from this side. I accept the offering with gratitude and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 57 agreed to.
Clause 58 agreed to.

95
Clause 59[Entry and search of premises]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 227Z(12):
Page 55, line 4, after ("premises") insert ("books and").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is intended to help the Secretary of State to get his house in order, and I hope I say that without any pomposity. However, some analysis has been used for the benefit of the Committee when dealing with this amendment to see what is happening, in spite of the fact that the noble Lord the Secretary of State said quite correctly that the 1985 Act was largely a consolidation Act and there were many Acts therefore that the draftsman had ready at hand before this Bill was drafted.
There is a most terrible muddle, to which I shall try to direct as respectfully as I can the attention of the Secretary of State when he deals with books and documents in this Bill. I shall tell him and the Committee what an analysis reveals. This clause and the existing Section 447 of the Companies Act use the phrase "books or papers". Section 434 of the 1985 Act uses the phrase "books and documents". "Books and papers" are defined in Section 444 and there is an obvious discrepancy as to whether the phrase is conjunctive or disjunctive. Then we come to a consideration of the use in the Bill and in the Act of the phrase "documents or papers".
In the proposed amendment to Section 448(1) the word "documents" alone is used. That of course is rather inconsistent with the phrases I have just mentioned: "books and documents" and "books or papers". A separate definition of "documents" is proposed to be added as subsection (10), which is to the same effect as the proposed new definition for Section 447, to be introduced by Clause 58.
The sole purpose of this amendment—and I hope not to waste the time of the Committee—is to put this on record so that before the Report stage the Secretary of State will have an opportunity, with the draftsman concerned, to look at the desirability of a uniform defined term for the purposes of at least this part of the Bill. In the meantime, as I say, we have "books and documents", "books or documents" and "documents" on their own, with a definition of one of them and not of others. The matter is in a slight degree of chaos, from which we on these Benches wish to rescue the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Lord Young of Graffham: I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and I particularly appreciate his desire to rescue me, although in this particular case I must look with some care at he who is throwing the line towards me. Certainly I have listened to the noble Lord with interest. Whether the Bill at this point refers to "documents" or to "books and documents" we do not consider to be of great consequence. It might help the noble Lord if I were to remind him that the word "documents" is defined in subsection (10) of the new Section 448 to include "information recorded in any form"; so it covers both. The other references are similarly defined. Of course definitions are already used for this purpose in Sections 105 and 177 of the Financial Services Act.
I am going to look at this again and I should be grateful if the noble Lord would withdraw this now.
96
I am sure he will understand if at a later stage of the Bill I come forward with a number of minor amendments really to ensure that the drafting is improved, when it goes to another place.
Lord Mishcon: The graciousness of the Secretary of State continues. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 59 [Entry and search of premises]:
Lord Mishconmoved Amendment No. 227Z(13):
Page 56, line 6, leave out ("a period of three months") and insert ("the period of an investigation by inspectors appointed under this Part").
The noble Lord said: I do not see why the inspectors are limited in the possession of the books and documents that they have taken, maybe properly, to a period of three months. Noble Lords may have thought that I would urge that companies should have back their documents with great rapidity. I am sure that the inspectors will exercise great care. Would it not be more sensible from a practical point of view to say that the period for which the books and documents may be held should be the period of investigation by inspectors appointed under this part of the Act? One has not the slightest doubt that it will save everyone from some difficulty if a strict period is laid down. I beg to move.
Lord Young of Graffham: As I am sure the noble Lord knows, it is not necessary for us to keep possession of books or papers of which possession is taken under the search and entry provisions of Section 448 of Companies Act for a period longer than three months unless criminal proceedings are commenced. I fear that if we were to do this it might be a burden for inspectors to have to store what will end up to be, although not a small mountain of paper, perhaps a considerable one. I can see little or no advantage in replacing the three-month period over which documents may be kept with an indefinite period linked to the life of an investigation. We have to balance the rights of those subject to investigations and the need to ensure the effectiveness of the investigations. It would be hard to justify holding on to the papers for the life of the investigation as it would only marginally improve the effectiveness of the investigation, if at all. It is of course possible for copies to be taken. If copies are taken and the originals returned, that does not in any way release the person from the duty to produce the documents again if required.
I ask the noble Lord in all graciousness to consider withdrawing the amendment.
Lord Mishcon: Reciprocal graciousness is obviously called for. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 59 agreed to.

97
Clause 60[Provision for security of information obtained]:
4.45 p.m.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 227Z(14):
Page 57, line 11, leave out paragraph (f).
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 14, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 15.
Clause 60 amends Section 449 of the Companies Act 1985. Section 449 concerns the use of information obtained under Sections 447 and 448 of the 1985 Act. Section 449 says that care must be taken in the use of information obtained under Sections 447 and 448, and gives powers on occasion to use that information, which would otherwise be regarded as secret, privileged or restricted.
As I understand Clause 60, it appears to modify Section 449 in a particular direction that my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel and I find disturbing. We believe that it raises a civil liberties issue on which we would like the Secretary of State to comment. We wish essentially to probe and to ask some questions as to the purpose of the clause.
One can see two possible purposes, and there may be more. First, in the course of investigations and in the course of all the activities taking place under Sections 447 and 448 information may arise that itself suggests that a public servant has failed in his or her duties—in other words, if we were discussing cases of malpractice, that public servants themselves were involved with this malpractice. One interpretation of the provisions to which we currently object is that the information obtained could be used to proceed further in dealing with such a public servant.
Two other possibilities arise, first, that what emerges has nothing to do with the case in hand in the investigation, but that evidence emerged suggesting that there was concern about the public servant doing something else. It would be that for which the information would be used. We ask whether that is what the clause has in mind.
Next—and this is the most worrying of all—it may be that disciplinary proceedings and investigations in connection with the public servant are taking place anyway on some quite different matter, but information deemed to be relevant somehow emerges from investigations in connection with Sections 447 and 448. It may be that that is what the Secretary of State has in mind in introducing the clause.
On the last matter, it seems to us that civil liberties questions arise. All this is happening separate from the public servant concerned as a by-product of investigations that prima facie are supposed to be concentrating on what the investigations were raised for in the first place. One has to ask whether there are not dangers in proceeding along these lines.
I reiterate—I think that I speak for my noble friends—that we do not favour malpractice on the part of civil servants. That is not the point at issue here at all. I for one am not keen on leaking or anything of that kind. On an earlier amendment we discussed the question of people being thought to be guilty when they are not. I can tell the Secretary of State that, when we were in power, whenever
98
anything went wrong I always felt guilty even though I knew for a fact that I was not remotely involved. In school I was the sort of boy who, if the headmaster said he would punish the guilty boy, always assumed it must be me even though I usually did not know what he was talking about.
We take the question of the proper behaviour of civil servants very seriously. Equally we do not believe—we are probing on this—that powers under this Act as a by-product ought to have almost uncontrollable consequences for public servants for which they were never intended. I may have put that more strongly than I meant to, but I am trying to get from the Secretary of State some clarification of the purpose of the provisions and how he thinks they might be used. I beg to move.
Lord Young of Graffham: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his admission of guilt in general, if not in the particular. On this matter we are agreed on both sides of the Committee that it is important that standards of integrity in public life are maintained. It is important that public bodies should be able to take disciplinary action against any member of staff who, for example, is found to have taken insufficient care to protect market-sensitive information. This is very much in the interests of maintaining the high standards of conduct and probity that the public expect of officials when they hold sensitive information in the course of their duties.
If I may give an example, the need to take disciplinary action against a public servant in any case could arise where an investigation under the Financial Services Act 1986 revealed that there was no evidence of an offence by the official or indeed that the evidence was not strong enough to take to court but there was a prima facie case of misconduct, breach of official instructions or even gross negligence. In the case of insider dealing, for example, the evidence might suggest that an official had taken insufficient care to protect market-sensitive information. In the case of investigations into companies there might be evidence to suggest corruption.
This provision and similar provisions contained in later clauses in this Act follow the precedent already in the Act. The provision which this amendment seeks to obstruct places public servants in a similar position to solicitors, auditors, accountants, valuers and actuaries. I think that Section 449(1)(f) inserted by the Financial Services Act 1986 deals with this. I believe that public servants should be incl acted in this list of special cases because of the high standard of probity which is rightly expected of officials with access to sensitive information. I hope that in the light of this explanation the noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Williams, will consider the matter and withdraw the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The noble Lord in his recitation of events that might lead to the triggering of this provision seemed to mix up, if I may say so, events that would properly be the subject of criminal charges like corruption and events that would not be the subject of criminal charges like negligence in keeping secrets secret. Under the Official Secrets Act,

99
depending on the extent of the negligence, even that could be a criminal charge.
I wonder whether the noble Lord could give us any example of other legislation in which these provisions—drawn widely as they are—have been used. That would give us a little more comfort. It seems to us that in putting these provisions in the Bill the noble Lord is trying to impose on public servants an obligation which they already have as a matter of general service to the Crown but which they do not have beyond that in respect of matters other than what is covered by these provisions. That is a rather tortuous sentence, I am afraid, but it seems to me that to introduce it here may be the thin end of the wedge.
Lord Young of Graffham: I should like to amplify my earlier remarks. If there is any question of criminal matters, that is outside this provision. We are talking only about disciplinary proceedings. I gave an example where an investigation under the Financial Services Act revealed that there was no evidence of an offence by the officials or that the evidence was not strong enough to take to court, but that there was a prima facie case of misconduct, breach of official instructions or gross negligence which could be caused by someone perhaps talking out of turn or leaving information where it should not be. That is not criminal in itself. But the public body should be able to take disciplinary action against any member of the staff who had taken insufficient care to protect market-sensitive information.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I apologise for intervening, but is that not possible anyway? Suppose a civil servant leaves documents in the train and somebody gets hold of them, is that not an object of disciplinary action anyway without something being written into the statute?
Lord Young of Graffham: I suppose that civil servants have been known to leave documents in trains—indeed Ministers have been known to leave documents in restaurants—and similar mistakes have been made. These things do happen.
We are now talking about an area of market-sensitive information. The provision seeks to place public servants in a similar position to solicitors, auditors, accountants, valuers and actuaries who have professional bodies and therefore are subject to discipline. The provision would cover some areas which are not involved in investigation, but I am conscious of the point made by the noble Lord. Perhaps I may ask him to withdraw the amendment and I shall undertake to consider the point very carefully and come back. I see what he is driving at and I am slightly concerned about it myself.
Lord Peston: In that case, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 227Z (15) not moved.]
Clause 60 agreed to.
Clause 61 agreed to.
100
Clause 62 [Protection of banking information]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No: 227Z(16):
Page 59, line 3, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: We come now to a series of amendments dealing with banking secrecy. I am bound to say that when I tabled these amendments I expected a number of Members of the Committee to be present in the Chamber who would be supporting me on the matter—a number of chairmen of banks who normally speak on these subjects. I notice that I am on my own and I am not a chairman of a bank. Nevertheless I think there is an important point here which is a deviation from present practice.
The present practice is that a bank will divulge information about its clients and their financial affairs only on a court order. It may be for the convenience of the Committee to know that I am at the moment speaking to Amendments Nos. 227Z(16), (17) and (18). I warned the Government Whip's Office that this was a series of amendments and some of my remarks may well apply to later amendments on the Marshalled List. I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me if I range rather wider than the grouping agreed.
The present situation is that it must be a court order which compels a bank to divulge information about its clients' affairs. It is a very serious matter when we deviate from that general provision. If anybody can walk into a bank on the say-so of the Secretary of State without a court order, it lowers the confidence that clients of a bank will have in that institution.
Amendment No. 227Z(16) is generally designed to knock out the new situation. Amendment No. 227Z(17) is designed to ensure that the disclosure must be necessary for the purposes of the investigation which is under review and which is the object of the Secretary of State's attention at that time. The same argument carries through when we get to Clause 64, Amendment No. 227Z(18), where we are in a similar situation because they are investigations into collective investment schemes. Again they do not have as strong an obligation of confidentiality as a bank, but nevertheless they have some fiduciary obligation not simply to disclose to anybody who comes along whatever their investors may be doing.
Perhaps I may leave the matter there for the moment and listen to what the Secretary of State has to say on the three amendments which I have grouped together. Then perhaps I may come back to the subject of banking secrecy under the later amendments I have tabled. I beg to move.
Lord Young of Graffham: I listened very carefully to the noble Lord. I recognise that a proposal which seeks to limit or make exceptions to a protection in law or a privilege is one which needs to be justified. Perhaps I may now provide that justification. I am conscious that the relationship between a banker and his customer is important and that confidentiality is important in that relationship. I suspect that both the noble Lord and I had "banker" written on our

101
passport at some time in the past. As a customer, I should also be concerned if that confidentiality were undermined unnecessarily. But I do not believe that it has been in the provisions which these amendments seek to limit or throw out. As Secretary of State I must have regard to other matters as well as the particular duty of confidentiality between a banker and his client. I believe that these proposed powers achieve the right balance between the rights of the individual, on the one hand, and the need to ensure that investigations can be properly and effectively carried out, on the other.
Indeed, the provisions of the Bill continue to provide protection for banking information; that is to say, information which is the subject of an obligation of confidence by virtue of the carrying on of a banking business. The new provisions, however, set out some clearly defined exceptions to the general principle of confidentiality whereby inspectors may require information from a banker about a customer where it is for the purpose of helping the inspector with his investigations. Two of those provisions do not seem to cause the noble Lord, Lord Williams, any misgiving; that is, that the protection should not apply where the person,
"to whom the obligation of confidence is owed is the company or other body corporate",
or the person under investigation, or where,
"the person to whom the obligation of confidence is owed consents to the disclosure or production",
of documents.
The third exception, which the noble Lord proposes to amend, provides for the Secretary of State to override the protection so that it does not apply if the inspectors' requirements have been authorised by the Secretary of State. I am aware that this provision will not please everyone and that some may even accuse us of providing the means whereby the inspectors can go on fishing expeditions. That is far from the case. Under this provision, inspectors will only be able to impose a requirement on a bank, other than the company's bank, if they have the power to do so, apart from the special provisions, and where they have a specific authorisation to do so.
The need for formal authorisation should ensure adequate protection for customers. Under the current provisions in Section 452 of the Companies Act and Sections 94, 105, 106 and 177 of the Financial Services Act, a court order is not at the present time required in any event. It is not feasible to set down precise grounds on which authorisation should be given to inspectors to require documents. Each case is different and will have to be taken on its own merits. However, as a matter of good practice I envisage that we shall at least want to be satisfied that the information to be required can properly be so required, and further that the information is relevant to the investigation.
On the face of it, a requirement that the Secretary of State has to be satisfied that the disclosure is necessary for the purposes of the investigation may not seem unreasonable to the noble Lord. However, if that requirement is set down in legislation, as currently in the Financial Services Act, which we are seeking to amend in the Bill, it creates potential
102
problems in the exercise of powers. It is, I believe, too limiting.
A key problem with a requirement that the Secretary of State should decide whether disclosure is necessary for the purposes of an investigation is determining what he needs to know in order to be so satisfied. By definition, the information that the investigators seek cannot be specified in detail, simply because they have not as yet seen it. I hope the noble Lord will be satisfied with the position that we would want to be satisfied in each case that the information to be required can properly be so required, and that it is relevant to the investigation itself.
5 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, for missing the first minute of his presentation on these amendments. The Secretary of State said there would be problems in relation to the Financial Services Act 1986 if these amendments were accepted. In this part of the Bill one has to remind oneself that we are dealing, as stated in the preamble to Part III of the Bill, not only with the Companies Act but also with the Insolvency Act 1986 and the Financial Services Act 1986.
When the noble Lord says there are problems with accepting the amendments because of the terms of the Financial Services Act, is he in effect saying that for the insurance and companies Acts and the Insolvency Act these problems would not exist, and that therefore these amendments might be relevant to those Acts? I see that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is nodding his head in agreement with me on this point. I am greatly encouraged that although I entered the Chamber a little late for the preamble of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, nevertheless I have the support of my noble friends on the Labour Front Bench.
Lord Young of Graffham: I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, that we consider the present provisions of the Companies Act 1985 and the Financial Services Act 1986 are insufficient for enabling inspectors to get at all the relevant facts in some cases. In a few cases the inadequacies of the present provisions have enabled those required to provide information or documents to delay and frustrate the progress of investigations. I shall give the Committee an example. At present there is a specific power in the Companies Act enabling inspectors appointed under that Act to require a director to provide information from his bank accounts. If those are out of the country or otherwise unobtainable, it appears there is little the inspectors can do to gain access to what might be crucial information in an investigation.
The new provision will clearly enable inspectors to obtain such information direct from banks. Inspectors appointed under the Financial Services Act already have the power to go to banks, but those powers are also being changed because of the limitation imposed by the necessary test.
Lord Peston: I am mystified because the Secretary of State gives a very good example of where additional powers may be required. However, he said

103
earlier that this was not intended to be the basis of justifying fishing expeditions. In other words, there would have to be good grounds for the Secretary of State to authorise any particular disclosure. That is precisely the nature of the amendment put down in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Williams. Its aim is to give the Secretary of State the additional powers which he says he needs for certain difficult cases. But it also would prevent him engaging in fishing expeditions.
It seems to me that this amendment is a genuine improvement to the Bill. I am slightly puzzled that the Secretary of State will not accept it. On his own logic, I should have thought he would welcome the amendment rather than say that it was unnecessary or undesirable.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I shall try quickly to satisfy the concerns of the Secretary of State. If at the end of my amendment he were to add the words, "or necessary to supply him with the information which he requires to express himself satisfied", that answers the only substantial point that he made in his reply.
Lord Young of Graffham: I can understand the concern that Members of the Committee may well have about possible fishing expeditions. However, I do not consider that the so-called necessary qualification is appropriate. Such a test may prevent investigators from gaining access to information which could be pivotal to their investigation but which at the time of their application for the Secretary of State to authorise a requirement on a bank cannot be shown to be really needed.
I believe that the so-called necessary test is potentially too limiting. However, I can assure the Committee that I have no intention of using the power to intervene in the affairs of banks and their customers without having good cause to do so. That is part of the difficulty we are under. The amendment would limit us unnecessarily.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I accept that the Secretary of State has no intention of using his powers in any way other than in a wholly honourable and honest manner. Nevertheless, I am afraid that the courts look at the statute. They do not look at what the Secretary of State may or may not have said during the debates as the statute was passing through the Chamber. I find it very odd, to say the least, that this very simple amendment, No. 227Z(17), is not acceptable. Nevertheless, if the noble Lord has resolutely set his face against any provision such as this, I shall certainly read what he has said. However, he may wish to say something further.
Lord Young of Graffham: I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has said. However, I should like to put on record that the wording of the current provision is based on that used in the Criminal Justice Act. To that extent we are not pushing back the frontiers of banking confidentiality beyond where they already exist in other legislative areas. I should like the noble Lord to bear that point in mind when he considers the matter.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I hesitate to intervene again, but surely the answer which the noble Lord has now given justifies the amendment. If the present provision comes from a current Act dealing with criminal matters, would it not be appropriate to include in the Bill wording similar to that proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel?
Lord Williams of Elvel: I think that we shall have to consider the matter and read the report of the debate. We may wish to come back to the matter at a later stage. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 227Z(17) not moved.]
Clause 62 agreed to.
Clause 63 agreed to.
Clause 64 [Investigations into collective investment schemes]:
[Amendment No. 227Z(18) not moved.]
Clause 64 agreed to.
Clause 65 [Investigations into affairs of persons carrying on investment business]:
[Amendments Nos. 227Z(19) to 227Z(22) not moved.]
Clause 65 agreed to.
Clause 66 [Investigations into insider dealing]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 227Z(23):
Page 61, leave out from beginning of line 19 to ("insert") in line 20 and insert ("Leave out subsection (2) and").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment. It seems to us that the superimposition of what is proposed in the Bill in relation to the Financial Services Act results in duplication. We move the amendment in an effort to avoid duplication in the resulting statute. I beg to move.
Lord Young of Graffham: Section 177 of the Financial Services Act enables me to appoint inspectors to investigate possible insider dealing offences. In contrast with other investigatory powers the express purpose of insider dealing investigations is to find out whether an offence of a specific category has been committed. I attach great importance to ensuring that such investigations are carried out as quickly as possible, consistent with their being carried out effectively and fairly. In such circumstances it can be advantageous to limit the duration of the investigation and to restrict the scope of the investigation (for example, dealing in certain shares between certain dates) in order to ensure that the investigation is targeted and that the possible insider dealing offence can be dealt with quickly.
The effect of the amendment would be that that could not be done until after the investigation had been started. I can see little purpose in removing the ability to set the time limits of the investigation in advance and to confine it to certain matters at the outset where that is appropriate.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Lord, I understand what he has said. I am merely suggesting that there may be duplication in the drafting. Perhaps the Minister could insert into Section 177 of the Financial Services Act wording to permit the extension of the time limit. That section gives him power to limit but not to extend the period. I am afraid that I do not have my copy of the Act with me and I am speaking from memory. It would be much clearer if either the word "extend" were inserted in that section or the section were eliminated altogether and replaced by Section 2A as set out in this Bill. As it is I and my advisers believe that there is duplication in the Bill as presently drafted.
Lord Young of Graffham: I suspect that the noble Lord is more confident in dealing with that legislation from memory than I am in dealing with it in front of me. If he is prepared to withdrawn the amendment I shall consider the matter. There are a number of minor technical amendments which will have to be dealt with at a later stage, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and I shall consider the matter in conjunction with those amendments.
Lord Williams of Elvel: If the noble Lord has the Financial Services Act in front of him perhaps he would look at the appropriate section—I thought that he said that he had it in front of him. I was speaking from memory of the Financial Services Act, which I do not have in front of me. I have the Bill in front of me.
If the Minister would care to look at the Act he will see that there is some duplication. I leave the matter there. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 67 and 68 agreed to.
Clause 69 [Amendments of the Insurance Companies Act 1982]:
[Amendment No. 227Z(24) not moved.]
Clause 69 agreed to.
Clauses 70 and 71 agreed to.
5.15 p.m.
Clause 72 [Request for assistance by overseas regulatory authority]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 227Z(25):
Page 66, line 19, after ("purposes") insert ("and will only be used for the purpose of").
The noble Lord said: Again perfectly properly, Clause 73 of the Bill enables the Secretary of State to require people to attend before him; to insist upon information and documents being produced; and to examine a person on oath. The Committee may feel that, in regard to this part of the Bill, it is perfectly proper that he should have those powers However, the problem, which can easily be dealt with by this amendment, is that the previous clause, Clause 72, provides that those powers can be exercised at the request of an overseas regulatory authority.
That is acceptable provided we can be sure that the information will be used only for the
106
purposes of carrying out the functions of that overseas regulatory authority. That is why I propose that the words set out in the amendment should be inserted. Care has to be taken because a number of countries do not have legislation which operates against insider dealing. Havoc could be created if information requested by an overseas regulatory authority was not treated with sufficient care and price-sensitive information was divulged by that authority as a result. It must be made clear that the information is provided only for the purpose of its regulatory powers.
It may be asked what sanction could be exercised against an overseas regulatory authority which releases price sensitive information. One can act retrospectively and tell the authority that in future its requests for information will not be treated with the graciousness that they were previously.
It ought to be made abundantly clear by the proposed wording that where those draconian but very proper powers available to the Secretary of State are exercised for the benefit of overseas regulatory authorities, they are exercised only to allow those regulatory authorities to carry out their duties.
I should mention that this is not just my concern and that of my colleagues when moving this amendment; it is very much the concern of the Law Society and of the Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators, both of which have asked that the amendment should have the serious consideration of the Committee and the Secretary of State's assent. I beg to move.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I entirely support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, because it seems to me that the principle of confidentiality has not been adequately addressed in drafting the new powers which are after all to assist the foreign regulatory bodies. It is for that purpose that this amendment has been tabled.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I do not want to dissent from anything that the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, have said. Quite properly, the Secretary of State has certain powers in this clause and he can do exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said—that is, be less forthcoming next time if the outside regulatory authority breaches the confidence that such an exchange of:,information would normally bring about.
As I understood the amendment, and as the Securities Association to which it is also of great concern saw it, it imposes upon the Secretary of State just one further responsibility: without those words, there is no obligation upon the Secretary of State—my noble friend or any other Secretary of State—to observe the rule of confidentiality. The amendment imposes, as it were, a self-ordinance upon the Secretary of State when he discloses information to an overseas regulatory authority.
When we passed the Financial Services Act, this Chamber assented to very detailed restrictions on the gateways through which information collected under the powers of that Act could be passed. I hope that the Secretary of State will here be equally concerned

107
to ensure proper safeguards on the ways in which overseas authorities handle the information and the uses to which it is put. Therefore, if he starts from that basis, the necessity to be less forthcoming in the future if decorum is not undertaken is less likely to obtain.
Lord Young of Graffham: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and all Members of the Committee will understand if I deal with this point, which I consider to be very important, at a little greater length than I would otherwise do, but I believe that, for the consideration of the Bill at all its stages, it would be as well to have these matters on the record.
The amendment would require the Secretary of State, or his successor, to satisfy himself not only, as proposed in the Bill, that the assistance required by the overseas regulatory authority was for the purposes of its regulatory functions, but also that it would be used by the overseas authority only for such a purpose. I understand that the aim of the amendment is to avoid disclosure by overseas regulators for other purposes, for example, possibly to assist overseas tax authorities, or any other body.
We share the concern which has already been expressed to us by, among others, the Law Society, the International Stock Exchange and indeed this Committee this afternoon that restricted information obtained under the new powers and passed to overseas regulators should be subject to proper safeguards.
I would of course not exercise the powers unless I believed that the requesting authority had made the request in good faith. I should also have to be satisfied (as the unamended subsection requires) that the assistance requested is for the purposes of its regulatory functions. When the investigation is completed, I shall then have to decide what, if any, information obtained by means of the new power should be passed on to the requesting authority. In order to ensure that the appropriate confidentiality is maintained, we envisage that restricted information will be passed to overseas regulators only in two cases: first, under arrangements such as our bilateral memorandum of understanding with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission covering the exchange of regulatory information, which contains provisions limiting disclosure and use by the requesting authority—in other words, in those cases where there are bilateral memoranda; and, secondly, where such arrangements do not exist or are not applicable, but subject to broadly similar conditions imposed on an ad hoc basis—in other words, in other areas, on the basis that there would be provisions limiting disclosures and use by the requesting authority.
Those conditions would certainly prohibit disclosure and use of restricted information other than for regulatory purposes, as defined in Clause 72(3), without our prior consent. If we had reason to suspect that such conditions would not be observed, the Secretary of State would have discretion on those grounds not to initiate an investigation or not to pass
108
on some or all of the information obtained during the investigation. In those circumstances, I therefore consider that there are adequate safeguards against the misuse of the information.
Let us consider the alternative approach suggested in the amendment. It suffers from at least two significant drawbacks. First, the amendment would preclude use of the powers if enforcement action, such as the institution of proceedings, might result from the overseas authority's inquiries. Such actions may in many cases be the responsibility of overseas bodies other than the requesting authority itself. In other words, another body may enforce the action. Generally, I would expect them to be the overseas regulatory authorities within the meaning of Clause 72(2) but, as they would not be the requesting authority, their action could not be considered to involve use for the purpose of the requesting authority's own regulatory functions. In other words, it might be requested by one authority and then enforcement would be sought by another authority, even if that authority came within the meaning of Clause 72(2).
Secondly, there could well be circumstances in which the assistance could be reasonably used or disclosed by the overseas regulator for purposes other than its regulatory functions. For instance, the assistance requested might include the provision of non-restricted information in the public domain. It might include information which the source and the person to whom it related had indicated that they were content to be used or disclosed for the particular non-regulatory purpose. Unless the Secretary of State were to place unreasonable prohibitions on the use of such non-restricted or derestricted information, he could again be precluded from exercising the powers because he could not be satisfied that the assistance would be used solely for the purpose of the requesting authority's regulatory function.
That is why the Government oppose the amendment. I have the discretion not to exercise my powers, or subsequently not to pass on information obtained, unless I am persuaded that adequate confidentiality will be maintained. As I have explained, disclosure for use or purposes other than the requesting authority's functions will not be made without our prior consent.
Lord Mishcon: I must confess that I see the force of the argument that the information passed on as a result of the Secretary of State exercising his powers under this Bill may be required by a body other than, strictly speaking, the regulatory authority for the purpose of initiating proceedings. I can well understand that argument.
It seems to me that there is absolutely nothing at present which would stop the Secretary of State granting permission that certain information which he supplied for one purpose only can be used by another body for an analogous purpose because the regulatory authority wishes to pass it on to another body.
I am interested in the original information. Under this amendment I am saying that it should be passed only to the overseas regulatory authority for the

109
purpose of its regulatory powers. Part of its regulatory powers must be to see that any person who is guilty of a crime or malpractice under its administration is duly punished or prosecuted by the analogous body—the allied body—to which the Secretary of State has referred. I therefore cannot see how this amendment in any way stops that from being done.
I see a far greater danger. Unless the Secretary of State can say that under statute I am bound to insist that this information that I am giving to this body is to be used only for the purpose of its regulatory powers—whether it be to punish, discipline or whatever—by any regulatory body, I return to the danger that I have mentioned to the Committee. This information could well be of a price-senstitive nature in a country where there is no legislation against insider dealing. It is only fairly recently that we have had such legislation. Many countries do not yet have it and may learn from our distress that it is a rather necessary piece of legislation.
Instead of continuing a debate that may be of interest to me but to no other Member of the Committee, except anyone who may wish to contribute further to the discussion, I shall ask the Secretary of State whether in his kindness he will carefully consider the concern that has been expressed by such responsible bodies as I have mentioned, and indeed that he has mentioned in addition. I ask him whether between now and Report stage he will communicate with me or any of my colleagues who are interested in this matter on whether he can admit this wording, or if not, propose some other safeguard in what is a very serious matter. If he will consider the matter from that point of view, I shall happily ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Before the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, decides exactly what he will do, perhaps I may add something. I understand what the Secretary of State has said with regard to the memorandum of understanding that obtained by virtue of bilateral arrangements, in particular with the SEC. My worry is when no such memorandum of understanding exists. I am sorry if I repeat the point of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon—he used different words. I certainly wish to underline it. Where no such memorandum of understanding exists, because there is no bilateral or any other arrangement, the responsibility falls on the Secretary of State to make a judgment. I am not suggesting that he is unable to make such a judgment. I am seeking to ensure that he has the power to support that judgment.
I understand that there may well be some international firms dealing in the UK, subject to the rules of a number of regulatory organisations, which may at some time have less confidence in the system. We have built up a painstaking system in this country since the passing of the Financial Services Act. Were that to be destroyed, damaged or harmed in any way, it would set us back years. It is against that background that I repeat my concern at the way in which the clause is presently written.
Lord Young of Gratfham: I have listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and to my
110
noble friend. I understand their anxiety. One of the difficulties is this. Let us consider the arrangements where a bilateral memorandum of understanding exists with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. If a case of insider dealing became known to the SEC in the United States, it would not be the prosecuting authority. The prosecuting authorities would be other federal authorities. Therefore we would again have the difficulty that this clause discloses. I have listened very carefully to what would happen. Even then, the conditions would prohibit disclosure and use of restricted information other than for regulatory purposes—we define that in Clause 72(3)—without my prior consent.
I understand the reasons why the noble Lord is withdrawing the amendment at this stage. I shall consider the matter and communicate with the noble Lord or Members opposite.
Lord Mishcon: I am most grateful. I only one word. I may not have made myself very clear. I may not have the words precisely right. Obviously in the instance that was quoted by the Secretary of State it must be part of the regulatory body's duty to inquire whether or not certain transgressions have taken place. The fact that information is passed on for the purpose of enforcing that duty would not take the matter out of the wording that I have used which is "for the purpose of" the regulatory authority.
My anxiety is that the information should not be used for a purpose that the Secretary of State would never have allowed had he known that that would be the result. In the light of what the Secretary of State has been kind enough to say, I ask the Committee's leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 72 agreed to.
Clauses 73 to 76 agreed to.
Clause 77 [Exceptions from restrictions on disclosure]:
5.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 227Z(26):
Page 69, line 34, leave out paragraph (c).
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 227Z(26) standing in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. Although these amendments were not officially grouped, perhaps Members of the Committee opposite will allow me to speak to Amendment No. 227Z(27) at the same time. These are relatively simple amendments and should not take much time to consider.
Amendment No. 227Z(26) addresses itself to a very simple problem. It is designed to pose a question to the Government as to whether the Treasury, in the words of the Bill, includes the Inland Revenue. If the Treasury includes the Inland Revenue, and disclosure of information that is obtained on behalf of an overseas authority can be disclosed to the Inland Revenue in the public interest, we ought to pause and ask whether it is what we wish to write into a United Kingdom Bill. The words of the amendment are

111
"leave out paragraph" in order to have the meaning absolutely clear on the record.
Perhaps I may briefly speak to Amendment No. 227Z(27). It is a question of whether information of this nature can be used in pursuance of any Community obligation. Should not the obligation be at least relevant to the information that has been disclosed? It may be an unnecessary point, but it is important to have the Government's response on the record. I beg to move.
Lord Young of Graffham: If I may, I shall deal first with Amendment No. 26. This amendment would remove the gateway for disclosure to the Treasury of restricted information obtained by virtue of the new powers of investigation.
The gateway permits disclosure of restricted information to the Treasury if the disclosure is made in the interests of investors or, once again, in the public interest. Similar gateways, for the record, apply for restricted information under the Companies Act 1985 (Section 449(3)), the Financial Services Act 1986 (Section 180(2)) and the Banking Act 1987 (Section 84(5)). Without such gateways, it would sometimes be impossible to pass such information to the Treasury when it was desirable to do so for purposes connected with investor protection, such as the prudential supervision of the banks, or for wider public interest purposes relating, for example, to the conduct or stability of financial markets.
I believe I can satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, that the gateway in Clause 77(1)(c) enables disclosure to the Treasury. It does not enable onward disclosure to any other body such as the Inland Revenue. I am glad to be able to put that on the record.
The noble Lord referred to Amendment No. 27, and I should perhaps, with the Committee's indulgence, deal with that.
The disclosure gateway in Clause 77(1)(g) permits disclosure of restricted information in pursuance of any Community obligation. Similar gateways exist in Section 180(1)(t) of the Financial Services Act 1986 and Section 85(1)(h) of the Banking Act 1987. The amendment would require the community obligation concerned to be "relevant". We assume that this is intended to limit the gateway, but we are not clear how.
The most likely context in which disclosure of restricted information might be necessary in pursuance of a Community obligation is in areas covered by Community directives relating to regulatory functions as defined in Clause 72(3). The proposed second banking directive and investment services directive, for example, both require regulators in one member state to disclose information to regulators in other member states in certain circumstances. A gateway is needed in case such information is obtained incidentally during the course of an investigation under the new powers.
We cannot readily think of specific examples, outside areas relating to regulatory functions as defined in Clause 72(3), in which Community
112
obligations might necessitate disclosure of restricted information likely to be obtained by virtue of the new powers. Such obligations would normally override the restriction on disclosure, but the point of this gateway is to avoid any possible conflict between our domestic law and Community law.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the Secretary of State. As he is aware, my recall of the Financial Services Act and the Banking Act is extremely good as I was involved in debates in this Chamber on both Bills. I remember having exactly the same debates on these same two gateways during the passage of those Bills. We were given the assurance by the Government at that time about the Treasury and its relationship with the Revenue. I am glad to have that assurance again on the record. It is very important not only for this Committee but for people outside to know that that is the case.
The question of the relevant Community obligation at the time of the Banking Act gave us the opportunity for considerable discussion about this. It was in the context of banking information—and banking information has a certain degree of confidentiality, which under the provisions of Clause 72 and 73 it may not have; but, on the other hand, there are degrees of confidentiality—and it was of concern to me during debates on the Banking Act and the Financial Services Act that there should be some restraint on the communication of such confidential information in pursuit of any Community obligation. If the noble Lord were to challenge me for any example of how that might be offended against I could not give him an answer; but the general principle should remain that it should be relevant to what is under investigation.
I accept fully that it would be impossible to write that fully into legislation. It may be extremely difficult to write the concept of relevance in this sense into legislation so I believe we must be content with the debate that we have had. Unless the Secretary of State wishes to add anything further, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 227Z(27) not moved.]
5.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 227Z(28):
Page 71, line 29, leave out subsections (5) and (6).
The noble Lord said: There are two points about this amendment. The first is that the Bill as drafted appears to allow the Secretary of State to amend the table in subsection (4); in fact, he can effectively amend the whole of Clause 77 by order. He may furthermore—this is my second point:
"impose conditions, subject to which, or otherwise restrict the circumstances in which, disclosure is permitted."
In other words, he can impose no conditions whatsoever under which disclosure is permitted. Here again we have an example of the Secretary of State being permitted by order to amend primary legislation. It might well be that we have a clause instead of Clause 77 saying that the Secretary of State may make an order which shall be subject to the

113
affirmative procedure which will define what Clause 77 is because that is what is being included in the Bill. We should he aware that the Bill is giving the Secretary of State unlimited power to reconstruct Clause 77 by order, which as we know even by the affirmative procedure in this Chamber is not voted against and is not amended. I beg to move.
Lord Young of Graffham: The amendment would remove the proposed power in subsection (5) for the Secretary of State to amend by order the table in subsection (4) of authorities and functions to which the disclosure gateway in subsection (1)(b) applies.
Similar order-making powers are contained in Section 449(1B) of the Companies Act 1985, Section 180(3) of the Financial Services Act 1986 and Section 84(2) of the Banking Act 1987.
These order-making powers are not novel, they are part of the accepted form. Indeed, without such powers primary legislation would be required to create a gateway whenever an anticipated need might occur.
It is clearly right that the disclosure gateways in provisions such as this should be drawn fairly tightly. The information obtained by virtue of the powers may in many cases be highly confidential, which is why these provisions carry criminal penalties. But flexibility is needed given that it is impossible to anticipate every circumstance in which disclosure may turn out to be necessary—often urgently—for example to help to protect investors.
Perhaps I might give some examples. Orders made under the analogous powers in existing legislation cover disclosure to, among others, the Director-General of Fair Trading, to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and to the takeover panel. Indeed some of the fairly newsworthy recent cases that my department has had to deal with would not have taken place without the powers there, for example to refer for advice to the director general matters which would then go on to the Monopolies Commission.
Time, in these unanticipated cases, has often been of the essence: so the ability to create additional gateways quickly by order (which reliance on new primary legislation could not by its nature provide) is essential. As the Committee is only too well aware, primary legislation involves a long process and takes considerable time. One cannot always afford to wait a year or more in order to provide a suitable gateway by way of primary legislation. I give one example. It would have been impossible to pass information obtained by the Companies Act inspectors relating to House of Fraser to the Director-General of Fair Trading within the six months deadline for making a merger reference.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: I appreciate what the Secretary of State has said. However, I believe it ought to be placed on record—although this may not be the moment to debate it—that many people are deeply anxious about the way in which primary legislation, often in skeletal form, includes these clauses providing that the Minister may amend or even at times repeal not only the primary legislation by order but sometimes other Acts or even Private
114
Acts. Although precedents exist they are dangerous. We should be greatly concerned about the way in which it is increasingly taken for granted that there must be flexibility.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I should like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, said, particularly having regard to what I understood the Minister to say. It was that provisions such as subsection (5), which the amendment proposes to delete, are to be found in other Acts. I understood the Minister to say that similar powers exist in several other Acts and he referred to the Banking Act and the Companies Act.
They are draconian powers which are given to the Secretary of State enabling him to do many things but about which we are naturally suspicious. Why is it necessary to have such a provision in the Bill if the Government have powers in the other Bills to which the noble Lord referred?
Lord Young of Graffham: I say to my noble friend that I understand the reluctance with which Parliament quite rightly would give to Ministers the power to vary the orders and legislation. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, that similar order-making powers exist in the Financial Services Act, the Companies Act and the Banking Act. However, they refer to specific matters covered in those Acts. Here, we are looking at the changes required for these gateways.
The difficulty is that when such needs arise—and I mentioned the case of the House of Fraser—I suspect that it would have appeared unfair to the parties to be told, for example, "We cannot refer this matter to the Director General of Fair Trading within the six months' deadline for referring it to the Monopolies Commission because we do not have specific powers". It would take about 18 months to pass a Bill through your Lordships' House.
In respect of such matters orders are laid at the Table. I hope that Members of the Committee will understand that the powers are not used often. However, because of the nature of the markets and the way in which they change, they are required from time to time.
Lord Williams of Elvel: We must be grateful to the Secretary of State. He mentioned other Acts in which similar provisions are enshrined. I debated some of the Acts when they were Bills before your Lordships' House and I made exactly the same point as I make today. If the Government bring forward such measures, then on every occasion I shall make the same point from this Dispatch Box; I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, will make the same point from his Benches; and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, will make the same point from the Conservative Benches. This will occur over and over again because we are not satisfied. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 77 agreed to.
Clause 78 agreed to.

115
Clause 79[Charges requiring registration]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 227Z(29):
Page 72, line I I, at end insert—
(" "book debts" means debts due or to become due to the company in respect of goods supplied or to be supplied or services rendered or to be rendered by the company in the course of the company's business, whether entered in a book or not").
The noble Lord said: The Committee will see that the amendment bravely defines "book debts". We have reached the stage in the Bill where we are dealing with registration of charges. It is an important if technical matter.
In the definition which we have been brave enough to put forward to the Committee—it is a necessary courage because there is no definition in the Bill and we submit that there must be—we have introduced the words:
"whether entered ir a book or not".
We have not done so because we believe them to be witty but because we believe their inclusion to be necessary.
Whenever book debts have been mentioned it has been customary to make perfectly clear the fact that they are debts, even though they do not occur by way of entry in any book. It is interesting to know that Mr. Justice Williams—I do not know whether he is an ancestor of my redoubtable colleague—commented on the matter in the case of Shipley v. Marshall which was reported in 1863. He said in so many words that it would be strange if a failure to enter certain debts in the books prevented those debts from being book debts. In the age of the computer it would be even more strange if book debts were limited to those which had been entered in books. The amendment is necessary.
Professor Diamond deserves to be mentioned at the commencement of any debate on the registration of charges. His learned Review of Security Interests in Property was obtained at the instance of the Department of Trade and Industry. It has been a great deal of use to the department and Professor Diamond is an honoured member of my profession. In his review he made clear the fact that a definition of "book debts" must occur in any Bill resulting from his Review of Security Interests in Property.
The amendment is the best we could achieve. It follows certain lines suggested by Professor Diamond in his review. I hope that the Government will recognise the fact that a definition is necessary and that our handiwork is worthy of approval. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: I have some sympathy with the purpose of the noble Lord's amendments. As he has said, the definition of book debts provided by the amendment was proposed by Professor Diamond in Part II of his Review of Security Interests in Property. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, correctly referred to the review as being most learned and the Government totally agree. As a result of those views the DTI canvassed the possibility of adopting the definition in its consultative letter of 2nd September 1987.
It is certainly desirable that "book debts" be defined in some way, or perhaps replaced by a different concept. At present it is undefined in both
116
the Bill as drafted and in the 1985 Act. It forms an undefined residual category subject to a number of particular common law exclusions. But even the courts have not always been of one mind and the noble Lord mentioned a particular case. Professor Diamond has pointed out the doubt that has existed in the past as to whether a credit balance in a bank account is a book debt. So I do not dispute that, ideally, the right definition might be desirable.
However, the responses to our 1987 consultation raised a number of wider questions in relation to the definition of book debts proposed by Professor Diamond and now included in this amendment. The definition proposed would have the effect of narrowing the term, whereas some have argued that it should in fact be widened to cover all debts. Indeed Professor Diamond has supported this argument in Part II of his report where, under his proposed law on security interests, all debts due, including bank accounts, would fall within the new scheme.
As we said in a second consultation letter of July 1989, we do not therefore think it appropriate at this stage to include a definition of "book debts" in the primary legislation. This is an area where we shall be interested to assess the responses to Professor Diamond's report. Action in the light of those responses need not await any implementation of Part II of the report. We intend to use the new power conferred on the Secretary of State by new subsections 396(4) and (5) to amend the list of registrable charges. We think that that would be much the better way to proceed rather than to rush ahead now with a definition which did not attract conclusive support in our consultation. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
6 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: It is always pleasant in your Lordships' Chamber to be able to smile at a government reply, and one only smiles and in no way attempts to ridicule. We are legislating in regard to matters which are common in commerce every day and we are talking about registration of charges and how book debts will affect them and how they will affect book debts. When one endeavours to say, "Please let us have a definition of 'book debts' so that we know what we are talking about", the Government's reply presumably is that from 1863—which is the date I quoted as regards the learned Mr. Justice Williams—until now there has been doubt about what are book debts so it should perhaps be left to a brave Minister to issue some instrument or other to define them and the issue should not be confused by endeavouring to say what we are talking about when we are talking about "book debts".
That is a reductio ad absurdum which I do not believe this Committee will tolerate. I appreciate the Minister's difficulty if his brief—and I recognise that he is more than capable of speaking outside his brief—does not encourage Parliament to define the difficulty. I appreciate that he may need further consideration of the definition which we have given and, indeed, he may wish to improve on that definition. Therefore, I hope that he will not think I

117
am ungracious when I say to him that I have no intention of dividing the Committee on this issue. However, I should like him to appreciate that in my humble judgment the Committee will require a definition of "book debts". In the same way as Professor Diamond believes it necessary, we believe it necessary. I hope that by the next stage of the Bill such a decision will be made one way or the other. Perhaps the noble Lord could communicate with me in the meantime as to the stage he has reached in his considerations. I should appreciate that. My most sensible course at this moment, having rubbed the point home good and hard, is to ask leave to withdraw this specific amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Serota): In calling the next amendment I should inform the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 227Z(31).
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 227Z(30):
Page 72, line 14, leave out from ("person") to end of line 16 and insert ("in whom the security rights are for the time being vested)".
The noble Lord said: I should like to be as brief as possible and not waste the time of the Committee. I see that the Government tabled Amendment No. 227Z(31) after we tabled our amendment. It may well be that the Government intend to accept the amendment by inserting the word "security", which is the point we seek. If the Minister will indicate whether that is the position—namely, that the amendment is accepted—I shall not have to weary the Committee with our reasons for moving it. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for being brief. Both Amendments Nos. 227Z(30) and 227Z(31) make clear that a "chargee" is the person who is entitled to exercise the security rights conferred by a charge. The terms of a charge generally confer rights on all parties to the charge, including the chargor and any guarantor, and it is necessary to ensure that they are excluded from the definition.
The Opposition Amendment No. 227Z(30) goes further and replaces the term "entitled to exercise" with the formula:
"in whom the security rights are for the time being vested".
I understand why the noble Lords have suggested this wording, but I do not think that there is any ambiguity in the term "entitled to exercise". This obviously applies to any entitlement to exercise contingent rights when they become exercisable. I think the current wording is perfectly adequate in this respect and I hope the noble Lords will withdraw their amendment, and agree to government Amendment No. 227Z(31).
Lord Mishcon: I repeat that this is purely a question of semantics and I do not believe it goes any further. Unless I find on examination of the Official Report that I have missed something in what the Minister said and that it is still necessary to insist on my wording, since the principle is admitted, the quickest way is to agree to the government
118
amendment. On that basis I am prepared to ask leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 227Z(31):
Page 72, line 15, after second ("the") insert ("security").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 227Z(32):
Page 72, leave out lines 22 and 23.
The noble Lord said: These amendments clarify what is intended when it is said that the situation of property subject to a charge is "immaterial'. The objective behind new Section 395(3), which is omitted by Amendment No. 227Z(32) is to ensure that charges created by companies over their property, wherever it is situated, are made registrable. In other words, charges over property outside Great Britain are registrable as well as those over property within Great Britain.
There is a slight awkwardness, however, in providing in the context of new Section 395 that it is immaterial for the purposes of this part where the property is situated. For example, the location of property in Scotland as opposed to England and Wales obviously is material in some respects where the part makes separate provision for the law of property as it applies in Scotland. Amendment No. 227Z(38) replaces the provision in Section 396(1) and applies it only to subsection (1). This makes it clear that it is only for the purposes of determining whether a charge is registrable that the location of the property is material. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 227Z(33):
Page 72, line 27, leave out ("deed") and insert ("instrument").
The noble Lord said: New Section No. 395(4)(a) follows the terminology of the 1985 Act in talking of the "deed" containing a charge for securing a series of debentures. The use of the term is no longer appropriate. The amendments replace it with the term "instrument" whch is used throughout the new Part XII to refer to written contracts that create charges. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: That same point has been made to us by the Law Society. We were about to table an amendment when the Government tabled this amendment. We are happy that the two Front Benches think alike.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 227Z(34):
Page 72, line 29, leave out ("deed") and insert ("instrument").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 227Z(35):
Page 72, line 33, leave out ("further proceedings are") and insert ("a further procedure is").
The noble Lord said: This is a minor, almost drafting amendment. It seems to the Law Society, which has advised us in part on this and indeed has made a submission to the Government on the wording of this Bill, that the word "proceedings" in the Bill as drafted has a legal implication which the word "procedure" in our amendment does not have. It is its view that the non-legal expression "procedure" is better than the legal expression "proceedings", which implies the involvement of a court. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: I understand the intention behind the amendment and that the Law Society is keen on it. But the term "further proceedings" is taken from existing legislation and has served perfectly well to date. There is, of course, no reason why the Committee should not take the opportunity to amend any wording that has survived from the 1985 Act, but I think it best not to change familiar terms unless they have actually been shown to be inadequate. That is not the case. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Can the noble Lord tell the Committee whether the wording has ever been tested, or has it simply appeared in the various Companies Acts and the consolidated Act of 1985 and never been brought before the courts? If it has been brought before the courts and tested in some way and has been shown to be the equivalent of what we suggest, I shall be perfectly happy. However, if it has not been tested I see no reason why we should not adopt the more sensible wording.
Lord Strathclyde: I cannot give examples in relation to foreign law. As for examples from the domestic context which may offer some sort of analogy, there are legal proceedings for the cancellation of a prior land charge on the Land Charges Register, for the rectification of the Land Charges Registry's Register, or specific performance of an agreement to grant a charge. Apart from that, I have to confirm that the wording has not been tested.
Lord Williams of Elvel: In that case, will the Government consider what seems to us and to the Law Society to be the more correct wording and, in spite of the fact that it has been in companies legislation for some time, introduce this small amendment to bring it up to date?
Lord Strathclyde: Perhaps I can say, without wishing to confuse the Committee, that to the Government it is clear that the amendment is unnecessary. There is no reason to interpret "proceedings" as necessarily only "legal proceedings", especially in this context where it is obvious that an administrative formality such as registration in another register is envisaged. Moreover, the term "procedure" is possibly ambiguous. It can be taken to mean only a necessary formality. The existing term is probably wider in its scope than is "procedure", which implies a wholly routine administrative process. The term
120
"proceedings" can be used just as aptly of a clerical process, a court battle or a board meeting. It includes not only necessary formalites but also proceedings that a person might commence of his own volition. Therefore, the amendment runs the risk of excluding certain proceedings which might be necessary to make a charge valid. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, did not have that in mind.
Lord Peston: It is always a favourite subject of the Committee when we come to the meaning of words. I now find myself less able to understand than I did when we started. The very least we require, based on the noble Lord's statement, is that both "proceedings" and "procedure" are necessary because neither cover all that we have in mind. From my knowledge of the English language, "procedure" covers more of what the Government have in mind than does "proceedings". If it is meant to cover proceedings as well, meaning "legal proceedings" then perhaps the noble Lord will reflect on that and come back with an amendment which covers both definitions. Certainly my understanding of the word "procedure" is that it involves pretty well all the range of activities which the noble Lord said he thought the word "proceedings" covered, which in my view it does not. We do not want to bandy around these words all the time but there is a substantive point which the noble Lord's department might want to reconsider.
Lord Strathclyde: Generally speaking we are satisfied that we have covered that argument and perhaps I may suggest that the noble Lord reads Hansard tomorrow to confirm that. I too will read the proceedings carefully to see whether the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has said something which I have missed. I have attempted to explain the Government's view. It is obviously not a fundamental point and we will study what has been said.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that small concession. I hope he will study what has been said with care and that he will be converted to our point of view by the time we come to the next stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 227Z(36):
Page 73, line 27, leave out ("or").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Peston. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendment No. 227Z(37) standing in our joint names.
This starts a discussion that may be rather vexed because the whole question of whether there should be charges on shares has certainly exercised the legal profession, and indeed the banking profession, for a long time. Professor Diamond spent a considerable time discussing the whole matter.
Generally speaking, we accept the Diamond conclusion that to have charges on all types of shares would lead to serious disadvantages in the operation of the markets. We are not proposing that in Amendment No. 227Z(37). On the the other hand, we find difficulty in accepting Professor Diamond's arguments that there are problems in making registrable charges on shares in subsidiaries.
Professor Diamond argued that the problem is in the risk that a person who searches may be misled into thinking that there is no such charge when the explanation is that the charge was created before the relationship of holding company and subsidiary existed. We find that a curious and tortuous reason for rejecting out of hand the whole issue of charges on shares in subsidiaries.
The Jenkins Committee raised a clear difficulty as regards branches and subsidiaries, but I should like to gloss over that for the moment because in our amendment we are dealing with shares in subsidiaries. The problem, if we do not have the ability to register charges on shares in subsidiaries, is that assets which are otherwise registrable if charged could go without a registration of charge. I give a simple example. Let us suppose a company has a factory and the factory is an asset of the company and it charges that factory to secure a loan. That is a registrable charge. Let us further suppose that the company, instead of doing that, puts the factory into a subsidiary. It owns the shares of the subsidiary. It then uses the shares of the subsidiary as security against a loan. That is a perfectly feasible and sensible transaction. What would happen under those circumstances is that the lender would say to the company, "We will accept the shares of the subsidiary as security but we will also have a covenant which says that you, the company, will procure that your subsidiary will not sell the factory that is the main asset of the subsidiary".
Under present arrangements, as I understand it—and it is a very complicated area—that is not a registrable charge; whereas the charge on the factory directly, if the factory is an asset of the company, is a registrable charge. That seems to be a serious anomaly because people can shift assets around between subsidiaries as often and as quickly as they like.
We should like the Government seriously to look at what Professor Diamond said on this point, to examine again the arguments and to see whether they can move towards eliminating the anomaly I have described. I recognise that these are very difficult problems. I do not expect an immediate answer from the noble Lord. I hope that he will give us an outline of the way in which the Government are thinking at the moment, and how they have arrived at the conclusion not to include shares in subsidiaries in the Bill as drafted. I hope that the noble Lord will also keep an open mind on the matter, and maybe we can think about it again at a later stage. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord, Lord Williams, has put over his case very clearly, and I would not wish to claim that there is no argument in favour of requiring the registration of charges created by companies over shares in their subsidiaries. But I do
122
not think that it is a compelling one while the arguments against are strong.
I believe that Professor Diamond was correct in concluding in Part III of his report that we should not create a new category of registrable charge to cover shares in subsidiaries. The problem of how to deal with a situation where a company owns shares in a second company which subsequently becomes its subsidiary, is a fundamental difficulty. If the noble Lord's amendment were adopted, a charge over such shares would become void upon a relevant event under new Section 399 as from the time that the second company became a subsidiary of the first. This is because it is necessary to register a charge within 21 days of its creation.
But this would not be possible because at that time the second company would not be a subsidiary and so the charge would not be registrable. The creditor who had lent to the first company on the security of the shares would have no means of knowing that the second company was to become a subsidiary in the future. Indeed, when the second company did become a subsidiary, there is no reason to believe that the chargee would become aware of that fact. Late registration under new Section 400 would not help. The chargee would remain void in relation to relevant events occurring prior to the registration. Any person acquiring an interest in the shares—for example another creditor—between the date of creation and the date of registration of the charge would acquire his interest free of charge which would be void against him.
This would be particularly harsh on the chargee who would, as I have said, not be in a position to know whether a company whose shares are charged to him might become a subsidiary at some time in the future. The amendment would create an anomaly very similar to that which applies under the 1985 Act to property of overseas companies that is brought into Great Britain after the date of creation of the charge. There is general agreement that it is unacceptable that a charge should become void perhaps years after its creation because of circumstances over which the chargee has no control. It has been necessary to include in this Bill Clause 88 which contains no fewer than six new sections to overcome the sort of problem that this amendment would create.
It is worth referring finally to the argument usually used by those who favour the registration of charges over shares in subsidiaries. There is thought to be an anomaly in that a charge by a company over the assets of one of its branches is registrable, but a charge over shares in subsidiaries is not. I do not deny that there is some force in this argument. But the fact that subsidiaries are separate legal entities results in them being accorded different treatment from branches in a number of respects, not least in the context of the limitation of their liability. It is consistent therefore that there should be different treatment in respect of the registration of charges, and I see no case for making an exception in this instance in the light of the difficulty that I have described. This is a complicated area and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, said so in his remarks. I hope that the noble Lord will study what I have said

123
and in the meantime feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The noble Lord has done exactly what I asked him to do. He has set out the Government's thinking on how they have arrived at this conclusion. We shall look at this aspect and see whether we agree with their reasoning, or whether we wish to pursue this matter in the same form or in a different form at a later stage. I shall be consulting with advisers to that effect. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 227Z(37) not moved.]
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 227Z(38):
Page 73, line 29, at end insert ("; and it is immaterial for the purposes of this subsection where the property subject to the charge is situated.").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment when speaking to Amendment No. 227Z(32). I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 227Z(39):
Page 73, line 29, at end insert—
("(1A) In the case of a charge for securing an issue of debentures, or in the case of a floating charge, registration shall be accompanied by a statement of any of the provisions of the charge and of any instrument realating to it which prohibit or restrict the company's power to grant further charges ranking in priority to, or pari passu with, the charge for securing as issue of debentures or the floating charge, as the case may be.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is similar to the one that I moved regarding shares in subsidiaries. It relates to the negative pledge. The Government have decided not to include negative pledge which I hope I have reasonably well defined in the amendment. We believe that a floating charge without a negative pledge attached to it in some form of instrument does not make a great deal of sense. We feel that some instrument describing a negative pledge should be attached to a floating charge when it is registered. For a reason that I should like to hear, the Government do not adopt that point of view. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: The Government are in sympathy with the intention behind the noble Lord's amendment. We agree with Professor Diamond's recommendation that negative pledge clauses should be registered, and we intend to implement that recommendation. It is not however necessary to do this by way of an amendment to Part IV. Neither does the amendment quite achieve its aim, as I shall explain later if the noble Lord wishes, which he does. In Scotland, under Section 464 of the 1985 Act, negative pledge clauses contained in the instruments of floating charges are already registrable. They will continue to be so under Section 464 as amended by Clause 94 of the Bill, and they will be ineffective if the charge containing them is not registered within 21 days of its creation.
124
We announced in September 1987 our intention to extend the Scottish requirement to floating charges in England. The proper place for statements of negative pledge clauses to appear is in the particulars to be prescribed by the Secretary of State under new Section 398(4). There are two reasons for adopting this approach.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. Is he saying that my amendment is unnecessary and that the Government are giving an undertaking that under the provisions of Clause 81 there will be in the particulars a description of negative pledge? In that case we need go no further. Can the noble Lord satisfy me on that point?
Lord Strathclyde: That is exactly what we are proposing.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 227Z(40):
Page 73, line 47, after ("debts") insert ("or to secure a guarantee").
The noble Lord said: This is a very simple amendment which has been suggested to us by our advisers. A charge can secure debts or it can secure guarantees. There is no difference between the two from the banking point of view. I hope that the Government have taken this point. I cannot see why they have left it out. No doubt the noble Lord will be able to explain. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: I fear that the noble Lord's advisers have misunderstood the effect of paragraph (d). A negotiable instrument is a piece of paper that either recites an undertaking to pay a sum of money or contains an order to a third party to pay a sum of money and which may be transferred by delivery and endorsement to a bona fide purchaser for value in such circumstances that he takes free from defects in the title of prior parties. Negotiable instruments are frequently deposited by way of security with a third party in order to secure an advance from that third party. In view of the commercial frequency of such transactions, it is important that the facility to create security by depositing negotiable instruments in this way should be flexible and informal.
However, where the undertaking to pay recited by the instrument is given to a company by way of evidence of a debt owed to the company which would constitute a book debt in the company's hands, the deposit by the company of that negotiable instrument to secure any liability to a third party will constitute a charge over the book debt. This has the undesirable consequence that the deposit gives rise to a registrable charge. In order to ensure that the charge is excluded from registrability, therefore, provision is needed to exclude any such deposit from the category of registrable charges over book debts.
It is quite immaterial whether the liability secured by the deposit is a contingent liability or an immediate liability. All that is material is that the liability is secured on a book debt. If the property on

125
which the liability is secured has a right to receive a sum in the event of a certain contingency, then the conditional right to payment is not a book debt, and a charge over that right will not be registrable unless it can be brought within one of the other categories which are specified as registrable.
If the noble Lord can give an example of any such conditional right which falls into one of the other registrable categories, then we will be happy to give consideration to excluding the deposit of a negotiable instrument given to secure any such conditional right from the category of registrable charge into which it would otherwise fall. But we have received no representations that there is any problem of registrability arising in relation to the deposit of an unregistrable instrument given to secure a guarantee.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I shall have to read what the noble Lord has said. At first sight it does not seem to me that a case has been made for distinguishing between a negotiable instrument to secure a payment of a book debt and one to secure a guarantee, but perhaps in legal terminalogy the guarantee, even if it is conditional, falls into a different category from that of book debt. I shall read what the noble Lord said and take advice. Perhaps we can correspond on the matter but it is not one which we need to go into in great detail in Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 227Z(41):
Page 74, line 6, at end insert ("but does not include a charge arising by operation of law").
The noble Lord said: Charges are registrable under the 1985 Act only if they are created by contract. Charges which arise by operation of law are not registrable. This limitation is necessary because many charges arising by operation of law arise in the ordinary course of business, or through disposal of the company's assets, such as business premises. They are for the most part charges which arise automatically in the circumstances and are not deliberately arranged by the parties. It would be an unnecessary burden to register them.
Part IV of the Bill as drafted does not achieve this limitation. Section 398 imposes a duty on a company to register any charge it creates or which exists over property when the property is acquired by the company. This would impose a duty to register charges over acquired property which arose by operation of law. The existing Sections 400(1) and 416(1) of the 1985 Act deal with this point by talking of acquired property.
"which is subject to a charge of any such kind as would, if it had been created by the company after the acquisition of the property, have been required to be registered".
The amendment achieves the same objective with much less fuss by simply excluding charges which arise by operation of law. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to
Clause 79, as amended agreed to.
Clause 80[The companies' charges register]:
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees: In calling Amendment No. 227Z(42), I should point out that it it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 227Z(43) or 227Z(44).
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 227Z(42):
Page 74, line 41, leave out from ("seal") to end of line 42 and insert ("and is conclusive evidence that the requirements of this Chapter as to registration have been satisfied.").
The noble Lord said: I understand that the amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 227Z(43) and 227Z(44). All three amendments seem to seek the same end. As the Committee will be aware, I am advised by the CBI. It agrees with the Law Society that legal certainty must continue to be paramount in the operation of the register of company charges. In order to observe this, the registrar's certificate given on registration must have been complied with. The registrar must ensure that particulars adequately reflect the charge created and must check whether a change on an alleged charge is registrable. The CBI does not consider, and I agree with it, that the increase in speed of registration which would be effected by the system proposed in the subsection as drafted justifies the reduction in certainty that would follow its implementation. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: With admirable brevity and clarity the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has moved the amendment, with the purpose of which, as he has rightly said, I entirely agree. It is purely a question of semantics between the two of us. Our amendment is the shorter one and achieves the same end. However, neither the noble Lord nor anybody supporting the amendment will worry at the Committee stage about the wording.
It is absolutely necessary to have the registrar's certificate as being conclusive evidence. Anybody dealing with commercial law will appreciate that at once. One has to have certainty of transactions in, for example, the assignment of charges or the issue of debentures secured by a charge; and generally to avoid liquidators or administrators challenging the validity as against them of a charge on the ground that the date appearing on its face was a later date than the date of its creation. This was laid clown with great certainty by a very distinguished judge, Lord Justice Harman. In the case of R. v. C. L. Nye Ltd reported in Chancery Cases in 1971 at pages 469 and 470, the learned Lord Justice said:
"The whole point of creating the register under section 95"—
he was dealing with the relevant section of the Companies Act at that stage—
"is to give security to persons relying on the certificate. If it were possible to go behind the certificate and show that the date of the creation of the charge made it out of time, no lender on the faith of the charge could be secure and sure that it would not thereafter be attacked by somebody who could successfully prove that there was in fact an interval of more than 21 days between the charge's creation and its registration. This would be disastrous in my opinion and is not a view to be taken unless the language positively compels it".

127
In exactly the same case, Lord Justice Russell, another very distinguished judge, said, at page 474:
"It is therefore to be expected that the group of sections should provide in absolute terms for a marketable security which cannot be achieved unless the certificate of the registrar is in every respect conclusive and unassailable".
I quote those two learned Lord Justices with some confidence that the Minister will not endeavour to support in any way what is a completely retroactive step of introducing uncertainty into the law and into commercial situations where that would be quite unforgiveable. I beg to support the amendment moved so adequately by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, for speaking directly to Amendment No. 227Z(44) which I tabled. The three amendments that have been drawn together have the same purpose. The theme is the avoidance of uncertainty. I have also been supplied with the extract from the Law Society's notes which gives the speeches, read by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, of the two distinguished judges before whom I have had the privilege of appearing in the Court of Appeal more than once.
The three amendments have the same purpose. Mine, as I say unashamedly, achieves that purpose by striking out nine words from the clause and inserting one. If the noble Lord, Lord Renton, were here, I am sure that I should have his support for having reduced what is in the Bill by even nine words and replacing them by one.
If the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, withdraws his amendment and the noble Lords, Lord Williams of Elvel and Lord Peston, do not move their amendments—with the hope that the Minister will say that one word is better than nine—I give an undertaking forthwith to move Amendment No. 227Z(44).
Lord Strathclyde: We have had a nice debate on the amendments.I apologise because I shall speak for rather longer than I have done on other amendments as this is an important area and there is a principle to get across. Before I discuss the amendments, I should say that the proposal to discontinue conclusive certificates has been widely supported by the commercial world in response to our consultations in 1987. Representatives of, for example, banks and finance houses are in favour of the changes that we are making. They are the people who will ultimately benefit from the changes.
I shall deal first with the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Mottistone. It appears to be an attempt to take us back to a certificate of the sort currently issued by the registrar, one that is conclusive evidence that all the requirements of the chapter as to registration have been satisfied. The amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Peston, and by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, would have a more modest effect. If accepted, either of those amendments would have the consequence that the certificate issued under new Section 397(4) would be conclusive evidence that
128
the particulars in question had been delivered on the date stated. The certificate would have the comparatively narrow purpose of preventing any challenge by the liquidator, administrator or any other person with an interest in the charge, to the date of delivery as noted by the registrar. I shall deal in turn with the arguments for and against the different types of certificate. But it is worth saying now that I have more than a little sympathy with the intention behind Amendments Nos 227Z(43) and 227Z(44) for reasons that I shall explain in due course.
The first thing to say about Amendment No. 227Z(42) is that it would produce a certificate that would not in fact be possible under the new regime in Part IV of the Bill. Would it mean that the requirements of the chapter had been satisfied? Under the 1985 Act, the meaning is clear—that a charge has been properly registered in all respects and is unassailable in all respects. But Part IV of the Bill contains new Section 400 which envisages the belated delivery of particulars and new Section 401 which envisages the delivery of further particulars to correct errors and omissions in previous particulars. So, unlike the 1985 Act, there are no comprehensive requirements in Part IV in relation to the validity of a charge. It is not clear what a fully conclusive certificate would achieve.
However, I want to concentrate on the arguments of principle about a conclusive certificate, not to enter a technical debate on how one may or may not fit in with our new regime. The existing certificate has advantages and disadvantages. It is necessary to balance those in order to judge why we have decided to dispense with it.
There are two advantages with the existing certificate. First, in order to allow him to issue the certificate, the registrar checks particulars received by him against the instrument of charge to see whether they are accurate. That is not a benefit in itself, as I shall show later, but it means that searchers of the register can have some confidence that the particulars of the charge that they find there reflect with some accuracy the terms of the charge as they applied when the charge was originally registered. The second advantage of the current certificate is that once a chargee has one, he can engage in transactions with third parties without them being in any doubt about the validity of the charge. If, for instance, the chargee wishes to assign the charge to another person, he can show him the certificate as proof that the charge is not void under Section 395 or Section 410 of the 1985 Act.
Those are the principle advantages of the existing certificate, and they are not to be underestimated; but it is important to remember the purpose of the register of charges, because the certificate runs counter to those purposes. It is not the purpose of the register to give security to persons relying on the certificate. The register is there to disclose as comprehensively as possible the details of charges created by companies. The fundamental intention is to allow a company's prospective creditors to find out whether property being offered to them as security is unencumbered. The degree of assurance that those persons can obtain from the register allows them to lend with confidence to companies, which is of

129
advantage to companies themselves. The certificate does nothing to assist that purpose, as I will show. If anything, it undermines it.
The existing certificate gives the searcher of the register some assurance that the particulars on the register were accurate when they were put there; but mistakes inevitably occur in the process of checking by the registrar. Where a conclusive certificate is issued in respect of incorrect particulars due to a clerical oversight, the chargee is protected to the detriment of third parties. There have been a number of reported court cases in which those searching the register have been misled in that way.
Furthermore, under the current regime the register is frozen in time. The holder of a conclusive certificate has no incentive whatever to tell the registrar of any changes to the terms of the charge. Any variation that does not amount to the creation of a new charge may be made with impunity even though it is not reflected on the register. That is the fundamental flaw in the present system. By disposing of the certificate, we can introduce new measures for the updating of the register through the delivery of further particulars which will make it much more complete and reliable. I stress the word "reliable". Any fear that the absence of any checking by the registrar might lead to a less reliable register is misplaced.
The system of partial avoidance under new Section 402 not only provides a new powerful incentive on chargees to ensure that particulars are accurate; it also means that searchers of the register can be assured that the property in question is encumbered only to the extent that the particulars say that it is. Any errors in the particulars, or any omissions caused because of a later change to the terms of the charge, cannot affect the rights of subsequent creditors unless they are corrected by the delivery of further particulars under new Section 401. Unlike the present system, therefore, the searcher will be able to rely on the fact that no error or omission on the register will be capable of causing him loss.
Before I leave Amendment No. 227Z(42) I want to comment on some other aspects of the existing certificate. First, both the Jenkins Company Law Committee in 1962 and Professor Diamond have said that the need to check particulars for accuracy places an unreasonable burden on the registrar. By dispensing with that check and the resulting conclusive certificate, we are placing on the chargee the onus to ensure that particulars are accurate.
Those who argue that the loss of the certificate may undermine the marketability of charges forget that people to whom charges are being assigned have the remedy in their own hands. They need only check the particulars that have been delivered against the instrument of charge which is being assigned to them. It is a simple matter of caveat emptor. I do not believe that anyone would wish to suggest that the registrar should continue to carry out this activity on behalf of the commercial world. As for the original chargee, there is no merit in the existing position by which he is protected by the certificate from his own mistakes or failure to update the register while innocent third parties may suffer from them.
130
In summary, the existing certificate renders the register incomplete and out of date, it imposes a task on the registrar that the commercial world should undertake and it is inequitable in that it protects chargees from their own failings while making innocent third parties suffer. No one could seriously defend the existing certificate in the light of these disadvantages.
Should there, however, be a certificate that is conclusive to a narrower degree? Under new Section 397(4) a certificate is presumed to show correctly that specific particulars were delivered on the date stated. But the presumption is rebuttable by evidence that proves that the particulars were delivered either earlier (which the chargee might wish to claim) or later (which third parties might wish to claim). It would be possible, therefore, for a third party to prove that a charge was registered out of time and therefore took priority only from the date of its registration and not from the date of its creation. It is important to note that such a claim would not have the consequence of exposing the charge to being found by the court to be wholly void against subsequent creditors or the liquidator or administrator.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, mentioned cases that had occurred in the past, such as that of Re Nye in 1971. The court then commented on the importance of the conclusivity as to date of the existing certificate in the context of challenges which, if successful, would have made the charge wholly void. Their comments have no application to the new regime under Part IV of limited postponement of priority.
Nevertheless the Government believe that there is a strong argument for making a certificate under new Section 397(4) conclusive as to the fact that the particulars were delivered on the date stated. It would then be a simple matter for prospective assignees to check the certificate against the instrument of the charge being assigned to them and to satisfy themselves that the charge was registered within the 21-day period. By making this check, together with one to see that the particulars are accurate in other respects, the prospective assignee would be able to be confident that the charge was fully effective as from the date of creation, as he is under the existing conclusive certificate. I think that such a change to the nature of the certificate under the new Section 397(4) would resolve any doubt as to the effect of the new regime on the marketability of charges.
The Committee will now understand why I said that I had much sympathy with Amendments Nos. 43 and 44. I think indeed that it might be right to go further to help the chargee in this respect: those amendments would have the effect of preventing the chargee from producing evidence that his particulars were delivered earlier than stated by the certificate. If the date demonstrated that his particulars were delivered on Day 22 he would not be able to show that they were in fact delivered on Day 21 and that his charge was therefore protected from the date of its creation. I think the chargee should be given this opportunity. It would be consistent with the possibility open to him to prove under the new Section 400(2) that particulars delivered late, despite

131
the presumption in that subsection, were delivered earlier than a relevant date occurring on the same day as delivery. I hope therefore to return at Report stage with an amendment which would make the certificate conclusive evidence that the particulars were delivered no later than the date stated.
Unlike Amendments Nos. 43 and 44, I would intend also to allow the chargee to show that the particulars were delivered earlier. In this sense I would be going further to help the chargee than the amendments do. I therefore ask noble Lords to withdraw their amendments. I shall not be going as far as the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Mottistone, but I hope that in the light of the lengthy explanation I have given—and I apologise for its length—and the commitment I have made, he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble friend for having taken such tremendous trouble to explain fully the shortcomings of my amendment. I shall have much pleasure in advising those who advise me to read what he has said with great care and see whether they wish to come back to the matter at a later stage.
I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, who claimed that he cut out nine words, that in fact he does not eliminate quite so many words as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who actually cuts out one more. So, if it were just a question of pleasing my noble friend Lord Renton, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, would win. However, as I see it both noble Lords have won vis à vis my noble friend the Minister, and accordingly at this stage I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Mishcon: I always have a great admiration for the reasonableness and fairness of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. It has been increased, if I may say so, by his last remarks. Naturally, when the noble Lord moved his amendment, which goes further than mine, I announced my support for it because I would have been very happy indeed had it been carried. As the noble Lord the Minister has pointed out, it goes further than he is prepared to go—and he is prepared to go quite a long way down the road—in regard to the amendment that I ventured to put before the Committee and also in regard to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. I thank him for that.
I think I am right in recalling that he said he would be putting down his amendment at Report stage, and naturally he will understand if I say that I shall await the amendement with great interest and anticipation, to ensure that the very important principle enshrined in the amendment which I ventured to move is in fact in correct order. I am sure it will be, bearing in mind what the noble Lord the Minister has said. In the circumstances, for my part, when the amendment is called I would wish—I believe the amendments are being grouped together—to thank the Minister and in the process of doing so I will ask the Committee's leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I should like to follow the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Mottistone,
132
and say how grateful I am for the lengthy and careful speech the noble Lord the Minister has made. I cannot resist saying how much I envy him, having obviously so many people behind the scenes to support him and to do such splendid work for him, because he read his brief without pretty well any interruption originating from himself.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 227Z(43):
Page 74, line 41, leave out from ("be") to end of line 42 and insert ("conclusive").
The noble Lord said: I had intended to move this amendment but I shall not now do so.
[Amendment No. 227Z(43) not moved.]
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 227Z(44):
Page 74, line 41, leave out from ("presumed") to end of line 42 and insert ("conclusive").
The noble Lord said: In view of what the noble Lord the Minister has said about reading the papers and bringing the matter back at a later stage, I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 227Z(44) not moved.]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 227Z(45):
Page 75, line 2, after ("matter") insert ("if he would otherwise be taken to have had notice thereof").
The noble Lord said: I always have tremendous respect for the Law Society, of which I have been a proud member for well over 50 years now. It is therefore with some diffidence that I tell the Committee that the wording that has been adopted here is that of the Law Society. However, I respectfully suggest that a word "not", which is rather vital, may have been omitted. I would ask for the Minister's patience and that of the Committee if I point out that I think it would be clearer if the words of the amendment to be inserted, if accepted, were to read:
"if he would not otherwise be taken to have had notice thereof."
I know the noble Lord the Minister understands very well, whether the "not" is in or not in, exactly what this amendment tries to achieve.
The amendment seeks to make it abundantly clear that the fact that there is something in a charge that has been registered does not necessarily mean that, because the charge has been registered, anyone who is affected or who may be affected by it has notice of everything that might be in the charge. For example, there might be a clause in the charge that talks of not alienating a property subject to the charge in any circumstances set out in the charge or whatever. The fact that it is in the small print of the charge registered or the particulars of it in law does not amount to notice of all the matters contained in the charge. However, there may be a common law constructive notice of certain things in that charge. The amendment seeks to make clear that the mere fact that a charge has been registered does not necessarily give notice to anybody of what at common law he would not be deemed to have constructive notice of.

133
I hope that that renders the amendment clear to the Committee and in particular to the Minister. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: It may help if I first explain what new Section 397(5) does and does not do. The common law doctrine of constructive notice attributes notice to such persons as could reasonably be expected to make all inquiries that a reasonable and honest man would make. What the new subsection abolishes is any supposed doctrine that the mere registration of a charge in itself automatically has the effect of attributing notice to everyone whether or not, as a question of fact, the particular individual could reasonably be expected to have searched the register.
At present if a person has constructive notice of the existence of a charge, he will thereby have notice of such terms as are required to be contained in the particulars and are actually delivered to the registrar. The provision does not affect the extent of the matters of which a person has notice. It only affects the scope of the category of persons who have notice. Nor is the common law doctrine of constructive notice affected. Those persons who under the general rule both at common law and as enshrined in Section 199 of the Law of Property Act 1925 have notice of the existence of a charge will continue to have such notice.
I think, therefore, that the noble Lord may agree on reflection that his amendment is not entirely necessary. I should tell the Committee that we intend, when we put forward our clauses on the abolition of the ultra vires rules, to include in them a subsection similar to new Section 397(5). The provision in the ultra vires clauses will apply more widely to all documents and registers kept by the registrar, including the register of charges. New Section 397(5) will therefore become unnecessary and we intend to table an amendment to remove it on Report. The noble Lord may wish to come back to this topic when we discuss the ultra vires clauses. For the moment however I am not persuaded by what he has said in support of his amendment and I would ask him to withdraw it.
Lord Mishcon: The Minister's phrase "not entirely necessary" I found an encouraging one. The opinion of the Law Society, which I know that he would respect, in regard to new Section 397(5) is that its present drafting appears to be based on an inaccurate assumption, namely, that under existing law there is a doctrine that provides that everyone is deemed to have notice of the contents of prescribed particulars of a charge. The Minister was good enough to say that this will be dealt with when the rules of ultra vires are dealt with. It is therefore sensible at this time in the day for me to ask whether he can tell me roughly when he expects that will be done. It would obviously be sensible for us to wait and see whether the matter that I endeavoured to bring before the Committee is completely covered. I was much heartened by what he said about the amendment being not entirely necessary". One assumes from those words that he thinks that it has some force of meaning and could be of use.
Lord Strathclyde: I hope that the noble Lord does not read too much into the word "entirely", which is obviously ambiguous.
We shall be coming to the ultra vires clauses while we are still in Committee, not later. I hope that that clarifies the matter.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Can the Minister say under which part of the Bill the ultra vires clauses will be tabled?
Lord Strathclyde: It will be under Part V, to be commenced on Tuesday, 21st February.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Therefore is it correct that we shall be discussing Part V next week and the Government will table new provisions for Part V for discussion in Committee next week?
Lord Strathclyde: The amendments will be tabled before next week.
Lord Mishcon: If I may follow upon what my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel said, I know that the Minister will appreciate the problem. We should like as much notice as is possible so that we can take advice on whether this important point is covered. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 227Z(46):
Page 75, line 6, at end insert—
("( ) Where a form of particulars of provisional registration is completed, registration of that document shall confer priority for a period of 21 days.
( ) The form of particulars referred to above shall be substantially similar to the existing form but shall omit the date of the change.
( ) If the company or prospective chargee named in the form referred to above applies for registration of a newly created charge before the day provisional registration expires, the date of registration of the charge for priority purposes shall be the date of provisional registration; but if the 21-day period lapses without a full registration the form shall be removed from the register.").
The noble Lord said: Professor Diamond in his report made what seems to me a fairly specific recommendation to meet the problem of the 21-day period. It is well known. There is a period in which charges have to be registered. Charges are frequently not registered until towards the end of the period so that anyone making a search of the register in the period in question will not find the charge that has already been established. This has been a problem—in some ways the greatest problem of the public register of charges.
Indeed, in opening Chapter 26 Professor Diamond said that the most severely criticised aspect of the existing register of charges was that because of the 21-day period of registration it could not be relied upon. As a result of the analysis which he made, he produced the recommendation which we have reproduced (if I may put it like that) in our Amendment No. 46. Again, I should like to hear from the Government exactly what led them to reject Professor Diamond's recommendation. When we

135
have received the Government's explanation, we shall see whether or not we agree with it. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: We have followed Professor Diamond's advice and have not allowed for provisional registration in the absence of a system of priorities. The reason for this is quite simply that provisional registration would not solve the major problem of the present system. A charge that had been created but did not yet appear on the register would still take priority over a provisionally registered charge, just as it takes priority over a subsequently created charge. Provisional registration would not help the second chargee any more than the creation of his charge does at present. He comes second either way. Provisional registration would protect a prospective chargee during the period between his search and the date on which the charge is created. He would not run the risk that someone else might get in before him and take a charge over the same property during that period. But this problem is best dealt with by chargees ensuring that they leave as little time as possible between their search and the creation of the charge. To attempt to deal with this by a system of provisional registration would only add to the existing doubt about the register itself.
Under provisional registration, the register would reflect the following situations. First, it might contain no particulars of a charge, because no charge exists. Secondly, it might contain no particulars of a charge although one had in fact been created. Thirdly, it might contain particulars of a charge lodged as formal registration. Fourthly, it might contain particulars of a charge lodged as provisional registration although no formal registration is to follow. Fifthly, it might contain particulars of a charge lodged as provisional registration with a formal registration to follow. Finally, it might contain a mixture of particulars of formal registration and of provisional registration.
I do not think that a register in this form would be calculated to enhance the reliability of the register. Nor do I believe that the small advantage to be gained by provisional registration (that is, protection of the prospective charge between the date of his search and the date of creation of his charge) is sufficient to outweigh the confusion that the system would cause. I therefore hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. He has provided what I hoped he would, which is an explanation of why the Government reject the provisional registration as suggested in Professor Diamond's report. The interpretation of what Professor Diamond has said is disputed, if I may say so, between ourselves and the Government. I have no doubt that we, together with our advisers, will consider what has been said. I am not convinced that Professor Diamond linked the priority system with the provisional registration in the correct manner which the noble Lord indicated. We shall have to look at that.
136
We shall look also at his assertion that this is not an extremely important matter. I cannot remember the exact words he used, and it might create more confusion. I come back to Professor Diamond's own remark that the most severely criticised aspect of the existing register of charges is the fact that because of the 21-day period of registration it cannot be relied upon.
Our amendment is an attempt to make it much more reliable in that respect. To pretend that the 21-day period is not a problem is to fly in the face of all that Professor Diamond has produced by way of evidence. Nevertheless, having heard what the Minister has to say, I shall look at it with my advisers, and we shall come back at the Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: With the leave of the Committee, before we leave Clause 80, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, can tell me what is the position of companies which are not Companies Act companies and which therefore do not have to comply with the registration requirements of this part of the Bill and probably do not have to keep a register.
The companies which I am thinking of are those created by charter, such as P&O which is not a Companies Act company, it is a company created by charter; and also companies created by the authority of Parliament. Parliament has the right to create companies by statute. There are two classes of companies which do not appear at first sight to be within the ambit of the Bill. I should be grateful if the Minister could enlighten me as to how the Government intend to treat these companies in the future. Clearly, they are just as significant as or in many ways more significant than some of the Companies Act companies which would be within the ambit of the Bill. Perhaps the noble Lord could reply to my point.
Lord Strathclyde: Perhaps I could clarify to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, what we are going to do. We are extending the rules to include the kinds of unregistered companies which the noble Lord mentioned.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Can the noble Lord tell us in what form these rules are to be extended? Are more amendments to be moved to the Bill or is a new order to be made or a new Bill to be promulgated?
Lord Strathclyde: Perhaps I could write to the noble Lord on that point in the next couple of days and let him know whether we are doing it under the current Bill or whether there will be another order. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, wishes to say something.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I apologise for interrupting the Minister. I merely wanted to be on the correspondence list for whatever letters will be passing.
Lord Williams of Elvel: In joining the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, I am always grateful to receive letters from Ministers, I always enjoy them and they give me great pleasure and entertainment. Since I have asked this question which is on a matter of considerable importance, the Minister might feel that it is important for your Lordships' Committee to have a reply now. Nevertheless, I defer to the Minister and if he insists that he is unable to produce the reply for which the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, and I have been asking, I accept that the Minister will be in contact with me within the next day or two and let me know what the situation is.
Clause 80, agreed to.
Clause 81 [Duty to deliver particulars for registration]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 227Z(47):
Page 75, line 35, after ("and") insert ("any person appearing from the particulars to be").
The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 227Z(47), perhaps I may also with the leave of the Committee speak to Amendments Nos. 227Z(55) and 227Z(63).
The amendments are intended to avoid the imposition of a duty on the registrar which, in certain circumstances outside his control, he could not possibly fulfil. Sections 398(6), 401(5) and 403(4) require the registrar to send copies of forms of particulars, further particulars and memoranda received by him to, among others, the chargee. But the only indication as to who is the chargee will be what the presenter of the form has written on it.
The presenter might identify the wrong person as chargee. Or the charge might be assigned to a new unidentified chargee by the time that the registrar sends out a copy of the form. In these circumstances, the registrar would be in breach of his duty if he failed to send a copy to the true chargee, but he would not have any means to fulfil that duty. The amendments make it clear, therefore, that the registrar is under a duty only to send a copy to the person identified on the particulars or memorandum as the chargee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 227Z(48):
Page 76, line 1, leave out from ("value") to ("acquires") in line 2.
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I wish also to speak to Amendments Nos. 227Z(50), (60), (65), (70) and (73). At present, under the 1985 Act, a company can enter into a series of transactions which would make an unregistered charge void against the company itself. The transactions would involve accomplices who could acquire an interest in the relevant property and against whom the charge would be void because it was unregistered. The company could then buy back the property from the accomplices free of the charge. The words to be omitted from the new sections would prevent the charge from being void against the accomplices because they could not claim to have
138
acquired their interest in good faith and without actual notice of the charge.
But this approach would create a circle of priority. New section 399(2) is necessary to break that circle. Without it the approach followed in the Bill would not be possible. Unfortunately, new Section 399(2) creates unfair priorities in some circumstances. On reconsideration, therefore, we think that it is best not to attempt to prevent the mischief, which is possible under the 1985 Act but does not seem to have been prevalent. The amendments would, therefore, return us to the position that prevails under the existing law. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 227Z(49):
Page 76, line 3, after ("in") insert ("or right over").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I also wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 227Z(61), (66), (71) and (72). These amendments are necessary to ensure that we preserve the effect of the avoidance sanction as it applies currently under the 1985 Act. At present an unregistered charge is void against unsecured creditors if they obtain execution over the property. Such unsecured creditors may have rights over the property to secure value given. But they would not necessarily have an interest in the property. It is necessary, therefore, to make an unregistered charge void against those with rights over property as well as those with an interest in it in order to preserve the protection that these unsecured creditors currently enjoy. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 227Z(50):
Page 76, leave out lines 6 to 13.
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 227Z(51):
Page 77, leave out lines 9 to 28.
The noble Lord said: This amendment omits subsections (5), (6) and (7) from new Section 400. I shall explain why we think this is desirable. New Section 400(3) to (7) creates a form of probationary period prior to insolvency proceedings during which late registration cannot protect the chargee from avoidance against the liquidator or administrator. If a chargee registers his charge within a specified period prior to insolvency proceedings and at a time when the company is unable to pay its debts, his charge will, notwithstanding the late registration, be void as against the liquidator or administrator. This is designed to prevent deliberate late registration. A chargee might deliberately register late in order to encourage other creditors to extend credit to the company so as to swell the assets available in a liquidation.
If after the charge has been registered late, the company goes into liquidation, subsections (5), (6)

139
and (7) allow, on top of that, the liquidator to apply to the court to order the restoration to him of any property in respect of which the chargee has taken steps to enforce his security. In other words, if the chargee has taken possession of the property (and perhaps sold it) during the probationary period, the court could order that the property be returned to the liquidator. This provision is loosely based on Section 241(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986.
On reflection, however, we believe that the provision for applications to the court in subsections (5), (6) and (7) is unlikely to achieve its intended objective. The reason for this is that, under both the 1985 Act and Part IV of the Bill, the holder of an unregistered charge does not suffer from the avoidance sanction if he enforces his security prior to insolvency proceedings. The liquidator is not able to apply for a court order restoring the position where a charge has not been registered at all. It does not make sense, therefore, to allow for such an order where there has been late registration. The chargee could evade the possibility of a court order by deciding not to register at all, rather than registering late, and by enforcing his security shortly before the insolvency proceedings. Indeed, the subsections might run the risk of encouraging chargees not to register at all rather than to register late. That would obviously not be desirable. On balance, therefore, we think that the arguments are in favour of omitting subsections (5), (6) and (7), which is what the amendment would do. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 81, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 82 [Delivery of further particulars]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 227Z(52):
Page 77, line 41, leave out ("amount") and insert ("obligation").
The noble Lord said: Professor Diamond in his report raised the problem of non-monetary obligations and charges to secure a non-monetary obligation, together with a number of other matters. Those other matters appeared in the same set of paragraphs. We believe that non-monetary obligations should be registrable and we can secure this by this very simple amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: It is certainly desirable to avoid any doubt as to whether new Section 401 and Part IV in general apply to charges to secure a non-monetary obligation. Therefore, I am happy to accept the noble Lord's amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 227Z(53):
Page 77, line 43, leave out ("addition").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is necessary to avoid the implication that a company and a chargee may vary an existing charge so as to add to the property subject to it. The addition of property to the property already secured by a fixed charge would require a new charge.
New Section 401(2) gives examples of circumstances where further particulars may be delivered because the original ones have become inaccurate due to a variation of the charge. Among the examples, in new Section 401(2)(d) is:
"any addition, substitution or release of property subject to the charge".
But the extension of the terms of a charge to comprise additional property would always constitute a new charge, for which it would be necessary to deliver particulars under new Section 398. Under new Section 398, there is a duty to register new charges, whereas new Section 401 is permissive. We do not want to imply that the duty does not arise where a new charge is created due to the addition of further property. In omitting reference to the addition of property, the amendment would result in a provision more along the lines of that at present contained in Section 466(4) of the 1985 Act as it applies to Scottish floating charges. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The amendment itself causes us no problem. But I cannot quite understand why both the company and the chargee have to sign variations in the particulars when a joint signature is not required in the original particulars themselves.
Lord Strathclyde: Perhaps I can clarify this further. Addition of further property to that already subject to a fixed charge always gives rise to the creation of a new charge. The inclusion of additions in new Section 401(2) implies that it may not. It implies that the addition of property may be achieved simply by variation. We wish to avoid that implication.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Davidson: This may be a convenient moment at which to adjourn the Committee stage. I suggest that we return to it at 8.30 p.m. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Access to Personal Files (Social Services) Regulations 1989
7.30 p.m.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 16th January be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this Motion I hope that it will be for the convenience of the House if I also speak to the draft Access to Personal Files (Social Work) (Scotland) Regulations 1989 which were laid before this House on 16th January; the draft Access to Personal Files (Housing) Regulations 1989 which were laid before this House on 17th January and the draft Local Authority Social Services (Designation of Functions) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 19th December.
Before I come to the substance of the access regulations, it may be helpful to your Lordships if I say a few words about the background to them. The

141
regulations apply the Access to Personal Files Act 1987. That Act, as your Lordships may recall, was promoted initially in another place with great sensitivity and was keenly debated in both Houses.
The Data Protection Act 1984 enables people to know what is recorded about them in computer records. The regulations before us today are concerned with records which are not covered by the data protection legislation; that is, they deal with records kept manually. However, in drafting the regulations we have sought as far as possible to keep in line with the corresponding provisions in the data protection legislation so as to avoid confusion, particularly as an authority may be using both methods for keeping its records.
During the passage of the 1987 Act a commitment was given by my right honourable friend the then Minister of State that, subject to no difficulties being encountered in the consultation process, regulations would be made and that we would endeavour to make them by the end of 1988. We virtually achieved that and the regulations will be made as soon as the necessary approval has been given by Parliament. In their preparation we have consulted widely with organisations representing local authorities, voluntary organisations, health service interests and other concerned bodies.
To allow authorities time to adjust their procedures it is intended that the regulations should be brought into force on 1st April next. To assist authorities we are issuing guidance to them. Circular LAC(89)2 gave advice on social services records and is, of course, subject to approval being given to the regulations by Parliament; a copy of the circular is in the Library of your Lordships' House. Advice on housing records will be issued after the regulations have been approved; a draft of the housing circular has been deposited in the Library.
During the passage of the Act much interest was expressed in access to medical records. Those records were excluded from the Act but we undertook to hold talks with the medical profession on a voluntary code of practice on access to medical records. Those discussions are proceeding. An agreement has not yet been reached, although substantial progress has been made. The Government are determined to see the establishment of a voluntary code very shortly and my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary gave an undertaking in another place on 7th February that if there was any question of further delay he would meet the profession's representatives. He said that he thought it right that once agreement had been reached with them there should also be consultation with other non-medical health professionals who maintain records on patients and with those bodies who represent patients' interests.
After that outline of the background to the regulations, I turn now to the regulations themselves, starting with the social services regulations.
The Access to Personal Files Act takes forward the establishment of the right of individuals to know what is recorded about them by local authority social services departments. In 1983 the then Secretaries of State issued to local authorities in England and Wales general guidance on the principles governing
142
disclosure of information in the records in question to people who were the subject of the information. The Secretaries of State said that they shared the increasingly held view that people receiving those services should, subject to adequate safeguards, be able to discover what was said about them in those records.
The following year the Data Protection Act was enacted. That included provisions enabling individuals generally to see what was recorded about them in computer records. Orders were made under that Act to add to the general safeguards in relation to social work records.
There are circumstances where it would not be right to grant access to all the available information and I shall explain those circumstances. First, however, I should emphasise that it should be exceptional for information to be withheld and even then it should be possible to release most of the available information, though some may need to be made anonymous to conceal the identity of a third party. For the most part information held manually in social service records will become readily available. In framing the regulations we have kept as closely as possible to the provisions of the data protection legislation and the guidance issued by the data protection registrar, who has been consulted about them.
Following a request from an individual a local authority will have to tell that person whether it holds information about him and give the person access to it. That includes expressions of opinion. Although the Act does not confer a right of access to any indication of the intentions of the authority towards that person, we have recommended authorities to let him know of them. Generally it is good practice to do so in the course of an individual's continuing care rather than waiting for a formal request for access. We have said that that should be seen as part of a process of encouraging users of services to participate as far as possible in actions concerning them.
Similarly, the Act requires access to be given only to so much of a person's record before these regulations come into force as is necessary to make the accessible information intelligible. We have advised authorities that there is likely to be significant advantage in their making available as much information as possible. That could lead to a greater clarity and understanding of an individual's background, especially in a child care case.
Access may be given by supplying an individual with a copy of the information or by some other means such as letting the individual see the information. If, however, having seen the accessible information the individual requires a copy of it he must be given one. If any of the information is not intelligible without explanation, the individual is to be given an explanation of it. That would apply if, for example, the authority holds the information in a coded or abbreviated form or it is in professional jargon which cannot be understood without the key to the code or meaning. The explanation should be sufficient to make the information intelligible to people unconnected with the authority. In some cases the individual may still not be able fully to

143
understand the information but should be able to take it to another person for advice.
The authority will be able to charge a fee of up to £10 for access at its discretion. We have indicated that we expect authorities to take into account applicants' ability to pay.
Some of the information that the authority holds may contain material provided by a health professional. Where that is the case the local authority will have to notify the health authority, or the health professional if not employed by a health authority, within 14 days of receiving the request. Where the health authority or the health professional says that access must not be given to the information, or part of it, the local authority is relieved of its obligation to grant access. The circumstances where a health authority or health professional may do that are when access is likely to give rise to a risk of serious harm to the health of the individual or another person, or where access would enable a third party (other than a health professional) to be identified or for him to be identified as the source of the information. A definition of a health professional is given in the regulations.
The local authority may withhold other information in certain circumstances. We have told authorities that this decision should be taken at senior management level. Information may be withheld because of a risk of serious harm to the health or emotional condition of the individual or a third party. We have said that withholding information on this ground would be most exceptional.
Information may also be withheld because the identity of a third party (other than a member of the staff or a paid carer) would be revealed or could be identified as its source. The local authority is required to notify a third party of the receipt of a request for access and to seek consent to access, but access may not be given without that consent unless the information can be made anonymous. If the authority does not receive the third party's consent within the 40-day time limit, the authority has to give access to as much of the information as possible without revealing the other person's identity or that the third party is the source of the information, for example, by making the information anonymous.
The local authority may also withhold information where it is held for the prevention of crime, where it comprises reports which magistrates courts may withhold, where it is subject to legal professional privilege or where disclosure is restricted by the law relating to adoption or special educational needs.
Children who have the understanding to make a request for access are entitled, like adults, in accordance with the general law to see what is recorded about them. Where a child does not have this capacity, a parent or a person with the legal power to act as a parent in relation to the child will be able to make a request for access to information recorded about the child. Detailed guidance has been given to authorities about dealing with a request from or in relation to a child along the lines of that given by us in respect of the data protection arrangements.
Finally, these regulations allow an individual aggrieved at being refused access to appeal to appeal to a committee of the local authority. This is of course additional to any general rights that the individual has to apply to the courts; for example, judicial review or in the case of maladministration to the local government ombudsman.
The Scottish regulations are in essence the same as those for England and Wales with one minor exception. That is to be found in Regulation 9, which requires the local authority holding information supplied by the reporter to a childern's panel to consult the reporter on acess. In Scotland most childern who commit offences and children who are in need of care and protection are not dealt with through the courts. Instead they are referred to the children's panel whose job it is to investigate the background to the child's case. Regulation 9 seeks to preserve the position whereby reporters can share with local authorities the often very sensitive information that they hold without fear of unintended disclosure.
As regards housing, we are also considering tonight parallel regulations to give local authority and housing action trust tenants and applicants for tenancies in England and Wales access to their records. These are broadly on the same lines as our social services regulations and the Data Protection Act.
That said, there are inevitably some differences of structure and emphasis. In particular, the person with right of access is the tenant and the right covers not just personal information about himself but also information about members of his family. This is relevant to what exemptions are provided from the requirement to disclose information. Since many, or perhaps most, tenants' records will contain information about members of the tenant's family living with him, it seemed to Ministers that a general requirement to obtain their consent before disclosure would risk bringing the whole procedure for access to a grinding halt. We have therefore provided, in effect, under Regulation 4(1)b, that information about members of his family should be accessible to the tenant unless the authority—or, where relevant, an appropriate health professional—considers that disclosure would cause serious harm to that family member's physical or mental health. We believe that this is a reasonable practical safeguard.
There is also a slight difference in the review procedures provided. Regulation 8(2) and the guidance circular are aimed at obtaining a review internal to the council with as much independence as possible of the original decision. The alternative of reconsideration by a meeting of the full authority is needed to cope with cases where all the members of an authority—as happens in some district councils—are ex officio members of all committees. Tenants who remain dissatisfied after such a review of course retain their general rights to pursue their case with the local government ombudsman or the court. With those differences, the housing regulations remain fully in sympathy with the overall objective of securing, with suitable safeguards, the maximum disclosure of personal information to the customer.
In the housing field, the operation should be broadly self-financing, with the fees charged in particular cases reflecting the costs incurred, and thus part of the more commercial approach that we expect authorities to adopt. Being responsive to tenants' requests for access to their records is also an important ingredient in efficient housing management and very much in line with the more consumer oriented general thrust of the Government's housing policies.
The Local Authority Social Services (Designation of Functions) Order, which applies only to England and Wales, is to designate under the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 as social service functions those functions of local social services authorities under the Access to Personal Files Act and under the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. The effect of this is that the powers and duties specified stand referred to the social services committee to which those functions may be delegated and the social services department may deal with that work. That is what has always been envisaged.
In summary, the access regulations along with the corresponding parts of the data protection legislation provide individuals comprehensively with a right of access, subject to certain specified safeguards, to the records of the local authority services involved. This will happen whether they are kept on computers or by traditional means. The legislation contributes to the development towards greater sensitivity to the needs of individuals in the delivery of services and support. I commend the regulations and the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 16th January be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Arran.)
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships will be glad to know that I do not propose to go into all these statutory instruments individually. However, I have one or two questions that I should like to ask the Minister.
Like so many of my colleagues on this side of the House, I am worried about the fee of £10 that people will have to pay to obtain access to their records. The noble Lord said that that could be worked out in accordance with ability to pay, but he did not say who will decide what is the ability to pay and how that will be worked out. Will some local authorities insist on the £10 fee while others say that no one need pay anything? In addition, what is the position regarding access by family members—spouses and children, including perhaps adult children? Can a husband demand a right that a wife is denied? Can an adult child demand a right to look at those papers and then be denied access to them? What is the position of family members and their access to these records?
I understand that these rules are due to come into effect on 1st April. What happens before and after that date? What will happen to matters that are now in the pipeline? Without going into all the details of the statutory instruments, those are the main points about which we are worried.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, perhaps I may say a few words with regard to Scotland, and Regulation 9 to which the noble Earl referred. The principle about which we wish to be sure is first and foremost the welfare of the child. The situation in England is rather different from that in Scotland. Scotland has the panel system. The reporter has information from all sources including the child. If he considers it unwise to report what the child has said he can keep this private.
Under the new scheme Regulation 9 provides exemption from access to information from reporters to children's panels provided that the criteria clearly laid down apply. It is not clear, however, whether "information" in this context covers reports provided by social work authorities to reporters as part of their initial investigation under Section 38(1) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. Nor is any mention made of reports provided by social work authorities to children's hearings in terms of Section 39(4) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. Do we know, for instance, if reports from social services to juvenile courts in England and Wales are exempt?
A major concern of the children's panels and of children's committees—I was a chairman of one for many years—is a child's right to privacy. Children can and do confide in social workers, foster parents, youth leaders and others about personal matters. It is proper and necessary that they do so. The question therefore arises at what age, and under what circumstances, should children be allowed to keep confidential such disclosures about themselves or their parents? As matters appear to stand, any parent of a child under 16 years of age, including the estranged, abusive, violent and mentally unstable parent, seems to have a right of access to all information about his child, subject only to the criteria for exemption in Regulation 9(4). It is not difficult to imagine a situation where the disclosure could be seen by the child as a gross breach of privacy but where it would be difficult to argue that serious harm would arise from the parent having the information in written form. For example, a child might be placed away from home on a fairly permanent basis with no anticipated parental contact.
In terms of child protection procedures in Scotland, much progress has been made in recent years by all the agencies concerned sharing vital information about children at risk of abuse or neglect. A fear that reporters have about the new regulations is that agencies which hitherto have shared confidential information to social work authorities and reporters' departments might be less willing to do so and that the right of such children to the protective network of the children's hearings systen might be sacrificed to their parents' right to information about them.
There is great agitation and worry about these regulations in Scotland. I am representing the views of a great many people with whom I have been in contact.
Earl Russell: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends, I should like to extend a warm welcome in principle to these orders. They result from the Access

147
to Personal Files Act, which originally was a Private Member's Bill, moved by my honourable friend Mr. Archy Kirkwood. It was an enabling Act. These regulations give life to the Act. It is a matter that may appear much more important in 10 years' time than now.
As a historian I am well aware of the possibility of inaccurate records. I once saw a record which granted a passport to a gentleman of Chelmsford in the county of Esquire. Not all errors in records have such a visible clarity on the face of them. With computers such errors become much harder to clear up. However, having warmly welcomed these orders in principle I hope that I may be forgiven for a few moments for looking a gift statutory instrument in the small print!
First, I share the Opposition's concern about the fee of £10, which seems to savour of the Conservative doctrine of crossing the palm with silver. I am well aware that account is to be taken of ability to pay. I welcome that. However, I should have thought that among those who are concerned about possible maladministration in social security, ability to pay might be the exception rather than the rule. I wonder whether in the end we shall find that the fees of £10 are a great deal more trouble than they are worth.
I also have some concern about the appeals procedures. Different appeals procedures are laid down under the different orders. In the social services order it does not seem to be entirely clear that those who hear the appeal should not have participated in the original decision. That gives me a certain amount of anxiety.
I also have some concern not about the reasons for exception but about the statement of those reasons. In each case, if the authority is refusing the record, it has to specify the reason. It may withhold a record on grounds that the production of the record may cause serious harm to the physical or mental health of the person concerned. However, if the record would cause such harm, might it not cause equal harm to say to somebody, "I cannot show you your records: it would cause serious harm to your physical or mental health"? It is a little like the case I once encountered of a mental patient who was told, not by a professional, "You are paranoid". The results were not encouraging.
Similarly, information may be withheld if it is liable to be needed for the prevention or prosecution of a crime. But again the reason must be specified. To paraphrase, one may have to say, "I cannot show you your record because the answer might tend to incriminate you". This again might be a little unwelcome.
There is a real dilemma here. It is difficult to see how one can have a withholding procedure—which I agree there must be—without the specification. When we review the operations of these regulations, as no doubt will be done, might it be possible to connect this question of the grounds of refusal, or their specification, with the provision of an appeal procedure and perhaps to consider whether in some cases the reason might be stated to a third party?
148
I am also a little concerned about the position of a member of the person's family. There is a provision for withholding a report if it might disclose the identity of a third person except when that person is a member of the tenant's or claimant's family. However, I can imagine cases concerning, for example, the spouses of mental patients where it might be of some importance to conceal that the spouse had been in communication with the local authority. I can envisage some awkward situations there.
We have also other problems which we shall have to consider in the future. The noble Earl drew attention to the major problem of medical records. That is still ahead of us. I am glad to hear that consultations are still proceeding on that. I hope that they will lead to success. I was also delighted by what the noble Earl said about records of housing action trusts. I am sure that this information will be equally welcome to my noble friend Lord Tordoff, who raised the matter at Committee stage of the Housing Bill.
Perhaps I may ask one final question. I should be glad to know whether we shall have any access to housing records in Scotland.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lady Elliot in what she said about the Access to Personal Files (Social Work) (Scotland) Regulations. The Minister said that in essence the regulations for Scotland and England were the same except for Regulation 9. However, perhaps I may underline what my noble friend Lady Elliot said. In fact the situation is very different in Scotland from England. We are very much concerned that in Scotland the panel system should not lose the confidence of parents, of children, of social workers or of the police. If the confidentiality is not safeguarded, the panels will lose the present extraordinarily good reputation that they have in the community. The position in England is quite different because a child coming before the court has to see the report which has been submitted to the court. That does not necessarily break confidence but there is not always the full information in that report.
In the regulations it is not very clear who the client is. Is the client the child or the parent? This principle is not clarified in the regulations as I understand them. As my noble friend Lady Elliot has asked, at what stage and age can the child's disclosures, particularly about his parents, be kept confidential?
There is another matter. Why do the draft regulations in Scotland concerning educational interests differ from these regulations? Is it right that the two sets of regulations should be different? The atmosphere that has been built up in Scotland has been built up on trust and confidentiality. I hope that the regulations will not break that down which I believe they may if they are allowed to go forward as they are at the moment. I put forward that as a question.
8 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships for the contributions to the debate this evening upon these regulations. I should like to deal

149
as closely and as succinctly as possible with the points raised.
First, I take the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger. She was particularly concerned about the £10 fee. Many having dealings with social services departments are among the poorest in the community and many social services clients are in receipt of income support. We have taken the view that local authorities should be able to exercise discretion in setting the fee within a ceiling and to waive their fees altogether if circumstances so warrant.
Another point that the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, made concerned housing regulations. Access is by tenant to information on himself or the family. Safeguard for sensitive information is invoked if, in the view of the authority or a health professional, there is the likelihood of serious harm to a family or member from disclosure. There is no requirement to get the family member's consent. If the husband and wife are joint tenants, each will have access to information about the other and other family members on the above basis.
I now turn to the remarks of my noble friend and kinswoman, Lady Elliot. I should like to thank my noble friend for raising these matters before the debate. If the House will forgive me, I should like to spend a few minutes on the situation in Scotland and the comparison which my noble friend makes between England and Scotland. I am sure your Lordships will know that the Scottish children's hearings system is unique in Great Britain and not immediately comparable with the arrangements for juvenile courts in England and Wales. Openness is a strong feature of the hearings procedure. The chairman of the hearing is already required to disclose the substance of the social background reports to the child and his family in the course of the hearing where that would not be detrimental to the interests of the child.
The Scottish regulations are designed to suit the special circumstances of the hearings system in Scotland. The reporter to the children's hearings holds records which are not covered by the terms of the 1987 Act. There is no question, therefore, of information which is in the hands of the reporter but not passed on by him being accessible in terms of the present regulations. Regulation 9, however, requires that a local authority must consult the reporter to the children's panel if it has on its files information which originated from him. The reporter can tell the local authority to withhold information which would cause serious harm to the child or another person or disclosure of a third party's identity. Where the reporter sees the need to withhold his consent on the grounds available to him, the authority must comply. We believe that the protection of sources afforded by these provisions will enable the supply of information to proceed as at present.
Secondly, there is the point concerning parents and the children's age. As regards the relationship between parents and children, the regulations provide for access by a person to information about himself. A parent could have access on his own account or, in Scotland, if acting for a child under the age of 12 or 14, if a boy. Above those ages a child has the right to access on his or her own account or can,
150
if he or she so wishes, allow access by another person on his or her behalf. In other circumstances, where the parent is the de facto applicant, the local authority has to exercise judgment to decide whether any information would cause serious harm to the subject of the information or to another person. The relationship between parents and children can be a difficult area. Guidance issued to local authorities in Scotland will make clear that they should act with caution where parents seek access to personal information on behalf of a child.
Thirdly, there is the comparison between social work regulations and the proposals on access to education records. My noble friend said that the Government's proposals for access to school education records seem to offer a greater privacy to the child than under the social work regulations before us this evening. The education proposals contain some differences of approach, but we emphasise that they are only proposals at present. They provide for the parent of a child under 16 years to have the right of access to the child's school record without the child's consent and for children over 16 years of age to have access with the same rights as those afforded to their parents.
We have just outlined the rather different age thresholds applying in the case of social work regulations while from some perspectives the arrangements for access by children to their social work records may be said to be more protective of the child's privacy. We do not think at the end of the day that the different thresholds will affect significantly the rights of children vis-?-vis access to social work records or to education records when the latter are finalised. The Government will, however, have close regard to the position now embodied in the social work regulations when they consider the results of the consultations on access to education records.
Finally, my noble friend raised the possibility of damage to relationships. As regards my noble friend's point about damage to relationships between professionals and within families, we must bear in mind that the essence of the regulations is the provision of access subject to certain safeguards. The regulations do not apply, as I have said, to records maintained by reporters to children's hearings and the reporter will have the right to veto the disclosure of information provided by him to the social work departments. In addition third parties generally will be asked for their consent to disclosure where they have supplied information. If their consent is not forthcoming authorities will have to "anonymise" such information to protect the identity of its source. We are sure that local authorities will act responsibly in providing access and we are confident that relationships developed over the years will not be impaired if the regulations are operated, as we intend, with due care.
As regards the final point of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who asked whether there would be access to records for housing in Scotland, the answer is yes. I note the points that the noble Earl made.
The noble Earl raised the question of housing and the requirement to state which exemption is to be used. We accept that housing regulations are different from social services regulations However,

151
we believe that it is less likely that sensitive information will be held on tenants' records. We are concerned only with access to information held for the purposes of the tenancy. Therefore, we think it best to give more reason to the desirability of being open about the exemption relied upon.
Finally, I note carefully the matters raised by my noble friend Lady Faithfull. In case there are points which I have not dealt with tonight I shall read Hansard and reply in writing.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Access to Personal Files (Social Work) (Scotland) Regulations 1989
8.10 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 16th January be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Arran.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Access to Personal Files (Housing) Regulations 1989
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 17th January be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Arran.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Authority Social Services (Designation of Functions) Order 1989
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th December 1988 be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Arran.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.11 to 830 p.m.]

Companies Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee on Clause 82.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 227Z(54):
Page 78, line I, after ("refuses") insert ("or fails after being requested to do so").
The noble Lord said: Here we are dealing with the possibility that the further particulars might fail to be
152
signed by either the company or the chargee. It seems to us that there is a supplementary amendment to subsection(3)(a) of new Section 401 of the Companies Act, which covers an eventuality not covered at the moment; namely, where the company or the chargee does not refuse and yet does not sign. In our view he must be requested to do so and fails if he does not sign when requested to do so. This is a relatively small point but it rounds out the solution to all the possibilities, which at the moment I do not believe is rounded out in the Bill as at present drafted. This is not a very important amendment, but it has been suggested to us by a member of the Law Society and I hope that the Government are able to respond to it. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: I do not believe that this amendment is necessary or desirable. It is unnecessary because if the company or chargee fails to sign after a reasonable number of reminders, any court would take the view that it was being recalcitrant and was refusing to sign. The amendment is undesirable because it is much better left to the court to decide what is or is not a refusal. The amendment would allow an application to be made to the court at the shortest delay on the part of the person whose signature was being sought.
Presumably it is not the intention behind the amendment that any delay, however minimal, should permit an application to the court. The delay would have to be unreasonable. But if it is unreasonable, the court is free on the existing wording of the section to take the view that the delay amounts to a refusal anyway. In the light of this, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: What happens if the court makes a decision and the matter goes to appeal and further appeal on the grounds that there is a failure in time? Should we not have something in the Bill if it is uncontentious? It would allow the court to take a perfectly reasonable decision that there has been a failure after the request. The fact of the request can be established very simply.
Lord Strathclyde: Perhaps I have not explained fully to the noble Lord what is suggested by our wording. We believe that our wording already allows an application to the court if a person fails to sign. However, I am prepared to look at what the noble Lord said and if we feel that he has a point, we shall consider whether an amendment is necessary.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Lord. As I said, this is a matter of rounding out—a little more than drafting. If the Minister will look at it and perhaps produce something on Report, I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 227Z(55):
Page 78, line 15, after ("and") insert ("any person appearing from the particulars to be").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 227Z(56):
Page 78, line 16, after ("chargee") insert (", and if the particulars were delivered by another person interested in the charge to that person,").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may also speak to Amendment No. 227Z(64). These amendments rectify omissions in new Sections 401(5) and 404(4) to bring them into line with new Section 398(6). Particulars under new Section 398, further particulars under new Section 401 and memoranda of satisfaction or release under new Section 403 may be delivered by the company, the chargee or any other person interested in the charge. New Section 398(6) requires the registrar to send a copy of particulars received to the company and the chargee. If the particulars were delivered by another person interested in that charge, he must also send a copy to that person. New Sections 401(5) and 403(4) as drafted do not include this last requirement. The amendments put the omission right. If further particulars or a memorandum are delivered by another person interested in the charge, the registrar will be required to send a copy to that person. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: There is no problem with this amendment. However, I should like the noble Lord to clarify that the other person interested in the charge is a person whose interest is registered in the particulars of the charge and not somebody who may be extraneously interested in the particulars of the charge.
Lord Strathclyde: Perhaps I may clarify what we are trying to do. The requirement for the signatures of both the company and the chargee provides a safeguard for both of them. Without the requirement, the company might deliver particulars that understated the extent of the charge or a memorandum that claimed incorrectly that a charge had been discharged. In those circumstances the charge would be void in respect of the inaccuracy. It is necessary, therefore, for the chargee to approve any further particulars or memorandum. Similarly, if the chargee delivers further particulars that result in an overstatement of the extent of the charge, the company will suffer because the register may exaggerate its indebtedness, putting off other potential creditors.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked a specific question concerning whether the other person would be in the particulars of the charge. I assure him that the answer is that it will be a assignee or guarantor.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 82, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 83 [Effects of errors and omissions in particulars delivered]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 227Z(57):
Page 78, leave out lines 23 to 25 and insert ("are incomplete or inaccurate").
The noble Lord said: In speaking to this amendment I should like also to speak to
154
Amendments Nos. 227Z(58), (59) and (62). These amendments deal with two related points, one of them technical and the other of substance, but it is convenient to deal with them together.
It is necessary to recast the drafting of new Section 402(1), together with new Section 402(6) to improve the drafting and make it more precise. The provisions as drafted apply the avoidance sanction only in respect of rights which
"should have been disclosed by the particulars…but were not so disclosed".
In the case of particulars delivered under new Section 398, the reference to "should have been" is appropriate since there is a duty to deliver complete particulars in the prescribed form. But in the case of particulars under new Section 401, the expression "should have been" is less satisfactory because there is no duty to deliver further particulars—the new section is permissive. The only reason why such further particulars "should have been" delivered is that the charge will be partially ineffective if they are not delivered.
The amendments deal with this point by referring in new Section 402(1) to particulars that are "incomplete or inaccurate" and providing that a charge is void to the extent that it confers rights which "would be" rather than "should have been",
"disclosed by the particulars delivered for registration if those particulars were complete and accurate but are not disclosed".
Because of this recasting of new Section 402(1) it is necessary to interpret "complete" in new Section 402(6). The interpretation of "complete" inserted in new Section 402(6) contains a substantive change. Amendment No. 227Z(62) would create a new subsection (6)(b) saying that,
"particulars shall not be regarded as incomplete or inaccurate by reason only of their omitting or mis-stating the name of the chargee".
The result of this is that a charge will not become void as a result of either an error in identifying the chargee in the original particulars or a change in the identity of the chargee after the particulars have been delivered. Without this exception, the whole charge might become void because of a simple and possibly quite minor mistake in respect of the chargee's name in the original particulars. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The noble Lord described one of the amendments as being material. Indeed, it is material. The expression in Amendment No. 227Z(62) that,
"particulars shall not be regarded as incomplete or inaccurate by reason only of their omitting or mis-stating the name of the chargee",
does seem to be a material change in the Bill.
If I lend some money, which I would never dream of doing, to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, and he omits to put his name to the bill I am discounting for him, or I omit to put my name when he lends me money, that would appear to be a serious problem. If the particulars are not complete through that fact I do not understand how the charge can be valid. Perhaps the noble Lord can explain.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am inclined to agree. I agree that the first three amendments are a

155
considerable improvement on the original clause. However, I cannot understand why,
"omitting or mistaking the name of the chargee",
should be put into subsection (6)(b) in the way that it has been. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, on this point.
Lord Strathclyde: Perhaps I can answer the questions put by both noble Lords by saying this. The exception would also preclude avoidance where particulars become inaccurate because of a change in the identity of the chargee. It would be a considerable burden if all those in whom the security rights of the charge were newly vested had to deliver further particulars. Particulars would have to be delivered, for example, every time there was an assignment of a charge. Since the identity of the chargee is not a crucial piece of information which third parties would rely on for their own assurance or to secure their own position, it is unnecessary to impose such a burden.
Lord Williams of Elvel: With respect, the identity of the chargee is very important. If the identity of the chargee is the Bank of England, no one will challenge that charge. However, if the identity of the chargee is the lowest citizen in the land someone can walk across that charge and fight it in the courts. If the lowest citizen in the land cannot fight it in the courts like the Bank of England can, then there is a difference. The Government are treating this in a slightly cavalier manner—I make no such comment—on a personal basis—and it is a matter that requires further examination.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: If the reference was to "mis-spelling" the name of the chargee instead of "mis-stating" the name of the chargee, I would be perfectly happy. However, to have
"omitting and mis-stating the name of the chargee"
seems to be impracticable.
Lord Strathclyde: There is obviously no desire on the part of the Government to be cavalier in their attitude and I take note of the strong feelings of both noble Lords. The amendment addresses a concern expressed by many outside bodies, which is why it has been brought forward in this form. The whole charge might become void because of a relatively minor mistake. The main purpose of the register is to know whether the property itself is encumbered.
I can see the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, is shaking his head, but what is not so important is to whom it is encumbered. The point of the register is to make sure whether or not a property has a charge on it.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sorry to intervene, but there is a serious disagreement between the Government and myself and the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, on the matter of who has the lien over the property in question. It makes a difference. If one goes to the register to make a search and discovers that the Bank of England is the chargee, that is something to which you pay attention. if you discover, as I suggested, that the lowest citizen in the
156
land is the chargee, you may pay less attention. That in itself is a matter of importance.
I accept the noble Lord's point that the fact of whether or not a property is encumbered is the central point, but there is nevertheless the subsidiary point I have just made. If the noble Lord could accept the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, that a mis-spelling or misprint could not render the particulars invalid, I can see no problem; but "omitting" or "mis-stating" the name of the chargee seems to be much more serious.
Lord Strathclyde: There is obviously considerable strength of feeling from Members opposite. Therefore, I shall be happy to look at what has been said without giving any undertaking that we will come back with amendments.
I have already said, but perhaps I may repeat it, that the principal purpose of the register of charges at Companies House is to allow searchers to assess the indebtedness of the company and to allow potential secured creditors to check whether the property they are being offered as security is already subject to a prior charge. If particulars of a charge appear on the register, the identity if the chargee will be a matter of little significance to them. On the rare occasion where it might be, they would be able to inspect the register and instrument of charge kept at the company's registered office under new Section 408.
Earlier the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, referred to the Bank of England, but the point he made is not as important as he believes it to be because a charge is valid irrespective of the status or identity of the chargee. I said I would look at what has been said. If we can agree this amendment in the meantime, then I shall look at the Official Report to see if any further amendment needs to be brought forward at the next stage.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I did not understand what the noble Lord said regarding the substitute Section 408. It is entirely my fault and I am sorry. It may be that it is immaterial.
Lord Strathclyde: Very briefly, the point is that if the identity of the chargee is a matter of significance to a searcher, then he can inspect the register and the instrument of the charge itself, which is kept at the company's registered office under the new Section 408.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am very much obliged.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am also obliged to the noble Lord and I accept his reference to Section 408. We have problems with this new section which is the object of amendment. Until we have discussed that we cannot accept the Government's assurance that all will be solved by the new Section 408. I understand that we do not wish to delay matters. I am not prepared to oppose this amendment, but I wish the noble Lord and the Government to understand that the register is not simply a record of whether a property is encumbered or not. It is whether there is indebtedness and the quality of that indebtedness. That is why we have the particulars set out in the Act.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 227Z(58) and 227Z(59):
Page 78, line 27, leave out ("should have been") and insert ("would be").
Page 78, line 28, leave out ("but were") and insert ("if those particulars were complete and accurate, but are").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 227Z(60):
Page 78, line 35, leave out from ("value") to ("acquires") in line 37.
The noble Lord said: This amendment has already been spoken to and I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 227Z(61):
Page 78, line 37, after ("in") insert ("or right over").
The noble Lord said: Since I have spoken to Amendments Nos. 227Z(61) to (65), would it be convenient if I dealt with these together?
Lord Williams of Elvel: No.
Lord Strathclyde: I beg to move Amendment No. 227Z(61).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 227Z(62):
Page 79, line 18, leave out from beginning to ("the") in line 21 and insert—
("6) In this section—

(a) references to the particulars of a charge delivered for registration are to such particulars and further particulars as may have been delivered from time to time;

(b) references to the particulars being complete are to their including all the prescribed particulars, but particulars shall not be regarded as incomplete or inaccurate by reason only of their omitting or mis-stating the name of the charges; and

(c)").

The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 83, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 227Z(63):
Page 80, line 5, after ("and") insert ("any person appearing from the memorandum to be").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 227Z(64), (65) and (66):
Page 80, line 6, after ("chargee") insert (", and if the memorandum was delivered by another person interested in the charge to that person,").
Page 80, line 14, leave out from ("value") to ("acquires") in line 16.
Page 80, line 16, after ("in") insert ("or right over").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move these amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 227Z(67):
Page 80, line 23, at end insert—
("(6) Where a relevant event occurs as a result of which a charge becomes void to any extent by virtue of this section, the whole of the money secured by it is repayable (together with any interest) on demand.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment puts right a simple omisson from new Section 403. New Sections 399 and 402 already provide that where a charge becomes void or partially void upon a relevant event, the whole of the money secured by it is repayable (together with any interest) on demand. A similar provision is already contained in Sections 395(2) and 410(3) of the 1985 Act. The amendment will apply the provision to avoidance arising out of the delivery of a memorandum of satisfaction or release in circumstances where the debt has not been satisfied and the charge has not been released. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 84, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 85 [Further particulars to be delivered]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 227Z(68):
Page 81, line 9, at end insert—
("(5) This section does not apply in relation to companies registered in Scotland (for which corresponding provision is made by sections 53, 54 and 62 of the Insolvency Act l986).").
The noble Lord said: New Section 405 repeats Section 405 of the 1985 Act. There is no equivalent section in Chapter II of the 1985 Act in respect of companies registered in Scotland, because corresponding provision is made in the Insolvency Act 1986 (and was included in preceding legislation). The amendment, therefore, disapplies new Section 405 in relation to Scotland, where it is unnecessary. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 227Z(69):
Page 81, leave out lines 13 to 16.
The noble Lord said: The effect of the substituted Section 406 is that the Secretary of State will have the power to make regulations to require notice to be given of the crystallisation of a floating charge. This occurs when, in accordance with the terms of a charge, an event occurs that enables the lender to declare a charge to be a fixed charge on specified assets. I shall not make any complaint a t this stage and at this late hour, but this raises another issue of principle. The noble Lord, Lord Rippon, reminded us earlier this evening that it raised the question of the powers of the Secretary of State.
There is a major problem arising in the substitute Section 406 (1)(a) to be found in lines 13 to 16 of the Bill. This amendment is directed to delete that subsection (1)(a). As I read the subsection, the lender will be obliged to give public notice of an event and entitle him to crystallise a floating charge whether or not he exercises this entitlement. I am advised that this can be damaging to the commercial lending process as well as being virtually impossible in practice. The lender will frequently become aware of a technical default and will not ask the borrower to correct it. It will be corrected and that will be the end of the matter.
A public notice may cause panic among all creditors of that company and trigger cross-default clauses in other charging documents. I do not believe that the Government have thought through the

159
applications of these four lines. I beg to move for their deletion.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, has brought to the attention of the Committee a very important point. As I understand it the point is that the Secretary of State may by regulation require notice in some form that he is to prescribe to be given to the registrar of whatever he decides are the events and the occurrence of such events. The Bill as drafted continues at page 81, line 14,
"affecting the nature of the security under a floating charge".
A floating charge is a charge on the assets or the partial assets of a company. A floating charge may be affected in its nature by a variation in the current asset ratio of a company, by a variation in the ratio of net worth to current assets of a company or by other factors. The nature of the charge may be affected by any number of considerations. If the floating charge has been registered and particulars have said that it is a charge of a floating nature on all the assets of the company, which is a perfectly normal way of expressing it, anything which affects the assets of that company could affect the nature of that charge. I do not see how the Secretary of State could specify or prescribe what events could affect that charge and how they might occur. The drafting is loose to the point of absurdity, and the noble Lord, Lloyd of Kilgerran, has drawn our attention to an important defect in the Bill.
9 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: I think I should explain first the reason for giving the Secretary of State a power to require notice of events in new Section 406(1)(a) that cause a floating charge to crystallise. The knowledge that a floating charge has crystallised is important to other prospective chargees. For example, a crystallised floating charge will take priority over a subsequently created equitable fixed charge. It is desirable, therefore, to have a means of providing for disclosure of the crystallisation of floating charges. Without the power to require notice of events prescribed under new Section 406(1)(a), the Secretary of State would not be able to ensure that the register of charges disclosed full information about floating charges.
I am aware that there is some concern that certain events causing a floating charge to crystallise might not be in the knowledge of either the company or the chargee. The use of "automatic crystallisation clauses" has become accepted commercial practice. These clauses might provide that a floating charge shall automatically crystallise if, say, the company exceeds a specified borrowing limit. The company might not know immediately that the limit had been reached, and the chargee would not know either unless the company told him. Some have said that this sort of automatic crystallisation should not be allowed, and, indeed—
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sorry to interrupt. Is the noble Lord distinguishing between covenants in a loan agreement, which cover the point he has just raised, and a floating charge?
Lord Strathclyde: I do not see that that question arises.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The noble Lord described what I would call an event of default in a loan agreement where, if a current ratio or an indebtedness ratio goes above a certain limit, there is an event of default. That is not a floating charge.
Lord Strathclyde: No, but that is what could trigger off an automatic crystallisation of a floating charge. A charge could be over a variety of assets which would therefore justify it as being a floating charge.
Lord Williams of Elvel: It might or might not trigger off a floating charge. It would depend on the loan agreement. If the loan agreement simply says that in the event of a current ratio becoming this, that or thus, there will be an event of default, then, under usual loan agreements the company will have a period of time during which it can rectify that event of default. Only in the event of it being unable to rectify that default are charges triggered. Those may be floating charges or other charges.
Lord Strathclyde: I must point out that the example I am using is only an example. I do not see that the difficulties the noble Lord has with it are necessarily valid. All we are trying to point out in this instance is that, if the terms of the floating charge specified that it would automatically crystallise if the company exceeded a specified borrowing limit, the company might not know immediately that the limit had been reached and the chargee would not be able to know unless the company had already told him.
Under new Section 406(1)(a) the Secretary of State would have the power to make such a crystallisation ineffective. It is not, however, his intention to require the notification of any events which are not of such a nature as to be within the knowledge of the party on whom the obligation to notify is imposed. He would intend to use his powers under this new section to require the company or the chargee (as the case may be) to notify only those events which would be within the knowledge of the company or the chargee. I do not think that it is possible to argue that such events should not be notifiable. An aspect of the policy underlying Part IV of the Bill is that chargees should have to deliver particulars notifying any change in the terms of a charge if they want to enjoy any extra protection afforded by the new terms as against third parties. This principle is behind new Section 402. It is entirely consistent with that principle that the holder of a floating charge should have to give notice when it crystallises and in effect attaches to property as a fixed charge.
I know that there has been a certain amount of concern about the provision. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, would like to say something at this stage.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Before the noble Lord decides what he wants to do with his amendment, I should like to say that the Government's response to it has been somewhat less than we might have expected. There is a difference between a floating charge, which is a perfectly clear arrangement, and the covenants that may appear in loan agreements and other documents. The triggering off of cross-default clauses in other loan agreements, which the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, mentioned in his original introduction, can be through a crystallisation of a

161
floating charge or an event of default under one of the loan agreements which form part of the cross-default mechanism that most companies now have.
The point is that a floating charge is a charge. It is not a covenant under a loan agreement. A great deal of what the noble Lord has been saying is irrelevant to the crystallisation of a charge. When a charge, whether floating or fixed, is crystallised, then, as the Bill properly says, there is no legal impediment to the money which has been lent on the charge being repaid at sight; but that is different from an event of default under a loan agreement. It is different from a cross-default clause under a loan agreement which, again, may give time for the company to repay or to correct the default if the whole thing is not brought down and the repayment is at sight.
We are dealing with a technical and difficult matter. I hope that the noble Lord will look at this point. Perhaps we can have a further discussion, because it is too late for us to concentrate on the point. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, will wish to add his word after the Minister has replied to me.
Lord Strathclyde: Before the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran replies, perhaps I may say that the noble Lord spoke of loose drafting. Consideration was given to framing the power in such a way that notice would be required only of events within the knowledge of prescribed persons. However, there are a number of difficulties with that requirement. To avoid unnecessary complexities, the power is framed in general terms. As I said, however, the intention is that it should be exercised in relation to prescribed events which are known to the company which is charging.
In view of the concern expressed by noble Lords, I am prepared to look at this point again and report back. I cannot promise a solution, but we shall look carefully at the arguments put forward by both noble Lords.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: When I moved the amendment I spoke rather bluntly. I said that I did not believe that the Government had thought through the implications of the four lines in the subsection. Frankly, I am reinforced in that view having regard to our discussions. In view of the fact that the Minister has agreed to look at the matter again, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 85, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 86 [Interpretation]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 227Z(70) to 227Z(73):
Page 82, leave out lines 8 and 9.
Page 82, line 21, at end insert ("or right over").
Page 82, line 23, at end insert ("or right").
Page 82, leave out lines 24 to 30.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 86, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 87 [Copies of instruments and register to be kept by companies]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 227Z(74):
Page 83, line 4, leave out ("a") and insert ("an up to date").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendment No. 227Z(75). I mentioned a few moments ago that the reliance on new Section 408 of the Companies Act, which is suggested in Clause 87, was perhaps a rather doubtful crutch upon which the Government should lean because in many cases a company's register is not kept up to date and there is no check that it is kept up to date.
Amendments Nos. 227Z(74) and 227Z(75) are designed to ensure that companies' registers are kept up to date and are properly verified as being up to date. I accept that there may be a dispute about whether the register of charges in a company should be inspected once or twice a year, once a quarter or whatever it might be; but at least the company auditors should inspect the register in the way that they inspect the company's schedule or assets. It is obvious that if we are to rely on companies' registers—it is right to rely on them, and they should keep up-to-date registers of charges—the statutory obligations are necessary. I hope that the Government will accept them. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: I do not disagree with the intention behind these amendments. I do not think anyone would wish to argue against the proposition that a company should keep its register properly and up to date. Unfortunately, these amendments would not assist that objective. Amendment No. 227Z(74) was based on the belief that the new Section 408(2) does not require companies to keep an up-to-date register, but the section as drafted does impose that requirement. It imposes a duty on a company to keep a register of all charges containing certain entries. Those entries must be accurate and up to date if the duty is to be fulfilled.
The noble Lord's amendment might have been necessary if the requirement had been for companies to enter in a register details of a charge when it was created. However, the duty is to keep a register: this is a continuing duty to maintain an accurate register. The addition of the words "up to date" is therefore unnecessary.
The more substantial proposal is contained in Amendment No. 227Z(75). I am aware that, as part of their audit, some auditors regard it as best practice to inspect the register of charges. But what would an annual inspection by auditors achieve in so far as the maintenance of the register was concerned? It would not ensure that the register was properly kept during the remainder of the year, and even lithe auditors did discover that the register was inadequate, they could not be expected to do much more than inform the company itself that it was failing in a statutory duty.
I do not think it worth while imposing another task by statute on a company's auditors such little purpose. There are many duties that are placed upon companies which are not subject to inspection by their auditors. The maintenance of a register of charges is only one of them. While the intention behind the amendments is sensible, we should not add unnecessary words to the Bill or make unnecessary work for company auditors. Therefore, I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I accept that the Government's interpretation of subsection (2) of the new Section 408 might well render my Amendment No. 227Z(74) otiose. I am still doubtful about it and wish to take advice but I accept the noble Lord's point, subject to reading carefully what he has said, and subject to further advice.
I am not prepared to accept that there should be no effort at all at enforcement in regard to company registers. The fact is that company registers are not kept up to date and anybody who has been in the real world and dealt with the matter will know this. One of the original reasons why there was a public register in the first place was that company registers were not kept up to date. I believe that the Government have to take company registers and the enforcement of this obligation upon companies much more seriously than they have hitherto. So I should like to hear the noble Lord say to me that he will think about this again. I am quite certain that if the Government do not put this in they are not recognising a major problem and a major difficulty with this Bill—that the company register is a fallible object at the moment. Whether the auditor inspects the register once every three months, once a year or whatever it may be, at least he has the right to go and look at it and to remind companies of their statutory duty. If there is no policeman I am afraid the register will get out of date, as it has in the case of very many companies. I can produce a number of instances from my own personal knowledge, where bankers have relied on registers being up to date and they have not been up to date. So I hope the Government will pause and think again before rejecting this second amendment. Perhaps we might have another discussion on this at Report stage after they have thought.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I do not wish to appear to be otiose at this late hour in having any difference at all with the views of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, on this matter. The noble Lord the Minister raised the question of cost and I wondered whether the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has thought that this inspection of the register by the company's auditors every year should not be forced upon the companies which are colloquially called SMEs, the smaller companies and not the larger companies.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I have no particular views on this. I regard the cost of an audit, the additional marginal cost of doing this, as opposed to looking at the schedule of fixed assets, to be absolutely minimal. We are probably talking about another £500 on the audit fee. If that is going to be critical to a public company or an SME, I would say there is something wrong with the company. So I do not regard the marginal cost of doing this as being something essentially important.
Lord Strathclyde: I find myself surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is being so forceful about this point. I thought I had explained the matter rather carefully in my original reply to his Amendment No. 227Z(75). I must point out that there are so many duties of companies which are not subject to audit. As the noble Lord knows, there are 600 pages in the 1985 Companies Act and the vast majority of them concern duties which are not related to accounting and audit matters.
164
The noble Lord does not need me to tell him that the Government are firmly committed to lifting the burden of regulation that is not necessary. We cannot accept a new requirement that will create extra work for auditors and extra costs for companies, with no benefit to anyone.
Lord Williams of Elvel: What would happen if an auditor discovered that the schedule of fixed assets of a company was incorrect?
Lord Strathclyde: Auditors audit registers as part of their duties in relation to the company's accounts. It is not part of their job to inspect those registers. The alleged difficulty has not been apparent in our consultations. There have been no complaints at Companies House.
Lord Williams of Elvel: If the Minister says that auditors audit or examine these registers as part of their audit, I am afraid that that is not the truth: they do not do so. I believe that they should do so. There is no difference between examining and inspecting in auditing terms. One can use whatever expression one likes. I want the auditors every year to look at the register and ensure that it is as up to date and properly kept as the schedule of fixed assets. They do not do that at present.
Lord Strathclyde: This may not be the appropriate time to debate what should or should not be included in the work carried out under an audit. Part IV is specifically about the registration of company charges. Any proposal for an inspection of the register must be justified on its merits, not because it would be relevant to an entirely different function. I know that the noble Lord feels strongly about the point. Perhaps he would look at what has been said in Hansard, and then, if he feels strongly about it, he can bring it back at a later stage.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I shall certainly look at what has been said in Hansard, but nothing that has been said so far persuades me that the Government have answered the points that I have made at all.
However, I accept that it may be appropriate to bring in an amendment in Part I of the Bill—that is probably the place that I shall do it—on Report. I am afraid that the Minister will not rest easy because I shall come back to the matter. It is an important point. A lot of the backing of the public register is from the companies register itself. We must make sure that it is right, up to date and properly checked. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 227Z (75) not moved.]
Clause 87 agreed to.
Claue 88 [Charges on property of oversea company]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 227Z(76):
Page 86, line 1, leave out ("400 and 402") and insert ("and 400").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 227Z(76). It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendment No. 77.
The amendments may seem very small in terms of wording, but they are important. The Law Society of England and Wales at least considers them to be very important. The society has made representations to us, of which I am sure the Minister is aware—it has

165
sent the appropriate representations to the department—that it does not agree with the retention of provisions in relation to registration of charges by foreign companies which have the effect that such charges are void unless registered within a specified period. The society believes that what is proposed is unworkable and will lead to great uncertainty. Furthermore, it considers that the provision in the new Section 703 for determining when charges created by foreign companies are registrable raises serious practical difficulties.
I do not wish to expand on the Law Society's reasons at this late hour. I believe that the department has received the representations, which I am sure will have been studied also by the noble Viscount, Lord Long.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I wish briefly to intervene to say that I also have been instructed by the Law Society. I accept its submissions, which are largely along the lines of what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said.
Lord Strathclyde: I am grateful to both the noble Lords for having spoken relatively briefly. We have obviously received representations from the Law Society.
Prospective creditors who search the register in order to discover the existence of any prior charges created by companies are just as much in need of protection from unregistered charges where the company is an overseas company as they are where the company is a domestic company. It is quite true that the holder of a charge created over the property of an overseas company may not necessarily know whether the property is situated in Great Britain at the expiry of the period allowed for delivery of the particulars. But the chargee has the remedy in his own hands. He can register the charge as a prudent precaution in the light of the likelihood of the property subject to the charge being situated in Great Britain on the relevant date.
As regards property which is situated abroad at the date of the charge or property which is not yet owned by the company at that date, if the chargee considers that the risk of the property becoming situated in Great Britain without his knowledge is unacceptable, he has only to register his charge at the time of creating. This does not seem by any means an unreasonable demand to make of such chargees. The obligation to register charges applies only in respect of those overseas companies which have registered in Great Britain under Section 691 of the Companies Act 1985. The sanction of avoidance of failure to do so will not apply in respect of those charges granted before the date when the overseas company is registered under Section 691.
If a chargee wishes to have the benefit of his security in respect of property which may at a later date be situated in Great Britain, he need only register the charge in Great Britain. If he does not know whether the company is registered in Great Britain, he need only inquire. A chargee who wishes to have the benefit of the security and priority to other creditors in this country can reasonably be expected to comply with the requirements and conditions which apply in this country for securing such a priority.
166
An overseas company which has a place of business in this country and is registered for business in this country is very likely to be seeking credit in this country. It is almost certain to be disposing of its property in this country. No creditor can reasonably treat his charge as though it existed in a vacuum, insulated from the competing claims of other persons who acquire interests in the same property, and no chargee can treat his charge as though it existed in a vacuum of immunity from the law of the country where he seeks to enforce his claim to priority.
It is perfectly reasonable to expect a company of any foreign nationality and a chargee of any nationality to register charges created by the foreign company in any country in which that company is registered for business and in which therefore it is likely to be dealing with its property and soliciting business. In light of that I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendments.
Lord Hacking: I am a little reluctant to rise at this stage in the proceedings of the Committee because I have not had an adequate opportunity to participate in the same detail at this stage as I should have liked on such a highly technical Bill as this. However, the company law committee of the Law Society has given a very detailed paper to the Government. The Minister has been kind enough to acknowledge that.
I do not wish to debate the problem in detail but it is complicated. It is of extreme importance that persons who are examining a company should have access to a register with information that is wholly up to date, and information on which the company making the inquiry can rely. The difficulty with this amendment is that by a movement of dates, which I can explain in more detail, it does not give the protection that should be given to persons who examine the register. Without going further into the technicalities, I ask the Government to look very carefully at this long memorandum. I know that it was prepared only a matter of days before the Second Reading. The Government have not had an opportunity to give it the detailed consideration that it truly deserves. I would be grateful if the Minister could at least assure the Committee that this detailed memorandum will be given very careful consideration before Report.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sure he Committee will echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, that the Government should give the views of the Law Society the attention that they deserve.
On the particular point that we haw. discussed this evening and on these two amendments to which I have been speaking, I accept that we have been through the process of exploring how the Government arrived at the decision they did. It is now for us to look at the reasons that the noble Lord has set out. We shall analyse those and see whether we agree with them and wish to move the matter further on Report. Unless any other Member of the Committee wishes to speak to these amendments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 227Z(77) not moved.]
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 227Z(78):
Page 86, line 36, leave out from ("Chapter)" to end of line 41 and insert
("(2) In relation to such a company Section 408 applies with the substitution, for the reference to the company's registered office, of a reference to its principal place of business in Great Britain.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment takes out an incorrect reference to new Section 409(3) in new Section 703E. The reference has the effect of disapplying new Section 409(3) from the provisions on overseas companies. This was not intended. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 227Z(79):
Page 87, leave out lines 1 to 7 and insert—
("(2) The following provisions apply for determining for the purposes of this Chapter whether a vehicle which is the property of an oversea company is situated in Great Britain—

(a) a ship, aircraft, or hovercraft shall be regarded as situated in Great Britain if, and only if, it is registered in Great Britain;

(b) any other description of vehicle shall be regarded as situated in Great Britain on a day if, and only if, at any time on that day the management of the vehicle is directed from a place of business of the company in Great Britain.").

The noble Lord said: Under new Section 703F(2) as drafted the decision as to where a ship, aircraft or hovercraft is situated is determined according to the place from which it is managed. It has been pointed out to us that this might result in potential conflicts of priority with the registration procedures for such ships, aircraft or hovercraft under the laws of foreign countries. The amendment therefore determines their situation according to whether they are registered in Great Britain. The amendment also replaces an incorrect reference to England with one to Great Britain. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The Government amendment rectifies a couple of points. I am still unclear as to the definition of "vehicle" in either the orginal Bill or the Government's amendment as drafted.
Lord Strathclyde: I am sorry the noble Lord is worried about the definition of "vehicle". I presume that that comes from new subsection (2). Vehicles are those things which are not ships, aircraft or hovercraft.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The Government amendment rectifies a couple of points. I am still carriage which is mobile but which has no independent means of propulsion would come within the definition of "vehicle". If a railway waggon or carriage is not itself a vehicle, we can foresee confusion arising in practice in relation to charges over trains where it is intended to charge both the train and railway waggons or carriages coupled to it, given the different rules relating to registration of charges which would then apply.
The whole question of the Eurotunnel or the Channel Tunnel will come into operation. Similar issues arise in relation to mobile caravans and trailers. I hope by now that the noble Lord may have a different definition of the word "vehicle".
Lord Strathclyde: I certainly do not in any way wish to confuse the noble Lord or the other Members
168
of the Committee. The term "vehicle" means any mobile conveyance for the carriage of goods and persons. So a cart without a horse is a vehicle, as are trailers and rolling stock without a tractor unit. I hope that that covers the point.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 88, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 89 agreed to.
Clause 90 [Consequential amendments]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 227Z(80):
Page 87, line 46, after ("sections") insert (",45(5)").
The noble Lord said: Clause 90(2) discontinues the daily default fine in respect of offences of failing to deliver documents relating to the appointment or cessation of the appointment of a receiver. This is consequential upon the discontinuance of the daily default fine under new Section 405. The amendment corrects a failure to refer to Section 45(5) of the Insolvency Act, which concerns the variation of his office by an administrative receiver if he ceases to be qualified to act as an insolvency practioner. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 90, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty four minutes before ten o'clock.

  PRIVATISATIONS: LAND SALES BY PURCHASERS
  PRIVATISATIONS: LAND SALES BY PURCHASERS
  CYPRUS
  CYPRUS